NationStates Jolt Archive

This month is one of the great hurdles to overcome. That will be when France votes on the new European constitution. Currently, the polls show that France will vote no. I hope that doesn't happen, as it may trigger counterproductive changes in the EU.Next year, of course, the UK will vote. A no there is more likely, though we need to get them to say yes.
Why do I want this new Europe? I won't tell. But here's what I want from Europe. I want a strong, united, and federated Europe. Specifically, I want it to be a federation the way Canada or Russia are ones. I want each state to answer to a common federal government. I want the executive branch to be simplified to a president, a PM, and a cabinet. I want a common foreign policy for the EU, and a common military. Present military forces in Europe should either intergrate into a new EU defence force, or become a form of provincial guard. They are great for non-combat roles, such as disaster relief.
I also want more European nations to drop their protectionist attitudes. I want them to establish a franca lingua that will eventually be one common language. I want a common currency to all of Europe, as well as common economic regulations. And most importantly, I want the EU to be more inclusive. Norway and Switzerland should join, but Croatia, the lower Balkan states, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia should be allowed in, under certain conditions, of course.
This is not just a dream. The EU constitution is a start. Under further documents, the EU can build the sinews that can truely make it one.

The lingua franca might be difficult to implement, since the English won't give up english, and the french won't give up french.

Also, I think the likes of Belarus and Moldova will do the EU more harm than good.

The lingua franca might be difficult to implement, since the English won't give up english, and the french won't give up french.
Why not Esperanto?

The lingua franca might be difficult to implement, since the English won't give up english, and the french won't give up french.

Also, I think the likes of Belarus and Moldova will do the EU more harm than good.
Well, they said any union was difficult at first. Now look at how far they have come. And change only accelarates there.

Why not Esperanto?

Because the English won't give up english, and the French won't give up french.

Because the English won't give up english, and the French won't give up french.
The two societies are probably the most protectionist in Europe. England wasn't always like that, however.

A lingua franca is less necessary as education gets better. A lot of Europeans I know speak 3+ languages. If every European knows multiple European langauges, it's easy to find a common tongue. For instance, if a French person also spoke German and Italian, and an English person spoke German and Spanish, they could communicate in German even though neither spoke the other's native language. Although with EU enlargement, this gets trickier...

This month is one of the great hurdles to overcome. That will be when France votes on the new European constitution. Currently, the polls show that France will vote no. I hope that doesn't happen, as it may trigger counterproductive changes in the EU.Next year, of course, the UK will vote. A no there is more likely, though we need to get them to say yes.
Why do I want this new Europe? I won't tell. But here's what I want from Europe. I want a strong, united, and federated Europe. Specifically, I want it to be a federation the way Canada or Russia are ones. I want each state to answer to a common federal government. I want the executive branch to be simplified to a president, a PM, and a cabinet. I want a common foreign policy for the EU, and a common military. Present military forces in Europe should either intergrate into a new EU defence force, or become a form of provincial guard. They are great for non-combat roles, such as disaster relief.
I also want more European nations to drop their protectionist attitudes. I want them to establish a franca lingua that will eventually be one common language. I want a common currency to all of Europe, as well as common economic regulations. And most importantly, I want the EU to be more inclusive. Norway and Switzerland should join, but Croatia, the lower Balkan states, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia should be allowed in, under certain conditions, of course.
This is not just a dream. The EU constitution is a start. Under further documents, the EU can build the sinews that can truely make it one.

A group of Europeans did the same thing. It's called the United States. :)

But they're ahead of you by about 239 years... ;)

Take it from a Canuk who lives fairly far away from the central government of this so called "Federation". The only way you want to go there is if the only thing the Federal Government is responsible for is foreign affairs. Anything domestic within each region of the Federation you want to have as much control as possible, otherwise people will be screwed by whoever happens to gain majority control of the Federal Govt.

A group of Europeans did the same thing. It's called the United States. :)

But they're ahead of you by about 239 years... ;)
I'm an American, but let me play along.

[pretending to be British]
I see. But everyone knows that we are far more sophisticated, intellectual, sexier, and overall better than those filthy imperialist Yanks.

Norway and Switzerland should join, but Croatia, the lower Balkan states, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia should be allowed in, under certain conditions, of course.

Norway, Iceland and Switzerland don't want to join (yet). Belarus and Moldova are either still very unstable or undemocratic. That really has to change first. Those other nations will join in time, not now because we're already collapsing with the recent influx of countries.

And I agree that Europe should take a more leading role in the world. Also while still cooperating with the US, because while we're moving away from each other now we will be good allies again I think. Not now, but probably in 6 years. The world will look quite different then I think :)

Blaat

Take it from a Canuk who lives fairly far away from the central government of this so called "Federation". The only way you want to go there is if the only thing the Federal Government is responsible for is foreign affairs. Anything domestic within each region of the Federation you want to have as much control as possible, otherwise people will be screwed by whoever happens to gain majority control of the Federal Govt.
Well I'd like it more like Russia's federatiion, without the lunacy, of course.

Why not Esperanto?

It does not matter what the alternative is; the English will not give up English and the French will not give up French.

I also doubt that the Catalans will give up Catalan or the Spanish Spanish, etc.

However nothing requires that these languages be abandonned, jus t that there should be one language in addition which everyone speaks. Getting agreement on which language it should be will be difficult, but English does seem to be a likely language given the nuber of people around Europe and the rest of the world that already use it as a lingua franca. France could be a sticking point on this.

Having said that, there are much more deeply seated problems to deal with. Primarily patriotism or nationalism. Secondly a lack of trust between the member nations in economic matters, each others political structures, cultural values, defense priorities etc.

I think MM has an over idealised view of the relationship between European countries. The EU was initially, and fundamentally still is, nothing more than a trading block. There is little to no political convergence between member states, there is no social convergence. There are economic agreements. To suggest that a federal Europe could emerge any time soon is rather akin to suggesting that a Federation of American Countries could emerge from the FTAA if it ewver gets off the ground. Highly unlikely.

Norway, Iceland and Switzerland don't want to join (yet). Belarus and Moldova are either still very unstable or undemocratic. That really has to change first. Those other nations will join in time, not now because we're already collapsing with the recent influx of countries.

And I agree that Europe should take a more leading role in the world. Also while still cooperating with the US, because while we're moving away from each other now we will be good allies again I think. Not now, but probably in 6 years. The world will look quite different then I think :)

Blaat
If Turkey joins, it won't be until 2015 at the earliest. I'd say that'd be a good timetable for membership for Belarus, and especially Ukraine. A membership prospect would probably get rid of the autocracy, as it did for Slovakia. It'd probably work for the Balkans as well, though Macedonia needs serious rehab before membership can be even considered.

The EU should simply be an economic union with a few other fringe benefits. It should have nothing to do with cuture, society, or politics.

Belarus is a dictatorship right now, no way that will join in 2015. Hopefully they got rid of him by then, the sooner the better I say. Another peaceful revolution just like in the Ukraine and Georgia :)

I think MM has an over idealised view of the relationship between European countries. The EU was initially, and fundamentally still is, nothing more than a trading block. There is little to no political convergence between member states, there is no social convergence. There are economic agreements. To suggest that a federal Europe could emerge any time soon is rather akin to suggesting that a Federation of American Countries could emerge from the FTAA if it ewver gets off the ground. Highly unlikely.
Its function, however, grew out of an econnomic one. The treaties of Maastricht and Nice secured that. The Europeans may not get along themselves, though I view those ethnic divisions as silly. In the medium term, however, those divisions will be a safety net for the EU's foreign policy, ensuring that a multipolar world will never emerge with Europe as one poll. At this point, it is impossible. Rather, all they can hope for by uniting is to be a major factor in US foreign policy.

Belarus is a dictatorship right now, no way that will join in 2015. Hopefully they got rid of him by then, the sooner the better I say. Another peaceful revolution just like in the Ukraine and Georgia :)
Of course they won't join soon. In fact, I only expect a big expansion again sometime during the middle of this century.

If Turkey joins, it won't be until 2015 at the earliest. I'd say that'd be a good timetable for membership for Belarus, and especially Ukraine. A membership prospect would probably get rid of the autocracy, as it did for Slovakia. It'd probably work for the Balkans as well, though Macedonia needs serious rehab before membership can be even considered.

The Balkan states, Turkey, Ukraine, Belarus etc really do not fit into the EU. They are part of a different civilizational grouping. They are not Western, they are Orthodox or Muslim civilization members. They can try to become Western countries, in the same way that Mexico can try to become North American rather than Latin American. By making a lot of effort with little to no success.

Well I'd like it more like Russia's federatiion, without the lunacy, of course.

Living in Federation system which has been in operation for more than one hundred years (Australia) I have observed that political power tends to become slowly more centralized and state's rights limited.

I'm an American, but let me play along.

[pretending to be British]
I see. But everyone knows that we are far more sophisticated, intellectual, sexier, and overall better than those filthy imperialist Yanks.

Who's playing? I'm being serious... ;)

It is pretty much innevitable despite, the huge campaign Chirac launched earlier this year, that the French will reject the new European Constitution. For a number of reasons. The United Kingdom will inevitably do the same. Without France or The United Kingdom cooperating i doubt the constitution will be very effective. Since they are the essential leaders in Europe. Almost all of the small and uninfluential European countries immediately ratified the constitution such as
Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Greece, and the Baltic states. Most of Western Europe are holding referendums, and the constitution is extrememly unpopular in those countries. Except for Ireland and the Netherlands. I doubt there is hope for this legislation, if all the member states are small uninfluential and economically struggling nations. Hopefully this won't stop further attempts at European unity though. I would like to see Europe lead the world in a number of areas, and this would be a good step in the right direction.

