The European Union - curse or progress?

[SW01]

Recent EU proposals have had undertones of federalism, of increasing integration between the 27 member states. But is this a blessing for those states, or an unwanted change that can only cause problems?

 

I would be very interested to hear the views of others on this. Clearly, it will affect LucasForums members from EU states most, but I would be very interested to see non-EU perspectives!

[mur'phon]

Non EU, but European.

 

In short, it's a blessing. (Mostly) free trade and imigration have done wonders for the members economy, though it have caused some short term unemployment. It has also helped a lot of eastern countries clean up their act by offering membership, at the same time bringing hordes of people out of poverty. And while it is a beureaucratic nightmare, and have spewed out some nasty directives, it isn't (frighteningly enough) much worse than most national goverments in that respect.

[Web Rider]

I addressed this in a Deviantart topic once. It depends entirely on how it's executed. For example, the EU "capital" is in Belgium. Belgium had trouble getting it's own government together because it couldn't get it's two halves to compromise. That's not a good way for the EU to work. Second, I heard proposals for putting different parts, legislature, executive, and judicial branches in different countries, namely, England, Germany and France. This however, will run into the same problem the US had when it's capital was also the capital of a state.

 

It will lead people to believe that Britain is really running the show, and that the Germans and French are twisting things to their own ends. In short, favortism. If the capital is somewhere everyone can agree on, even if that's Belgium, then you have the problem of laws, it was also suggested that everyone learn English, French and German in addition to their native languages.

 

Why only those? Why do the Germans not have to learn Spanish? Why do the French get to learn two extra languages when the Italians have to learn 3? In short, they run inot the problem of legislating like a steamroller and eliminating the differences that European culture so prides, or it plays favorites.

 

Europe needs to change it's mindset about it's own culture, the US works because more of less, it's one big culture with some particular differences from top to bottom, east to west. Europe on the other hand, every nation has a different, unique culture. And that's going to prevent a Federal style government from being able to make fair decisions.

[Darth_Yuthura]

It will lead people to believe that Britain is really running the show, and that the Germans and French are twisting things to their own ends. In short, favortism. If the capital is somewhere everyone can agree on, even if that's Belgium, then you have the problem of laws, it was also suggested that everyone learn English, French and German in addition to their native languages.

 

The EU is the first world power that could rival the US in 16 years. Although we hated the Soviet Union, it served to keep the US as strong militarily and economically as possible. The EU doesn't have a military of its own, but the economic power they posses is now challenging the US.

 

That is actually a good thing because the US can't be allowed to do whatever it wants if there is not another power out there to keep it in check. The Iraq war would not have been allowed if the Soviet Union hadn't broken up.

[Arcesious]

This is a good thing, if it is done right.

[Web Rider]

The EU is the first world power that could rival the US in 16 years. Although we hated the Soviet Union, it served to keep the US as strong militarily and economically as possible. The EU doesn't have a military of its own, but the economic power they posses is now challenging the US.

 

That is actually a good thing because the US can't be allowed to do whatever it wants if there is not another power out there to keep it in check. The Iraq war would not have been allowed if the Soviet Union hadn't broken up.

 

What does that have to do with anything I said? I'm not arguing that the EU is a bad thing, I'm just saying that unless they pay attention to how large a-uniform cultures and countries have dealt with managing such a massive area, diverse population and economy, it'll fall apart just like the Confederate States of America.

 

I agree that a EU power would work well to balance the world, but the EU simply won't happen if Europe doesn't do the whole melting pot thing like the US, if it want's to remain diverse and singular instead of united, it's just not going to work.

 

You know the US motto? "United we stand, divided we fall."? That's what the EU has to deal with. If they can't unite, much as the Belgians have proven Europe has a knack for, then the EU WILL fall. I've already heard some Europeans don't like it because it's supposedly massively corrupt.

 

 

And actually, China is the first world power to challenge US influence since the fall of the USSR. However, Putin is attempting to revive much of what the USSR was, and many people from there and the old Soviet Bloc would rather be part of the USSR than be their own little collapsing country. It's very likly that we'll end up in the near future with several world powers instead of 2.

