Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Grimm

Teh EU

Recommended Posts

So, uh, yeah, I don't know much about the EU or what it's done and such, nor do I have an opinion on it. I should get one. So, since many of you people here are from Europe, what's your opinion of it?

Share this post


Link to post

Germany's new attempt to rule Europe. And France is tagging along for the ride once again.

Share this post


Link to post

A good idea overall, whose implementation is highly problematic. Some people are trying to push for way too much integration.

Europe encompasses an enormous diversity of peoples, so maybe it's inevitable that any radical attempt to merge them together will hit problems. On the other hand, failing to make any such attempt would perhaps have had worse consequences - the initial motivation was to prevent further wars between European nations, after all.

Share this post


Link to post

Actual, the initial motivation was to make money. The European Union first started as an economic cooperation between a few nations (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) and was later expanded with some bigger countries. Again, purely economic.... think taxes, trade laws, facilitating the exchange of goods/people, economic grants, etc. Only years later there (serious) efforts were made to cooperate in other areas, such as equalising social laws between nations and a joint approach to international problems.

We're now at a stage were Brussels makes European laws which individual countries need to adhere to. Think justice, minimal financial requirements, maximum deficits for each year, social security etc. Attempts are being made to come up with a joint foreign policy and defence, but if you've been following the news you would probably know that's still a long way off :)

The EU is NOT a federation. In fact, we need a different european administration if that is going to happen. The european administration is NOT elected, but chosen from the individual administrations. In my opinion this needs to change in the following two decades or so, after the expansion of the EU has been consolidated, in order to maintain credibility and support of the population. So: real elections, to vote for an european parlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Shaviro said:

The EU is run by a bunch of incompetent idiots. Really.

Correct. This goes for every country or federation unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Mordeth said:

an european

hmm not to be picky about grammar but that actually should be a european... that's a strange exception to the 'use an before a word starting in a vowel' rule. same seems to go for all other english words starting in eu, such as euphemism and eulogy. not trying to nitpick, just to be helpful :P

Share this post


Link to post

Ooh, don't get me started.

A common market is fine but that's where I'd draw the line. The common agricultural policy is one of the biggest economic nonsense of all time, as was the ERM.

I would like to keep the pound and I certainly don't want a common defense, economic policy. A one-size fits all system probably wouldn't harm Britain as we have a strong economy but I think in a few years we might see problems with the newest EU members.

It's a complicated debate that takes a deal of study to form an opinion on. There are definitely decent aspects of integration. As it is much much more likely that we will only be able to integrate rather than disintegrate, I see it all going only one way in the future anyway.

Welcome to the US of E.

Share this post


Link to post
Mordeth said:

So it's "a eulogy for Sargebaldy", eh? Interesting :)

now I know why his avatar is running. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Mordeth said:

Actual, the initial motivation was to make money. The European Union first started as an economic cooperation between a few nations ...

Yes, it's true that the initial forms of cooperation were purely economic, but was that the sole driving force behind the overall idea, or indeed the main source of the political motivation? The principles listed in the Treaty of Rome included several aimed at increasing the overall cohesion between the European nations.

more stuff

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Pritch

The EU is there to protect European countries from fair trade
eg farming is subsidised to make it cheaper than non-EU goods, produce is also bought from farmers and destroyed to maintain the price.

The only benefit of having a single currency (bar convenience) is that companies trading in Europe won't lose money as the currency fluctuates. The loss of control over tax and interest rates would more than remove this benefit.

Share this post


Link to post

The way I see it, the EU is one of those drives for a 'New World Order', which I'm wholly against. You see, if the word comes together to form one government, then if some bastard comes into power (which would likely be inevitable), then there is nothing anyone could do. In the past, when some kind of horrible dictator came into power, the citizens could either flee the country into anther more welcoming one, or call for aid from another country which would take over if possible (kinda like what the US pretands to do). But if there is only one world power, one country, where are you going to run? There would be nowhere except some caves in the wilderness or outer space (which would be impossible for the average Joe to get to alive).

I think the best kind of scenario would be if everyone stays divided and yet regulated by a UN-type organization (except not controlled by the four or five richest countries). Borders would be more or less open, so if someone hated their governemnt, they could just move to another country. And since each country would be pretty much autonomous, there would probably be SOMETHING that would be acceptable to any one person.

Share this post


Link to post

the_Danarchist, nah:

A) The civilized world has always had hegemonies, now it does too.

