The European Economic Union

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What is your stance on the European Economic Union?

 

Recently the Euro, the currency of EU, went past the United States dollar in value. This means that the EU now has accomplished something that no nation or empire in the history has accomplished before: To estabilish an economy rivalling that of the United States of America.

 

More than twenty new countries are joining the Union, making it cover most of Eastern as well as Western Europe. The Union has a single currency, free trade and travel between Union nations (ie. a flight from Paris to Frankfurt is considered a domestic flight if the passenger is a citizen of a European Union nation), and is drafting a constitution. All these things together indicates, to me, that the Union is taking a step from being a trade organization to becoming a single, sovereign state.

 

Now, the thing is, the Union is expansionistic. It's not aggressively so, but it's offering such benefits to poverty-stricken nations that it just expands. Their communications network does a great job at communicating news on the EU and persuade people to join.

 

I don't really like the Union. It's okay that Europe is being united (although I wouldn't want Norway to join), but the fact that it doesn't appear to want to stop expanding anytime soon is a bit disturbing to me. What are your views?

 

About the Poll: Options 3 and 4 can be chosen by people in Europe as well as non-Europeic nationals.

[Lathain Valtiel]

So it basically takes around ten or more (Someone get me the number) countries' economies combined to get past that of the United States during what is in my opinion a recession? I duinno about you, but the US should be proud of that fact. Heh.

 

As for the EU as it is now.. I'm fairly convinced it's guided by the underswept French principle of becoming bigger than America, thus it's expansionist policies as stated above. If they want to, fine. But if it is what I think it is in this day and age, I don't like it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I dunno about you, but the US should be proud of that fact. Heh.

They sure should. The USA has a remarkable economy. Too bad it's wasted on military forces, although today the military is used away from home with good intentions. Either way, the USA has the highest Gross National Product (GNP) in the world, although Norwegian workers produce the most per work hour.

 

But back to the Union: I look at the Union as more than an expansionist democratic "Neo-Roman Republic". I think that with its expansion, we come one step closer to the decision of whether or not to unify the entire world.

 

If a large country such as Libya or the Federation of Russia joins, the European Union will border to even more countries (such as Japan, Mongolia, and China in te east of, and Niger, Egypt, and Chad to the South of the Union) and it will be more likely for those countries to join.

 

I highly doubt that the European Union will stay a European Union. I find it very likely that Russia will join at some point as a mean of recovering from its post-Soviet depression. Looking at the nationalism of the Russians, I find this unlikely as of now, but that situation might change.

 

If Russia really does join the European Union, which by then should have become a single sovereign federal republic, we're looking at the largest nation, geographically, militarily, and economically, ever to have existed on Planet Earth. If it stays, it will by far replace the United States of America as the world's leading superpower. And with the enourmous firepower at its dispoasal, it'll face the same question as the USA has faced throughout its years as a superpower: Spread the army around the world as peacekeepers and a negative world opinion, or keep them at home, knowing that it could have toppled multiple dictatorships abroad?

 

Another issue, brought up by my Geography teacher, is communication. If the EU manages to control the communications networks of such a large number of countries as it is bringing under its control, there will be less of a diversity of opinions, and the opinions will be biased more towards the EU than before the nation was in the EU. I believe a "domino effect" might be taking place, and communicating the good sides of the EU is certainly not helping to stop it.

 

If the EU stops expanding at some point, fine. Good luck in the future. If it doesn't, I'll be really nervous..

[lukeiamyourdad]

Personnally, I don't have any stats to prove this, but it will stop expanding.

Adding China or Japan to the Union is ridiculous. They're asian not europeans and the simple pride of being asian will stop them from joining.

Same for the Africans.

 

The europeans are able to get past old differences between themselves. That's a good sign of unity.

 

As for France leading...well they lost all of their 20th century wars and lost their former glory. They do that to make the world remember that they were once the strongest nation of the world.

 

Eh, the US can't dominate the world forever can it?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Adding China or Japan to the Union is ridiculous. They're asian not europeans and the simple pride of being asian will stop them from joining.

Same for the Africans.

If the Union is big enough to cover Russia and border to East Asia, it won't be known as the "European Union" anymore, but as something like the "Eurasian Union", "Eastern Union", or something like that.

 

The Europeans are putting aside their differences...

You seem to be one of the people who have the misconseption that just because two nations unite, their views automatically become identical and their citizens automatically becomes buddies. Not so. If you had been following the news on the EU government, you'd know that there's a lot of distrust and bad attitude between several leaders, especially the President of the EU, an Italian whose name I have forgotten.

