NationStates Jolt Archive

Since Americans hijacked the other thread I'd like them to carry on arguing their USA vs. EU over there. In this thread I'd like to address some of the practical issues facing the modern EU and how best they can be dealt with.

Firstly, I would state that I believe in a federal European state, but I am keen to hear opposing views and alternative proposals to my own beliefs. I would describe myself as a Liberal, in the UK my political position is somewhere between the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Greens. My fundamental beliefs can be summarised as this:
"I aim to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which I seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"

I believe that a fair and open society should include all peoples, regardless of the language they speak, their appearance or their nationality. This society should be built to include as many people as possible. European peoples have much in common with one another, more in common than they have apart. While Africa and the Middle East have less in common, I hope that one day we can be united as one human creed. For now however I restrict our union to Europe, and possibly Russia (ignoring the fact that Russia doesn't want us, I agree in principle that Russia can be part of United Europe) and to European counties which may not be a part of continental Europe but which share a common European identity (I'm thinking of places like Greenland, the Falkland Islands, or the Canaries)

I believe that many issues facing politicians today cannot be dealt with on a national level. These issues include immigration, environment and defence and resolving international disputes. I believe that other issues however, such as employment law, agriculture and fishing can be dealt with at a national level.

The CFP and CAP should be scrapped, along with large chunks of EU employment legislation. Meanwhile a European Army, Navy and Air force should be established, combining the strengths of the existing armed forces to produce a coherent continental defence force. Europol should be strengthened to fight organised crime which crosses borders, or to arrest criminals who operate or have operated in several jurisdictions. A common environmental policy should be introduced and enforced, backed by the scientific community and support should be given to support the international effort for environmental improvement. The European Space Agency and the EURATOM projects should continue, as projects best run funded internationally.

Most importantly is the regulation of big business. As corporations become international, so to must the bodies that regulate them. The EU must expand in order to keep up with the globalisation of the economy, by globalising politically.

A United Europe can and will work, but there must exist in Europe the desire and the drive to make it so. I believe that this is something worth working for, but want to hear the reasons for opposition. I also want to hear of practical problems that may arise, and emotional issues which must be dealt with.

One thing I am not keen on, are the economic arguments for the EU. Free trade appears to me to favour big faceless corporations. I want the EU to work for people, not for business.

Please post your serious thoughts on the future of the EU here. Flaming is not wanted, go to the other USE thread for that. Ignorance is not wanted either, research before posting (asking questions is fine too of course!)

I agree with you almost entirely, though I think trying to expand the union to non-continental European countries like the Falkland Islands is too far. Doing things like that would create too many possible political tensions for the future. Let those nations remain part of commonwealths and unions of their mother country if they wish, but they have no right to be in the European Union and its laws.

Why not? I can personally not understand why the most often used arguemnt by swedish left before the euro-election: What if it all turns to become the United States of Europe?

I think the problem is politics, look at which EU-members who sent soldiers to Iraq, around 50/50 I'd say. If people are sure of that their vote will mean so much less and that they will not get the government they want if "they are ruled by those french and germans", then forget the union.

But let it rest, ten of our members came in this year, my country 94, those feelings of European affinity will take some time to get, but they will come. By the way I think Europe has to have an official main-language, perhaps EU could set up goals for primary school's english education?

I agree with you almost entirely, though I think trying to expand the union to non-continental European countries like the Falkland Islands is too far. Doing things like that would create too many possible political tensions for the future. Let those nations remain part of commonwealths and unions of their mother country if they wish, but they have no right to be in the European Union and its laws.

Really! With a name like Greater Brittannia I thought you would be a europhobe, opposed to an EU army. Well welcome aboard brother, I don't feel so strongly about allowing the Falklands to join that I'll get into a debat over it, my only concern is what happens to them further down the line, if they aren't admitted to the EU?

I agree with you almost entirely, though I think trying to expand the union to non-continental European countries like the Falkland Islands is too far. Doing things like that would create too many possible political tensions for the future. Let those nations remain part of commonwealths and unions of their mother country if they wish, but they have no right to be in the European Union and its laws.
There is a problem here. For instance France includes Corsica, the reunion, martinique and guyana, as well as Wallis and Futuna.
France can not be split and let some of it's territory outside of the union, can it?.

