What say you to the EU?

Griff · 06-18-2001, 09:04 AM

There seems to be quite a donnybrook developing in Europe over the necessity of a United States of Europe. Many of the same leaders who chastise America for not being more proactive militarily fear American hegemony and support a united Europe to counterbalance the American Empire. It all seems rather circular. From this side of the pond, I'd rather see the US bring home the troops and mothball a good percentage of the navy, than give European leaders the excuse to overwhelm local governance.

I truly doubt that a centralized Europe would be a good place to be a political minority. On the upside, open borders within Europe would probably produce a more dynamic economy but you don't need a centralized government to acheive that.

Which way will the political system go if they stay on the path? Will they go the third way of crony capitalism (fascism) or will they slowly socialize their industries and eventually end up with another Lenin? Will they put up with the French tradition of tax avoidance?

elSicomoro · 06-18-2001, 10:38 AM

The original reason of the EU was for a stronger economy (the old EEC). Now it has grown more political, and I'm curious to see how 15 unique nations are going to move forward as essentially one. Given a country of countless governments, such as Italy, how stable will the upcoming European Parliament be? And will the UK finally give up the pound sterling for euros?

alphageek31337 · 06-18-2001, 04:17 PM

Hte main motivating factor here seems to be economy, so why not institute something along the lines of NAFTA (EFTA, in this case)? That would open borders without trying to mix oil, water, rubbing alcohol, and a brick, a solution that will never hold. that, along with the Euro, would have all the gains, but none of the crud that goes along with the disparate economy of today.

Steve

______________
This is a sig virus. Please add this to your sig.

Griff · 06-20-2001, 06:56 AM

Stability could be a problem, depends on how they handle elections/appointments for parlimentarians. If they all had direct elections for a set term it could be pretty stable. If, however, they somehow link the seat to whatever party controls the government back home it could actually lead to even more instability, at both levels. Italy seems less and less inclined to participate and the way they run through governments, that might be wise.

Steve, I tried your solution and besides not holding it was quite flammable. I think you've got it, they need to figure out how to reduce border hassles and simplify the currency without creating too many bureacrats. Sycamore makes an important point as well, the British are not very excited about losing the pound, but if they don't they will be at a great disadvantage. Some groups in Britain seem more comfortable cozing up to America than Europe but folks like the Scots and Welsh might be inclined to lean toward the EU hoping for more local autonomy as a way to reduce the importance of GB. Its all quite a mish-mash of confusing interests. A lot of fun to speculate about... from a safe distance.

If they were able to unite, would they all return their UN seats to sit as one or should PA get a seat as well?

jaguar · 06-20-2001, 08:08 AM

Europe is fascinating melting pot, and to see it work on anything effectively together is truly a great achievement. The EU is a body to create a collective political and economic force out of the mix that is Europe, from the hardworking Germans to the more laid back French, from the socialist Sweden to the hard-nosed British system. I can't see the EU or Europe taking any of those 3 paths, Europe is far more demanding of choice and quality to swallow the wholesale sellout and commercialism of corporate America (look at the protests to the French big brother) but at the same time Europe is still an economic powerhouse. I see each country inside Europe working automously, retaining their individual cultures, while working together to better themselves economically and politically on the world stage.

alphageek31337 · 06-20-2001, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Griff
Some groups in Britain seem more comfortable cozing up to America than Europe

This is the Increased Budget Effect, as demonstrated in a Dilbert cartoon I recently read. Dilbert's project was given an unlimited budget, and as such other employees either sucked up to him, or threw bricks at him. The solution: keep a protective barrier of up-suckers around in order to absorb brick impacts as they happen.

jaguar · 06-21-2001, 02:09 AM

England has never *really* considered itself part of europe, it begrudgingly admits it is but only after a while....Thats why that is happening. *laughz so alphageek, either your read slashdot or are a gnome person, KDE FOR EVER!!!

tw · 06-21-2001, 02:50 AM

The EU is a wild collection of reasons all merged in a common objective. Take France, for example. Some of France's objectives are to push US influence out, to expand socialism more to the benefit of the workers, to open borders to expand French trade, to make the French language and culture more influential, and to keep the Germans in line. None of these is bad objectives except that many don't coincide with the overall objectives of the EU.

Look at Greece whose two main objectives appear to be increased growth including much of the investment associated with being an EU member AND to keep the Turks out.

Netherlands appears to be more cosmopolitan being as the Dutch are mostly business oriented. The EU is a big market - and there is nothing to be lost in being a member of that market.

The Brits really are not sure what they want. For example, when a majority of EU members decided to create a European military force, then Britian was willing to contribute a major share to that new force. But then Britian still fears the Eurodollar and many of the open border requirements that come with the EU - such as open borders that might permit rabbi into Britian.

The instability in various countries does not seem to impeded Brussels abilities to operate effectively. Curiously, member states appear to bend over backwards to protect the interests of other member states.

Interestingly, Switzerland, in the heart of the EU, is not a member, and has declared no interest in being part of the EU even though the EU is slowly forcing changes on Swiss banking practices. Switzerland, home to many international UN organizations is also not a UN member.

