Reply With Quote
I hope it means complete and utter failure of the whole silly concept.
If France votes no, which it is looking like it will happen, what do you think it means for the EU?
I hope it means complete and utter failure of the whole silly concept.
the dollar is already strengthening on the possibility... once the dollar gets back to normal levels i am vacationing in europe!
If France is the only one it will mean a delay. If others countries say no too, then it's going to be back to the drawing board.
I think that even in the worst case scenario people are starting to realize that a strong united Europe has better chances in today's world than a divided one (as illustrated by the Euro weakening of today). It will therefore happen one way or another.
How is the concept more silly than say the concept of the USA?
You guys are totally different nations... different cultures, languages, etc.
In the u.s. we are more or less same. I feel the EU is too large now for anything other than an economic body.
It provides a compitor economicly to the United States. Oh, and imagine if Europe would actualy start to defend itself. How would lawmakers here be able to justify their military machine?
Yeah, it's a silly idea only because it conflicts with the vital interests of those RO supports.
Put it into historic perspective.
The US founding fathers were far from being "more or less the same". Frankly nobody really believed in the "melting pot" at the time, but it still worked (well almost). And from what I've seen in the US you are far from being a genous group - but still it works (better on some levels - worse on others. Nobody is perfect).
Now the EU integration started as an economic alliance and in a totally different historic period. The way that the EU is coming together is of course totally different than what the US went through, but the basic impulse is the same - strength in numbers. You also have to admit that it has gone much farther from its initial idea and it will continue to do so as long as it makes sense/makes things better.
And finnally tell me how is the union of the US states so much different than what the EU would be if this new cons ution goes through? The only real difference is that you all speak English (well that's also less and less true, right?), and while it does simplify certain things - it's only a logistical problem.
Last edited by Slomo; 05-26-2005 at 04:31 PM.
Well, it's one thing to get a bunch of people to agree over a cons ution for a new nation. It's quite another to get a bunch of people in long-standing nations to compromise their sovereignty in order to cons ute a new union.
That's why it's silly. You'll never get France to agree to what Germany will agree to and Germany will never agree to what Belgium will agree to. etc...
You shouldn't post about things you know little about. The first European agreement ever was when France and Germany agreed to integrate their coal and steel industries. After the two agreed Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and the Netherlands joined the initial contract and created the first economical pan-european agreement that would become the historic base for the EU.
Secondly if I remember correctly in the US there wasn't a bunch of people agreeing to create a country but a bunch of states creating an union and seeking independence from the British. Other states joined the union later. I'm sorry that doesn't sound so much different from the EU method to me.
Compromise sovereignty? What sovereignty? In today's world please explain how any country (yes any) is free to take decisions without regard to others? The only sovereign decisions are really only taken about domestic issues, and those - much like in the case of US states - are the sole domain of each individual country.
The only silly thing in this thread are your posts.
The difference being that most of the various states were formed as part of the Union (excluding the original colonies that formed the Union in the first place), while most of the European countries have been established for hundreds of years. It's one thing for the US to inherit a territory and say "Hey, let's make it a state" Quite another for a European country to say "Hey, if we just give up some of our uniqueness and most of our sovereignty, we might be able to better compete with the United States".
I will admit that I am over simplifying facts in order to keep the posts short - but you get my basic idea. I have also said that you must put things into perspective, it was somewhat easier for the states to form an alliance/country since in view of all the iminent dangers of the time it definitely looked as a good idea (and it was). Of course in today's context such a swift union would be impossible to replicate by anyone let alone by traditionally conservative countries like the one in Europe. That is why the process is gradual and very slow.
The process is also based on voluntary membership and consensus. And while all the attention is now focused on France because it might be the first EU member to reject the new cons ution you shouldn't forget all the countries that have either already ratified the contract or have stated that they will.
If the French vote against it, it will be just one in a serie of obstacles that the EU has already had to face and we'll just have to find a solution. It's not like we have an option. The EU is not the promised land but it is far better than the alternative. I also do not see how we will be any less unique in the EU than we are now? Is Texas less unique because it's in the US? Is Hawaii? New York?
As for sovereignty, the EU laws regulate mainly the economic principles and technical aspect of the Union - with the exception of Human rights laws who are also part of the EU legislation. Everything else is still regulated locally by each member state. But as I have said earlier sovereignty is suposed to mean that nobody can influence or mingle into the state's decisions - well show me which country in the world can still claim it can do that?
And finally get one thing straight - it's not about the USA!
The EU's main purpose is not to be compe ive to the US - it's to create a stronger economy that will profit it's citizens. It does create some compe ion between the US and the EU but it's not its raison d'etre. The US have not us to fear but economies like China and India.
