NationStates Jolt Archive

I admire the European Union for uniting the way they have, I wish the Hispanic Latin American Nations would do the same, they have started to but not anywhere close to Europe.

Please comment on the Pros and Cons of the European Union.

Some of the Pros ARE Cons.

Pro Cons. :)

I admire how you share economic resources, taxes and workers. The Latin
American economic summits are a joke they make promises they cant keep because there is no political structure to make them happen. The solution to
the use of the Euro is to allow all nations to use their own currencys and have the same value, perhaps adding a Euro stamp to the diffrent currencys,
this will take care of nationalist feelings about their nation and their currency.

Each of these Unions try to "out-union" the original Union. They are *as yet* pale reflections of the USA. But, as we and our ideas replaced the political structures that came before us, so must our children replace us. We export democracy, but each nation/culture takes it and melds it to themselves.

In time the ultra-liberal, new era, collective mindset will prevail, but the conservative, preservationist mindset, will hold as well.

A main pro and con for myself is that what the EU is trying to do has never been done before.
There is no organisation that has managed to do the same. NAFTA and all the other groups have still a long way to go

A main pro and con for myself is that what the EU is trying to do has never been done before.
There is no organisation that has managed to do the same. NAFTA and all the other groups have still a long way to go

Actually, there are groups that *have* tried to do the same... and not been too successful.

The U.S. started that way, as a confederacy of States, and the UN is much the same way.

They suffer from several problems: each group only has one vote, they can't all agree, powerful units don't want to give up their power, and the organizations don't have any power to enforce their decrees.

Actually, there are groups that *have* tried to do the same... and not been too successful.

The U.S. started that way, as a confederacy of States, and the UN is much the same way.

They suffer from several problems: each group only has one vote, they can't all agree, powerful units don't want to give up their power, and the organizations don't have any power to enforce their decrees.

Well.... not exactly.
The process that is taking place now within europe has not been repeated.
I have not got the information on me write now (reading material at home) so i can't argue it efectively right now. will give the info later.
But there is a big difference. If someone else can supply the info???

This is the first union ever to be set up peacefully on this scale.
The USA is different, it was an union created by force as was France, Germany, the UK, China etc...

This is the first union ever to be set up peacefully on this scale.
The USA is different, it was an union created by force as was France, Germany, the UK, China etc...

It was not that. Not what i was thinking about anyway.
something to do with becoming first a free trade area, then a ......(can't remember name right now, being able to travel freely within it), then a monetary union and then a full political union (which it still has not done).

Something like that anyway. Damn very annoying whe you can't remember!!!

Plus the US is WAY younger than Europe. You don't feel like Californians and Texans and New Yorkers and Floridaians; you're all Americans to start with. We are not all Europeans to start with.

And the EU is twice as big as the US.

I admire the European Union for uniting the way they have, I wish the Hispanic Latin American Nations would do the same, they have started to but not anywhere close to Europe.

Please comment on the Pros and Cons of the European Union.

out of curiousity, you say hispanic latin america? Does this mean no Brazil? And are you only refering to south america?
Also what is your opinion on NAFTA. should it go the same way as the EU?

Each of these Unions try to "out-union" the original Union. They are *as yet* pale reflections of the USA. But, as we and our ideas replaced the political structures that came before us, so must our children replace us. We export democracy, but each nation/culture takes it and melds it to themselves.

In time the ultra-liberal, new era, collective mindset will prevail, but the conservative, preservationist mindset, will hold as well.

I don't think you really understand the nature of the EU or its objectives. Very few people in Europe actually want to see a federal super state being created. Don't forget our countries have strong national identities, much stronger than the identities felt by the various states in USA.
The EU is not in some kind of "be the closest union" competition, at present the EU is not trying to be a super state to rival the USA. We are however increasing becoming a unified economic entity.

Each of these Unions try to "out-union" the original Union. They are *as yet* pale reflections of the USA.
The US is not the original "union". It's nothing like the EU. The different US states don't have a history as a nationstate the way Spain, France, Britain etc...They don't have different national cultures, languages, currencies etc....