Whereas Sweden and Norway are not EU members, but Finland is. Norway is a NATO member but not Sweden or Finland. As so it goes, the hodgepodge that is NATO, EU, WU (a military organization), EU members part and not part of the Eurodollar, countries applied for EU membership, countries applied for NATO membership. BTW what is the offical language of the EU? French last I heard, then Spanish as a second language - anything but English ... and the Germans speakers - Austria and Germany - are not happy about that.

jaguar · 06-21-2001, 03:45 AM

Few things to point out, i think the language is French, as that is also a UN language but don't quote me on that...

Switzerland, which i hold dual-citizenship with has as far back as modern politics go, been totally neutral on EVERYTHING, they are a member of no international bodies, have no alliances, or agreements, although i think they are signees on the Human Rights and Rights of the Child documents, but once again, don't quote me on that. This policy has led to tension occasionally, particularly over issues like Swiss banks holding Nazi loot from slaughtered Jews some of which still has not been released. Switzerland is fiercely protective of its own interests, every citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 has done compulsory military training and there are many secret Swiss bases hidden inside mountains capable of holding a very significant section of the population in a NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) safe facilities.

Chewbaccus · 06-21-2001, 09:19 PM

I don't understand why England is so scared of the open borders. Hell, the original Anglo-Saxons are close to the minority over there, have been since the Empire collapsed and all their colonies were given independence. Rather than stick around in the chaos of a brand-new government working towards its baby steps, they abandoned ship.

~Mike

tw · 06-22-2001, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbaccus
I don't understand why England is so scared of the open borders.

It difficult to forget something so traumatic as WWII. After Dunkirk, it was also as if Britian would fail to exist - ego why Churchill's speech to Parliament - and recreated by the BBC for international broadcast - was as memorable as "I got a dream..." or "Ask not want your country can do for you...". Memoralbe ever to the most who were not yet born.

elSicomoro · 06-22-2001, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
Few things to point out, i think the language is French, as that is also a UN language but don't quote me on that...

If the languages are anything based on what their web site has, then they are English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

Quote:

Switzerland, which i hold dual-citizenship with has as far back as modern politics go, been totally neutral on EVERYTHING, they are a member of no international bodies, have no alliances, or agreements, although i think they are signees on the Human Rights and Rights of the Child documents, but once again, don't quote me on that. This policy has led to tension occasionally, particularly over issues like Swiss banks holding Nazi loot from slaughtered Jews some of which still has not been released. Switzerland is fiercely protective of its own interests, every citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 has done compulsory military training and there are many secret Swiss bases hidden inside mountains capable of holding a very significant section of the population in a NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) safe facilities.

This doesn't surprise me. The Swiss have survived as a confederacy for what? 700 or 800 years now? More? 4 languages, one mountainous little country...not too shabby IMO.

My question is this though (and jag, maybe you can shed light on this): Are the people in general as strong on neutrality as the government?

alphageek31337 · 06-23-2001, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
*laughz so alphageek, either your read slashdot or are a gnome person, KDE FOR EVER!!!

Actually, I'm a /.er since i was 12, and I'm about to tell all of you where you can put your GUIs, anyway...Give Me Command-Line, or Give Me Death!

miwjpa · 07-26-2001, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw
Whereas Sweden and Norway are not EU members, but Finland is. Norway is a NATO member but not Sweden or Finland. As so it goes, the hodgepodge that is NATO, EU, WU (a military organization), EU members part and not part of the Eurodollar, countries applied for EU membership, countries applied for NATO membership. BTW what is the offical language of the EU? French last I heard, then Spanish as a second language - anything but English ... and the Germans speakers - Austria and Germany - are not happy about that.

Sweden has been a member of the EU since 1995.
There is AFAIK no single official language of the EU, see this site for a discussion of languages in the future of Europe.

See The European Union On-Line for more information.