The Balkan states, Turkey, Ukraine, Belarus etc really do not fit into the EU. They are part of a different civilizational grouping. They are not Western, they are Orthodox or Muslim civilization members. They can try to become Western countries, in the same way that Mexico can try to become North American rather than Latin American. By making a lot of effort with little to no success.
Countries evolve by accepting new members. When the US accepted Hawaii, that was an extremely big leap. Hawaii has no ethnic majority. Today, Congress is willing to accept Puerto Rico as a state if it desires to be one. That would also be a leap, as it is admiting a state that is Hispanic. Ethnicities often do work themselves out in developed areas of the worldl.

So basically, since your country has very little histroy of it's own, you want to destroy the traditions of every single European country who obvioously all hate America, and want nothing but the best for themselves? Yeah, that'll happen easily. Look at the opposition and hatred Labour are facing when trying to amalgamate military units. Now imagine that on a European international scale.

Who's playing? I'm being serious... ;)
I'm an American that has a shot of neo-Atlantism.

So basically, since your country has very little histroy of it's own, you want to destroy the traditions of every single European country who obvioously all hate America, and want nothing but the best for themselves? Yeah, that'll happen easily. Look at the opposition and hatred Labour are facing when trying to amalgamate military units. Now imagine that on a European international scale.
Yes. I want to destroy the protectionism that causes each nation to lag behind the rest of the world.

Its function, however, grew out of an econnomic one. The treaties of Maastricht and Nice secured that. The Europeans may not get along themselves, though I view those ethnic divisions as silly. In the medium term, however, those divisions will be a safety net for the EU's foreign policy, ensuring that a multipolar world will never emerge with Europe as one poll. At this point, it is impossible. Rather, all they can hope for by uniting is to be a major factor in US foreign policy.

The treaties of Maastricht and Nice, although theoretically unifying, have had little or no effect beyond the economic sphere. Ethnic divisions, when seen from afar are silly, but they are very real and very powerful all the same.

Try suggesting a merger between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees in the USA, and I think I know what types of reactions would be given. Either "yeah, so what, who cares" by those with no baseball interest, or anything from shock and outrage to physical assault by those with such interest. Suggesting a merger between the UK (more specifically England) with France is the same. Those involved will not, ever, accept this. The same applies to the UK and Ireland, Spain and Portugal, Germany and Poland, etc. etc.

I want them to establish a franca lingua that will eventually be one common language.

LATIN!

That's the solution to it! In that case, Vactican City should be admitted! ;)

Living in Federation system which has been in operation for more than one hundred years (Australia) I have observed that political power tends to become slowly more centralized and state's rights limited.
I've never had much of an interest in state's rights. I feel that federal govenments should have the final say, as a.) they are democratically elected, and b.) states choose to be iin them. However, I have no objection to something along the lines of the US Senate, where each state, regardless of size, gets two senators.

LATIN!

That's the solution to it! In that case, Vactican City should be admitted! ;)

Nah, it's not a democracy :p

The treaties of Maastricht and Nice, although theoretically unifying, have had little or no effect beyond the economic sphere. Ethnic divisions, when seen from afar are silly, but they are very real and very powerful all the same.

Try suggesting a merger between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees in the USA, and I think I know what types of reactions would be given. Either "yeah, so what, who cares" by those with no baseball interest, or anything from shock and outrage to physical assault by those with such interest. Suggesting a merger between the UK (more specifically England) with France is the same. Those involved will not, ever, accept this. The same applies to the UK and Ireland, Spain and Portugal, Germany and Poland, etc. etc.
I have a lot to say about this. However, I won't say it. You hate me.

@MM: I think you and I agree on a lot of issues about Europe :)

LATIN!

That's the solution to it! In that case, Vactican City should be admitted! ;)
Not a bad idea, actually. Europe already has the education infrastructure for Latin, being the Church. But no one will go for that.

@MM: I think you and I agree on a lot of issues about Europe :)
Though I bet for different reasons.

A group of Europeans did the same thing. It's called the United States. :)

But they're ahead of you by about 239 years... ;)

Hey, why don't we take the American constitution? - after all, it's not like they're using it.

Countries evolve by accepting new members. When the US accepted Hawaii, that was an extremely big leap. Hawaii has no ethnic majority. Today, Congress is willing to accept Puerto Rico as a state if it desires to be one. That would also be a leap, as it is admiting a state that is Hispanic. Ethnicities often do work themselves out in developed areas of the worldl.

The point is that the EU is not a country to accept new members. It is acoalition of similar countries, countries with the same basic civilizational roots and a common history and some common cultural items.

I do not know the history of Hawaii becoming a US state, so no comment (I will go research). The Congress may be willing to accept Puerto Rico, but as I understand it Puerto Rico does not want to accept the congress. Even so, there are large factors in common between the US and Puerto Rico, mostly due to Puerto Rico having been 'colonized' by the USA. This is not true of the Orthodox or Muslim countries you referred to. They have not been 'colonized', ever, by Western culture powers.

Hey, why don't we take the American constitution? - after all, it's not like they're using it.
Well, many of the European states have no real constitutiion.

Though I bet for different reasons.

I don't know what you reasons are. Mine are quite simple, to spread democracy by word, not by the sword. And of course that I'm a European and have a lot of European friends also helps ;)

I have a lot to say about this. However, I won't say it. You hate me.

That I disagree with you, does not mean I hate you (or did I hit a sore point with the Red Sox vs Yankees thing.)

Nah, it's not a democracy :p

Look at the CIA World Factbook:

Suffrage:
Limited to cardinals less than 80 years old

Elections: pope elected for life by the College of Cardinals; election last held 19 April 2005 (next to be held after the death of the current pope); secretary of state appointed by the pope.

Election results: Joseph RATZINGER elected pope


Industries:
Printing; production of coins, medals, postage stamps; a small amount of mosaics and staff uniforms; worldwide banking and financial activities

;)

I'd have a tough time considering the EU as a unified military command until France and the UK allow joint control of their nuclear weapons. Because until then, both nations will basically be putting their national sovreignty over EU sovereignty.

And I don't really see either party being all that happy about letting, say, a German get control over their nukes, or God forbid the Dutch, who would probably parade around the third world threatening places like Bhutan with nuclear annihilation (that last part's a joke kiddies.)

Just a few (quite random) thoughts.

The point is that the EU is not a country to accept new members. It is acoalition of similar countries, countries with the same basic civilizational roots and a common history and some common cultural items.

I do not know the history of Hawaii becoming a US state, so no comment (I will go research). The Congress may be willing to accept Puerto Rico, but as I understand it Puerto Rico does not want to accept the congress. Even so, there are large factors in common between the US and Puerto Rico, mostly due to Puerto Rico having been 'colonized' by the USA. This is not true of the Orthodox or Muslim countries you referred to. They have not been 'colonized', ever, by Western culture powers.
Since you hate me, I won't tell you what I think. However, I'll give you a brief history of Hawaii.
It was a separate kingdom when American plantation owners first arrived, growing sugarcane, pineapples, etc. In 1893, American businesses hired mercenaries to set up a republic. A few years later, they were annexed by the US. In 1959, the territory agreed to become a state. Then, as now, Hawaii had no ethnic majority, with whites, Japanese, Fillipinos, Chinese and Hawaiians roughly equal. Over time, they intermarried.

That I disagree with you, does not mean I hate you (or did I hit a sore point with the Red Sox vs Yankees thing.)
You did. I'm still mourning the Red Sox win at the World Series.
Although I will say this: economic union precedes everything. Look at 19th century Germany. Look at the US. All of them had economic unions before political ones.

LATIN!

That's the solution to it! In that case, Vactican City should be admitted! ;)

Rideo! :D

I see the EU as the best example for globalization the world has, although OAS could start strengthening. I would very much like to see the organization become more influential.

I don't know what you reasons are. Mine are quite simple, to spread democracy by word, not by the sword. And of course that I'm a European and have a lot of European friends also helps ;)
That, and more. As an American wishing to one day be a policy analyst, I am looking out for my country's interests. Europe is too chaotic to be useful. A strong, uunited Europe would be great for the US. In addition, it would probably be Atlanticist, as most European politicians currently want to work with the US. In a parliamentary system, they would force France and Germany to go along as well.

And I agree that Europe should take a more leading role in the world. Also while still cooperating with the US, because while we're moving away from each other now we will be good allies again I think. Not now, but probably in 6 years. The world will look quite different then I think :)

Blaat

The last time Europeans had a more leading role in the world, the majority of it was ruled by imperialism and ended up in the start of World War I, which lead to World War II

I honestly think it'd take a while before Europe could do anything like that. Old rivalries still exsist. To be blunt, Europe is the contentint of civil wars

You did. I'm still mourning the Red Sox win at the World Series.

Once every 86 years shouldn't cause that much pain ;) , but isn't your reaction just as silly as the ethnic stuff in Europe?

To be blunt, Europe is the contentint of civil wars

Obviously someone's never heard of Africa or South America before.