 

Right now, world power status is very much up in the air, the US doesn't hold it like it used to, Russia is grasping for it again, China's great revolution will attain it in time, and the Middle East, if it does something similar to the EU(like OPEC), could be another. At first this seems like a great balance.

 

Problem? If all these unions formed and achieved a world power status, they're all on the same continent(save the US), and the EU, a new Soviet Union, Red China and a United Middle East could very easily fall into skirmishes and war.

 

ex: say the middle east union forms, say it includes Pakistan. Where does that leave India? Pakistan vs India was a functional cold war. India vs the entire middle east is impossible. With China near by, India may turn to them for support, with a nuclear middle east, nuclear china, nuclear russia, what's the line? "This place ain't big enough for the two of us." With such threats facing Japan, they may start nuclear buildup, and Japan is alrgely regarded as the weakest link in the Asian area, if they build up, the whole of Eurasia could fall into a US-Soviet style arums buildup, and due to their proximity, they stand a much higher chance of making that war hot.

 

I'm not saying any EU formation is bad, I'm just saying they must be CAREFUL. Extremely so, we had an ocean to buffer us from the Soviet Union. Europe is not that lucky.

[SW01]

One of the bigest problems for the EU is unity. We don't even have unity in most of our nations as it stands at the moment - nationalist opinion in Scotland, Wales and NI threaten the UK; Spain has problems with the Basque and Catelan nationalists; Belgium, as has been said, is split right down the middle.

 

Also, there has been a great deal of seeming anti-integration feeling in Europe over the past number of years. The Treaties on the Constitution of the EU, and of Lisbon, were both hammered in referenda - the first was defeated by the Netherlands, then France, the latter by the Republic of Ireland.

 

I fully agree that the world needs a new superpower, and that another Western power may be preferable to one in the East, as Western states tend to be a lot more stable.

 

Most of us, especially in the former Imperial states such as Britain, France and Germany, are concerned about a loss of sovereignty. I count myself among this group. The situation at the moment is not at all unlike the Confederate States of America, in that the EU centre is much less powerful than the individual state governments, but that keeps the EU as more an alliance of nations rather than a united power.

 

If the EU could deal with the massive diversity it now faces, with differing cultures from Spain to Romania, and the looming acceptance of Turkey, it would serve as a great example of tolerance and unity in an ever-more xenophobic world.

[TheExile]

Hm... I donno if it's a that good thing.

My country -Romania- recently entered EU and they made us change a lot of things.

Especially traditions- but of course, we are a head-strong nation and we don't respect their will >=)

Also, they gave money to the country, but they actually give the money to the wrong people, the ones that take 70% of the money that reaches, to the corrupt guys.

Also, in the past 300 years a large number of gypsies emigrated to us. And we all know that the majority are bad stuff. Now we lived with them for 300 years, we kinda know how to break their smuggling/begging/stealing actions.

But now we have open boundaries. So the gypsies emigrated to Italy, where they do what they want, cause the Italians don't have the experience we have.

The worst part is that, the Italians don't say: "The gypsies are stealing" they say "The romanians are stealing" cause they come from Romania. And that's unfair for the Romanians that are honest and work as doctors, policemans, firemans etc.

 

The bottom line is that in short measures: it's bad; in long measures: it's good

[Web Rider]

I fully agree that the world needs a new superpower, and that another Western power may be preferable to one in the East, as Western states tend to be a lot more stable.

 

Most of us, especially in the former Imperial states such as Britain, France and Germany, are concerned about a loss of sovereignty. I count myself among this group. The situation at the moment is not at all unlike the Confederate States of America, in that the EU centre is much less powerful than the individual state governments, but that keeps the EU as more an alliance of nations rather than a united power.

 

the world needs a BETTER superpower. If the US could improve itsself, the way it acts, which, BTW, is little different from when every European nation had power, I'd be happier to have the title. I don't care who's the powers, as long as they're better/

 

Also, as I pointed out above, you DO recall how long the confederate states lasted right?

[SW01]

as I pointed out above, you DO recall how long the confederate states lasted right?

