NationStates Jolt Archive

What does everyone think about the EU? I have mixed feelings about it personally. There are good sides but there are definite infringements on the parliamentary sovereignty of the memberstates, although if the European Parliament was to gain more power then, although the EU would be more democratic, it would also lead to the memberstates' parliaments becoming obsolete.

I am English and thus most of the people here are Europhobes. But I want to know what the wider world (and intelligent people like yourselves) think of it.

I say unity is strength, eh.

So. You think that Europe should be one big country?

So. You think that Europe should be one big country?

That would be very difficult. There's such a large variety of cultures in each of the small countries of Europe that integration would be a nightmare. I definitely feel that a large Union is a great step towards better times.

That would be very difficult. There's such a large variety of cultures in each of the small countries of Europe that integration would be a nightmare. I definitely feel that a large Union is a great step towards better times.

I think that a confederation of loosely joined memberstates would work better than a large and unwieldy country. Also, the parliamentary system would be a nightmare... :)

That would be very difficult. There's such a large variety of cultures in each of the small countries of Europe that integration would be a nightmare. I definitely feel that a large Union is a great step towards better times.
There's just as wide (if not, a wider) variety in the United States...

I'm against it. Larger blocs of nations only make a World State harder, unless they go to war, and that's unlikely in the EU.

Looking at some of the bigger countries, I have noticed that there those who have tried to separate from these regions. For example, Canada has Quebec trying to separate all the time. I think the people in the EU would be unified for a short time, but then will want to get away from eachother because they will realize they have lost some of their freedoms.

The EU has been one of the best ideas Europe has come up with, ever.
The advantages are definitely outweighing the disadvantages, and only as a strong unified Europe do we have a chance against other parts of the world. Be that economically or in terms of influence and such.
Of course there are some things that not everyone can agree on without any concessions, but isn't it great to be able to talk about it instead of going to war against each other?

Although I'm not in favor of the term United States of Europe (because the term European Union fits the situation so much better when regarding cultures, languages, etc.) it would have improved things greatly if the Constitution had been adopted.

By the way, thank you Luxembourg for believing in the EU! (They voted yes on it today - good for all of us!).

Anyway, I'm glad to be growing up in the EU and not the crazy patchwork Europe used to be :D

Personally, I'd prefer a global system of trade free from both tariff and non-tariff barriers, not just one localised within one of the richest areas of the world. If that system were available, some sort of global government system would be necessary to bring about and enforce laws needed to prevent NTBs (e.g. removal of differences in product standards, stopping general protectionist policies, etc.). However, that may just lead to a homogeneous, authoritarian world, and by looking at the inability of 25 countries to agree on something as simple as the CAP, I'm pretty sure it could never work. :(

There's just as wide (if not, a wider) variety in the United States...
I don't really think there is. For one, the United States started out as one country, very much unlike Europe and second...you actually speak the same language. :)

I don't really think there is. For one, the United States started out as one country, very much unlike Europe and second...you actually speak the same language. :)
The US was carved up between different ex-colonies for years (I think), and there was also something to do with a lot of the south having to decide for statehood after the formation of the US. Wasn't the Louisiana purchase something to do with that? Of course, I don't actually know for sure, I'm piecing it together from films and little knowledge :p

As I do not live in a European country I have no opinion on the matter. Do as you wish and best wishes to you.

I don't really think there is. For one, the United States started out as one country, very much unlike Europe and second...you actually speak the same language. :)
...have you ever been to the United States?

There are HUGE communities in the US where everyone speaks some non-English language...

Not to mention, the fact that we're one country doesn't change the variety of culture. There isn't really much of an "American" culture...American culture is the mixture of multinational cultures...

There's just as wide (if not, a wider) variety in the United States...

Maybe true, but for one thing every state speaks the same language (more or less), and language is a very strong basis for culture.

There is also less of a history of war between the states: compare the US Civil War to the Napoloenic wars, WW I and WW II, the 30 years war, 100 years war, etc.

I'm not European, but I think a central government loosely holding together the European nations would be a good thing. They could be united in some ways, but still retain national identity.

There's just as wide (if not, a wider) variety in the United States...

Wow! That's an incredible statement! I'm really glad to tell you you're wrong. You'd be in deep shit, socially speaking, if you were right.

On the other hand... It would be lovely if we were as homogenous as the US

The US was carved up between different ex-colonies for years (I think), and there was also something to do with a lot of the south having to decide for statehood after the formation of the US. Wasn't the Louisiana purchase something to do with that? Of course, I don't actually know for sure, I'm piecing it together from films and little knowledge :p
The United States started as 13 individual colonies who thought of themselves as a confederation of allied nations. We really only controlled stuff East of Appalachia...and that didn't originally include Florida...

We picked up Florida from the Spanish in some sort of treaty.

A HUGE chunk of land west of the Mississippi river was purchased from the France later in the 19th century in the cheapest real estate purchase..ever...

Then we ended up picking up Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, essentially, the Southwest, from Mexico.

Then in the mid-20th century, Russia gave us Alaska, and we picked up Hawaii...

...have you ever been to the United States?

There are HUGE communities in the US where everyone speaks some non-English language...