Once every 86 years shouldn't cause that much pain ;) , but isn't your reaction just as silly as the ethnic stuff in Europe?
But this is baseball!!!!! ;)

Once every 86 years shouldn't cause that much pain ;) , but isn't your reaction just as silly as the ethnic stuff in Europe?
It's friendly rivalry. I love several Red Sox fans.
And btw, I editeid my post.

The last time Europeans had a more leading role in the world, the majority of it was ruled by imperialism and ended up in the start of World War I, which lead to World War II

I honestly think it'd take a while before Europe could do anything like that. Old rivalries still exsist. To be blunt, Europe is the contentint of civil wars

That won't happen again. The economic interests are far too big for that. I don't see a war happening in most of Europe anytime soon, unless:

a) The Armageddon happens
b) The economy crashes very hard (eg. a huge oil shortage)

But that's another discussion :)

MM, you want the EU to become stronger? I always thought conservatives wanted *less* government...
-Anyways, I really do hope France votes no, and the same with England. As much as I'm opposed to their socialist governments, I'm happy that they're still able to exercise their sovereignty and fight the overarching EU

That won't happen again. The economic interests are far too big for that. I don't see a war happening in most of Europe anytime soon, unless:

a) The Armageddon happens
b) The economy crashes very hard (eg. a huge oil shortage)

But that's another discussion :)
I'd go even further. As much of the European continent is already composed of developed democracies, war is even more unlikely there than in other areas with an economic uniion. I'm not saying taht security operations won't happen locally, but a major conflict is very far from reality.

MM, you want the EU to become stronger? I always thought conservatives wanted *less* government...

No. Less government involved in life. I don't, however, want one government per town.

Although I will say this: economic union precedes everything. Look at 19th century Germany. Look at the US. All of them had economic unions before political ones.

Although economic union does precede, normally, political union, the political union is not a necessary consequence of such economic co-operation. Look at the UK for evidence that even economic union and military conquest does not produce political union. Wales, Scotland and NI are seperate political entities to England. They often act jointly, due to the overwhelming disparity in power between the elements, but there is no real political union.

Equally, look at the USA. Yes you have a federal government, which encompasses all the states, but how much political union is there between California, New York and Florida?

Equally, look at the USA. Yes you have a federal government, which encompasses all the states, but how much political union is there between California, New York and Florida?
I can't speak for the UK, but there is lots in the US. The Federal government passes domestic laws all the time. Whether or not a state want to follow that law has been debated since the founding of this nation. However, they generally do. It's not hard to find such legislation that binds all states, such as the ban on drugs. There will be a big one this year, when the biannual transportation law is passed. Superfund is also another federal law, requiring all companies to either clean up their own pollution sites, or the federal government does it from a kitty of such companies.

Personally, I couldn't care less about economic benifits. I just want to see another group being able to rival the states as a superpower. Take Iraq for example, Europe didnt support the Americans but it didnt matter because the Yanks are so much larger in terms of military. A united Europe could for American to be more aware of the stupid stuff they do, not to mention they might actually get something done on a world scale, unlike that other organization, o what is it called, thats right the UN.

I can't speak for the UK, but there is lots in the US. The Federal government passes domestic laws all the time. Whether or not a state want to follow that law has been debated since the founding of this nation. However, they generally do. It's not hard to find such legislation that binds all states, such as the ban on drugs. There will be a big one this year, when the biannual transportation law is passed. Superfund is also another federal law, requiring all companies to either clean up their own pollution sites, or the federal government does it from a kitty of such companies.

Being subject to the same laws is not political union, it is legal union. That is a necessary consequence of economic integration, due to people trying to cheat.

By political union I mean an adoption of the same codes of conduct between people. The same range of issues being on the agenda. The same basic way of living ones life. Politics, remember is concerned with the polis, the city, the way of life. It is not just a matter of passing a few laws, and having these enforced by a federal authority.

There are international laws, that apply to the USA and to France and Japan and Argentina etc. This does not create a political union between these states.

Wales, Scotland and NI are seperate political entities to England. They often act jointly, due to the overwhelming disparity in power between the elements, but there is no real political union.

Yes there is. It's called the United Kingdom. There is no Welsh army, or Prime minister of Scotland.

Hey, why don't we take the American constitution? - after all, it's not like they're using it.

It *is* a lot more wieldy and better written than the EU one, true. However, since the gulags aren't being built in Alaska and Wyoming yet, I'll take your post as tongue-in-cheek. ;)

Yes there is. It's called the United Kingdom. There is no Welsh army, or Prime minister of Scotland.

There are Welsh regiments, that make up part of the UK army. Scotland would love to have it's own political figure head, but the English are not going to let them do that any time soon. This is not political union, it is what it has always been, occupation. (I am English by birth by the way, not Scots).

Political union requires that the people of the states concerned see themselves as being the same. It can happen, and has happened often. (Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria etc.) Italy, Germany and even France are the result of political unions. England is. The UK is not politically united. It is not even legally united (Scotland has its own legal system). It is certainly not culturally united. There is no thoroughgoing linguistic unification.

What is left? The UK is economicaly united, and at times united in sport (olympics) but at other times not (world cup).

The United in United Kingdom is much more for show than to reflect any reality.

MM is right. it's time for a federation. yes, you read it correctly; i used the F-word.

Being subject to the same laws is not political union, it is legal union. That is a necessary consequence of economic integration, due to people trying to cheat.

By political union I mean an adoption of the same codes of conduct between people. The same range of issues being on the agenda. The same basic way of living ones life. Politics, remember is concerned with the polis, the city, the way of life. It is not just a matter of passing a few laws, and having these enforced by a federal authority.


I meant legal union, then.

I am going to sign off from this discussion. (I have a paper to write still) with the observation that, despite my arguments here, I would like to see a federal Europe. I just happen to think that it is a very long way away at the moment. It is closer than it was a century ago, but a lot still has to change.

But who knows, one day the Red Sox might merge with the Yankees. :eek:

There are Welsh regiments, that make up part of the UK army. Scotland would love to have it's own political figure head, but the English are not going to let them do that any time soon. This is not political union, it is what it has always been, occupation. (I am English by birth by the way, not Scots).

Political union requires that the people of the states concerned see themselves as being the same. It can happen, and has happened often. (Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria etc.) Italy, Germany and even France are the result of political unions. England is. The UK is not politically united. It is not even legally united (Scotland has its own legal system). It is certainly not culturally united. There is no thoroughgoing linguistic unification.

What is left? The UK is economicaly united, and at times united in sport (olympics) but at other times not (world cup).

The United in United Kingdom is much more for show than to reflect any reality.

That's complete nonsense. Political power in the UK is pretty much entirely centralised in Westminster, and if Scots were really concerned with an independent scotland, they'd vote for the SNP instead of the Lib Dems and Labour. If you think the union between Scotland and England is a result of conquest, then you seriously need to read up some history. England never got anywhere with an invasion of Scotland after their defeat at Bannockburn in 1314, and a political union was never on the cards until James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

Also, the fact that there are welsh regiments doesn't mean there is a welsh army. It would seem a bit silly if there weren't any welshmen in the british army.

I certainly do hope the French pass the constitution, for their own sake and that of the EU. Latest polls suggest that the Yes side may win narrowly. I have no hope for a yes in the UK referendum and it is quite possible the Czech Republic and some others will reject it also.
Yes a strong Europe would be more useful to the US, but I am certainly not an Atlanticist because those people usually think Europe should follow the lead of the US. I have no problem with an independently powerful EU being a partner with the US in issues where they have the same aims but the EU will not always agree with the US on everything and should be powerful enough to make its own way in the world with or without US approval. Federalization at the same level as exists in the US probably would not be a good idea for Europe (at least in the short to medium term), power just needs to be centralized in areas where it benefits the EU states and the EU member states should retain most of their independence in areas where there is no common threat or interest.

A common language should not be imposed, Europe is culturally diverse, that is part of its beauty and strength. I do note that the EU itself is using English more and more all the time in its institutions (displacing French) and that English is probably the most common 2nd language learned in the EU and the percentage of EU citizens who know English is increasing all the time.

bump

This month is one of the great hurdles to overcome. That will be when France votes on the new European constitution. Currently, the polls show that France will vote no. I hope that doesn't happen, as it may trigger counterproductive changes in the EU.Next year, of course, the UK will vote. A no there is more likely, though we need to get them to say yes.
Why do I want this new Europe? I won't tell. But here's what I want from Europe. I want a strong, united, and federated Europe. Specifically, I want it to be a federation the way Canada or Russia are ones. I want each state to answer to a common federal government. I want the executive branch to be simplified to a president, a PM, and a cabinet. I want a common foreign policy for the EU, and a common military. Present military forces in Europe should either intergrate into a new EU defence force, or become a form of provincial guard. They are great for non-combat roles, such as disaster relief.
I also want more European nations to drop their protectionist attitudes. I want them to establish a franca lingua that will eventually be one common language. I want a common currency to all of Europe, as well as common economic regulations. And most importantly, I want the EU to be more inclusive. Norway and Switzerland should join, but Croatia, the lower Balkan states, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia should be allowed in, under certain conditions, of course.
This is not just a dream. The EU constitution is a start. Under further documents, the EU can build the sinews that can truely make it one.

The European Union has economic and defensive beneifts certainly - freedom of trade and freedom of movement have benefited the United Kingdom and the EU (in combination with NATO) have kept the European nations at relative peace with each other.