B) Certain regions are kind organizing themselves more that before now, and that's inevitable with the speeding of communications systems and technology. Like, it's not just the EU (though that's obviously the most prominent and powerful new political unit) but to a degree other regions are oraganizing themselves as, well, albeit with a lesser degree of freedom to do so. It's a matter of the present circumstances of "development."

You won't have a single megagovernment, at least not any more than usual, just the necessity to organize larger comercial and political units, which in turn are divided into lesser ones which vary from each other due to the inevitable differences in the regions themselves (this process is fast and some things just don't change that fast, if the do eventually change.)

Share this post


Link to post
pritch said:

It's a complicated debate that takes a deal of study to form an opinion on. There are definitely decent aspects of integration. As it is much much more likely that we will only be able to integrate rather than disintegrate, I see it all going only one way in the future anyway.

Welcome to the US of E.


Yeah, I agree. Although the intention was to unite the countries more, through common laws (to stop wars between members) and the currency (handy for going abroad) the intention now is clearly to create a European superpower to rival the US. And our government is preparing to break up the country into tiny powerless regions, ready to fall under the rule of Paris/Berlin (sorry, Brussels).

I wonder what the chances are of a Ryder Cup war happening sometime in the distant future?

Share this post


Link to post

I would find it highly amusing if Europe were united into a new superpower while the United States collapsed and balkanized. It would not be pleasant in the short-term, but you could have some fun with it.

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, I don't think that the US would collapse, cuz the EU basically is the same (or at least faces the same problems as) the US. If either collapsed, it would be due to some cataclysmic event. (Or some sort of massive breakdown in the system. Which would probably apply to both.)

Wow. My initial, unresearched impression of an attempt to rival the US may have been correct. Shocker. So most of teh Europeans here don't like the EU, then?

EDIT: Nothing to say, fodders? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Grimm said:

So most of teh Europeans here don't like the EU, then?

There does seem to be widespread distrust in many countries. In fact, one starts to wonder in which countries there is a lot of public support for closer integration. If you want to plough through it, there is a lot of info here from surveys, opinion polls, etc. Note that it is part of the European Commission's own website though.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like you guys across the Atlantic might be getting bullshitted into something you don't want. Don't let it happen. Heh, instead of worrying about what country America's attacking, worry about the hostile force threatening you directly.

Share this post


Link to post

One step closer to world federalism... which is one step closer to world dictatorship... no local rights, then no individual rights.

When it comes down to it, it'll just be us as individuals left to oppose stuff. There will be no powerful organizations to turn to. We'll have to run completely silent, too, especially with the police technology available even just today. Oh, but no worries, they'll take away our weapons long before there's any big evidence to convince people that we need to fight.

One theory I find believable on who is behind pushes for this kind of centralization in many places in the world states that it's the "bluebloods," the "old money" trying to re-assert their "divine right" over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Grimm said:

EDIT: Nothing to say, fodders? ;)

Waiting for the new EU policy report. Only gripe at moment I have is Pritch's spelling of defence :) Keep it Anglo Pritch, you ARE teaching youngsters English at moment I believe :P

Share this post


Link to post

It matters because he is teaching them English IN England, so correct spelling is important, not the pidgin English spoken by our American cousins :P

Share this post


Link to post

damn nationalist :P i personally don't care whether people use the english or american spelling for anything, it's all english to me.

Share this post


Link to post

the_Danarchist said:
The way I see it, the EU is one of those drives for a 'New World Order'


No, you're completely wrong here. This "New World Order" is an american objective, originating from a powerfull right-wring lobby group that currently seems to have Bush by the balls.

Share this post


Link to post

sargebaldy said:
damn nationalist :P i personally don't care whether people use the english or american spelling for anything, it's all english to me.


Well, it IS kinda confusing for non-english speaking people like myself.

Share this post


Link to post

Ultraviolet said:
When it comes down to it, it'll just be us as individuals left to oppose stuff. There will be no powerful organizations to turn to. We'll have to run completely silent, too, especially with the police technology available even just today. Oh, but no worries, they'll take away our weapons long before there's any big evidence to convince people that we need to fight.