 

Of course, that was my point. If the EU is to advance to superpower level it has to get beyond that towards a centralised construction. Many, though, myself included, are opposed to that at the moment because, among other things, the EU hasn't shown that it can function without heavy national input. It has economic growth - that is due mainly to the work of national Exchequers and finance ministries, not central EU action.

 

Also, when I say a 'new' superpower, I do not mean one to replace the existing one. Two superpowers are necessary, at least, to keep the other in check. While the Cold War was an era of ridiculous and unnecessary antagonism from both sides, each power served to restrain the other to some extent, and promoted massive technological advancement, as each side strove to outdo one another.

 

TheExile, I know what you mean. Immigration has been a concern for many since the EU began to grow. All we get on this side of Europe is complaints about foreign workers coming in, it's interesting to see how it affects those on the other side of the Union. Think of this - it is like that now, imagine if we were to become one nation.

[Rev7]

the world needs a BETTER superpower. If the US could improve itsself, the way it acts, which, BTW, is little different from when every European nation had power, I'd be happier to have the title.

Indeed. I think that we should change our ways, but that is not the point of this thread.

 

I not being European, don't know all that much about it or what exactly is going on. So in short, the EU brings European nations together?

[SW01]

I not being European, don't know all that much about it or what exactly is going on. So in short, the EU brings European nations together?

 

More or less. In short, it was originally designed to promote trade and prevent war. Since then, it has grown in size and developed into more of a political unit. Recently, there have been concerns about increasing the integration of European nations into something similar to the US. There have been other difficulties such as dealing with ethnic diversity, immigration problems, etc.

[Web Rider]

I not being European, don't know all that much about it or what exactly is going on. So in short, the EU brings European nations together?

 

In it's present form it's something like the Confederate States of the US, a loosely affiliated collection of what are mostly sovereign nations that work with each other while they work against each other.

[jonathan7]

the world needs a BETTER superpower. If the US could improve itsself, the way it acts, which, BTW, is little different from when every European nation had power, I'd be happier to have the title. I don't care who's the powers, as long as they're better/

 

Also, as I pointed out above, you DO recall how long the confederate states lasted right?

 

You may wish to take a better review of history, there are a great many parallels in the running of the British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the running of America today.

 

As for the EU, I'm greatly amused at it - people in the west go on about democracy, but the EU seems to be very hard to get rid of it.

[ForeverNight]

Speaking as a non-European...

 

I guess that if the EU could actually unite the countries under a single banner, and teach everybody within a single common language (English?) and fend for itself in the long run... I wouldn't be opposed to the idea.

 

I guess that my view of the EU is that: IF it could become less socialistic, THEN their Economic Might would be something truly terrifying. IF the EU ever gets attacked properly, than they might become a serious military power. IF they stop trying to appease (At least, that's what some actions look like on this side of the drink) THEN they might be taken a little more seriously.

 

Only the future can tell what will become of the EU...

[Quanon]

Speaking as a Belgium(dutch talking part), its quite funny

 

Our country is not on the verge of collapse, it those darn politicians and media that make a BIG deal out of it.

 

Really, most people don't giva s**t if we were all that concernt or "mad" , we would be fighting in the streets by now; ofcourse its bad for our Rep in the EU.Makes us the laughing "goofballz"

 

 

Now then to the EU, its a tricky thing and I think its progressing slowy in the good direction.

 

Though some of it see it as a crisis. I believe its good that some serious thinking goes into it, then rather go voting "yes" wildly and take the hits X years later, when you discover it doesn't work.

 

All by all it needs fix'n, not in economic sense, I think a sort of social care system good greattly improve things, but thats ofcourse a difficult thing to pull off. As we Belgiums already have a good, though €€€€ system, most other members don't like it to much.

 

There's a certain fear to overcom, many nations want to cling on to their "national" feelings and independance.

 

IMO, I think it should be possible in the future to get to a sort of USE.