Why not? I can personally not understand why the most often used arguemnt by swedish left before the euro-election: What if it all turns to become the United States of Europe?

I think the problem is politics, look at which EU-members who sent soldiers to Iraq, around 50/50 I'd say. If people are sure of that their vote will mean so much less and that they will not get the government they want if "they are ruled by those french and germans", then forget the union.

But let it rest, ten of our members came in this year, my country 94, those feelings of European affinity will take some time to get, but they will come. By the way I think Europe has to have an official main-language, perhaps EU could set up goals for primary school's english education?Indeed, but why english? German is the most spoken language in the union, isn't it?
Moreover, the UK is more europhobic than Germany.
I think German would be better accepted in the mainland, because the mainland is usually sceptic about the UK really integrating in the EU.

Although German may be the most spoken first language in the EU, English is far more widely spoken as a second language across the whole continent. Here are some figures which demonstrate this more clearly :

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/index_en.html

I don't believe in a USE. Free trade and all that is fair for me, but we have had too many years of differences -to put it in a smooth way- to make it work.

I can't understand why something that -more or less- worked, and I mean the European Community as a trade organization, should become a political entity. That's quite another thing. I'm for an open market, I'm for free trade, I'm for being able to work in other countries... I can even understand why a common currency. But I don't get why should we need a common government.

IMO, we have enough problems trying to make our respective goverments what we the citizens of our respective countries want them to do. Now add another layer over that, and that will be a mess.

We don't see a common interest, or at least nothing that hasn't be achieved yet. European Army? What for? Do we want to go bullying other countries to do what we want them to do, as those guys over there are doing as a regular basis? Because that would be the only reason for an European Army I can think of.

Official main-language? As far as I remember, the EU has two: English and French. Does that mean all the people living in any of the EU countries must speak one -or both- of them? That's a joke, isn't it?

Look, we come from different countries, we have different background and I don't see no reason to change that. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh but, really, this "let's be all the same" hype scares me.

And I'm not even sure I made a point, after all... :(

Although German may be the most spoken first language in the EU, English is far more widely spoken as a second language across the whole continent. Here are some figures which demonstrate this more clearly :

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/index_en.html
Then english would be easier to spread.
The problem I see is cultural. Will mainland Europe not see this language as cultural imperialism?
Many people link the language with the culture. In some countries, speaking english is not politically correct, not anymore than eating in McDonald's.
I think it is due to 2 main factors :
1/ The percieved american imperialism is seen as a threat to the local cultures.
2/ The lack of involvement of the UK raises suspicions in the mainland. The use of english as an official language may lead to an economic advantage for the native english speacking countries. This is not a problem if the countries are integrated in the EU, as but it may be a problem if those country have a policy of isolation and monopolising of resources.

I think there is a solution here. English could become the official language of the EU, in exchange for a greater integration of the UK : the euro has to become the official currency. Maybe it would have to drive on the right side of the road as well, like they do in Sweden, but I doubt it is possible.

I think it would be win/win.

Although German may be the most spoken first language in the EU, English is far more widely spoken as a second language across the whole continent. Here are some figures which demonstrate this more clearly:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/index_en.html

Thanks, that is a useful link. It really only deals however with the EU 15, not the now EU25 or any potential expansion of the Union. Many of the most recent joinees speak German primarily as their second language, though English is on the rise here also.

Further problems arise as the laws are written in French, and the new constitution is also written in French. If there is ever a discrepancy in the interpretation of EU law, it is the French law which is considered authoritative. Much of this is a hangover from the foundations of the EU, with its original 6 members, when French was more prominent. None-the-less it is still a consideration and it is unlikely that French can ever be removed as a core European language.

It may be possible to reduce the languages to English, French and German. Whither this is desirable or not is a different matter.

We don't see a common interest, or at least nothing that hasn't be achieved yet. European Army? What for? Do we want to go bullying other countries to do what we want them to do, as those guys over there are doing as a regular basis? Because that would be the only reason for an European Army I can think of.
Economy of scale.
I think that there are matters that can't be resolved at the national level.
For instance, if Spain does fish all the migrating cods, there is none left for the UK and it is an ecologic disaster on top of the economic one.
There are many other problems like that which can not be resolved at the national level.

