NationStates Jolt Archive

This one is for our European friends: My GeoPol classs was discussing this earlier, with the EU conceivably on the way toward a constitution, collective defense, and rumors of a combined foreign ministry... how do you see Europe in 50 years? Will NATO still be around? And if the member nations ratify a constitution and defense force, and speak with 'one voice' in international affairs should the UK and France combine their seats on the Security Council? I guess this is the real question: How does a sovereign nation, say the UK, deferentiate between being a member of the EU, UN, NATO, and a sovereign nation?

it stands to be around longer than the US the way its going, that is unless the US starts a nuclear war

NATO is useless.
The EU and the UN are completely separate entities.
The UN need reforms but this has nothing to do with the EU.

in 1 of may we (some students from faculty of History and philosophy of University of Latvia) came to conclusion that EU will exist till 2081, because we joined in .

it stands to be around longer than the US the way its going, that is unless the US starts a nuclear war

/sarcasm on
Yea the peaceful European nations never start wars amongst each other.
/sarcasm off

The EU will be around for a while, but inevitably will crumble under some future European war.

Nato has lost it's direction. With the Warsaw Pact effectively gone, who do they stand against.

In my dreams?
Knocked right back down, less powerful politically and economically than 'we' are right now and divided in strife.
In reality?
Most likely the EU will come close to being a direct competitor of the US. It'll be a bit Orwellian with three superpowers (US of A, EU, Red China) located in the three regions of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. But that's only a shallow irony.
Currently the EU is breaking away from the US regarding foreign policy, moreso than ever. And finally the objectives are becoming obvious: Power, economic relations, geo-political movements of the greatest subtelty.
Iraq was a great example of this development. France and Germany are hardly known (historically and recent) for giving much thought to respect, multilateral relationships and international law when it comes to filthy lucre or other forms of power. It's the same with the US but less people say/know it about Europe.
In the pre-9/11 Iraq the sanctions were failing. Businessmen were meeting in the countries capitol, discussing how they'd like to conduct business there as soon as these pesky sanctions are gone.
The Kurds (in exchange for relative autonomy and 'not that much violence, please') supplied Saddam with goods smuggled through South-Eastern Turkey after they became disillusioned with the US. (As the Clinton administration kind of dropped them like a hot iron a year before they wanted to rebel.)
And let's not even talk about the corrupt Food for Oil program, okay?

Given this situation, without 9-11 it would have been a question of a few years (which Saddam would have easily survived,) the sanctions would have ended and Iraq would have suddenly found itself the friend of many industrialized nations who're trying to make a good buck off of the oil, the knowledge still existant there and the creation of a new infra-structure for all the suddenly-more-wealthy people there.

Just without the US. Neither sides could have afforded the whole thing politically.
The machines that you will currently find in Iraq are almost all from German or French (sometimes even Dutch, I believe) companies.

So, in the end this war was more about pre-empting Europe from getting a strong ally/dependant country full of oil and useful skills.


The reason I drifted off just now was to show how these two powers, the in-charge US and Europe the up-start, are competing to improve their positions.
I don't believe there will be an actual war between these two within the next fifty years but both will turn their backs at each other (with maybe the exclusion of Great Britain, which may stay pro-US) and start flirting with Red China.

Again: In fifty years I see Europe competing over China and resources with the US unless the coming presidents of the US are smart enough to divide and conquer the still fragile European alliance by handpicking a few loyal countries and making them thorns in the flesh of the new government body.

So that's why I'm becoming a premanent resident legal alien within the US pretty damned soon.

/sarcasm on
Yea the peaceful European nations never start wars amongst each other.
/sarcasm off
The EU will be around for a while, but inevitably will crumble under some future European war.
Nato has lost it's direction. With the Warsaw Pact effectively gone, who do they stand against.Exactly. No member of the EU has engaged in any war against another EU member. And it will remain thus because of economic interests and the process of learning within the populations of the member countries that Europeans are better off together.
And as soon as the Europeans have sorted out their difficulties to act as a single entity and they also start with pre-emptive strikes against such countries they have no respect for, the US better watch out.
They will make no distinction between the governmental buffoons who commit acts of stupidity and those who harbor them.

Exactly. No member of the EU has engaged in any war against another EU member.

In the past there have been many wars between the various EU nations.
WWI
WWII
The Thirty Years' War
Franco-Austrian War
Austro-Prussian War
Napoleonic Wars

I'm sure I'm leaving out large gaps. My point was that Europe has a lot of history with some of it being bloody. Eventually it will happen again. I'm a big believer in history repeating itself.

[edit] Meant to post under Jabbaness. Sorry.

I hope that it can become strong enough to be a formidable superpower, so that the US can't be the sole superpower.