 

Historically, this has been the same for every union. The United States, as you'll remember, got divided in two and fought a civil war over disagreements on abolition of slavery.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Probably not. An Eurasian union is also impossible.

Russia, although being Eurasian, will probably join the European Union as an European country.

[wassup]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Probably not. An Eurasian union is also impossible.

Russia, although being Eurasian, will probably join the European Union as an European country.

 

Not impossible, but unlikely. The nationalism in the Asian countries is continuing to grow, and I believe this will prevent them from joining a union which stresses European relationships.

 

Also, I'm not as worried as much about the expansionism of the EU (though it is something to think about) as much as the internal strife. If the EU distingrated, then something like the American Civil War could happen to Europe, where one side (most likely Britain, France, Germany) will denounce the seccession of lesser European countries, and in the process spur a European war that would result in the loss of a tremendous amount of lives. I don't know if the US would try to intervene (which in turn might lead to an even greater conflict aka WWIII?) or try to profit from the civil conflict (as Europe tried to do with the South in the American Civil War). As for expansionism, I do believe it has its benefits (which can be seen in the advancement of countries like Japan, India), though its tendency to destroy the native cultures is something to worry about. But mostly I find internal strife to be more of a concern than expansionism.

[Homuncul]

Russia, although being Eurasian, will probably join the European Union as an European country.

 

Russia will not join th European Union, at least not with today president. After yesteday elections to the parlament, The country will become totalitarian again. The "party of power" has won the elections, which means that a president now has power over the parlament and everything else (laws, mass media, he could even change constituition)

 

Of course it doesn't at all means that Russia will bring back 70 years of terror, probably on the contrary, but the fact will remain one. The country is not democratic, it's totalitarian.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by wassup

though its tendency to destroy the native cultures is something to worry about.

 

Not quite. I find Europe and Canada a much better place to keep your culture then say the United States. I have relatives in both France and the US.

I can openly say that here(Canada) and France, people tend to keep their culture while in the US there's almost no vietnamese person(about 25 and younger) who can actually speak the language.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Thank goodness too.. While I don't care if you speak your native language in private, I'd rather not have to have my country adapt to you rather than the other way around. If you don't want to adapt, be my guest, but don't complain. I'm not the all cultures are equal kind of guy. You can keep your culture in the US, but don't expect it to bend to it.

[lukeiamyourdad]

That's not my point.

Adaption and total loss of culture are two different situation.

People in the European Union have more chance of keeping their own culture in their own different country. The European Union is still not one huge country.

[El Sitherino]

I like this idea a bit, the fact that I can go to France, then Germany and not change currency, but the larger the country or empire, the harder it gets to maintain stability. If they can pull this whole thing off pretty well then I hope to see more unions, maybe a united Africa could be on the horizon.

[Wacky_Baccy]

I knew someday someone would post something about the EU, but I did not see it coming from you, Eagle

 

Mostly expected your opinion of it, though

 

Apologies in advance for picking your information to pieces...

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

What is your stance on the European Economic Union?

 

First things first.

 

There's no such thing as the "European Economic Union" - there was the EEC, the European Economic Community, but the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 renamed that community the EU and altered its purpose, widening its role considerably - it's far, far from a mere Economic Union, but still nowhere near a full-blown Federation. Yet.

 

Recently the Euro, the currency of EU, went past the United States dollar in value. This means that the EU now has accomplished something that no nation or empire in the history has accomplished before: To estabilish an economy rivalling that of the United States of America.

 

The Euro reached parity with the Dollar in July 2002, not all that recently, really. It's been gaining ever since, and recently it breached the $1.20 per Euro mark - something which the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve seem pretty much okay with.

 

More than twenty new countries are joining the Union, making it cover most of Eastern as well as Western Europe. The Union has a single currency, free trade and travel between Union nations (ie. a flight from Paris to Frankfurt is considered a domestic flight if the passenger is a citizen of a European Union nation), and is drafting a constitution. All these things together indicates, to me, that the Union is taking a step from being a trade organization to becoming a single, sovereign state.

 

The EU currently consists of 15 member states, and only 10 new ones are joining in the near future (May 1st, 2004), which is still quite a number, but facts are facts

 

Only those countries in the 12-member EuroZone share the Euro as a currency* - Sweden, Denmark, and the UK have opted to retain their national currencies for the time being, so it's not quite an EU-wide system just yet.