Well put that in the far future

[mur'phon]

SW01:

One of the bigest problems for the EU is unity. We don't even have unity in most of our nations as it stands at the moment - nationalist opinion in Scotland, Wales and NI threaten the UK; Spain has problems with the Basque and Catelan nationalists; Belgium, as has been said, is split right down the middle.

 

That is a problem only if you want much closer integration fast, and of those you listed, only Belgium have a reasonable chance of splitting.

 

Also, there has been a great deal of seeming anti-integration feeling in Europe over the past number of years. The Treaties on the Constitution of the EU, and of Lisbon, were both hammered in referenda - the first was defeated by the Netherlands, then France, the latter by the Republic of Ireland.

 

Indeed, but as Europe ages, expect to see new members to supply the workers needed (Turkey in particular is a nice source). That, and with the whole free imigration thing, coupled with nice growth in former eastern bloc countries, chances are people will move a lot more, reducing xenophobia.

 

Most of us, especially in the former Imperial states such as Britain, France and Germany, are concerned about a loss of sovereignty.

 

Understandable, but you could argue that the wealth and influence gained in return makes it worth it.

 

It has economic growth - that is due mainly to the work of national Exchequers and finance ministries, not central EU action.

 

Free trade and free imigration within the EU have done a lot more for growth than any finance ministry ever could. The central bank haven't done much for growth, but have instead been fighting inflation, wich in Europe is a much bigger problem.

 

TheExile, I know what you mean. Immigration has been a concern for many since the EU began to grow. All we get on this side of Europe is complaints about foreign workers coming in, it's interesting to see how it affects those on the other side of the Union. Think of this - it is like that now, imagine if we were to become one nation.

 

Yes, it's terrible that people are able to move to where the jobs are, never mind the huge growth it has caused /Sarcasm. If you are terribly worried about foreigners, I have some bad and some good news. The good news: most of the new members are growing at a fast pace, and so they are exporting fewer and fewer people. The bad news: Europe is aging fast, and a lot more imigrants will be needed to prevent the economy from colapsing.

 

There have been other difficulties such as dealing with ethnic diversity, immigration problems, etc.

 

 

 

TheExile:

My country -Romania- recently entered EU and they made us change a lot of things.

Especially traditions- but of course, we are a head-strong nation and we don't respect their will >=)

 

Made you? I believe you knew the tradeoffs before the vote, in which case not keeping your end of the deal isn't exactly fair.

 

Also, they gave money to the country, but they actually give the money to the wrong people, the ones that take 70% of the money that reaches, to the corrupt guys.

 

I agree, in my oppinion Romania was accepted too early, giving money to a terribly corrupt system isn't the wisest thing to do. That said, the EU are witholding a lot of the cash untill the politicans clean up the mess.

 

Also, in the past 300 years a large number of gypsies emigrated to us. And we all know that the majority are bad stuff. Now we lived with them for 300 years, we kinda know how to break their smuggling/begging/stealing actions.

 

Here is something everyone should read, especially those with enough prejudices to fill the Atlantic.

 

But now we have open boundaries. So the gypsies emigrated to Italy, where they do what they want, cause the Italians don't have the experience we have.

The worst part is that, the Italians don't say: "The gypsies are stealing" they say "The romanians are stealing" cause they come from Romania. And that's unfair for the Romanians that are honest and work as doctors, policemans, firemans etc.

 

What is truly unfair is that a people is met with huge prejudices and discrimination. You say it is unfair to the honest Romanians, then how about the honest Romani. And I believe you misunderstand the Italians, the gypsies refer to themselves as Rom, or Romani, and have done so for hundreds of years.

 

 

 

ForeverNight:

and teach everybody within a single common language (English?)

Every EU country as far as I know have english as a mandatory subject, and in more and more EU meetings they use it to keep things simple

 

IF it could become less socialistic, THEN their Economic Might would be something truly terrifying

 

Mind telling me how an organization founded on free trade is socialistic?

 

IF the EU ever gets attacked properly, than they might become a serious military power.

 

The military power is allready there, the will to use it is not.

 

IF they stop trying to appease (At least, that's what some actions look like on this side of the drink) THEN they might be taken a little more seriously.