I would be very happy with the european union.. if it want so ****ing un-democratic! (this is coming from a swiss guy here) see my nation.. lol my opinions...

to be liked by britain, switzerland, Norway, etc. The EU should be more democratic since all the critical desisions concirning millions of people are made by very powerful men behind closed doors without giving the people any sort of important say.... other than that the EU could work very well

I would be very happy with the european union.. if it want so ****ing un-democratic! (this is coming from a swiss guy here) see my nation.. lol my opinions...

to be liked by britain, switzerland, Norway, etc. The EU should be more democratic since all the critical desisions concirning millions of people are made by very powerful men behind closed doors without giving the people any sort of important say.... other than that the EU could work very well
Very true.

I would be very happy with the european union.. if it want so ****ing un-democratic! (this is coming from a swiss guy here) see my nation.. lol my opinions...

to be liked by britain, switzerland, Norway, etc. The EU should be more democratic since all the critical desisions concirning millions of people are made by very powerful men behind closed doors without giving the people any sort of important say.... other than that the EU could work very well

I completely agree, there's a big democratic defecit in the EU entities. Reform really does need to take place. I think the EU parliament should get more real power and the Commission should be made more properly accountable to it. The new constitution would actually address this partially, but not nearly far enough.

Plus the US is WAY younger than Europe. You don't feel like Californians and Texans and New Yorkers and Floridaians; you're all Americans to start with. We are not all Europeans to start with.

Uhhh ya...I consider myself a New Yorker. And I consider myself an American too.

If you were to ask a bunch of Americans whether they consider themselves of a certain state, or of thier country first you'd get some for their state first, some for their country. And some, like me, would say that they are a New Yorker, (or Californian, Texan) as well as Americans all at the same time. I don't exactly understand that myself, but its just how I feel.

The European union should adopt an electoral college system to elect a
european leader, perhaps with a proportional representation system based
on the popular vote.

I completely agree, there's a big democratic defecit in the EU entities. Reform really does need to take place. I think the EU parliament should get more real power and the Commission should be made more properly accountable to it. The new constitution would actually address this partially, but not nearly far enough.
The problem is that there are three models of Europe: a centralised Europe (French), a federalist Europe (Germany), and an Europe of Nations (Concept of the Blair Administration).
Blair favours inter-gouvermental cooperation. His concept is in favour of a closer integratin and - step by step- in favour of qualified majority decisions: except in the following areas: taxes, foreign and security policy. The Council of ministers (25 national ministers in each policy field) should remain THE KEY area: Inter-gouvermental cooperation, strengthening the national parlaments BUT NOT the EU parliament.

Germanys federalists model would go for a stronger parliament and a strong council of ministers. That would be like a two-chamber system. The council of ministers would form in a way one chamber and the parliament the other. Currently all EU laws need the approval of the Council and mostly also of parliament (co-decision procedure), but not always parliament is required. Though it is gaining relevance.
The subsidiary principle should be implemented (things ought to be done on the leve that is most able to do it). Regional governments should play a greater role in the EU (those stressing the fact that Germany is a federal state and that its states want to have a say on EU matters as well).
Also: more majority decisions. Even in the area of foreign affairs. Though decision of military deployment should remain the issue of the national state (no european army).

France centralised model wants rather a stronger commission and a more centralised structure. A strong parliament fits into that strategy.
Though the French policy has become a bit ambigious since it rather favours its concept when it looks like that his ideas are in the majority. But the idea of an european foreign minister and a stronger commission are in the French interests. Also France favours the most centralisation compared to the other models - which has to do with its national culture. France is traditionally a very centralised state. France sees the EU as a potential new superpower which should push its interests - even against the US.

We need a discussion about those models - and some countries need to discuss whether they want to take part on European integration at all. Blairs model wouldn´t mean as much integration as the German or even more the French model. But it would mean more than today. But that is heavily disputed - and to a huge degree opposed in the UK.