The sooner NATO is dead and buried, the better.

This one is for our European friends: My GeoPol classs was discussing this earlier, with the EU conceivably on the way toward a constitution,

AAAAAGH please kill me first.

Geopol ? You are American? Yes?

collective defense, and rumors of a combined foreign ministry... how do you see Europe in 50 years?

Well.... I see it as it was 50 years ago. We like to kill each other. Reasons don't matter.

Will NATO still be around?

Depends if the US still gives discounts on Hi Tech military stuff.

And if the member nations ratify a constitution and defense force, and speak with 'one voice' in international affairs should the UK and France combine their seats on the Security Council?

UK ad France combine on ANYTHING??? Are you on drugs? Read history not politics.


I guess this is the real question: How does a sovereign nation, say the UK, deferentiate between being a member of the EU, UN, NATO, and a sovereign nation?

It puts being a sovereign nation first and looks to see if anyone is working towards the same things. Otherwise it becomes a "state" like Hawaii.

I think the EU will obviously drift towards cooperation, because effeciency, economics teaches us, is better for everyone. It will always be a battle between the rights of the countries involved and the federal government. I believe the country's rights will remain country's hands, the biggest threat is some event, like 9/11 or a major middle eastern war, causing the union to nationalize for the sake of security.

Here's the good news: I believe this will be a very good thing for the U.S.

Seeing how countries in the EU will not give up thier rights and how that works out in 30-40 years will force the U.S. to give more rights back to states, making them carry their own load a little more. In the end, 50 states independently working towards independent goals as a group is much better for competition and effeciency, the economy grows as does our technology. Either that, or the U.S. ignores the good things this does for the EU and continues to fall and possibly collapse at some point in the future.

In the past there have been many wars between the various EU nations.
WWI
WWII
The Thirty Years' War
Franco-Austrian War
Austro-Prussian War
Napoleonic Wars

I'm sure I'm leaving out large gaps. My point was that Europe has a lot of history with some of it being bloody. Eventually it will happen again. I'm a big believer in history repeating itself.

[edit] Meant to post under Jabbaness. Sorry.

Unlucky. There was no such thing as the "European Union" back then.

I don't know what the future holds for the EU, but one thing's for sure - if it's ever a superstate I want the UK to have no part of it. It's not in our interests to be ruled by foreign countries. I can tell that the way the EU is going, they want to remove our vetos so they can overrule us on whatever they like. Ideally I would like the EU to be no more than a trading block, with no political influence in world affairs. But unfortunately I can't see that happening any time soon so we should focus on holding onto as much as our sovereignty as possible, while we still hold our vetos.

I hope that it can become strong enough to be a formidable superpower, so that the US can't be the sole superpower.

HOw closely tied is each European nation to each other? That they're willing to gather their resources for a greater good?

Unlucky. There was no such thing as the "European Union" back then.

So what you are say is that the EU will squash any feelings of nationalism within the European community?

Needless to say not all EU members are equal. This inequality will eventually lead to some hard feelings. And well you know, things tend to blow up from there.

Don't get me wrong. The EU will be sucessful for a little while, then human nature will kick in..

So what you are say is that the EU will squash any feelings of nationalism within the European community?

Needless to say not all EU members are equal. This inequality will eventually lead to some hard feelings. And well you know, things tend to blow up from there.

Don't get me wrong. The EU will be sucessful for a little while, then human nature will kick in..
I dont think theres even been a case of two democratic nations going to war with each other. But I sort of agree thats why the EU wont become a superstate, I'd like for if the Member nations arent forced to do anything they dont want to but if they all agree on something they are stronger then any other super power, so big power but us smaller nations arent forced to tag along just because of our low population.

It funny, because all of the problems that have been addressed were the same problem the states had in regard to the US federal government in the late 1700's/early 1800's. They are all fixable within the EU, it's just a matter of how much the people/leaders want it in the next 15 years or so.

So what you are say is that the EU will squash any feelings of nationalism within the European community?

Needless to say not all EU members are equal. This inequality will eventually lead to some hard feelings. And well you know, things tend to blow up from there.

Don't get me wrong. The EU will be sucessful for a little while, then human nature will kick in..
Sure and US will legalise slavery again, I think it is really sad that you belive that democratic nations will go to war because of what their dictators did hundreds (or decades) of years ago. War isn't something that you normally vote for, and why should this phenomena only exist in Europe? Europe has no third world countries, US-Mexico and in a few years Banghladesh-India should by these logics become enemies as well (and now we aren't talking about Australia and New Zealand). Although, you have a point, there is nationalism in Europe despit our will to deny it. And that nationalism and unwill to give in for higher, intercontinental authourity will be the most slowing factor for "the United States of Europe".