However it is here that its uses end.

The economic achievements could have easily been accomplished by a few well written economic treaties. The defensive pact - well NATO was more than capable of handling the future peace of Europe.

Europe has been given powers to interfere with the legislative and judicial arms of governments, something I consider contary to the principles of sovereignty and democracy. Remember the Members of the European Parliament, the only officials we vote for, have no powers whatsover. They can sugest policies to the Commission but no more and they have some minor influence ove the secondary budget. All the rest is run by the sprawling, expensive Brussells burecracy which produces enough red tape to cover the entire of Europe ten times over.

This unelected European Union has enforced upon the UK acts of legislation which have badly effected the sound workings of our sovereign systems. The laughable Human Rights Act, for example, has caused umpteen complications within the legal system and is currently the reason why theives can sue their victims if they resist. Our judiciary and our courts now have to defer to an alien code of law in the form of the European Supreme Courts which conflicts with the very heart of our beloved and ancient common law, a common law for which millions have died in order to protect.

The Euro is a weak currency compared to both the pound and the dollar. To accept this now would be to disasterous for Britain's future economic stability. They also refuse us permission to put our Queen on the back of our coins so they would deny us the right to put something fundamentally British on our own currency. I will not do away with the pound and hundreds of years of tradition so easily.

Your ideas of one common language is absurd. No one, no matter how pro European they are, will ever give up their language.

I hope Britain and France vote no on the Constitution so we can keep the EU as it was meant to be: an economic treaty and a diplomatic stage post.

Why not Esperanto?

Seconded.

But as said, the English won't give up English, and the French won't give up French.

I suggest, rather, an adoption of Esperanto as a second official language that will be taught in the same way English is now taught in non-English countries, maybe replacing it. Maybe not. Multilinguality is not just beneficial to communication, it trains and improves the mind.

A group of Europeans did the same thing. It's called the United States. :)

But they're ahead of you by about 239 years... ;)

High time we updated our own government as well then, no?

Perhaps we can even take the chance to learn from their mistakes... :p

I'm an American, but let me play along.

[pretending to be British]
I see. But everyone knows that we are far more sophisticated, intellectual, sexier, and overall better than those filthy imperialist Yanks.

[Actually British]

Well, yeah. I wouldn't say Imperialism is always a bad thing, but what we're seeing now is America in it's death throes...

There are Welsh regiments, that make up part of the UK army. Scotland would love to have it's own political figure head, but the English are not going to let them do that any time soon. This is not political union, it is what it has always been, occupation. (I am English by birth by the way, not Scots).

Political union requires that the people of the states concerned see themselves as being the same. It can happen, and has happened often. (Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria etc.) Italy, Germany and even France are the result of political unions. England is. The UK is not politically united. It is not even legally united (Scotland has its own legal system). It is certainly not culturally united. There is no thoroughgoing linguistic unification.

What is left? The UK is economicaly united, and at times united in sport (olympics) but at other times not (world cup).

The United in United Kingdom is much more for show than to reflect any reality.

Oh really? So whats the Act of Union 1714 all about? Both Scottish and English Parliaments passed the act of their own free will. The Scots did so because, after the disasterous New Celadonia mission into which all Scottish capital had been tied, they could no longer compete economically with the expanding English and their Empire. They became part of the Union with one concession - that they be allowed to keep their own legal system. This Act of Union and its clauses still stands today and in my opinion still remains as valid as it was then. This is a legal union. Even prior to that we shared a dual monarchy, made up from when James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England to become James I. Charles I, Charles II and James II were all members of a rightful dual monarchy that unified the two nations.

Do you seriously think that Scotland or Wales could economically be able to compete in today's world? No. Scotland couldn't do so in 1714, it couldn't do so now. Wales certainly can't: even before it became part of England, its export trade relied on the English. And what about England? It would be gravely weakened by the loss of Scotland and Wales. In this modern world, the United Kingdom needs all of its parts to pull in the same direction not pull apart so that we can all succeed.

The Scots know this as well as anyone: thats why the Scottish National Party are still a minority party in Scotland as they know that economically Scotland would not be able to survive. The same applies for Plaid Cymuru.

I hasten to add that the British Empire was called that for a reason - it wasnt an English Empire but a British Empire, an empire that was built by the Scots, English, Welsh and Irish all working together under one Parliament and one monarch. Together they managed to achieve the biggest empire ever. That's far more than they could ever have achieved alone. All parts of the Union have been fighting together and dying together for a very long time indeed - it was a Battle of Britain in 1940/1 not just a Battle of England. We have all triumphed together and died together.

Together we stand, united we fall.

The lingua franca might be difficult to implement, since the English won't give up english, and the french won't give up french.

Also, I think the likes of Belarus and Moldova will do the EU more harm than good.
Most people in the EU speak German. Thus a logical choice would be German :)

It is pretty much innevitable despite, the huge campaign Chirac launched earlier this year, that the French will reject the new European Constitution. For a number of reasons. The United Kingdom will inevitably do the same. Without France or The United Kingdom cooperating i doubt the constitution will be very effective. Since they are the essential leaders in Europe. Almost all of the small and uninfluential European countries immediately ratified the constitution such as
Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Greece, and the Baltic states. Most of Western Europe are holding referendums, and the constitution is extrememly unpopular in those countries. Except for Ireland and the Netherlands. I doubt there is hope for this legislation, if all the member states are small uninfluential and economically struggling nations. Hopefully this won't stop further attempts at European unity though. I would like to see Europe lead the world in a number of areas, and this would be a good step in the right direction.
You count the largest and economically most powerful nation of Europe in the "small and uninfluential" countries list? Lmao...

Germany would reject this excuse for a constitution aswell, if we had a referendum. Alas, our politicians - those so-called representatives of the people (HA!) already ratified it. Grrr!

The Euro is a weak currency compared to both the pound and the dollar. To accept this now would be to disasterous for Britain's future economic stability. They also refuse us permission to put our Queen on the back of our coins so they would deny us the right to put something fundamentally British on our own currency. I will not do away with the pound and hundreds of years of tradition so easily.


1.) The Euro is much stronger than the US dollar. The British pound is somewhat stronger than the Euro, for some reason. But according to your logic, the US dollar is utter crap compared to both the pound and the Euro.
2.) You can certainly have your Queen on your coins. The Netherlands have their queen on their Euro coins and each European country has what is a symbol for them on their coins - we have the German "Bundesadler" on ours. Due to this, I think you're just misinformed.
3.) Personally I'd prefer if Britain finally made up it's mind and chose to unite itself with the US or with Europe. All this dicking around without a clear choice is mighty annoying and smells like treason. I don't like the overexaggerated nationalism that the British show by keeping their pound and refusing to join the EU. If the EU had the balls, they should disallow British trade in the Euro zone.

High time we updated our own government as well then, no?

Perhaps we can even take the chance to learn from their mistakes... :p

Sure!

That'd be great! Unfortunately, it's the curse of man that he forgets... :(

Ein Deutscher']1.) The Euro is much stronger than the US dollar. The British pound is somewhat stronger than the Euro, for some reason. But according to your logic, the US dollar is utter crap compared to both the pound and the Euro.
2.) You can certainly have your Queen on your coins. The Netherlands have their queen on their Euro coins and each European country has what is a symbol for them on their coins - we have the German "Bundesadler" on ours. Due to this, I think you're just misinformed.
3.) Personally I'd prefer if Britain finally made up it's mind and chose to unite itself with the US or with Europe. All this dicking around without a clear choice is mighty annoying and smells like treason. I don't like the overexaggerated nationalism that the British show by keeping their pound and refusing to join the EU. If the EU had the balls, they should disallow British trade in the Euro zone.

Well lets be honest, Germany is France's little poddle in all matters European. But in the end, Britain is the only other nuclear power in Europe apart from France. The only other G5 member. The only other with a Permenant Seat of the UN Security Council. I think our views on Europe cut a little more ice than Germany's. After all, its because of Germany that we had to create an EU to keep the peace in the first place.

I think we will dick around if that's alright with you. Oh and I can only commit treason if I commit a crime against the Queen or Parliament - I don't answer to the EU. Nor does any other British citizen.

Firstly Germany is not France's poodle. Nobody is someone else's poodle. If not for Germany, the EU would collapse in the blink of an eye for lack of funding. If Germany wanted to be a nuclear power, we could simply produce our own nukes or hydrogen bombs or neutron bombs or whatever there is and voilà - there we are, having just as much to say as the UK, because we're cool boys with useless nukes. If anything, all countries should dismantle their nukes and create a nuke-free world. The constant threat and "deterrent" that nukes pose is a horror for the whole world.

That the UK has a permanent seat on the UN is due to their role as a victor at the end of WW2, not due to their national greatness or importance in the world. Politically and economically, Britain is similar to Germany, a power known and useful in the world, but dominated by the US. Btw, if Germany is France's poodle then Britain is Bush's toilet paper. He constantly wipes his ass with your prime minister!

Europe has been given powers to interfere with the legislative and judicial arms of governments, something I consider contary to the principles of sovereignty and democracy. Remember the Members of the European Parliament, the only officials we vote for, have no powers whatsover. They can sugest policies to the Commission but no more and they have some minor influence ove the secondary budget. All the rest is run by the sprawling, expensive Brussells burecracy which produces enough red tape to cover the entire of Europe ten times over.