06-20-2001, 08:08 AM	#5
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Europe is fascinating melting pot, and to see it work on anything effectively together is truly a great achievement. The EU is a body to create a collective political and economic force out of the mix that is Europe, from the hardworking Germans to the more laid back French, from the socialist Sweden to the hard-nosed British system. I can't see the EU or Europe taking any of those 3 paths, Europe is far more demanding of choice and quality to swallow the wholesale sellout and commercialism of corporate America (look at the protests to the French big brother) but at the same time Europe is still an economic powerhouse. I see each country inside Europe working automously, retaining their individual cultures, while working together to better themselves economically and politically on the world stage. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-21-2001, 02:09 AM	#7
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	England has never really considered itself part of europe, it begrudgingly admits it is but only after a while....Thats why that is happening. *laughz so alphageek, either your read slashdot or are a gnome person, KDE FOR EVER!!! __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-21-2001, 02:50 AM	#8
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Re: What say you to the EU? The EU is a wild collection of reasons all merged in a common objective. Take France, for example. Some of France's objectives are to push US influence out, to expand socialism more to the benefit of the workers, to open borders to expand French trade, to make the French language and culture more influential, and to keep the Germans in line. None of these is bad objectives except that many don't coincide with the overall objectives of the EU. Look at Greece whose two main objectives appear to be increased growth including much of the investment associated with being an EU member AND to keep the Turks out. Netherlands appears to be more cosmopolitan being as the Dutch are mostly business oriented. The EU is a big market - and there is nothing to be lost in being a member of that market. The Brits really are not sure what they want. For example, when a majority of EU members decided to create a European military force, then Britian was willing to contribute a major share to that new force. But then Britian still fears the Eurodollar and many of the open border requirements that come with the EU - such as open borders that might permit rabbi into Britian. The instability in various countries does not seem to impeded Brussels abilities to operate effectively. Curiously, member states appear to bend over backwards to protect the interests of other member states. Interestingly, Switzerland, in the heart of the EU, is not a member, and has declared no interest in being part of the EU even though the EU is slowly forcing changes on Swiss banking practices. Switzerland, home to many international UN organizations is also not a UN member. Whereas Sweden and Norway are not EU members, but Finland is. Norway is a NATO member but not Sweden or Finland. As so it goes, the hodgepodge that is NATO, EU, WU (a military organization), EU members part and not part of the Eurodollar, countries applied for EU membership, countries applied for NATO membership. BTW what is the offical language of the EU? French last I heard, then Spanish as a second language - anything but English ... and the Germans speakers - Austria and Germany - are not happy about that.

06-21-2001, 03:45 AM	#9
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Few things to point out, i think the language is French, as that is also a UN language but don't quote me on that... Switzerland, which i hold dual-citizenship with has as far back as modern politics go, been totally neutral on EVERYTHING, they are a member of no international bodies, have no alliances, or agreements, although i think they are signees on the Human Rights and Rights of the Child documents, but once again, don't quote me on that. This policy has led to tension occasionally, particularly over issues like Swiss banks holding Nazi loot from slaughtered Jews some of which still has not been released. Switzerland is fiercely protective of its own interests, every citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 has done compulsory military training and there are many secret Swiss bases hidden inside mountains capable of holding a very significant section of the population in a NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) safe facilities. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-21-2001, 09:19 PM	#10
Chewbaccus Freethinker/booter Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 523	I don't understand why England is so scared of the open borders. Hell, the original Anglo-Saxons are close to the minority over there, have been since the Empire collapsed and all their colonies were given independence. Rather than stick around in the chaos of a brand-new government working towards its baby steps, they abandoned ship. ~Mike __________________ Like the wise man said: Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

06-18-2001, 09:04 AM	#1
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	There seems to be quite a donnybrook developing in Europe over the necessity of a United States of Europe. Many of the same leaders who chastise America for not being more proactive militarily fear American hegemony and support a united Europe to counterbalance the American Empire. It all seems rather circular. From this side of the pond, I'd rather see the US bring home the troops and mothball a good percentage of the navy, than give European leaders the excuse to overwhelm local governance. I truly doubt that a centralized Europe would be a good place to be a political minority. On the upside, open borders within Europe would probably produce a more dynamic economy but you don't need a centralized government to acheive that. Which way will the political system go if they stay on the path? Will they go the third way of crony capitalism (fascism) or will they slowly socialize their industries and eventually end up with another Lenin? Will they put up with the French tradition of tax avoidance?

06-18-2001, 10:38 AM	#2
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	The original reason of the EU was for a stronger economy (the old EEC). Now it has grown more political, and I'm curious to see how 15 unique nations are going to move forward as essentially one. Given a country of countless governments, such as Italy, how stable will the upcoming European Parliament be? And will the UK finally give up the pound sterling for euros?

06-18-2001, 04:17 PM	#3
alphageek31337 Enemy Combatant/Evildoer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 263	Hte main motivating factor here seems to be economy, so why not institute something along the lines of NAFTA (EFTA, in this case)? That would open borders without trying to mix oil, water, rubbing alcohol, and a brick, a solution that will never hold. that, along with the Euro, would have all the gains, but none of the crud that goes along with the disparate economy of today. Steve ______________ This is a sig virus. Please add this to your sig.

06-20-2001, 06:56 AM	#4
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Stability could be a problem, depends on how they handle elections/appointments for parlimentarians. If they all had direct elections for a set term it could be pretty stable. If, however, they somehow link the seat to whatever party controls the government back home it could actually lead to even more instability, at both levels. Italy seems less and less inclined to participate and the way they run through governments, that might be wise. Steve, I tried your solution and besides not holding it was quite flammable. I think you've got it, they need to figure out how to reduce border hassles and simplify the currency without creating too many bureacrats. Sycamore makes an important point as well, the British are not very excited about losing the pound, but if they don't they will be at a great disadvantage. Some groups in Britain seem more comfortable cozing up to America than Europe but folks like the Scots and Welsh might be inclined to lean toward the EU hoping for more local autonomy as a way to reduce the importance of GB. Its all quite a mish-mash of confusing interests. A lot of fun to speculate about... from a safe distance. If they were able to unite, would they all return their UN seats to sit as one or should PA get a seat as well?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)