PDA

View Full Version : The European Union - curse or progress?


SW01
08-06-2008, 06:37 PM
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
08-06-2008, 07:20 PM
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
08-06-2008, 07:49 PM
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
08-06-2008, 08:40 PM
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
08-07-2008, 12:05 AM
This is a good thing, if it is done right.

Web Rider
08-07-2008, 12:36 AM
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
08-07-2008, 01:29 AM
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
08-07-2008, 01:40 AM
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
08-07-2008, 01:57 AM
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
08-07-2008, 02:08 AM
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
08-07-2008, 02:26 AM
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
08-07-2008, 02:44 AM
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
08-07-2008, 04:00 AM
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
08-07-2008, 08:51 AM
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. :xp:

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
08-07-2008, 09:11 AM
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
08-07-2008, 09:27 AM
Speaking as a Belgium(dutch talking part), its quite funny :lol:

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" o_Q


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 :lol:

mur'phon
08-07-2008, 10:29 AM
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 (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11579339) 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
08-07-2008, 11:31 AM
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
08-07-2008, 11:41 AM
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. :p

SW01
08-07-2008, 12:49 PM
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
08-07-2008, 01:01 PM
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
08-07-2008, 01:45 PM
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[.]

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?

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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_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 :D Seriously though, both are guilty of this.

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... :giveup:

mur'phon
08-07-2008, 03:17 PM
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
08-07-2008, 03:51 PM
How does being socialist diminish their economic might? And for the record, the EU's economic might is just as terrifying as the US'.

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? :xp:)

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, 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.

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'้tat anybody?

I was just pointing out that both western behemoths are equally guilty of this

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, got a mountain of russian homework waiting for me

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. :lol:

SW01
08-07-2008, 04:29 PM
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.:lol:

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).

ForeverNight
08-07-2008, 04:53 PM
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.

I never knew England was that far up there... I've always known England was a powerful country, but not that powerful. I guess that when I think of Europe I think of the Continent instead of the Continent, England, and Scandinavia...

Sorry, I guess I should've been more clear on that point.

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.

Expanding your borders is not the only reason for attacking. Imagine that China decided that it wanted to expand, and Russia allied with them. (Yes, I know, fat chance of that happening.) Do you think that the EU (If it ever became one cohesive Nationstate with its own military) would attack Russia and/or China in order to try to save themselves?

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).

That's the problem with the UN... They seem more interesting in Peackeeping forces stationed in 3rd World Countries than actual threats! But, UN bashing belongs in its own thread. (I WILL resist the temptation... I WILL resist the temptation... I might resist the temptation... I could resist the temptation)

SW01
08-07-2008, 05:23 PM
Expanding your borders is not the only reason for attacking. Imagine that China decided that it wanted to expand, and Russia allied with them. (Yes, I know, fat chance of that happening.) Do you think that the EU (If it ever became one cohesive Nationstate with its own military) would attack Russia and/or China in order to try to save themselves?


Historically, pre-emption has not been a characteristic of the European states, at least not in modern history. Given that, I don't think it would be likely now - it would probably have to be a real, directed threat towards the EU.

(Uses mind trick on ForeverNight - You will start a UN thread...you WANT to start a UN thread...:lol:)

mur'phon
08-07-2008, 05:39 PM
SW01: While I agree with you, having Russian planes zooming across the border isn't exactly fun.


ForeverNight:
socialism rant

Make a new thread if you want to discus socialism, suffice to say I disagree with you.

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.

Currently, yes, though as the countries integrate, expect to see a more unified EU force. Anyway, a lot of the time European countries share goals, and in the event of an attack on a member, would hitt like a sledge hammer.

Not meant to ruffle your feathers, just pointing out that it seems to be Europe that's gotten the Reputation for it...

I know, I'm just pointing out it's undeserved.

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

Which reminds me, never order a pizza in Russian using a phrase book, odds are, you'll be ordering a**holes.

I guess that when I think of Europe I think of the Continent instead of the Continent, England, and Scandinavia...

Try to think of the different countries, compare for instance Germany, Italy, and Bulgaria (all part of continent) to see why.

Do you think that the EU (If it ever became one cohesive Nationstate with its own military) would attack Russia and/or China in order to try to save themselves?

I believe they would do it even if it happened now, which is one reason why Norway isn't a EU member.

ForeverNight
08-07-2008, 05:52 PM
Make a new thread if you want to discus socialism, suffice to say I disagree with you.

Ouch.

You asked where socialism came in, I explained it and then the question was asked about how Socialism diminishes Economic Might. I was just trying to answer your question to the best of my abilities, sorry.

Currently, yes, though as the countries integrate, expect to see a more unified EU force. Anyway, a lot of the time European countries share goals, and in the event of an attack on a member, would hitt like a sledge hammer.

I hope so for their sake... I guess I just set little stock in the better nature of man.

Try to think of the different countries, compare for instance Germany, Italy, and Bulgaria (all part of continent) to see why.

I know that they're all part of the continent. It probably bears looking into further.