This new constitution would help ameliorate the effects of an undemocratic executive, mostly by simplyfiying the branch to a single hierarchy, and not parallel structures. As for the bureaocracy, it is not nearly as big as those in most European capitals. The entire budget of the Commission is equivilant to $80 billion, or >1% of the EU's GDP. More than half of that budget is to an outdated system of agricultural subsidies, anyway.
This unelected European Union has enforced upon the UK acts of legislation which have badly effected the sound workings of our sovereign systems. The laughable Human Rights Act, for example, has caused umpteen complications within the legal system and is currently the reason why theives can sue their victims if they resist. Our judiciary and our courts now have to defer to an alien code of law in the form of the European Supreme Courts which conflicts with the very heart of our beloved and ancient common law, a common law for which millions have died in order to protect.

I'm affraid that interference is needed for a stronger union. However, it needn't be entirely against your country's wishes. BBritan is one of the more powerful EU members, and now has most of Eastern Europe as allies. Leverage in Brussels will ensure that a transition can be made from a sovereign state to a federation.
The Euro is a weak currency compared to both the pound and the dollar. To accept this now would be to disasterous for Britain's future economic stability. They also refuse us permission to put our Queen on the back of our coins so they would deny us the right to put something fundamentally British on our own currency. I will not do away with the pound and hundreds of years of tradition so easily.
Can't help you with the issue of the monarchy. However, this is why I'd love to see economic barriers fall further. With the euro artificially strong, wasteful governments and uneven economic developement, the euro will nosedive soon. However, these problems can be fixed by further economic liberalization, making Britain an optimal currency area for the euro.
Your ideas of one common language is absurd. No one, no matter how pro European they are, will ever give up their language.

No one alive, anyhow. But they can at least adopt a franca lingua. English or German seems to be the best in my mind. Besides, remember that in the last century, both Spain and Italy were multilingual. Now, both have unified languages nearly everyone speaks, and the few surviving regional dialects are used in an informal setting, and rapidly dying out.

Ein Deutscher']Firstly Germany is not France's poodle. Nobody is someone else's poodle. If not for Germany, the EU would collapse in the blink of an eye for lack of funding. If Germany wanted to be a nuclear power, we could simply produce our own nukes or hydrogen bombs or neutron bombs or whatever there is and voilà - there we are, having just as much to say as the UK, because we're cool boys with useless nukes. If anything, all countries should dismantle their nukes and create a nuke-free world. The constant threat and "deterrent" that nukes pose is a horror for the whole world.

That the UK has a permanent seat on the UN is due to their role as a victor at the end of WW2, not due to their national greatness or importance in the world. Politically and economically, Britain is similar to Germany, a power known and useful in the world, but dominated by the US. Btw, if Germany is France's poodle then Britain is Bush's toilet paper. He constantly wipes his ass with your prime minister!

According to our news services (the BBC), Germany is in economic poo right now and has been ever since it had to take on the massively under developed Eastern Germany. Apparently your unemployment rates are the highest in Europe - 5 million unemployed according to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4228739.stm) . Your growth rates aren't looking so hot either - see this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4310453.stm) Whereas Britain has (according to our political parties) the 4th largest economy in the world.

The nuke is the ultimate weapon for peace because of MAD - no one country will start a war if the other country possesses nuclear capability. That is the only reason that the Cold War didn't happen as neither side would risk MAD.

And if you think France, Britain or America would allow Germany to get their hands on a nuke, I think you might be in for a bit of a shock.

According to our news services (the BBC), Germany is economic poo right now and has been ever since it had to take on the massively under developed Eastern Germany. Apparently your unemployment rates are the highest in Europe. Whereas Britain has (according to our political parties) the 4th largest economy in the world.

That is quite sad that Germany is so poorly off. Normally, the need to rebuild the East would create millions of jobs. By now, they should have an economy that looks similar to the Rhineland's. And yet, outside Berlin, where they did a superb job, there are apparant differences between the east and the west even to this day.

According to our news services (the BBC), Germany is in economic poo right now and has been ever since it had to take on the massively under developed Eastern Germany. Apparently your unemployment rates are the highest in Europe - 5 million unemployed according to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4228739.stm) . Your growth rates aren't looking so hot either - see this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4310453.stm) Whereas Britain has (according to our political parties) the 4th largest economy in the world.

The nuke is the ultimate weapon for peace because of MAD - no one country will start a war if the other country possesses nuclear capability. That is the only reason that the Cold War didn't happen as neither side would risk MAD.

And if you think France, Britain or America would allow Germany to get their hands on a nuke, I think you might be in for a bit of a shock.
Germany still is the 3rd largest. 2nd is Japan and 1st is the US. China and India are catching up though. Our national problems with high unemployment are being fought right now. It remains to be seen what our incompetent politicians can come up with to save our country. Atm, we're the last in the growth ranking of the EU. But we're still stronger than Britain. Germany is the exporting country #1 after all - though China will catch up with us there soon.

Regarding France, Britain or the US "allowing" Germany to get a nuke - this is not your decision to make. WW2 was long ago. If we want, we can have nukes. But we're part of the non-proliferation treaty and we actually honor it. Unlike other countries like the US, who always invent new nukes.

I love the diversity of Europe. I love driving shorter distances than that of coast to coast in America and having to speak 2, 3, 4... etc languages, just to communicate with people. I'm English and I'm against the idea of a united Europe - only because I don't see how it would be to England's benefit. We've always been a sort of 'outcast' imo and to my knowledge, it has done us no harm. Plus the English are very arrogant as a people - I don't see how the English and the East Europe states could be viewed as being on par. Let the rest of Europe do all the work... Then when it's all sorted - I'd be happy to join, but I see it as a make or break. I don't see why we should take a risk of breaking. If you don't change something, you really can't complain, because of how it has always been - but if you do something, you could tear the country apart. We have 3 major parties in this election... I see the Lib Dem vote increasing every election from now on... England and the UK is hardly 'united' in views.

Ein Deutscher']
Regarding France, Britain or the US "allowing" Germany to get a nuke - this is not your decision to make. WW2 was long ago. If we want, we can have nukes. But we're part of the non-proliferation treaty and we actually honor it. Unlike other countries like the US, who always invent new nukes.
However, think realistically. The five main nuclear powers, being the US, Russia, Britain, France, and China, never like seeing new members of the nuclear club. It is not a matter of who will use it or not, but rather, stopping it from spreading. Both the US and Russia, while slower, are reducing their nuclear arsenals, even while both quietly build about ten new nukes a year. The other three countries have a marginal stockpile. The only nukes left are a few hundred in the possesion of a few pariah states.
We won't see a nuke free world in our lfietimes. However, we will see a continual reduction. We saw a big slash to all stockpiles after the Cold War. We're seeing more right now. However, absolutely no one is allowed to upset the decaying balance of power. Germany, or any other country, obtaining nukes puts the world in serious jeopardy of another arms race.

As long as those so-called great powers are allowed to keep their nukes, other countries will aim to get nukes, because the countries like the US, abuse their nuclear capabilities to oppress other nations and threaten them whenever it is opportune. The US is the only country that ever used nukes on people and that to this day is inventing new uses for nukes (such as bunker-busting mini-nukes) and yet they're "allowed" to keep their massive stockpile that threatens the very existence of this planet. If there is an upset balance, then it is the fact that a few select elitist countries are allowed to have nukes, while others need to listen to "If we wanted to, we could nuke you, so shut up and do our bidding!".

Ein Deutscher']As long as those so-called great powers are allowed to keep their nukes, other countries will aim to get nukes, because the countries like the US, abuse their nuclear capabilities to oppress other nations and threaten them whenever it is opportune. The US is the only country that ever used nukes on people and that to this day is inventing new uses for nukes (such as bunker-busting mini-nukes) and yet they're "allowed" to keep their massive stockpile that threatens the very existence of this planet. If there is an upset balance, then it is the fact that a few select elitist countries are allowed to have nukes, while others need to listen to "If we wanted to, we could nuke you, so shut up and do our bidding!".
You're not making sense. Nuclear stockpiles have been used as a method of diplomacy even to this day. Take India, for example. India got nukes to a.) prevent attacks into their side of teh Kashmir valley, and b.) to solidify their stance as the leader of the non-alignment movement. Nukes were never used to "oppress" anyone, except maybe those in Washington and Moscow.

1. Why do I want this new Europe? I won't tell. But here's what I want from Europe. I want a strong, united, and federated Europe. Specifically, I want it to be a federation the way Canada or Russia are ones. I want each state to answer to a common federal government.

2. I want the executive branch to be simplified to a president, a PM, and a cabinet. I want a common foreign policy for the EU, and a common military. Present military forces in Europe should either intergrate into a new EU defence force, or become a form of provincial guard. They are great for non-combat roles, such as disaster relief.

3. I also want more European nations to drop their protectionist attitudes.

4. I want them to establish a franca lingua that will eventually be one common language.

5. I want a common currency to all of Europe, as well as common economic regulations.

6. And most importantly, I want the EU to be more inclusive. Norway and Switzerland should join, but Croatia, the lower Balkan states, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia should be allowed in, under certain conditions, of course.

7. This is not just a dream. The EU constitution is a start. Under further documents, the EU can build the sinews that can truely make it one.
OK, firstly, I disagree with about 90% of your opinions above.

1. I don't want Europe to be a federal superstate. I don't want to be part of another USA or USSR. Europe has always and should always consist of culturally disctinct countries. I don't want all my country's laws to be imposed from Brussels.