The problem is that the proposed cons ution has been put together by bureaucrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/op...7tournier.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27clarke.html
the fact is how much power are the countries willing to give up. also, some votes require every member nation to comply for it to pass. I think the EU enlarged too much and took in too many countries too quickly.
Once France votes no, the EU will remain stagnant.
And the USA concept is totally different. NAFTA would be more like the EU, but still not the same because we don't have the freedom of movement. The only way it'd be the same was if the US, Canada and Mexico decided on a cons ution together.
the purpose of the EU and most recently, the euro, is meant to compete with the US and dollar...
You're wrong since the US is not the main threat to our economy. Note that I say threat and not compe ion since we are probably the biggest compe ors in terms of quality and technology - but at the same time those are free markets where one can participated at free will (something that can not be said of the other big economies). A strong American economy has alway helped the European economy and vice versa, that's because the two economies are much too intertwined for your statement to be true.
As for the Dollar, what's wrong with a little compe ion?
Slomo, I'm afraid the main problem is that these jingoistic xenophobes like Clan and TRO cannot grasp the concept of cooperating with anyone outside your own borders.
I think the whole idea failing is a good thing.
The last thing anyone in Europe needs is Germany, and particularly France, having extensive control over how they live their life, their rights, what they can say and do, etc.
France is going to be a Muslim nation in 20 years anyway, that's not a path Europe needs to have leading the way.
Although I disagreed wiht the previous posts, I could understand why they had such a point of view. The last two however are the perfect ilustration why I rarely go into this part of the forum - stupid and rude name calling, unsuported by any sort of argument.
They do not deserve an answer.
I did not think so but you might just be correct BronxCowboy.
What's wrong with my post?
Are you telling me you think the socialist, pacifistic way of life that permeates in France is the model nation state?
If you read everything Chirac says and does (and step outside the US mainstream media box), it's pretty obvious to see that Chirac's whole impetus for this is to preclude France from becoming irrelevant in the world power structure, basically a last ditch attempt at that.
And I'm not trying to be racist or anything when I mention the Muslim problem, but everyone paying attention to what's going on in Europe with Muslim sectarian violence against any non-Muslims is a very real problem, and one that is going to over-run France in the next 15-20 years.
You've already got politicians over there in hiding because Muslim street gangs have bounties on their heads, you had Van Gogh getting killed in broad daylight, the list goes on and on.
I've got relatives (my mom's English) in the U.K., as well as some who live in Germany, and they say the problem with the Muslim thugs is escalating greatly on mainland Europe.
The one Europe, one world model is doomed to failure, you've got too many individual cultures you're trying to put together to make it work. Didn't anyone learn from the League of Nations or the United Nations? Apparently not.
And BTW, there's a big difference, Bronx Cowboy, between countries cooperating (as all the countries in Europe do already) and this EU cons ution bull where basically you've got France and Germany making a power grab at the future of the entirety of the EU.
I'm sorry, but that's jus hillarious for obvious reasons.
wtf are you talking about bronxdumbass? i never said the eu was bad. i asked for thoughts on it.. i also said that the eu was nothing like the usa in general.
i lived there for quite a bit of time. i think some of the eu policies are good, but others are doomed to failure with how fast and how large the eu is growing. getting 25 different nations to unanimously agree on anything is difficult. some eu votes require that.
It goes far beyond this one thread, my friend.
Nonetheless, I apologize for lumping you in with TRO in the context of this thread.
Last edited by BronxCowboy; 05-28-2005 at 06:36 PM.
Like I said, the only way I see them being *successful* is if they start stripping countries of their cultural uniqueness.getting 25 different nations to unanimously agree on anything is difficult.
I haven't had the privilege of a long trip to Europe to enjoy it, and I don't want it all destroyed out of some Jacques Chirac pipe dream.
LONDON (AFP) - Britain is losing 200 million pounds (290 billion euros, 365 billion dollars) a year due to its membership in the European Union, according to a detailed cost analysis to be published next month.
"The cost of the EU to Britain is equivalent to the UK economy remaining stagnant for eight years," said co-author Philip Booth of the conservative Ins ute of Economic Affairs, quoted in The Business, a Sunday newspaper.
Direct contributions to the EU budget, higher food prices due to the Common Agricultural Policy, higher costs for manufactured goods, lack of compe ion in services, and red tape are imposing high costs on Britain, the report says.
Future costs are likely to come with the introduction of pan-European labour regulations and, possibly, the need to bail out bankrupt pension funds in EU member states, it adds.
Minford said that if European leaders don't renegotiate Britain's terms of EU membership, "then it would be in the UK's interests to leave the EU and unilaterally pursue liberal policies".
On its Internet site (www.iea.org.uk), the Ins ute of Economic Affairs says its analysis would be presented in London on June 14, after the French and Dutch referendums on the EU cons ution, although copies are already on sale.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