 

IF the U.S stop trying to apease, THEN they might be taken a little more seriously:D Seriously though, both are guilty of this.

[SW01]

There were so many attempts in the (then) European Community's early history to bring about some of the integration mentioned above. A military force for Europe was one, but that failed due to a lack of trust, especially between France and Germany.

 

As for the one language, a laughable attempt at that was made with Esperanto, which failed miserably (looks like English will become the dominant language).

 

I think all nations at the moment are guilty of appeasement in one way or another. The prime example (while not appeasement precisely) is the way all nations seem to turn a blind eye to Zimbabwe. All of them are, I think, terrified to make a move because of the inevitable cries of 'imperialism' or 'meddling'.

[Litofsky]

Hm. Is the European Union good or not? The general consensus in this thread seems to be that it's a step in the right direction, what with it bringing some of the former-USSR states out of their poverty.

 

Of course, uniting cultures of all different shapes and sizes will be a difficult task, if their goal is to unite all of Europe, but I believe that it's possible.

 

As a non-European, it seems like a good thing. It seems like a good example of what working together can bring, and what would happen if we start embracing each other, rather than pointing out our flaws.

 

My two cents, though. I'm sure a few of my views will change over the course of this thread.

[SW01]

Of course, uniting cultures of all different shapes and sizes will be a difficult task, if their goal is to unite all of Europe, but I believe that it's possible.

 

That is one of the most important characteristics of a more integrated EU. Especially if Turkey was to become a member, it would unite some of the strongest Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim nations - that in itself would be a shining example to the rest of the world.

 

However, the concern remains that these ancient sovereign, formerly extremely powerful, nations will have their proud governments overruled by a central European Parliament, as well as their Supreme Courts. Our highest court, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, has too often had to defer to the decisions of the European Court of Justice.

[Litofsky]

That is one of the most important characteristics of a more integrated EU. Especially if Turkey was to become a member, it would unite some of the strongest Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim nations - that in itself would be a shining example to the rest of the world.

 

And, being a conglomeration of these different religions/beliefs, two things might possibly arise:

 

1) As you've stated, it would be a great example to the world. If Europe can work together, why not the rest of us?

 

2) This is more troublesome. Minor differences and petty fights have often snowballed, and turned something potentially good into a tangled mess of nothing. It's possible that some petty difference will come between the member-states, and snowball beyond the point of reconciliation.

 

But that's all speculation, as of now.

[ForeverNight]

Every EU country as far as I know have english as a mandatory subject' date=' and in more and more EU meetings they use it to keep things simple[.'][/Quote]

 

I honestly don't know that much about the EU... I probably should do some research of my own into it, but I'm still working on summer homework for my English/History class. (Ugh!)

 

Mind telling me how an organization founded on free trade is socialistic?[/Quote]

 

Sorry, I think I made a rather stupid mistake... I was thinking of the EU in terms of Gov't, not as a Free Trade Organization.

 

Lemme rephrase that: IF Member Countries of the EU could clean up some of their Socialistic Tendencies, THEN their Economic Might would be truly terrifying...

 

That help?

 

The military power is allready there, the will to use it is not.[/Quote]

 

Hmmm... Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but, at least to my understanding, the Military Power of the EU's Member Countries is somewhat... lacking.

 

No arguments here about the lack of will...

 

Edit: Just found this, supports the lack of military strength... slightly. It's wiki, so take it with a Grain of Salt, but it's still somewhat interesting. Wiki, EU Battlegroups

 

Just wish it had a little bit more info... back to digging!

 

IF the U.S stop trying to apease, THEN they might be taken a little more seriously Seriously though, both are guilty of this.[/Quote]

 

And I don't like it on this side of the drink either! Just pointing out that seems to be a defining characteristic of Europe...

[mur'phon]

SW01

There were so many attempts in the (then) European Community's early history to bring about some of the integration mentioned above. A military force for Europe was one, but that failed due to a lack of trust, especially between France and Germany.

 

Agreed, but as time pas, the countries get tied closer and closer together. EU integration takes time, and I have little doubt that we'll get a (propper) EU force sooner or later.