Although German may be the most spoken first language in the EU, English is far more widely spoken as a second language across the whole continent. Here are some figures which demonstrate this more clearly :

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/index_en.html
well technically that makes german the most widespread because english is germanic as is dutch and some others, but lets not go into linguistics with the english language..

Economy of scale.
I think that there are matters that can't be resolved at the national level.
For instance, if Spain does fish all the migrating cods, there is none left for the UK and it is an ecologic disaster on top of the economic one.
There are many other problems like that which can not be resolved at the national level.
iceland has right to the cod

iceland has right to the cod
This was a dumb example. I didn't know sorry.
Let's take Sangatte instead.

Many of the most recent joinees speak German primarily as their second language, though English is on the rise here also.

Actually as a whole most of the new entrants speak English as their secondary language, with German competing with Russian for second place and French lagging at the rear [only if/when Romania joins will it have any real presence].

The only international language spoken widely across the EU25 is English, and considering the international insignificance of German [barely anyone speaks it beyond central europe] and the dwindling importance of French, we should make it the sole lingua franca - compulsorary learning in addition to one's own national language.

Look I am an american but I can see what you want to do unite the world eventually that maybe possible but not now and not anytime soon, When man kind is face by some non human race then we Unite. The EU will at best go on to be a condfedracy which as we americans demonstrated under the articals of confederation doesn't work too well.

Look I am an american but I can see what you want to do unite the world eventually that maybe possible but not now and not anytime soon, When man kind is face by some non human race then we Unite. The EU will at best go on to be a condfedracy which as we americans demonstrated under the articals of confederation doesn't work too well.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357888

Actually as a whole most of the new entrants speak English as their secondary language, with German competing with Russian for second place and French lagging at the rear [only if/when Romania joins will it have any real presence].

The only international language spoken widely across the EU25 is English, and considering the international insignificance of German [barely anyone speaks it beyond central europe] and the dwindling importance of French, we should make it the sole lingua franca - compulsorary learning in addition to one's own national language.
I think you have to consider the level of integration of the members. In Euroland for instance I think it is not true.

I don't believe in a USE. Free trade and all that is fair for me, but we have had too many years of differences -to put it in a smooth way- to make it work.
I believe this only demonstrates how important it is that we make this work.

I can't understand why something that -more or less- worked, and I mean the European Community as a trade organization, should become a political entity. That's quite another thing. I'm for an open market, I'm for free trade, I'm for being able to work in other countries... I can even understand why a common currency. But I don't get why should we need a common government.
I approach this from the opposite end of the issue. As companies are able to move freely between nations, the governments have less control over them. It is necessary to have a regulating body to oversee such corporations.

If a company in Spain is producing large quantities of sulphur dioxide, it causes acid rain, not in Spain but in the UK. International cooperation is required to combat pollution.

IMO, we have enough problems trying to make our respective goverments what we the citizens of our respective countries want them to do. Now add another layer over that, and that will be a mess.
Yes, this is a legitimate complaint. I agree that more must be done to make the EU more democratic. I don't think that the EU should be disposed of entirely though.

We don't see a common interest, or at least nothing that hasn't be achieved yet. European Army? What for? Do we want to go bullying other countries to do what we want them to do, as those guys over there are doing as a regular basis? Because that would be the only reason for an European Army I can think of.
I disagree; I believe all Europeans have broadly similar hopes and aspirations for themselves, their countries and for the wider world. We disagree on how to achieve these aims, but a common goal unites us more than different methods divide.

Official main-language? As far as I remember, the EU has two: English and French. Does that mean all the people living in any of the EU countries must speak one -or both- of them? That's a joke, isn't it?
The EU has 20 official languages, but French is the principle language and that used for the constitution. I agree that no one should be forced to learn the EU language, and that the EU should maintain a diversity of languages and hence diversity in culture.

Look, we come from different countries, we have different background and I don't see no reason to change that. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh but, really, this "let's be all the same" hype scares me.
I hope we never become the same. I don't know what country you come from, but here in Scotland, I'd hate to be mistaken for a Dundonian, or an Aberdonian, or an Edinbugger; I'm from Glasgow. But even there, I'm from the south side, I wouldn't like to be thought a snob from Bearsden or a bam from Easterhouse. It comes down to the simple fact we are all different, and a nation-state is an arbitrary method of dividing up a population. The culture in Glasgow is separate from that in Liverpool, should Scotland be independent then? The culture of Edinburgh is even more different from that of Glasgow, so should Glasgow just establish itself as a city-state? Where does it stop?