2. I don't think that we should completely integrate our military forces, because one country, like France, may have a military interest that is not shared by other member states. I am not opposed to a small common military force however.

3. I agree with this one. I favour EU economic integration. We are already doing that.

4. OK, this is not realistic. Esperanto exists for those who want to learn it. I would even be in favour of teaching it in schools, but don't expect it to quickly become the first language of all Europeans. Things like that take thousands of years.

5. We already have that.

6. I would not oppose Norway, Iceland or Switzerland joining, but due to economic interests that they want to protect (oil, fish and money respectively) all three are adamantly opposed to joining. I also think that prospective members should meet economic and human rights criteria, which rules out Belarus, Moldova, Armenia and Georgia for the moment.

7. Which is why I will probably vote against the EU Constitution. The EU should be an economic union first and foremost, not a political one.

---

Now all we need to know is why you want all this?

Almost all of the small and uninfluential European countries immediately ratified the constitution such as
Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Greece, and the Baltic states.

GERMANY - Small and uninfluential????

Yes, that is a rather drastic change for it to have undergone in such a short time. Do you think it will still be in the G8 this Summer? I mean, 3rd biggest economy in the world, most populus nation in the European Union....so uninfluential.

Dear God....don't know where to start with this thread!!!

Err...US Constitution better written than the EU one. Well. No...the US constitution doesn't say all that much. The EU one is very detailed because they want to be sure they know what they're signing up for. It also has to be written so it can be translated accurately into about 20 languages.


This unelected European Union has enforced upon the UK acts of legislation which have badly effected the sound workings of our sovereign systems. The laughable Human Rights Act,for example

Totally, totally wrong. The INDIRECTLY ELECTED Commission of Europe in combination with the DIRECTLY ELECTED European parliament and the Council of the EU which consists of ministers from the ELECTED governments of the Member States do enforce some legislation on the Member States.

HOWEVER, the "laughable Human Rights Act" is not one of these because -
(a) The Human Rights Act 1998 was a Labour Party Manifesto pledge before it came to power in 1997
(b) Human Rights has nothing to do with The EUROPEAN UNION, but is in fact the Concern of a totally different body called THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE (not the council of the EU) which is a separate international organisation consisting of 45 states, as opposed to the 25 of the EU. The EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (ECHR) is a treaty drawn up by this body which the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into UK law.

For further evidence on this - Council of Europe - http://www.coe.int
- ECHR -http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005&CL=ENG
- European Union - http://www.europa.eu.int/index_en.htm
- The Human Rights Act 1998 - http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm#1

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights;


(c) The EU as a separate body is not a member of the COUNCIL OF EUROPE or a signatory to the ECHR (although the new Constiution makes the second bit possible)

Legislation you could have had included, which was introduced by the EU are things like - the Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, err...I forget, but they tend to be the good ones that no one complains about. I'm not really sure how they have "badly effected the sound workings of our legal system." In my experience, they only seem to have improved the archaic and rather bizarre workings of both the English and Scottish Legal sytems.

The Euro is a weak currency compared to both the pound and the dollar. To accept this now would be to disasterous for Britain's future economic stability. They also refuse us permission to put our Queen on the back of our coins so they would deny us the right to put something fundamentally British on our own currency. I will not do away with the pound and hundreds of years of tradition so easily.

Actually, every country is allowed to mint their own coins with their own image on one side. As for the weakness of the currency - all currency exchanges misrepresent actual economic performance. In any case, a weak currency would actually be good for Britain just now because it would mean that our manufactured goods would be cheaper in foreign currencies and thus more competitive. We are suffering a manufacturing downturn just now partially because our uber-strong currency is pricing us out of foreign markets.

Some one said that German is the most spoken language in Europe - That is only correct to the extent that it is the most spoken 1st language in Europe. English is by far and away the most spoken language in the whole of Europe as a second or even third language. English IS the Lingua Franca of Europe.

Anyway....Europe OUI, Europe OUI, Europe OUI

Dear God....don't know where to start with this thread!!!

Err...US Constitution better written than the EU one. Well. No...the US constitution doesn't say all that much. The EU one is very detailed because they want to be sure they know what they're signing up for. It also has to be written so it can be translated accurately into about 20 languages.


The US Constitution doesn't say that much?!? The finest piece of governmental writing since Magna Carta doesn't say much?!?

EU Constitution, Article II-118
"The European Regional Development Fund is intended to help redress the main regional imbalances in the Union through particiapation in the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrial regions."

US Consitution, Article IV Section 1.
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "

Call me loopy, but I find the US verision better for three reasons:
1) It's easier to read and understand.
2) The whole thing is MUCH shorter than the EU version, and therefore easier to apply and
3) It's worked for a couple of centuries. ;)

While I agree that detail is good, I think they might have gone a bit too far...

Now all we need to know is why you want all this?
I do because it is good for global stability. For too long, the heterogenous Europe has been a hotbed for wars, ideaological struggles, you name it. Even today, some potentially explosive areas in Europe exist, like the Balkans and parts of Eastern Europe. A Europe under a single liberal government would force Europeans to work together. It would cease in making Europe part of the problem, as it was most of the time. And it wouldn't make Europe a non-factor, as it risks becomming. Instead, it would make it part of the solution. The world needs a truely stabilizing force right on the Eurasian continent, and Europe can provide that.

EU Constitution, Article II-118
"The European Regional Development Fund is intended to help redress the main regional imbalances in the Union through particiapation in the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrial regions."

US Consitution, Article IV Section 1.
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "

Call me loopy, but I find the US verision better for three reasons:
1) It's easier to read and understand.
2) The whole thing is MUCH shorter than the EU version, and therefore easier to apply and
3) It's worked for a couple of centuries. ;)


These two sections don't do the same thing, so you can't compare them. One is to help distribute money to help even out the economy in the single market, and one of them is to provide Federal law and universal recognition of the decisions of the highest courts of every state.

The US constitution doesn't say as much as the EC Treaties because it didn't have to do as much to integrate it's states. I will agree that, taken as a whole, the EC Treaties are a shocking piece of writing, but they deal with so much that most people who have to deal with them only have to concern themselves with small parts of the treaty, which are usually quite good.

The reasons the EC Treaty is so complicated are -
1) It has to be accurately translated into about 20 different languages and it has to say EXACTLY the same thing in every language.

2)It has to deal with even the smallest procedure, so that there is no doubt as to how things are done. It does not have the same degree of centralisation as the US and if it did not deal with minute detail it would collapse into a horrible deadlock everytime it had to make a decision.

3)Integrating the economies of 21st Century states (especially where these states are some of the most developed, wealthiest countries in the world) is much more complex than integrating 18th C, relatively weak states.

4)It has to be precise, as most states disagree on the level of integration required and wish to know exactly the effects of the Treaty they are signing. For the US, the prime concern was union.

Anyway, the point is, it's not meant to read nicely, it's meant to be functional. A format similar to the US constitution would not work for the EU, as it is too vague.

For example the US Constitution mentions "Impeachment" several times, but I don't believe it actually defines it anywhere. (I know what it is by the way, so don't tell me) The EU could never work like that, it needs important procedures like this defined so that the states don't have disagreements all the time.

This is why the EU constitution is "better" than the US Constitution

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe

...DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,

BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,

CONVINCED that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,

CONVINCED that, thus ‘United in diversity’, Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,

DETERMINED to continue the work accomplished within the framework of the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis....



Article I - 1 - Establishment of the Union

1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it.

2. The Union shall be open to all European States which respect its values and are committed to promoting them together.


Article I-2 - The Union's values

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

A few points off the top of my head...

Why in God's green arse would we want to have a common language in Europe?

I have no opinion on the constitution, on account of the fact that I haven't read it and nor am I ever likely to. I'll be in my grave before I finish...

The UK is a political union. However, Scotland could easily cope on its own. After all, they have all of our oil. Wales... not a chance.

Secular Europe is right to highlight the distinction between the EU and the Council of Europe. I happen to think the Human Rights Act is excellent. Now all the UK need is a constitution.

I want for Europe:

A common market.
A common foreign policy (with a common army)

mmmmm

We don't need much else, actually. I am for the Europe of Regions.. if the EU can provide economical integration, and take care of expensive stuff such as defence, each member state, hell, each region of each member state will enable itself to take more and more decisions to near them.. take the UK: What you have is 3 nations (Scotland, England and Wales) functioning with their own parliaments (i think), and demanding more and more powers.. and they can actually ask this because they are connected economically, so they can sustain themselves economically. They don't need to worry about their own armies, because they have set up a fine united army. And so on, and so on.. what I think Europe should move to is a solution like this, that actually INCREASES our independence. It simply re-defines how we are organized: instead of 25 squabbling nations, you will have countless regions, all very different, but all working togheter to common goals, when needed.

And hell, if you know Europe, you should know that our diversity is alot bigger than 25 nations.. the Brits have the Scots, the Welsh and the English, but the Spanish have the Galicians, the Basques, the Aragonese, the Castellans, the French got the people from corsica, and so on and so on.. a united Europe will create the conditions for all these peoples to come forward and be themselves. Why? Because you won't need the traditional strong european goverments to boss those regions around (while providing their defence), and since Europe will be working on a common market, any region can specialize itself in what its economy produces best, without fearing to become chocked.

BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world

Sadly, nowadays the political union of Europe isn't too concerned with "the good of all its inhabitants", and certainly not "the weakest and most deprived" ones. France and Germany, along with Italy and most ex-Warschaupacts are doing their very best to root out the European socialist foundation by implementing extremely liberal economic thought into the European constitution. They want to go too fast, too far, and all because they want to bring the UK soundly on board the Euro and to expand into the so-believed future economic prosperity of the East.
Many socially beneficial laws have been obstructed, and many economic laws that will continue to widen the gap between rich and poor have been passed the past few years, and more are yet to come.
Every few months, there's a highly conspicuous and affluent European summit, whilst many European countries suffer ever increasing poverty. The Italian prime-minister Berlusconi, per example, passed a law that makes his person unable to be brought before a court in Europe, while his country is ravaged by economic fraud (and he himself is one of the suspects in several fraud-cases). The European Council wants to pass a resolution on self-handling in European ports that will put hundreds of thousands skilled workers out of a job. Several of the past referenda have seen an obstruction of the "onward, onward" European thought, which clearly indicates that there's a "Europe with two velocities" in the making, and that's not a good thing. That could be even worse than a US - most of Europe is not culturally adjusted to life in such an environment, as the continuous struggles between Europeans and Americans on this forum alone clearly indicate.

bump

bump

"A Europe under a single liberal government would force Europeans to work together."

Says it all really doesnt it...the Constitution's wonderful high-falutin preamble doesnt conceal what it really is when you read on - the end of the nation state, with the EU bureaucracy assuming absolute responsibility for every single policy area it chooses to assume responsibility for. National Parliaments become mere talking shops, where the only people that can be elected by the people of those redundant nation states squabble like small children over the few crumbs of government left to them by the Commission's gracious largesse. The endemic corruption of the EU becomes a fact of life because the EU's officialdom and Police are legally immune to prosecution.

This Constitution is something Hitler and Stalin must be rolling around in their graves laughing over - they couldnt do it to Europe by force and repression, and now we're gleefully doing it to ourselves. Sickening.

This Constitution is something Hitler and Stalin must be rolling around in their graves laughing over - they couldnt do it to Europe by force and repression, and now we're gleefully doing it to ourselves. Sickening.

Which constitution are you reading now? :-/

This month is one of the great hurdles to overcome. That will be when France votes on the new European constitution. Currently, the polls show that France will vote no. I hope that doesn't happen, as it may trigger counterproductive changes in the EU.

As a French citizen who intends to vote no, I hope it will trigger productive changes. The EU will still want a Constitution, you can bet on that, so when we throw this one out they'll do another one. One which they will have to design in such a way that we can accept it and vote yes. One which doesn't fling the Union down along an increasingly ultra-capitalistic path, but instead affirms strong social values.


But here's what I want from Europe. [...] I want a common foreign policy for the EU, and a common military.

Not possible in the immediate future. No nation will give up its sovereignty in matters of defence and foreign policy. Perhaps you can achieve it gradually, but not suddenly. For example, if there is dissension between the UK on one side, and France and Germany on the other, but they are forced to speak with one voice, what happens then?


I want them to establish a franca lingua that will eventually be one common language.

That would be disastrous. To lose a language is to lose a vital aspect of a people's culture. Most people seem to think languages are more or less equivalent, but that's not so. You can never adequately translate one language into another, because a language is the expression of a culture, of a way of seeing the world around you. Every time a language disappears, it's a huge loss to mankind.

LATIN!

That's the solution to it! In that case, Vactican City should be admitted! ;)

Hehe... That would be amusing. But since you have to be a democracy to gain admittance, the Vatican would have to change its laws so that the pope is elected by the citizens of the Vatican. ;)

I do because it is good for global stability. For too long, the heterogenous Europe has been a hotbed for wars, ideaological struggles, you name it. Even today, some potentially explosive areas in Europe exist, like the Balkans and parts of Eastern Europe. A Europe under a single liberal government would force Europeans to work together. It would cease in making Europe part of the problem, as it was most of the time. And it wouldn't make Europe a non-factor, as it risks becomming.
The EU is already fulfilling your wish. The last 60 years have been Europe's most peaceful in history.

I don't see how Europe could ever be a non-factor. 450 million people already live in the Union with potential for a few hundred millions more, and our contintent has several of the world's largest economies.

GERMANY - Small and uninfluential????

Yes, that is a rather drastic change for it to have undergone in such a short time. Do you think it will still be in the G8 this Summer? I mean, 3rd biggest economy in the world, most populus nation in the European Union....so uninfluential.

Germanies Economy is a pile of dung, and it has no substantial influence in any nation in the world save perhaps Austria, and Belgium. As far as the EU is concerned Germany has not made a decision to date in the orginization that has not been a result of pressure from France or The Netherlands, both of which hold more influence in the orginization than Germany.

The EU is already fulfilling your wish. The last 60 years have been Europe's most peaceful in history.

I don't see how Europe could ever be a non-factor. 450 million people already live in the Union with potential for a few hundred millions more, and our contintent has several of the world's largest economies.

Er, you mean NATO has already fulfilled the wish.

The EU was founded in 1952 with six nations (Belgium, France, (West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands). It didn't expand to include Great Britain, Ireland & Denmark until 1973, Greece in 1981, Spain & Portugal in 1986, Austria, Finland, Sweden in 1995 and the huge 2004 expansion.

Simply put, the EU didn't do anything to keep Stalin in check. ;)
It also totally failed to do anything about Jugoslavia. :(

All I want from Europe is a common market. This brings the people of Europe economic benefits by getting rid of import tarrifs. But I am completely against the idea of a federal europe. It's just adding an unecessary government that will take power further away from individual nations. If these decisions are taken by a government that covers an entire continent, how will we ensure that these decisions benefit everyone? If a nation wants to run it's home affairs according to it's own people's wishes then how is that of any concern to anyody else?

I will never vote in favour of any EU constitution. Other European countries are welcome to sign themselves up to a federal Europe but I want the UK to have no part of it.

A no there is more likely, though we need to get them to say yes.

Good luck with that. We're even more likely to vote no if you try to 'get' us to say yes. And we're unbelievably likely to vote 'no' anyway.

As to those who say Britain should make up her mind one way or the other, the people already have. The government is just afraid to ask us, because if membership of the EU were put to referendum now, we'd be out instantly.

Good luck with that. We're even more likely to vote no if you try to 'get' us to say yes. And we're unbelievably likely to vote 'no' anyway.

As to those who say Britain should make up her mind one way or the other, the people already have. The government is just afraid to ask us, because if membership of the EU were put to referendum now, we'd be out instantly.

I think you over-estimate the support amongst the general population for withdrawal.

Would you vote to stay in the European Union, or withdraw from the EU?
Vote to stay in the EU 51%
Vote to withdraw from the EU 36%
Don't know 13%

Poll commissioned by the News of the World of all people (2004)

Almost all of the small and uninfluential European countries immediately ratified the constitution such as
Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Greece,

er...right...of couse we got a lot of economic problems but we're still one of the largest economys in the world plus hanging around exporting more goods then any other country. Germany pays more money into EU-Funds then any other. Politically Germany is one of the most active nations with a lot of influence. Together with France they are the leading powers.

Ein Deutscher']Most people in the EU speak German. Thus a logical choice would be German :)

I can already hear them....OH NO, THE NAZI-BARK IS COMING UOPN US!!
:D Anybody that suggests German as a language for Europe will be bood out. Unfortunately, because it is a beautiful language i think.

Ein Deutscher']1.) The Euro is much stronger than the US dollar. The British pound is somewhat stronger than the Euro, for some reason. But according to your logic, the US dollar is utter crap compared to both the pound and the Euro.

True. Why do you think we have such a hard time selling our stuff in the US atm? Because a strong Euro is pushing the prices.


Ein Deutscher']
Personally I'd prefer if Britain finally made up it's mind and chose to unite itself with the US or with Europe. All this dicking around without a clear choice is mighty annoying and smells like treason.

I agree that it would be nice if the UK could make a decision. Although i wouldn't cal this treason...But it won't happen as long as Blair is in power. He likes George-Boy too much :p I still wonder what Bush offered him to join in on his Iraq-war, that both Schröder and Chiraq refused...

Ein Deutscher']
If the EU had the balls, they should disallow British trade in the Euro zone.


Ehrm...right...we'd probably kick our own asses when we do that...the EU needs the british economy as much as it need the german or french economy I'd guess...

Well lets be honest, Germany is France's little poddle in all matters European. But in the end, Britain is the only other nuclear power in Europe apart from France. The only other G5 member. The only other with a Permenant Seat of the UN Security Council. I think our views on Europe cut a little more ice than Germany's. After all, its because of Germany that we had to create an EU to keep the peace in the first place.


Ein Deutscher']Firstly Germany is not France's poodle. Nobody is someone else's poodle. If not for Germany, the EU would collapse in the blink of an eye for lack of funding. If Germany wanted to be a nuclear power, we could simply produce our own nukes or hydrogen bombs or neutron bombs or whatever there is and voilà - there we are, having just as much to say as the UK, because we're cool boys with useless nukes. If anything, all countries should dismantle their nukes and create a nuke-free world. The constant threat and "deterrent" that nukes pose is a horror for the whole world.