 

 

 

ForeverNight:

I honestly don't know that much about the EU... I probably should do some research of my own into it, but I'm still working on summer homework for my English/History class. (Ugh!)

 

Feel your pain, got a mountain of russian homework waiting for me:(

 

Lemme rephrase that: IF Member Countries of the EU could clean up some of their Socialistic Tendencies, THEN their Economic Might would be truly terrifying...

 

How does being socialist diminish their economic might? And for the record, the EU's economic might is just as terrifying as the US'.

 

Hmmm... Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but, at least to my understanding, the Military Power of the EU's Member Countries is somewhat... lacking.

 

No arguments here about the lack of will...

 

Edit: Just found this, supports the lack of military strength... slightly. It's wiki, so take it with a Grain of Salt, but it's still somewhat interesting. Wiki, EU Battlegroups

 

Well, luckily for the EU, the battlegroups are a tiny part of their military might. Most of it is provided by its members, and put together it's a lot. To support your argument, their armed forces are for the most part configured to defend, making it less impressive when it comes to attacking (but a nightmare to attack). However, most members are modernizing their armies, so in this will be less and less of an issue as time passes.

 

And I don't like it on this side of the drink either! Just pointing out that seems to be a defining characteristic of Europe...

 

I was just pointing out that both western behemonts are equally guilty of this:)

[ForeverNight]

How does being socialist diminish their economic might? And for the record' date=' the EU's economic might is just as terrifying as the US'.[/Quote']

 

Well, mainly because the more socialized a country is -at least as far as my Common Sense (That came out wrong...) tells me- the less productive it becomes. It's like Communism, your production is going to fall because you're paid no matter what. Granted, Socialism is not Communism, but it leads there...

 

If I create amazing Unemployment Dole Programs, paid for by taxpayers, and its enough to survive and maybe give yourself a few luxuries, are you going to work for your money or are you going to be unemployed and live off of my generous Dole?

 

We have the same problem over here... though its not as bad as it could be (Thank God!).

 

Then, as more and more people decide to live off the Dole, well, the Government's gotta pay for this somehow... So, the people who actually work are going to get the beejebers taxed outta them (What are those anyway? )

 

Then, since the people who actually work are getting less and less money, the Dole's looking pretty good... I think you get the idea.

 

Well' date=' luckily for the EU, the battlegroups are a tiny part of their military might. Most of it is provided by its members, and put together it's a lot. To support your argument, their armed forces are for the most part configured to defend, making it less impressive when it comes to attacking (but a nightmare to attack). However, most members are modernizing their armies, so in this will be less and less of an issue as time passes.[/Quote']

 

The problem with each member country having a military is that it's going to become like the US under the Articles of Confederation, everybody's going to build up their own military and then only use it as they see fit, not the Overreaching Federal Body.

 

Then, the EU will become splintered and, well, more problems could arise.

 

But, anyway, the soldiers of the countries will not think of themselves as European or Union, but as what country they came from. Coup d'état anybody?

 

I was just pointing out that both western behemoths are equally guilty of this[/Quote]

 

Not meant to ruffle your feathers, just pointing out that it seems to be Europe that's gotten the Reputation for it... (Though, if the US had another Jimmy Carter...)

 

Feel your pain' date=' got a mountain of russian homework waiting for me[/Quote']

 

Ouch! I only know... three words in Russian, da, nyet, and the other I can't type out... basically it translates to F*** your mother.

 

I think I might read a little too much Tom Clancy.

[SW01]

Europe's military strength is surprisingly underrated. Britain, I believe, is the fourth most powerful military force in the world, behind the US, China and Russia(in no particular order). If they united as one, there would be significant strength.

 

As mur'phon pointed out, the military forces currently standing in Europe make it a 'nightmare to attack'. Very true, but I must say that I believe that at this stage in the lives of our nations, wantonly attacking other nations is far from our minds! I believe most are happy with the extent of our respective borders.

 

I think the 'EU Army', if ever it comes to be, would, in foreign matters, be more of a peacekeeping force comparable to the UN (except, actually useful:D).