I don't think you really understand the nature of the EU or its objectives. Very few people in Europe actually want to see a federal super state being created. Don't forget our countries have strong national identities, much stronger than the identities felt by the various states in USA.
The EU is not in some kind of "be the closest union" competition, at present the EU is not trying to be a super state to rival the USA. We are however increasing becoming a unified economic entity.
We are already an economic union (free market). And 12 countries are also having a currency union.
The question is how things should develop to.
I don´t like an EU superpower either.
But polls suggest that there are other opinions.
According to a research by the Compagania do Sao Paolo and the German Marshall fund they are 71% (out of 11000 Europeans) who want a development of the EU into an equal super power to the US. 41% (out of 11000 asked Americans) agree with that.
58% are accoring to this study rejecting the fact that the US is playing the leading role in the world as undesirable.
I´m shocked about it.

Though fortunately people don´t want to take the consequence of their opinions. Asked whether the EU should go for the position of super power if it means to spent more on the military the amount of people who still want this status drops by half.
Only 22% of Europeans want their governments to spent more on defense.
Therefore noone needs to be concerned. The chronical underfunding of the military in many european countries is a reason of continuing complaint by the US - especially towards Germany who is only spending 1,4% of its GDP on defense while NATO recommends to spent at least 2%.
The US is spending between 4-5% on its defense.
Europes defense is chronicly underfunded and there is no will to change that. Europe is and remains dependent on the US for its defense and has therefore to accept the leading role of the US.
Everything else is just irrational and french intrasigence of stupid gaullism.

We are already an economic union (free market). And 12 countries are also having a currency union.
The question is how things should develop to.
I don´t like an EU superpower either.
But polls suggest that there are other opinions.
According to a research by the Compagania do Sao Paolo and the German Marshall fund they are 71% (out of 11000 Europeans) who want a development of the EU into an equal super power to the US. 41% (out of 11000 asked Americans) agree with that.
58% are accoring to this study rejecting the fact that the US is playing the leading role in the world as undesirable.
I´m shocked about it.

Though fortunately people don´t want to take the consequence of their opinions. Asked whether the EU should go for the position of super power if it means to spent more on the military the amount of people who still want this status drops by half.
Only 22% of Europeans want their governments to spent more on defense.
Therefore noone needs to be concerned. The chronical underfunding of the military in many european countries is a reason of continuing complaint by the US - especially towards Germany who is only spending 1,4% of its GDP on defense while NATO recommends to spent at least 2%.
The US is spending between 4-5% on its defense.
Europes defense is chronicly underfunded and there is no will to change that. Europe is and remains dependent on the US for its defense and has therefore to accept the leading role of the US.
Everything else is just irrational and french intrasigence of stupid gaullism.
And still you don't understand why me and Giga consider you an US whipping boy.

And still you don't understand why me and Giga consider you an US whipping boy.
If I`m that why wouldn´t I´ve posted that poll. I like to look at the facts. And the facts are: many people want an european super power BUT they don´t want to spent more on defense. That is a contradiction in itself given the underfunding of the defense budget in many countries.
And if asked whether they still want that when it means spending more the support for the idea to be a super power drops by half. So, there is no majority for it in Europe. Neither in the population, nor in the political class and between the nations.

I think thier union could be the most powerful and brilliant thing that could happen. I think of the countries of Europe will possibly be like how the states are in the US.
Each country has thier own little world in some little different way. But combine the greatness of each country into a nice unified package then great things can happen.

If I`m that why wouldn´t I´ve posted that poll. I like to look at the facts. And the facts are: many people want an european super power BUT they don´t want to spent more on defense. That is a contradiction in itself given the underfunding of the defense budget in many countries.
And if asked whether they still want that when it means spending more the support for the idea to be a super power drops by half. So, there is no majority for it in Europe. Neither in the population, nor in the political class and between the nations.
You are. A whipping boy wishing for a longer tongue. Cause the one you have doesn't reach deep enough. Allthough I'm for increased military spending. For a EU army.

You are. A whipping boy wishing for a longer tongue. Cause the one you have doesn't reach deep enough. Allthough I'm for increased military spending. For a EU army.
Even the German government is against it. And Britain. And many others.
There was this idea in the 50s. And it failed on the French. So, forget about it. It is unrealistic. By the way: a majority of countries was in favour of the Iraq war. Would you like troops of one country being sent against the will of the legitimate government of that country?