Germany is certainly not France's poodle... :rolleyes: we just happen to work together while being the most influential nations in the EU. Which is not that weird if you think about it.
Lets please not argue abotu the nuclear weapons thing. Everybody that still sees nuclear armarment as a sufficient mean of diploamcy and international politics is living in the past and should start to open his eyes. The sooner the better.
It is true that Germany certainly has the technical capabilites to built nuclear weapons, tehre are only two things stopping us:
Treaties signded after WW II weere Germany vowed never to built, research or have nuclear weapons and the second reason being common sense and the fact that and the knowledge that nuclear armarment is can have no other use then a destructive one.

Ein Deutscher']
if Germany is France's poodle then Britain is Bush's toilet paper. He constantly wipes his ass with your prime minister!

I second that.

You're not making sense. Nuclear stockpiles have been used as a method of diplomacy even to this day. Take India, for example. India got nukes to a.) prevent attacks into their side of teh Kashmir valley, and b.) to solidify their stance as the leader of the non-alignment movement.

To consider Nuclear stockpiles a useful "method of diploamcy" is just...I don't know, ignorant? Foolish? Dangerous???

India and Pakistan are constantly short of nuking each other over Kashmir. They are just to afraid to use their potential yet. I certainly hope this stays like this forever...

[QUOTE=Mystic Mindinao]
Nukes were never used to "oppress" anyone, except maybe those in Washington and Moscow.

well in that case...I mean these two are just have larger stockpiles then all other nuclear powers together. So why should we care about those insignificant examples...
(for those who haven't realized...the last comment was meant to be ironic...)

As a French citizen who intends to vote no, I hope it will trigger productive changes. The EU will still want a Constitution, you can bet on that, so when we throw this one out they'll do another one. One which they will have to design in such a way that we can accept it and vote yes. One which doesn't fling the Union down along an increasingly ultra-capitalistic path, but instead affirms strong social values.



There is only one problem...if this proposal fails, a new European constitution will take centurys to be developed and accepted. I seriously doubt that Europe has this much time left if it doesn't want to be left behind in the world.

The EU should strenghten the ties with Russia and distance itself from the US.

reasons? I mean...why? Not saying that it can't be a good idea, but please...give people something to think about it...

reasons? I mean...why? Not saying that it can't be a good idea, but please...give people something to think about it...
Historicly good relations with Russia were always beneficial.
Translation to the 21st century: Oil, gas, common interests.

Lets please not argue abotu the nuclear weapons thing. Everybody that still sees nuclear armarment as a sufficient mean of diploamcy and international politics is living in the past and should start to open his eyes. The sooner the better.
It is true that Germany certainly has the technical capabilites to built nuclear weapons, tehre are only two things stopping us:
Treaties signded after WW II weere Germany vowed never to built, research or have nuclear weapons and the second reason being common sense and the fact that and the knowledge that nuclear armarment is can have no other use then a destructive one.


You obviously have no idea of why the Cold War DID NOT happen. Without nuclear bombs there would have been another war, probably with five years of World War Two, between the Soviets and the Western Allies. Hitler and the Nazi High Command realised this as their defeat became increasingly likely and actually at one point hoped to form an alliance with the West against the Soviets. The Allies realised that they had replaced one imperialistic, mass murdering, war mongering tyrant with another.

The nuclear deterrant alone prevented yet another war rocking Europe and in my mind it is still one of the few things that is stopping any other major wars. How long do you think the EU would stop two member states who wanted to declare war on each other? 5 minutes? 10? The EU is probably as spineless at preventing international conflict as the Concert of Europe, the League of Nations and ultimately the UN are. Only the EU eats up way more of our taxes so we can pay it for being spineless.

The only reason that peace exists today is because of the nuclear deterrant.

I know plenty about the cold war. I know that alone the existence of Nuclear Weapons have brought fear to millions of people for century and will keep on doing so for centurys to come. While I agree that the existence of nuclear weapons has been one of the big things that prevented an eruption of all out war, the price for such a peace is way to high as that anyone in his right mind could knowingly accept it. And to see it as the only reason is very narrow minded...
And even if nuclear weapons have been something to ensure peace in the past, today (which is the time I am concerend about) they are a bigger threat than ever. A few nations that possess them will draw the jealousy of other nations that do not have them.

The EU should strenghten the ties with Russia and continue to keep itself close to the US.

We should all form a language consisting of grunts, profanity and rude hand gestures. Otherwise known as the Scottish dialect.

Seriously though, they use interpreters at EU meetings, why not continue to do so?

We should all form a language consisting of grunts, profanity and rude hand gestures. Otherwise known as the Scottish dialect.

Seriously though, they use interpreters at EU meetings, why not continue to do so?

Shoot. I always thought that was Rumantsch.

Er, you mean NATO has already fulfilled the wish.

The EU was founded in 1952 with six nations (Belgium, France, (West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands). It didn't expand to include Great Britain, Ireland & Denmark until 1973, Greece in 1981, Spain & Portugal in 1986, Austria, Finland, Sweden in 1995 and the huge 2004 expansion.

Simply put, the EU didn't do anything to keep Stalin in check. ;)
It also totally failed to do anything about Jugoslavia.
Bullshit. The EU facilitated the success of European capitalism, which made it all the more difficult for communism to take root.

Of course NATO had its role as well.

As for Yugoslavia, the EU is an economic bloc, not a military organisation.

The EU should strenghten the ties with Russia and distance itself from the US.
Why distance itself from the US? Russia is almost a dictatorship anyway.

Bullshit. The EU facilitated the success of European capitalism, which made it all the more difficult for communism to take root.

Of course NATO had its role as well.

As for Yugoslavia, the EU is an economic bloc, not a military organisation.

Er... little problem with that. I wholly agree that the EU facilitated the success of European capitalism. No doubt, and that's important. However, the EU really didn't come into it's own until the 70s, when the UK joined in. Never mind the Marshall Plan, without which Western Europe would have had a much, much harder time to rebuild.

The EU came after NATO, and as you say, was not a military organization. The EU did nothing to prevent a Soviet invasion, ever. That's not a belittlement. But one must give credit where credit is due... NATO has been more of a force keeping the peace in Europe than the EU.

That doesn't make either one more important than the other.

Why distance itself from the US? Russia is almost a dictatorship anyway.
It's a belief common to the school of Franco-German eurocentrism. This school has resented US pressure for a very long time, and seeks a way to break free. Now with the end of the cold war, they may have that with Russia. 0That it is a dictatorship, or any other form of government, is of no interest to these people. What is of interest is its relative military might and economic grwoth potential. Its oil is another factor as well. We are slowly seeing China fill this role as well. After all, only China's blunderous anti seccessionist law against Taiwan stopped the lifting of an arms embargo in Europe, bringing in billions to state-funded enterprises like EADS.

bump

A group of Europeans did the same thing. It's called the United States. :)

But they're ahead of you by about 239 years... ;)

There are some rather big diffrences between the American model and the European model. Firstly all you individual states did not develop as independent nations over a period of more than two millinea. Secondly, the individual states were not formed as a result of a large scale migration over a limited period of time. Third, diffrent languages in Europe. Fourth, diffrent currencies. The list goes on. Frankly, comparing the forming of the USA to the forming of a fedural Europe is very flawed

and to say that America is ahead of Europe doubly so. The US is going through a phase of protectionism and aggression towards other countries to ensure its own wealth and safesty. European states did the same. It was called Imperialism. ;) The difference? We left this phase a couple of years ago :)

There are some rather big diffrences between the American model and the European model. Firstly all you individual states did not develop as independent nations over a period of more than two millinea.

Secondly, the individual states were not formed as a result of a large scale migration over a limited period of time. Third, diffrent languages in Europe. Fourth, diffrent currencies. The list goes on. Frankly, comparing the forming of the USA to the forming of a fedural Europe is very flawed

It meant as a cheeky response. :)

and to say that America is ahead of Europe doubly so. The US is going through a phase of protectionism and aggression towards other countries to ensure its own wealth and safesty. European states did the same. It was called Imperialism. ;) The difference? We left this phase a couple of years ago :)
Protectionism? Maybe on security, but everyone does that. On other matters, no. We've had a protectionist streak economically that dims and brightens every few years, but for the most part, the US is ithe most open economy oon the planet (except maybe Hong Kong or Australia). Culturally, maybe a little. It isn't, however, as bad as Europe's protection. Last year, the EU banned food bearing regional names from being sold if they weren't made in that region, like Champagne, which is common practice in much of the world. And France is even worse. There is an institute that tries to come up with French words for new English buzzwords, and France is now trying to build its own search engine to make sure its citizens don't see the "corrupting" influences of Google or Yahoo!

The pride the French take in their language is well known and has been part of themfor centurys if not longer . This institute has been existing before WW I. But behold...the French even have a quota on how much french music the radio channels have to play. Those evil bastards :eek:

If English wouldn't be the most spoken language in the world anway i'm pretty sure the english-speaking countris would do similair things. We Germans try too to preserve our language before english influences but somehow our leaders always manage to screw things up about it. This hasn't got so much to do with protectionism, I'd rather compare it with historical research and the attempt to preserve and to learn more about the history of something.

As for the American protectionism...nobody is so paranoid then the US. Also there's nobody that involves itself in so many regions they really have no connection to. Why do they do it? To preserve their status as a superpower, to gain control over essources for their economy and to gain friendly markets for their goods. and this with military might (not always of course but increasingly often) Sorry, but I see a lot of parallels to European Imperialism...