That idea of individuals vs. institutions is pretty much a romantic fantasy stemming from the humanistic illison of the free-willed subject. Who are "they" anyway? Our parents? I'm mean, now there's powerful institutions to turn to? If so, under what circumstances can we turn to them for aid now, and how will this be different tomorrow? If anything, it won't be individuals who make any changes, but masses and classes, and simply because there are just conglomerations or alliances of similarly interested persons with a much bigger effect than the tiny specks that individuals are. And even though some individuals play precious roles in these changes, reactions or movements, they are still embedded in the circumstances and their ideas or actions are totally part of something much greater that they are.

One theory I find believable on who is behind pushes for this kind of centralization in many places in the world states that it's the "bluebloods," the "old money" trying to re-assert their "divine right" over the world.


Similarly, this centralization isn't caused by the will of anyone, not the rich classes or anything. Those oviously hold key positions, and although more powerful than others, are still stuck in the circumstances and must suffer the tyranny of the weak as much as they make them suffer theirs. The centralization isn't some sort of plan, it's part of the day to day affairs and social development a result of them in action. Think about the profound technological changes we've had in the past century and you'll see how it reflects so naturally in the way society organizes itself; with all these communications satellites, countless transport vehicles of all types, the spreading internet, and all sorts of inventions all make distances so much sorter and activity and production so much faster that it's easy for any part of the world to be in touch with another, very much unlike 100 or even 50 years ago.

If we've going to believe that something like this will make most of us slaves or clones or something, then relatively speaking we could think that back in the ancient world or the middle ages people were much more free than today because there were less "means of control" and comparatively now we'd be living in great fear of oppression whereas back then people would have felt free... did they feel so, were they freer? Just read a history book and tell me.

Romantic artists and thinkers have often thought like this, looking at the past as some sort of time of innocence or virginity unlike the present, but is that real or is it just some sort of infantile nostalgia, a dreamy projection?

Humanity as a whole develops in ways that it doesn't really wholly understand and is unable to perdict, much like a huge insect swarm spreading all over the world (and possibly beyond it) and it's organization and way of life is always changing as they interact with the world and are affected by the environment (including themselves) and they react against it roughly prodding their way without being sure of the next turn of events. This isn't some kind or drama or novel where we can easily point out the characters and describe them; we're animals and we're not extraordinarily bright at that; we're just trying to find our way in a world where meaning is found in the changes themselves and we're not sure either who we are, what our roles are or where we'll end up.

Personally I think that if regional clusters of power form in different regions and become stronger there, they will be more capable of standing up for their own particular interests, whereas if they do not unite in some way the existing centers of power will more easily manipulate the divided and weakened nations. If they stayed pretty much fragmented, would that be freedom? Why?

As I said above, it's inevitable anyway; thus I see a more healthy form of integration in a series of pyramid shaped regions (not necessarily all of the same size) than in just one or two towers (or at best also pyramids) and a great number of rather fragmentary small cubes left exposed to the interests of much greater foreign colonizing powers.

Not that I'm predicting anything; this is the way I reply to the fear of these inevitable changes. The same fears farmers may have had when industrialization began, the same fear warriors with stone axes may have felt when they saw bronze tipped arrows, and the same fear scribes may have felt when the printing press started to become popular; material changes in the way we coexist and live (not of some kind of war/politics stategy video game... that kind of "game of power" always happens, but it's not a consistent cause or the key element to look into in all this.)

Hmm, Ultraviolet, I smell the irony in your post now that I look at it again...

Heh, whatever... some caveman might actually be thinking along those lines and, in his budding English skills, might be able to garner something useful from the obvious and redundant insights in my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Grimm said:

Nah, I don't think that the US would collapse

I wouldn't be so sure of it. Currently, the Administration is stretching the limits of Americans. It has stretched the budget into record deficit. It has created a record number of unemployment (since the Great Depression at least), which is creating a lot of dissent. It has stretched the limits of the military...most of our troops are overseas being killedbecause we can't keep these countries we've invaded stable...and now the Administration is slashing the military's pay considerably. So now look what you have...many, many people enraged about the war, about losing their jobs, about getting the rest of the world pissed off at us. The governemnt is running out of money and military. The value of the dollar is going to take a quick downturn until it will be wortless garbage. We're going to see massive resession, deflation, an economic bellyflop. The military is scattered and demoralized. And considering that different parts of the country have their own histories, cultures, and political viewpoints, its almost like they are their own little countries anyway. So I could definately see a massive collapse and division of the US.

Either that or the Administration has some kind of master plan and we're all fucked.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×