SilentScope001 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0324/p09s01-coop.html Sesationalistic piece of journalism that calls for Great Britian to veto the Treaty of Lisbon due to national pride. However...take a look at this: If all 27 nations ratify the treaty this year, it will begin to come into effect on Jan. 1, 2009. The British will then be expected to transfer loyalty and affection to the EU and devote themselves increasingly to its wellbeing. With its flag, anthem, currency, institutions, regulations, and directives, the EU has long been indistinguishable from a nation-state-in-waiting. Now the Lisbon Treaty gives it those requisites of nationhood it's always lacked: a president, a foreign minister (and diplomatic corps), a powerful new interior department, a public prosecutor and full treaty-making powers. Add to those its common system of criminal justice, an embryonic federal police force, and the faintly sinister-sounding European Gendarmerie Force, and what this union becomes is a monolithic state with great power pretensions. Most alarmingly, though, is that the Lisbon Treaty can be extended indefinitely without recourse to further treaties or referendums. That 27 European nations are on the verge of being reconstituted as a federal European superstate is substantially the achievement of the fanatical French integrationist Jean Monnet, for whom the nation state was anathema. On the other hand, France went against a previous referendum, so it likely have no chance of going anywhere (especially since every single state has to go FOR). But you know, just for fun, what would happen if the USE came into being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Very interesting. I think that it will most likely be vetoed, and go nowhere. Nonetheless, very interesting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Skywalker Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 United States? We wouldn't stop by there. WE WOULD CONQUER THE WORLD, HAHAHA! But, then again, it ain't gonna happen in my book. Too bad, wasn't such a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 This is an old debate... Anyway: First, we will not accept a treaty that allows the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law in any way. Second, we will not agree to something that replaces the role of British foreign policy and our foreign minister. Thirdly, we will not agree to give up our ability to control our common law and judicial and police system. And fourthly, we will not agree to anything that moves to qualified majority voting something that can have a big say in our own tax and benefit system. We must have the right in those circumstances to determine it by unanimity. Sounds like British sovereignty is preserved to me... Must have been one of the only bills recently where Brown/Blair could rely on their majority; it passed through the Commons with 346 votes to 206. Yes, a referendum was promised on the Constitution but, while the content may still be very similar, there is a key philosophical difference: it's not called the Constitution and it doesn't mention any EU national symbols. There is no dream of creating a European Super State in this treaty, as there was with the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 . On the other hand, France went against a previous referendum, so it likely have no chance of going anywhere (especially since every single state has to go FOR). But you know, just for fun, what would happen if the USE came into being? Well, with USE the Frenchies actually have the chance of winning a war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 It won't happen soon, but it will happen once someone gives way and compromises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I think that Europe is heading in that direction. What what appears to be Russia pushing for "old ways" and a more poweful Middle East, along with a rising China and the ever-present power of the US, I think it's inevitable that these small countries that are currently getting along really well and are pretty open with each other will "merge" into a larger, united set of nation-states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Short answer: No. Why? Because the EU is both hugely bureaucratic and hugely corrupt. Between these two, it's only a matter of time before it chokes on itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taak Farst Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 USE....US of E...nope it doesnt sound good at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Someone has to take the place on the power vacuum that will be left when the US leaves the place of the world's top economy. And, if EU don't choke China soon, we'll all be learning Mandarin or Cantonese. Besides, it's easier to choke China than it sounds, just cut their oil source from Sudan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taak Farst Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Besides, it's easier to choke China than it sounds, just cut their oil source from Sudan. Ll are you seriously serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The biggest stumbling block to a US of E would seem to be that there is no homoginous culture that links all 400+ million europeans. Too many differing traditions and languages don't help the mix either. I think a loose trading confederation of sorts will work, but not a unified culture like with the PRC or the US (at least not in my lifetime or for the next 2-3 generations minimum). Barring europe falling to Isalm, the europeans seem too fractious to form a truly cohesive "nation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The biggest stumbling block to a US of E would seem to be that there is no homoginous culture that links all 400+ million europeans. Too many differing traditions and languages don't help the mix either. I think a loose trading confederation of sorts will work, but not a unified culture like with the PRC or the US. Yes, that's probably what's gonna happen. But they don't need territorial or cultural unity to rule the world, for example. A trade based federation is just as effective. @Taak: I was. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I think a loose trading confederation of sorts will work, but not a unified culture like with the PRC or the US (at least not in my lifetime or for the next 2-3 generations minimum). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but you seem to be speaking as though the EU isn't a trading confederation. That's how it actually started; it was known as the European Economic Community. It's already evolved beyond that. Besides, the USA isn't top dog in the world of economics, any more, when you take the EU as a single economy like the WTO does. The EU is already the world's largest free market economy and the largest exporter of goods with a GDP of about $18 trillion - which is larger than America's by about $4 trillion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 4 Trillion out of 18 Trillion difference? That's pretty suprising... That's pretty good for a nation considered to have a bad economy when compared to the entire GDP of Europe... That just doesn't really sound right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but you seem to be speaking as though the EU isn't a trading confederation. That's how it actually started; it was known as the European Economic Community. It's already evolved beyond that. Besides, the USA isn't top dog in the world of economics, any more, when you take the EU as a single economy like the WTO does. The EU is already the world's largest free market economy and the largest exporter of goods with a GDP of about $18 trillion - which is larger than America's by about $4 trillion. No, I recognized that and was only stating that that was really the only way I saw it working. Pardon the confusion but was just a little too lazy to use the edit afterward (should have added "will continue to" before "work"). I still remember people worrying that the EEC was supposed to maybe be the ten headed dragon of Revelations. Can't help but wonder if that's one of the reasons ($18bn v $14bn) why there seems to be some of the rush to form the NAU over here to compete with the EU in scope and size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It'll never happen... The USA formed as it pushed westward with a common culture. USE would be so many differing countries, that have a hard time agreeing on the color of poo, trying to merge. Don't get me wrong, The EU itself is a start of it, but as far as the countries sharing a single government... scary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It'll never happen... The USA formed as it pushed westward with a common culture. USE would be so many differing countries, that have a hard time agreeing on the color of poo, trying to merge. Don't get me wrong, The EU itself is a start of it, but as far as the countries sharing a single government... scary... The French would be OK with it as long as everyone spoke French, acted French, and adopted French-style government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The French would be OK with it as long as everyone spoke French, acted French, and adopted French-style government. OUCH!!! I was drinking coffee when I read that... Very HOT coffee.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 4 Trillion out of 18 Trillion difference? That's pretty suprising... That's pretty good for a nation considered to have a bad economy when compared to the entire GDP of Europe... That just doesn't really sound right... $4 trillion is a lot of money. $4 000 000 000 000. Drawing on a Bill Bryson example: You are placed in a room with $4 trillion in one dollar bills and are told that you can keep every bill you label. Let's say you can mark one bill a second. To mark every single bill you will have to devote 127 000 years of your life. Which is, naturally, impossible . Anyway, just because Wall Street is having a little bit of trouble doesn't mean that the real economy is not strong any more; which doesn't mean it will stay that way either, though. The problems you face in New York are in London, and in Frankfurt, and in Paris, and in every other economic hub. No, I recognized that and was only stating that that was really the only way I saw it working. Pardon the confusion but was just a little too lazy to use the edit afterward (should have added "will continue to" before "work"). I still remember people worrying that the EEC was supposed to maybe be the ten headed dragon of Revelations. Ah, I just didn't know if you'd misunderstood what the EU was. Apologies if I came over patronising, it wasn't my intention . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The British would be OK with it as long as everyone spoke english, acted British, and adopted Britton-style government. Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Ah, I just didn't know if you'd misunderstood what the EU was. Apologies if I came over patronising, it wasn't my intention . No problem, kinda hoped (after the fact) that no one would call me on it. btw, wasn't the EEC called the ECM or something prior to that? I recall it being referred to as the Euopean Common Market in some of the stuff I've read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HdVaderII Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 Not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crigers Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 We talked a little about this recently in my world geography class. Apparently, it hasn't gone far yet, and it isn't looking like its going to pass. But if it did, Europe would become the most powerful economy in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.