 

(*Technically, half of North Africa does too, as many currencies there were pegged to the French Franc, which has been superseded by the Euro, which they're now pegged to.)

 

 

Can't (and wouldn't) argue with your point on free trade, and free travel is almost complete, but Ireland and the UK reserved the right to require passports from EU citizens since they're islands, and by nature slightly more paranoid.

 

The Constitution has been drafted, and the member states are bickering over it as we speak (type?) - it'll most likely either remain nearly unchanged, or be scrapped in favour of something else, from everything I've seen/read/heard.

 

The EU took the step from simply being a trading bloc to being more politicised a long time ago, and that culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, which set-up the EU as it stands now. It is, however, not going to become a single sovereign state any time soon - if ever. It's truly remarkable how far it's come already, and still has a fair way to go, but the day that there will be single citizenship of a single Europe, instead of the current dual citizenship of State and Union, is a long, long way off - if only because things almost exclusively happen at a "geological" pace in the organisation.

 

 

Now, the thing is, the Union is expansionistic. It's not aggressively so, but it's offering such benefits to poverty-stricken nations that it just expands. Their communications network does a great job at communicating news on the EU and persuade people to join.

 

Expansionistic it is, but there are limits to how far it can go before even the most avid Europhiles start to become concerned (e.g. no-one in their right minds would accept admitting Russia under the present circumstances; it's simply too big, in every sense).

 

I, personally, am all for admitting every European state, and Turkey, and the Caucasus states (arguably European anyway), and quite possibly Israel/Palestine, too - several Israeli politicians have made noises about joining the EU in future, and some have outright recommended it (sources if you *really* want them, but that'll take some digging, as it's been a while since I read about that).

 

 

I don't think that the EU's "communication network" has to do all that much to persuade countries to join - they've already seen for themselves what it's done for present states, and especially Spain and Ireland, who've gone from practically the backwaters of the EU to some of the most competitive, thanks to the EU - they don't need much convincing at all.

 

I don't really like the Union. It's okay that Europe is being united (although I wouldn't want Norway to join), but the fact that it doesn't appear to want to stop expanding anytime soon is a bit disturbing to me. What are your views?

 

I suppose I can understand you not liking it... It can be very difficult to understand sometimes, which needs changing - transparency is important.

 

It'll stop expanding in 2004 once the 10 acceding states have joined, and then it won't take in any more until at least 2007 when Romania, Bulgaria, and possibly Croatia will join. No dates are set for any country after those, although Turkey is lobbying for a date to start accession talks to be given by the end of 2004.

 

(More to come...)

[Wacky_Baccy]

(Jais said it would be better to address each post with an individual reply since I'm typing a fair amount, so blame him if you don't like it, not me ;p)

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

So it basically takes around ten or more (Someone get me the number) countries' economies combined to get past that of the United States during what is in my opinion a recession? I duinno about you, but the US should be proud of that fact. Heh.

Fifteen countries, and yes, the US should be proud of it, I totally agree.

 

However, it does have a considerable advantage, and has had for a while - its population is 290 million, and has been "cohesive" for a long time now, allowing for some serious economies of scale - none of the EU states have had that in anything like the same quantities, so they're obviously going to take some time to catch-up pro-rata, although several member states already have. Things like this don't happen overnight ;)

 

As for the EU as it is now.. I'm fairly convinced it's guided by the underswept French principle of becoming bigger than America, thus it's expansionist policies as stated above. If they want to, fine. But if it is what I think it is in this day and age, I don't like it.

Thankfully, you're quite wrong - I'm no fan of that side of French politics myself, though it can be useful on rare occasions.

 

The French have a lot of influence in the EU, but nothing like the amount you're suggesting - all the other countries make sure of that.

 

I personally don't want the EU to sever ties with the US, but I do want it to assert itself more, as it rightfully should - cooperation and continual dialogue is very important, though, and none of us should ever forget that, because it really wouldn't be nice to have a Cold War II

 

 

The world is slowly but surely moving towards multipolarity - serveral large centres of power and trade around the globe - and is indeed quite a way towards that already. The EU is expanding partly out of necessity to ensure it and its member states aren't swallowed-up or pulled under - mostly in the economic/trade sense - by the rising trade powers, particularly China.

 

It's do or die, and the EU is doing... For now.

 

(More to come...)

[Wacky_Baccy]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

They sure should. The USA has a remarkable economy. Too bad it's wasted on military forces, although today the military is used away from home with good intentions. Either way, the USA has the highest Gross National Product (GNP) in the world, although Norwegian workers produce the most per work hour.