I believe they would do it even if it happened now, which is one reason why Norway isn't a EU member.

Historically, pre-emption has not been a characteristic of the European states, at least not in modern history. Given that, I don't think it would be likely now - it would probably have to be a real, directed threat towards the EU.

I'm going to have to side with SW01 here. Most of Europe, more specifically the EU, are democracies or some form thereof. Most of the populous of Europe has (According to surveys) shown that they are opposed to preemptive strikes.

Maybe in the future, but who knows?

(Uses mind trick on ForeverNight - You will start a UN thread...you WANT to start a UN thread...:lol:)

Yes... I... want... to start a... UN... thread?

Maybe tomorrow...

Which reminds me, never order a pizza in Russian using a phrase book, odds are, you'll be ordering a**holes.

Thanks for the advice... Though, somehow, I doubt I'll be going to a Pizza place in Russia... but, if that happens, thanks!

Web Rider
08-07-2008, 08:22 PM
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. :xp:

Isn't that what I said? That America has a lot in common right now as older powers did when they had power?

Historically, pre-emption has not been a characteristic of the European states, at least not in modern history. Given that, I don't think it would be likely now - it would probably have to be a real, directed threat towards the EU.

The EU doesn't practice "preemtion" in the way it's former powers did because they lack exactly that, power.

The US, unforunately, has, IMO, too much military power, and thus, there's always a silent push to make it look useful by doing something.

If the EU unites, truly unites and does the same with their forces, the same thing will happen, they will have a alrge standing army and people will begin to push for the government to prove its useful, and then the EU will start using their might in much the same way everyone else has.

Rev7
08-08-2008, 02:11 AM
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.
Okay, I guess that I was right. I guess that, in short, it is a good idea in some ways and a bad idea in other ways.

Darth_Yuthura
08-11-2008, 08:49 PM
I think the EU is a blessing because it has allowed for economic growth to transcend individual differences or political border disputes. Because the opportunity for all the nations of the EU to function as one in international and internal trading, the discrepancies caused by currency and tariffs are removed. Instead of separate countries using their own currency and geographic location to their advantage, all the countries use a universal currency and unrestricted internal trade among each other. This makes the entire continent of Europe act more like a single entity in the economic side of things.

The political and cultural side is something else, but even that slowly dissolves as French and Germans are beginning to think of themselves more as European before being of their country. The closest members are much like them, but the farther the EU goes, the less unified and prosperous they are. As time goes on, that gulf is closing as well.

SW01
08-11-2008, 09:11 PM
Instead of separate countries using their own currency...all the countries use a universal currency.

Actually, only 13 of the 27 member states have adopted the single currency - and some want out! Some national currencies, like the Pound, are even stronger than the Euro.

Darth_Yuthura
08-11-2008, 09:35 PM
Actually, only 13 of the 27 member states have adopted the single currency - and some want out! Some national currencies, like the Pound, are even stronger than the Euro.

The Pound is just a unit of measurement... as are all currencies. The difference among the dollar, pound, and Euro is how much inflation occurs. The unit's size is irrelevant unless inflation causes one to be eclipsed by another. The US dollar has become less valuable per unit because of high inflation. The Euro is much more stable because its unit of value remains much more stable.

The strength of a currency isn't it's unit/value basis. It's how well they hold their value over time. That's one of the things that make money... well money. It must hold a constant value, but inflation slowly alters it. If you have one currency that no one is using... what good is it?

ForeverNight
08-12-2008, 10:35 AM
@Darth_Yuthura:

The power of currency is driven by the same forces that drive Wall Street, namely, greed and perception.

Iraq produces its own currency, however its not that strong of currency. Why is it not that strong?

Two reasons:

1. Not that many people want it.
2. Iraq is still perceived as a week country.

Because of those two reasons, its still a week currency.

high inflation

Oh, so 5.02% (As of June '08) is high?

Source (http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp)

Darth_Yuthura
08-13-2008, 10:58 AM
Oh, so 5.02% (As of June '08) is high?


Yes. It most definitely is.

What is the Euro's inflation rate? I couldn't find it from your source(easily at least)

My aim was not the American dollar vs. pound. It was the pound/dollar vs. euro.

Quanon
08-13-2008, 12:43 PM
Even before the big amount of countrys, the EU did cripple econemies of its newer members, though in the short in run.

Portugal had certain areas with a strong tomato farms, though when they joined the union, it all went down hill.

Because, tomatoes out of France and other Southern countrys could be imported at lower prices, in store all the foreign tomatoes where cheaper.

What did the people do, buy the cheap one ofcourse.


Its not always that great to jump on the wagon, though I'm sure this all been "ruled-out" by now. As getting in the EU as a member goes in little steps/ phases.


On the Socialism: Its not Communism, it is a good system, it protects the working people, you have to do your "best" to totally drop out of society.

I don't know what you USA peeps are a afraid of ?