And I'm not even sure I made a point, after all... :(
You made two or three good points. I agree with you in some parts, but not in others; it is always worth raising these points so that they can be discussed. That way we can find common ground and hopefully at some point the differences can be resolved; that is what the European vision is all about!

I think you have to consider the level of integration of the members. In Euroland for instance I think it is not true.

Even in euroland the case is true - more Germans, Scandinavians, Greeks and Dutch speak English than French; and few bother with German at all. At the political level it is the same - many smaller meetings are now conducted entirely in English and the influene of french over the bureucracy is waning sharply. Ironically the main operational language of the European Central Bank is English [when only tiny Ireland speaks the tongue]

Even in euroland the case is true - more Germans, Scandinavians, Greeks and Dutch speak English than French; and few bother with German at all. At the political level it is the same - many smaller meetings are now conducted entirely in English and the influene of french over the bureucracy is waning sharply. Ironically the main operational language of the European Central Bank is English [when only tiny Ireland speaks the tongue]
OK then english is the easier official language.

Economy of scale.
I think that there are matters that can't be resolved at the national level.
For instance, if Spain does fish all the migrating cods, there is none left for the UK and it is an ecologic disaster on top of the economic one.
There are many other problems like that which can not be resolved at the national level.
I'm sure of it. But that solutions can be achieved as they are today: agreements between members of an economical -not political- organization. I still don't see the need to create a new über-country out of the blue.

BTW, hello again, Psylos ;)

I don't believe in a USE. Free trade and all that is fair for me, but we have had too many years of differences -to put it in a smooth way- to make it work.

I believe this only demonstrates how important it is that we make this work.

But what for? I mean, do you think just because suddenly -ok, not so suddenly- we all say 'hey, we are a brand new country!' all those different interests will dissapear? 'Cause I don't see how.

I approach this from the opposite end of the issue. As companies are able to move freely between nations, the governments have less control over them. It is necessary to have a regulating body to oversee such corporations.

Euhm... no? I mean, I don't care what So-And-So Ltd. is doing in other countries, as long as they 'behave' over here.

If a company in Spain is producing large quantities of sulphur dioxide, it causes acid rain, not in Spain but in the UK. International cooperation is required to combat pollution.

if a company in Spain does that, the Spanish government will deal with it. There are laws over here to regulate that kind of things, you know.

Yes, this is a legitimate complaint. I agree that more must be done to make the EU more democratic. I don't think that the EU should be disposed of entirely though.

Ahem... where did I say something how democratic is or should be the EU? ;) I just didn't. Look, over here -Spain- we have 19 'Autonomic Governments', in a loose way similar to what happens in the US but much more centralized. Most of the time, every 'Autonomic Goverment' looks for itself and to hell with the rest of the country. And any time the Spanish Government says "ok, that's it, you are all going to do this and this 'cause we rule here" all I hear is complaints from every corner of Spain... "Oh, that's unfair because that law works fine for <insert autonomy here> but not for us"

See my point? This is going to be just the same on a greater level! As it is now, British said no to Euro because that wouldn't do any good to their economy. As far as I know -I'm no expert- a couple more of countries said no to Maastritch because they didn't like what that implied... and that's even before we have an European Government!


We don't see a common interest, or at least nothing that hasn't be achieved yet. European Army? What for? Do we want to go bullying other countries to do what we want them to do, as those guys over there are doing as a regular basis? Because that would be the only reason for an European Army I can think of.

I disagree; I believe all Europeans have broadly similar hopes and aspirations for themselves, their countries and for the wider world. We disagree on how to achieve these aims, but a common goal unites us more than different methods divide.

The key word is themselves. They countries, maybe. The wider world is some place far away from here, so...