 

But back to the Union: I look at the Union as more than an expansionist democratic "Neo-Roman Republic". I think that with its expansion, we come one step closer to the decision of whether or not to unify the entire world.

 

That's one of the very many reasons I'm for the EU, and expansion - I'm firmly of the belief that we're not going to have a truly peaceful world until we are all unified in one way or another. I'm not too certain how it'll happen, but I think it will, one day - though almost certainly not in my lifetime or my childrens'; this is very much future in the making, to my eyes.

 

If a large country such as Libya or the Federation of Russia joins, the European Union will border to even more countries (such as Japan, Mongolia, and China in te east of, and Niger, Egypt, and Chad to the South of the Union) and it will be more likely for those countries to join.

 

Libya won't be joining the EU for a very long time, if indeed it ever does - same goes for Russia, though to a lesser extent.

Both of those countries, however, will be and are enjoying closer ties with the EU, which is seeking to create a "region of stability" on its borders; democratic and stable states, with whom it can conduct friendly relations.

 

I highly doubt that the European Union will stay a European Union. I find it very likely that Russia will join at some point as a mean of recovering from its post-Soviet depression. Looking at the nationalism of the Russians, I find this unlikely as of now, but that situation might change.

 

Agreed - almost all Russians consider themselves 'European' anyway, and Europe geeographically extends to the Ural mountains - quite a way inside Russia, and far enough to encompass the vast majority of its populations, so in time I suppose it only makes sense for it to become more involved with the EU in one form or another.

 

If Russia really does join the European Union, which by then should have become a single sovereign federal republic, we're looking at the largest nation, geographically, militarily, and economically, ever to have existed on Planet Earth. If it stays, it will by far replace the United States of America as the world's leading superpower. And with the enourmous firepower at its dispoasal, it'll face the same question as the USA has faced throughout its years as a superpower: Spread the army around the world as peacekeepers and a negative world opinion, or keep them at home, knowing that it could have toppled multiple dictatorships abroad?

 

First, there's no reason that the EU will have become a single sovereign federal republic by the time Russia joins, if it ever does - the EU may very well never take that route (though I wouldn't object too much if it did, to be fair).

 

Yes, it would be the biggest, barring population (which would be in the region of 800 million by today's figures for all of Europe [including Turkey] and Russia, still not quite equalling India or China).

 

I suspect that such a giant entity wouldn't have to spread forces around the globe, since it would pretty-much have a big enough presence already, really.

 

I suspect that the EU will continue to develop its spine and muscle, and become more interventionalist in the future - though perhaps not to the extent of its individual states (UK or France, for example) or the USA.

 

It's always been EU policy to engage with words rather than guns, and that policy has been very successful so far - whether it continues to or not remains to be seen. Keep your eyes on the situation with Iran and the IAEA - the Foreign Ministers of the UK, France, and Germany paid a join visit, and Iran responded far better to those talks than it did to the US's posturing and threats, although this is of course absolutely no guarantee that Iran will continue to behave itself, but better talk than bloodshed, surely?

 

Another issue, brought up by my Geography teacher, is communication. If the EU manages to control the communications networks of such a large number of countries as it is bringing under its control, there will be less of a diversity of opinions, and the opinions will be biased more towards the EU than before the nation was in the EU. I believe a "domino effect" might be taking place, and communicating the good sides of the EU is certainly not helping to stop it.

 

The EU doesn't "control" the communications networks - the media does, and if anything the media is more hostile towards the EU than the British National Party!

 

It seems to me that the diversity of media in Europe can only lead to more reliable news than people get in countries with hegemonic or controlled media, but if you really want to be informed, about the only thing you can do is read about something from as many different points of view as you can find, and make your own decisions - I and many others find the internet invaluable for this.

 

People already swallow what the national medias tell them, why should it make any difference if those nations were united? I honestly can't see any reason, myself.

 

If the EU stops expanding at some point, fine. Good luck in the future. If it doesn't, I'll be really nervous..

 

Seems to me that you're nervous anyway ...You needn't be

 

In future, the EU will either stop expanding, disintegrate, or turn into a global community - I think that, at least for the next 100 years, the first or second are eminently more likely, with the first looking assured in the medium-term (50 years).

 

If the EU expanded to encompass all of the states that have either expressed an interest in joining, or are in my opinion likely to before 2025, it still wouldn't come close to being a global 'empire' at all - it would still be almost wholly European.

 

(More to come...)