ForeverNight
08-18-2008, 01:28 PM
hat is the Euro's inflation rate? I couldn't find it from your source

Oh! I was taking it that ~5% on it's own... but, comparing it to the Euro/Pound... Yeah, I can see your point. You shouldn't find it on my source, it's just the Inflation Rate in the US.

I don't know what you USA peeps are a afraid of ?

Remember what Mur'ph said, a thread will have to be made about this issue...

To put it in a nutshell -at least as I see it- we in the US are, generally, opposed to Government and its intervention in our lives. Most of us believe that this phrase is true: "The scariest thing one can here is: 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.' "

I sure believe it.

But, we need a new thread.

Quanon
08-22-2008, 04:16 PM
To put it in a nutshell -at least as I see it- we in the US are, generally, opposed to Government and its intervention in our lives. Most of us believe that this phrase is true: "The scariest thing one can here is: 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.' "
I sure believe it.
But, we need a new thread.

Well I can see where you're coming from, I wouldn't want a Gov men at my door every morning asking if I need a cookie and milk.

Nor do I want them to have FULL controle in about everything.
Its ofcourse a very difficult balance, as needs of the people always changes so fast and the massive size of the USA on its own is... well unbelievable.

Ofcourse I mainly see the benefit in the health care system, though its highly expensive, no low taxes around. IIRC almost 40% of our lowns go to just that. Very high indeed. ( Not all of that 40% goes to the health care, its more then just that.)

Nor, saddly you can't avoid the parasites, people who abuse it to actually live a certain "comfort" live without lifting a finger.

Plus its al based on that most of your populace works, which is now working against us, where getting a huge 'grey on retirement" group, which in the end will be hard to support.

Plus I can't say more as I'm not that good in english to do these great discussions any justice. I can't defend against a huge quote wave :lol:

Totenkopf
08-22-2008, 07:21 PM
I recall hearing somewhere once that Americans and Europeans spend ~the same % of income on things like healthcare and such, just that the money goes into two different sectors: govt vs private.

Seems to me that without some kind of cultural cohesion that the EU will only remain a loose confederation of nations linked primarily by economic interests. It should be interesting to see who emerges as the true first among equals should it succeed to be anything more. Right now the contest seems to be between Germany and France. Britain may once have been a contender, but not so sure now given its own internal decay and looming identity crisis. That said, rather get L40k than $40K (obviously don't have pound sign on keyboard).

Gargoyle King
08-24-2008, 04:37 PM
Personally i can see the beneficial aspects of this, a unified Europe would in theory be a stronger Europe. I have felt even more strongly agreed with this as our "Labour Lobs", as i like to call them, continue to fail the British people.On the Socialism: Its not Communism, it is a good system, it protects the working people, you have to do your "best" to totally drop out of society.This is something Britain definately needs IMO. I have always somewhat believed in the Socialist System, the government just don't care about the working class even though we are the backbone of the country!

SW01
08-25-2008, 07:40 PM
I have always somewhat believed in the Socialist System, the government just don't care about the working class even though we are the backbone of the country!

Labour has lost a lot of support because of that. There is the sentiment that New Labour is just a Red-packaged Tory party. I don't know who you could vote for that has any socialist ideal any more...

Darth Avlectus
08-29-2008, 03:38 AM
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?

As a US citizen I agree this country could improve itself...this country ...I'm afraid it's losing its soverignty.
No regulations on runaway NAFTA/CAFTA means uneven playing fields. Job losses. I'm told "it's progressive"--but what is progress if it destroys you?
I'm not talking isolationism here. Regulation, so we can preserve our country.

I lost a huge opportunity to work for a laser company out of high school. It all moved overseas. The passport people are also trying to move manufacturing passport security cards to foreign countries like other countries aren't going to take advantage of that. There's a huge security threat US media won't cover.

There is little in the way of ethical business practice anymore. Banks with all the rich clients are being bailed out by the government...which in turn passes the debt through taxes...to the rest of the people.

Without morals and ethics, it all falls apart--both free market and government. The powerful will take it all away. Freedom has responsibilities-it isn't free.

I don't like politics much, but it is nice to see there are people in other countries who DON'T hate us here in USA. It is nice to see the views of fellow SW fans around the world. Even if I might not agree, I see it isn't so grim.

Largely here, it's a case of Haves vs Have Nots: jackals in the tiny Haves groups are trying to destroy, subvert, and rewrite our constitution all the time. The media is all part of it...my fellow Americans mean well, but many of them, especially here in the state of California, are MORONS.

All it takes for facism to take root is for the government to take away personal and general freedoms while turning a blind eye to oligopolies.

SW01, I agree. In fact, I would call the corporatism i'm seeing: globalist corporate socialism. It's not all that different: power is centralized, it is in the hands of fewer, instead of in the hands of the many people who make up the backbone anymore. The government more often comes down on the side of big business.

Senate and congress are only giving stimulus because, for the record, any more than 2 quarters of negative growth, and we're in a recession. Stimulus adds some positive growth, the whesels can say- oh but we didn't have a recession. The stimulus money given out really ony put us further down in the hole.