I hope we never become the same. I don't know what country you come from, but here in Scotland, I'd hate to be mistaken for a Dundonian, or an Aberdonian, or an Edinbugger; I'm from Glasgow. But even there, I'm from the south side, I wouldn't like to be thought a snob from Bearsden or a bam from Easterhouse. It comes down to the simple fact we are all different, and a nation-state is an arbitrary method of dividing up a population. The culture in Glasgow is separate from that in Liverpool, should Scotland be independent then? The culture of Edinburgh is even more different from that of Glasgow, so should Glasgow just establish itself as a city-state? Where does it stop?

Look, it's not that I'd hate to be mistaken for anything else. I don't care about that, I'm not an isolationist or something. And I'm not going to fall on your slippery slope ;), mainly because I didn't suggest any existing country should split. I was just pointing that locking cats and dogs in the same room doesn't mean they will be friends... if you take my meaning.

Slightly off topic...
The way I see it, is that the we (the UK) can either join the Union (and god bless all how sail in here etc) or we can sit here and stagnate. Europe used to be about traveling and embracing other cultures, not trying to shut them out and moaning about then being 'forgien'. Personally, I can't wait untill we do, we allready have free travel and freedom of movement between countries, visa free, and passport free. - all you need a a Driving licence, don't let the bastards tell you otherwise.

I, for one am proud to be British, I'm actually from Northern Ireland, and am equally as proud to call myself an European

My thread on the abandonded forum; http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7038779&posted=1#post7038779

in terms of language.
Why not use something like...esperanto. Anyone know more about it?

in terms of language.
Why not use something like...esperanto. Anyone know more about it?
Now that is a joke!...
...
...
...
wasn't it? :confused:

I agree actually. Esperanto is the most neutral language.

Now that is a joke!...
...
...
...
wasn't it? :confused:

why so?
everyone within the union would have a problem using english or german or any other language for that matter. so why not go for an artificial language.

why so?
everyone within the union would have a problem using english or german or any other language for that matter. so why not go for an artificial language.
Well, not everyone would have a problem using English. It's more or less stablished as second language practically everywhere, although I don't know about the 10 newcomers. German I think it's not so extended, but then again I'm not an expert.

But everyone would have a problem with Esperanto, because nobody uses it at all. Artificial languages were a nice utopia, and people forgot about them because they were, well, utopic.

[edit]And, anyway, I still don't see why should every single person living in the EU forget about their proper languages and start using another, just because their political leaders want to join a club... :rolleyes:

why learn people a new language?
it ahs no use
everything is going all right at this moment and almost every single nation within the EU has another language

why learn people a new language?
it ahs no use
everything is going all right at this moment and almost every single nation within the EU has another language
Exactly my point... well, not exactly. I don't think everything is going all right at the moment. But focusing on the language issue, yep I agree.

Exactly my point... well, not exactly. I don't think everything is going all right at the moment. But focusing on the language issue, yep I agree.
i meant it was going all right with the languages

Well, not everyone would have a problem using English. It's more or less stablished as second language practically everywhere, although I don't know about the 10 newcomers. German I think it's not so extended, but then again I'm not an expert.

But everyone would have a problem with Esperanto, because nobody uses it at all. Artificial languages were a nice utopia, and people forgot about them because they were, well, utopic.

[edit]And, anyway, I still don't see why should every single person living in the EU forget about their proper languages and start using another, just because their political leaders want to join a club... :rolleyes:

true enough.
just will english i can see people screaming AMERICAN IMPERIALISM!!!! or with german THEY TRYING TO DO WHAT 2 WARS COULD NOT!!!!
or some crap like that.

true enough.
just will english i can see people screaming AMERICAN IMPERIALISM!!!! or with german THEY TRYING TO DO WHAT 2 WARS COULD NOT!!!!
or some crap like that.
Sure thing. But, as I already said, I still don't see the need for a single language. Like Bramia, I think everything is OK on language terms. Whenever governments or companies or whatever from different countries need to understand each other, they already do, mostly in English. But for our daily life, slang works fine ;)

if a company in Spain does that, the Spanish government will deal with it. There are laws over here to regulate that kind of things, you know.


just a minor point. its EU law that stopped this. at a national level they just kept bickering about it

Sure thing. But, as I already said, I still don't see the need for a single language. Like Bramia, I think everything is OK on language terms. Whenever governments or companies or whatever from different countries need to understand each other, they already do, mostly in English. But for our daily life, slang works fine ;)

Actually during most workshops or EU gatherings from the few i've managed to get info about, each use their own language, translators then translate.
even if everyone keeps their own language, there should be a secondary common language.
If the EU was ever to become an actual full fledged nation, it would be a necesity.