[Wacky_Baccy]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Personnally, I don't have any stats to prove this, but it will stop expanding.

Adding China or Japan to the Union is ridiculous. They're asian not europeans and the simple pride of being asian will stop them from joining.

Same for the Africans.

 

Quite possibly right, though expansion to include Russia and Japan, as well as North Africa, is by no means impossible, but at present and for the foreseeable future is highly unlikely. I also would tend to agree with your point about their pride of being Asian preventing them joining.

 

The europeans are able to get past old differences between themselves. That's a good sign of unity.

 

It certainly is - we might even manage to go a hundred years without starting a World War this time! ;)

 

As for France leading...well they lost all of their 20th century wars and lost their former glory. They do that to make the world remember that they were once the strongest nation of the world.

Once you've tasted power, it can be hard to give it up... France isn't the only one running the EU, but I think you're right that part of its interest in it is to reaffirm its status as a (now minor) global power - partly the same with the UK.

 

Eh, the US can't dominate the world forever can it?

 

It can certainly try, and arguably is doing so... But nothing lasts forever, although as someone once said, "forever is a very long time"...

 

I'd prefer that no one country "dominated" the world, which is yet another reason I'm keen for the EU to become stronger - to offset the hegemonic influence of the USA somewhat (which I fully admit can be a force for great good - at times), and to ensure that China doesn't get a stranglehold on the rest of the world - if, as predicted, its economy continues to grow at its current pace, it won't be long before it oustrips the US on the global stage... And I'd rather have Neo-Conservative Americans as my masters than shady "Communist" Chinese men ;p ...Yet again, do or die.

 

A large portion of the USA's power comes from the fact that the Dollar is the currency to buy oil in, and is practically a globally-accepted currency - the US Treasury can rely somewhat on foreign nations to ensure the Dollar stays on top, since they all need it to buy the vast amounts of oil we use.

 

Roll on commercialised Nuclear Fusion and economically viable Hydrogen Cells!

 

Of course, there's that rather large military they've got, too - I'm sure that counts for a little bit of their influence ;)

 

The US seems to be very concerned about the idea of the Europeans developing their own defence capabilities independent of NATO - I wonder why? Surely a stronger Europe can only mean a stronger NATO - the US should be pleased if its allies are working together to improve their abilities... But it isn't, of course, because it sees even the tiny ERRF as a threat to its leadership of and control over the NATO Alliance.

 

(More to come...)

[Wacky_Baccy]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

If the Union is big enough to cover Russia and border to East Asia, it won't be known as the "European Union" anymore, but as something like the "Eurasian Union", "Eastern Union", or something like that.

And would rather neatly retain the same initials ;)

 

You seem to be one of the people who have the misconseption that just because two nations unite, their views automatically become identical and their citizens automatically becomes buddies. Not so. If you had been following the news on the EU government, you'd know that there's a lot of distrust and bad attitude between several leaders, especially the President of the EU, an Italian whose name I have forgotten.

 

Diversity of views is simultaneously the EU's strongest and weakest point - it tends to make people think more before doing something, but it also takes an absolute age to get anywhere - hence my reference to the "geological pace" of Union affairs earlier.

 

Thankfully, things are starting to pick up speed a little, although who knows what adding 10 new countries into the mix will do - especially until the Constitution is finalised and new procedures implemented.

 

The feeling of a "European identity" is slowly starting to grow in EU countries, and while they're still very different in culture, the ways of thinking and attitudes of the various peoples are very similar.

 

 

The President of the EU as a person doesn't exist yet - Italy as a country holds the Presidency, but that does not imbue the Italian Prime Minister with executive powers, thankfully.

 

His name is Silvio Berlusconi, and I thoroughly loathe the slimeball. Even Bush doesn't irk me as much as that man!

 

With the control he has over the Italian media (he owns most of it!), I see a serious conflict of interests in him being the Italian PM.

 

I dearly hope he gets voted out. Or assassinated. That would do just fine.

 

Historically, this has been the same for every union. The United States, as you'll remember, got divided in two and fought a civil war over disagreements on abolition of slavery.

 

And is now the most powerful Union on the planet ;) Give the EU time. It has a harder job than the US did.

 

I also think it highly unlikely that the EU will ever suffer a "civil war" - too many people still do, and always will, remember what the World Wars did to the continent - countries may secede, but I seriously don't think we'll see major war again for a very long time.

 

Incidentally, that's another reason to expand the Union - it ensures that member states have common and interdependent interests, so going to war with each other would be most inconvenient.

 

(More to come...)