The reason most people in the EU don’t want to spend more money on their military it’s because they already spend enough. If you add the military budget in all 25 member states you will see it sums up to about a half of the American military budget. So the idea is not to spend more but spend effectively. The EU doesn’t have to spend more than the USA on their military it just needs to be an alternative to the USA. BTW the majority of the states in the EU were against the war on Iraq. At that time the EU had only 15 states and most were against the war.

PS: The USA spends 3.9% of GDP on their military

Even the German government is against it. And Britain. And many others.
There was this idea in the 50s. And it failed on the French. So, forget about it.
What are you talking about? We have the Euro Corps. And now the Rapid Intevention force. Sure. Both are just infants yet. But it's a start.
It is unrealistic.
You'd love that. Wouldn't you Renfield?

By the way: a majority of countries was in favour of the Iraq war. Would you like troops of one country being sent against the will of the legitimate government of that country?
If they were in an EU army they would be under EU command. And therefor it would be the decision of, I dunno, let's say the European Parliament for example. If they contribute troops to the army they can't just pull them out any time a decision is made. Allthough people like you who wish to undermine the EU would jubilate at the idea.

You arent truely enjoying free trade until you have price transparency created by the removal of different currencies, which cloud things otherwise.

Thats economic fact, unless the currencies all line up at purchasing power parity at the same time, and that isnt going to happen. So while some countries arent the euro its not totally free trade.

If I`m that why wouldn´t I´ve posted that poll. I like to look at the facts. And the facts are: many people want an european super power BUT they don´t want to spent more on defense. That is a contradiction in itself given the underfunding of the defense budget in many countries.
And if asked whether they still want that when it means spending more the support for the idea to be a super power drops by half. So, there is no majority for it in Europe. Neither in the population, nor in the political class and between the nations.

That seems to suggest that you believe a super power is based on military strength.
Personally, I don't think Europe should spend more on defence than it already does. But, I would be for the EU cooperating militarily more closely, thus making better more effiecient use of European defence resources across the 25 countries (of course, neutral countries like here in Sweden, and Finland, Ireland and Austria as well as others will be hesitate to do this at first). That way we should have the resources to deal with situations such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra-Leone etc. I don't think Europe's populations have the desire to have the large military that the USA has, as we don't feel the need for it now the Cold War has ended.

That seems to suggest that you believe a super power is based on military strength.
Personally, I don't think Europe should spend more on defence than it already does. But, I would be for the EU cooperating militarily more closely, thus making better more effiecient use of European defence resources across the 25 countries (of course, neutral countries like here in Sweden, and Finland, Ireland and Austria as well as others will be hesitate to do this at first). That way we should have the resources to deal with situations such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra-Leone etc. I don't think Europe's populations have the desire to have the large military that the USA has, as we don't feel the need for it now the Cold War has ended.
The same assumption guides German foreign policy since the 1990s. Yes, the Cold War is over. And there was great hope that now a period peace and prosperity would begin. But that is not true. There are other threads. Look to the conflicts at the Balkans, look at the thread of terrorism. And: we don´t know how Russia develops. Germany is supporting Russia also in order to prevent reactonary nationalistic or neo-communists political factions to seize power. There are some generals in the Russian army who speak about other former Soviet Republics as "near foreign countries" and "areas of interest". That includes the three baltic states. It is not the policy of the Russian government. Though the relationship is not dispute-free. We have to support the reform process in Russia but we can´t be absolutely shure about it. There could be a backlash - however it is unlikely we can´t be absolutely shure. That is also the reason why the East Europeans and the Baltic states wanted to join Nato. And it is also the reason they support the US policy. And they also want the US to station troops on their territory in order to have a security assurance. For the same reason Germany wants to US to remain some of its troops on its territory. As long as there are US troops stationed in Europe the security of us is linked with the security of the US.
It is the French who are undermining with its policy the transatlantic binding and the Nato alliance.
Europes security still depens on the US and the US leadership. If Europe wants to be an independent military player it needs to spent more on defense - especially the countries who spent too little (I don´t know the Swedish budget - there are countries who spent enough - but some countries have a heavy underfunding of their military which makes it difficult for them even to maintain the missions they are in and to modernize the equipment which is often in poor shape).
If the European countries are not ready for that they shuoul shut up and let at least the US lead.
You can not have it both ways: Either you chose for the transatlantic alliance and the binding with the US - then you don´t need to spent as much for defense. But that means to accept US leadership.
If you want to have an independent European defense -like France - you need to spent more for it.
I want the continuation of the transatlantic alliance -like Britain, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia (and many more).
And that can be done via Nato. If you want to participate in it : join Nato.
There is no need for a counter-alliance to Nato in Europe. That would only lead to the division of Europe and to conflicts with the US.
Every cooperation between European countries should be under the umbrella of NATO. I´m not against closer cooperation. But it should build up an European pillar within NATO and not outside of it.