Actually during most workshops or EU gatherings from the few i've managed to get info about, each use their own language, translators then translate.
That means jobs as translators, yay! :D

even if everyone keeps their own language, there should be a secondary common language.
Again, I agree it's useful, but anyway most of us have a second language already: English. Business lingo, whenever you go abroad.

If the EU was ever to become an actual full fledged nation, it would be a necesity.
But again, why should the EU become a nation? I still don't see the reason... And I don't see it working fine, either.

That means jobs as translators, yay! :D


Again, I agree it's useful, but anyway most of us have a second language already: English. Business lingo, whenever you go abroad.


But again, why should the EU become a nation? I still don't see the reason... And I don't see it working fine, either.


ahhhh. thats the confusion. I was discusing on the basis of a united european state, in which case it would be a necesity
but you agree that a common language to be available. Preferably I would like it to be english (from the UK), but would not be nesecary...

Today, there isn't a very compelling reason for the EU to become a single nation. At least not an economic one. There are political reasons aplenty, and not a few moral ones, but politics is all opinion anyway, and mixing morals with economics on matters like these makes the world go banana-shaped.

I am all for a stronger, more unified EU. Abolish the CAP and the CFP, bring the Euro to all EU member nations and stop the idiotic IP and patent laws which are on their way, and create a European Rapid Reaction Force or whatever they are going to call it. If the politicians get their thumbs out of their backsides and do the right things, the EU will become an economic powerhouse. Simply abolishing the CAP will probably increase the GDP growth rate by a whole percentage point. Once the ten new members become properly integrated, they will see a marked economic increase, too.

I certainly agree with the original poster about abolishing the CAP and the CFP. Especially the CFP. They're our fish, so why should we be under any legal obligation to let other countries fish here? I also don't mind the idea of greater environmental cooperation as it's something that all of Europe are linked together with and something we could all benefit from. Though I certainly don't want any moves towards a single European state. It will just mean more decisions will be taken by politicians even further removed from the needs of this country than the current lot. I don't see any point in having a full EU armed forces as it will means that British troops could be sent into wars that aren't in our interests. I'm also against the Euro because our interest rates could easily be fixed contrary to our economic needs.

I don't mind closer integration in some spheres but a federal state is just wishful thinking and would only serve to add another unnecessary layer of government.

Look I am an american but I can see what you want to do unite the world eventually that maybe possible but not now and not anytime soon, When man kind is face by some non human race then we Unite. The EU will at best go on to be a condfedracy which as we americans demonstrated under the articals of confederation doesn't work too well.
And what is bad about that? The EU does work in those areas it has majority decisions - like the economic integration. The Euro is a very stable currency - and it has made trade easier between the countries, reducing the exchange rate risk to zero. Really a necessity for a common market.
I don´t see it as uniting the world. It is about uniting the continent and to bind the countries together. In order to prevent the old system of rivaling powers which had led to a history of wars - not just in the first half of the 20 th century but also the centuries before.
European integration and the EU as an arrea of democracy and stability in Europe is open for all european democracies. Not for all countries of the world. There are limits for it. I doubt that Turkey would fit into it. Russia never will. And Israel and the United States are democracies but they are not part of Europe - so they can´t join it as well. But there are forms for a transatlantic cooperation. But that is NATO.

They're our fish, so why should we be under any legal obligation to let other countries fish here?
Because you have also the right to fish in other countries as well.
And you have the right to life in other countries - if you have a job there - and EU citizens have the right to settle in the UK as well if they have a job there.
That the rule - everybody has to comply.
If you don´t like the EU - fine. Every country has the right to leave it - that is now even written down within the draft constituition of the EU.

But let it rest, ten of our members came in this year, my country 94, those feelings of European affinity will take some time to get, but they will come. By the way I think Europe has to have an official main-language, perhaps EU could set up goals for primary school's english education?
Nah. We don't need an official main language. It's sufficient if English is tought as a second language in all countries. Plus one additional foreign language. Those should required.