Don't worry. The UK is going to exist for a little while yet. No government would ever get away with signing away Britain's sovereignty. Power will always reside, even if we do join some sort of Federal System, within Britain. That's a fact. You can quote me on that.

Don't worry. The UK is going to exist for a little while yet. No government would ever get away with signing away Britain's sovereignty. Power will always reside, even if we do join some sort of Federal System, within Britain. That's a fact. You can quote me on that.
done!

I prefer smaller countries. The democracy works better (theoretically).

it stands to be around longer than the US the way its going, that is unless the US starts a nuclear war

Or unless the entire population get abducted by aliens.

I'd say they're both about as likely as each other to happen.

Greedy Pig:
HOw closely tied is each European nation to each other? That they're willing to gather their resources for a greater good?

Interesting question. I think we've allready proven we are willing to do that. When Ireland joined the EU it was a poor country. With some EU support and (of course a lot of domestic effort) the country now has one of the strongest economies of the EU. Same with Spain and Portugal. Those countries were quite poor when they joined! At the moment Eastern Europe is the place where a lot of work is being done. I say this while my country, The Netherlands, is the biggest net payer to the EU. I dont mind, i'm willing to give up some money to help Europe develop.

In 50 years I'm telling my grandson stories about that time when we all lived in distinct countries, all with their own currency, a time when borders still had a real function. He'll look at me in amazement.

50 years is a lot of time. You only have to look back fifty years to understand how much can be accomplished in such a period. My grandfather has only once traveled to another European country. He has probably never spoken with a foreigner. 50 years later i go to other European countries twice a year, I know people in almost all countries of the EU.

In a geopolitical sense I guess we'll have to speak with one voice, otherwise noone will listen. The opinion of The Netherlands has no international importance, but that of the opinion of the EU means something. You can see this in other parts of the world as well. Countries of the Arab League seem to show themselves more as one party, countries in Southeast-Asia are forming a political alliance, even in Africa there's a kind of African Union developing. In 50 years all mayor regions in the world have united in these kind of supernational organisations. Otherwise they have no economical and political power.

This one is for our European friends: My GeoPol classs was discussing this earlier, with the EU conceivably on the way toward a constitution, collective defense, and rumors of a combined foreign ministry... how do you see Europe in 50 years? Will NATO still be around? And if the member nations ratify a constitution and defense force, and speak with 'one voice' in international affairs should the UK and France combine their seats on the Security Council? I guess this is the real question: How does a sovereign nation, say the UK, deferentiate between being a member of the EU, UN, NATO, and a sovereign nation?

A few things are a wee bit odd....who stated the questions because whoever they are ...are not well informed!

The EU is not 'conceivably' on the way to a constitution. The EU is going to have a constitution. Negotiations are at such a stage that to turn back would cause far too much damage to the credibility of the EU.

As for colelctive defence...well that already exists under the remit of NATO.

There are no rumours about a EU foreign minister. This too will come to pass. It will be a by product of the constitution.

Now this is interesting but unanswerable....50 years is too far in the future.

Now this is the part I like and it does raise an interesting question. Given that the UN and EU are seperate enitities....can or should one influence the other?

Should france and the UK give up their seats on the Security Council....or should the Council be expanded?

In the past there have been many wars between the various EU nations.
WWI
WWII
The Thirty Years' War
Franco-Austrian War
Austro-Prussian War
Napoleonic Wars

I'm sure I'm leaving out large gaps. My point was that Europe has a lot of history with some of it being bloody. Eventually it will happen again. I'm a big believer in history repeating itself.

[edit] Meant to post under Jabbaness. Sorry.So you cannot distinguish between the terms "Europe" and "European Union" ? So I suppose you also cannot distinguish between "America" and "United States of America" ? Well, get a brain...

I'm swedish and I think more power to the EU. IF
The EU found a more democratic way to running things like a parlaiment with real powers and a european population think it worth while go vote in the parlaiment vote.
That national or local sovereigity still exist for local things so people have a better chance to effect their lives.
That the EU will not become to imperalistic and thinking only of their own needs then dealing with the rest of the world. Because it is alot of poverty and dispair in the world. So if the EU will work for a positive change in the world it will in the end also benefit them for example with new friendly markets instead of international terrorism atacks and criminal acts.

I don't know what the future holds for the EU, but one thing's for sure - if it's ever a superstate I want the UK to have no part of it. It's not in our interests to be ruled by foreign countries. I can tell that the way the EU is going, they want to remove our vetos so they can overrule us on whatever they like. Ideally I would like the EU to be no more than a trading block, with no political influence in world affairs. But unfortunately I can't see that happening any time soon so we should focus on holding onto as much as our sovereignty as possible, while we still hold our vetos.