That seems to suggest that you believe a super power is based on military strength.
No, it don´t. It boils down to the economy at the end. Military strength can only be maintained with a strong economy - like the US has got. Russia lost the super power status also because of its declining economy. It had to spent 20% of its GDP for defense just to catch up with the US who spent about 5% during the Cold War. No country can stand that in the long-run. The ecnomic decline also caused more doubts on the system. Finally the nationality conflict led to the end of the Soviet Union.
Regarding other players than the US: currently it are still the national states who are playing on the international arena. The EU is only present in the area of trade.
There is no CFSP (common foreign and security policy). There are at least three or even more - hypothetically up till 25 different policies.
Economically the world has several main powers:
US (25%)
Japan (12%)
Germany (7%)
Britain
France
Italy
Canada
That are the seven leading nations economically.
Military:
USA
Russia (though weak)
Britain
France

All others don´t play a significant role in todays world.
Japan and Germany are both military small players.
It was common to describe the role of the Federal Republic of Germany as the one of an economic giant and a political dwarf. That has changed a bit since the reunification, though not complettly.
But what is so bad with that role anyway?
Wouldn´t that suit the neutral countries in the EU as well?
An EU which is an economic giant and a political dwarf and which is closely bound to the US.

I don't think Europe's populations have the desire to have the large military that the USA has, as we don't feel the need for it now the Cold War has ended.
Europeans population doesn´t feel the need to be a superpower. And that leaves the floor for the US - and probably in future China.
And therefore we should side with the US as their junior partner.

Pro: Good free trade policies

Con: Too political

Pro: stops wars

Con: Too right-wing

Europeans population doesn´t feel the need to be a superpower. And that leaves the floor for the US - and probably in future China.
And therefore we should side with the US as their junior partner.

I think the EU should stride independantly of the US and certainly not be a junior partner. Although I'm not against the US and the EU cooperating every now and again.

An EU which is an economic giant and a political dwarf and which is closely bound to the US.
lapdog.
your views are disgusting. :mad:

Pro: Good free trade policies
Con: Too political
Pro: stops wars
Con: Too right-wing
It hasn´t stopped a war and it is certainly not to right-wing. And since it has to do with politics (governments) it has to be political.

I think the EU should stride independantly of the US and certainly not be a junior partner. Although I'm not against the US and the EU cooperating every now and again.
I think that could be dangerous. The world doesn´t need two super powers. One is enough.
A system of rivaling powers would be dangerous. Therefore a close partnership between Europe and the US is needed.

lapdog.
your views are disgusting. :mad:
You still have the idea to be a super power?
That is dangerous. Europe is diverse. No country can lead it.
Countries are different and have different interests. Even Geramany and France bound together couldn´t form a superpower.
And even if the entire EU would follow it it couldn´t outweigh the US.
I see that Europe and North America have a lot of things in common: Democracy, free markety, rule of law.
That is not common in other parts of the world. Therefore they are natural allies. And therefore I´m in favour of the transatlantic partnership. And since the US is stronger we in Europe have to be the junior partner in this alliance.

bump