Yes, because we're a completely different species.

Would you be able to travel freely in Europe without the EU? No.
Would you be able to work almost anywhere in Europe? No.

Generally I think integration is a great idea, and promotes more understanding. However, at the moment the EU is a big sprawling bureaucratic mess and needs sorting out. I also think that we need to give much more control to local authorities (and I'm not talking national governments, I mean actual local authorities) over issues that affect them. To be perfectly honest, I have little faith in UK national government these days, and would be quite happy to see it replaced - the voting system's bollocks and when they get in they do what the hell they want anyway, safe in the knowledge that no one likes the opposition either.

So you cannot distinguish between the terms "Europe" and "European Union" ? So I suppose you also cannot distinguish between "America" and "United States of America" ? Well, get a brain...

Oh my mistake.. I thought the EU was comprised of mostly European countries. My bad.. So what is the EU in SE Asia? /sarcasm off.

Oh and America (I assume you mean N. America) is a continent and The United States of America is a Country on that continent.

So your not disputing what I'm saying? You chose to make personal attacks instead of proving my points wrong?

Oh my mistake.. I thought the EU was comprised of mostly European countries. My bad.. So what is the EU in SE Asia? /sarcasm off.

Oh and America (I assume you mean N. America) is a continent and The United States of America is a Country on that continent.

So your not disputing what I'm saying? You chose to make personal attacks instead of proving my points wrong?

Ankher, you were obviously right: he can't distinguish between the two.

Europe is a continent (that's a very large physical land mass).

The European Union is a (predominantly economic) arrangement between some of the countries in Europe. It has existed (correct me if I'm wrong) since the 1950s (I think), craeted by a handful of countries, the largest of which were France and Germany. The UK didn't join until the 70s (was it 74?) when Ted Heath was Prime Minister. At that time it was called the European Economic Community (EEC) which still exists as part of the much larger EU.

I strongly support the idea of the EU as an economic body, but I'm against efforts to turn it into a federal superstate.

if it becomes a Federal Superstate.


What will be its predominate language, Everytime a Multi-Ethnic group Society has come together they end having a Predominate language. Take the UK for Example, how many languages were spoken within the UK and the Commenwealth but English still came out as the top language. In the EU will everyone have to know German, or French or Dutch, or Italian, or English. Or will everyone be forced to know fluently 3-4 different languages. Shit I have a hard enough time knowing English well, and its my spoken language(observe my post, my grammar is horrible and I'm a college student to boot) I attempted to learn german, a couple of times. Didn't work out to well. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is capable of being truly fluent in multiple Languages.

Europe in 50 years?

Hmm, the larger European countries (France Germany and Britain) want to dominate, and Europe doesn't have the setup that the US has (states represented equally in the senate, proportionally in the congress) which could prevent that. I think it will become more and more of a problem. The last few treaties were barely passed, I do not think that the constitution will pass, most people seem susicious of it. A good parallel would be the pre-constitution federal states, I think that is where Europe is now, the constitution they offer is nowhere near as good as the US constitution. The question of where European sovereignty starts and ends is a tricky one. Right now, the individual countries have more independance than the pre-constitution federal states. However, it must be remarked that any pan-European union (grouping/club/institution) is better than none as a quick review of European history will swiftly show. The question of a new 'super power' vying with the US for economic/industrial supremacy is moot, it has been going on for quite some time.
Nato and the UN have large question marks over their future. They can really only survive as long as they can demonstrate their usefullness, even if it is only 'potential' usefullness. Consider the US, the attacks on NY and the Pentagon, should they have triggered a Nato response? Shouldn't Nato now stand shoulder to shoulder with the US? It's fairly clear that foreign interests wish to destroy her people and institutions, and if that does not constitute war, then what does? The biggest failure I think is from the UN. When you have Castro on the Human Rights commision, it undermines confidence in the UN. It seems clear that the UN will never sanction US military actions regardless of the level of threat that they are in reaction to. However, the UN has been very useful in the past, and has helped prevent wars and has helped to feed the hungry, and it's peacekeeping missions have (mostly) been successful. I cannot see how a replacement for the UN could be created, it would require a measure of goodwill and confidence in the procedure which is totally lacking at the moment. So it seems that we must revive the UN, but again, the same problem applies, the required goodwill and confidence are missing. Short of shackling the Security council permanent members, I think the UN will limp along broadcasting proclamations that no one listens to and making declarations that are increasingly bizarre.

In short: the EU will stick together because the alternative is an unstable Europe which has always been quick to war. The UN and NATO are in trouble, because their usefullness to their most powerful member is in doubt.