Not to mention, the fact that we're one country doesn't change the variety of culture. There isn't really much of an "American" culture...American culture is the mixture of multinational cultures...
...have you ever been to Europe?
No offense, I am aware of the cultural differences within the US, but I truly believe that Europe is a little more ...diverse (which has a lot to do with its history).

Wow! That's an incredible statement! I'm really glad to tell you you're wrong. You'd be in deep shit, socially speaking, if you were right.

On the other hand... It would be lovely if we were as homogenous as the US
Now, I haven't been to Europe...but if you guys haven't been to America, don't even begin to assume anything about the homogenous-ity (?) of the United States...

The United States started as 13 individual colonies who thought of themselves as a confederation of allied nations. We really only controlled stuff East of Appalachia...and that didn't originally include Florida...

We picked up Florida from the Spanish in some sort of treaty.

A HUGE chunk of land west of the Mississippi river was purchased from the France later in the 19th century in the cheapest real estate purchase..ever...

Then we ended up picking up Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, essentially, the Southwest, from Mexico.

Then in the mid-20th century, Russia gave us Alaska, and we picked up Hawaii...
Russia used to own Alaska? Wow, tactically speaking the Russians were dumb as mules - what a place to assemble an army!

...have you ever been to Europe?
No offense, I am aware of the cultural differences within the US, but I truly believe that Europe is a little more ...diverse (which has a lot to do with its history).
My suggestion that the US may be more diverse than the entire European continent may have been a mis-statement, but I believe some people in this thread are greatly over-estimating the homogenous-ity (a word I'm assuming I'm making up) of the United States.

Now, I haven't been to Europe...but if you guys haven't been to America, don't even begin to assume anything about the homogenous-ity (?) of the United States...
I've been there. I saw it. I'm not saying it's homogenous, just that obviously, there is a little more diversity in Europe.

Russia used to own Alaska? Wow, tactically speaking the Russians were dumb as mules - what a place to assemble an army!
Oh, sorry...

Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1867, but Alaska became a state in 1959.

I'm not European, but I think a central government loosely holding together the European nations would be a good thing. They could be united in some ways, but still retain national identity.


I agree compleatly. It would allow Europe to appear on the global level like the US, just good. I would move there.

Russia used to own Alaska? Wow, tactically speaking the Russians were dumb as mules - what a place to assemble an army!
Well they sold it in the mid-19th century for something like 2 cents per acre. Nobody knew it had any worth.

Then, just a couple of years later, they found oil there. Those silly Russians.

Now, I haven't been to Europe...but if you guys haven't been to America, don't even begin to assume anything about the homogenous-ity (?) of the United States...
I may know a little about the US - aren't there huge Irish and Jewish populations in NYC, a large hispanic population in California, and...isn't there a massive German population in the midwest or something? (all based upon people descended from their immigrant ancestors, not actually Irish people just moved to NYC or anything)

I've been there. I saw it. I'm not saying it's homogenous, just that obviously, there is a little more diversity in Europe.
I think probably what would be maybe more accurate is that Europe's diversity is more defined, because there are lines of Nationality that help reinforce the cultural lines...whereas in the US, we have every culture of Europe (and many others) represented, they simply aren't as rigidly defined.

My suggestion that the US may be more diverse than the entire European continent may have been a mis-statement, but I believe some people in this thread are greatly over-estimating the homogenous-ity (a word I'm assuming I'm making up) of the United States.
Of course, no single country is homogenous, and of course, the US isn't either (taking into consideration immigration and again history). But there is just no way you could compare this to the differences in Europe.

I think probably what would be maybe more accurate is that Europe's diversity is more defined, because there are lines of Nationality that help reinforce the cultural lines...whereas in the US, we have every culture of Europe (and many others) represented, they simply aren't as rigidly defined.
Ok, I think we can agree on that :)

Then we ended up picking up Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, essentially, the Southwest, from Mexico.

Then in the mid-20th century, Russia gave us Alaska, and we picked up Hawaii...

Haha, "picking up" from Mexico you mean took those states from Mexico in a war (Texas being a slightly more complicated place).

And Alaska wasn't "given up" it was bought by William Seward, Lincon's secretary of state, and at the time he was much maligned for that deal. Alaska was refered to as "Seward's Folly" or Seward's Icebox" by his dectractors.

Not too important, I just like to get US history as precise as possible

Well they sold it in the mid-19th century for something like 2 cents per acre. Nobody knew it had any worth.

Then, just a couple of years later, they found oil there. Those silly Russians.
2 cents per acre was the Louisiana Purchase.

Russia sold Alaska (approximately 600,000 sq. mi.) for $7,200,000

Haha, "picking up" from Mexico you mean took those states from Mexico in a war (Texas being a slightly more complicated place).

And Alaska wasn't "given up" it was bought by William Seward, Lincon's secretary of state, and at the time he was much maligned for that deal. Alaska was refered to as "Seward's Folly" or Seward's Icebox" by his dectractors.

Not too important, I just like to get US history as precise as possible
The important part of that post was the dates. I was showing that we didn't exactly start as one nation...

My suggestion that the US may be more diverse than the entire European continent may have been a mis-statement, but I believe some people in this thread are greatly over-estimating the homogenous-ity (a word I'm assuming I'm making up) of the United States.

It sure is a miss-statement. Compared to Europe, the US is a very homogenous society. We share a common history, language, and political system. We have a lot more in common with other Americans than some Europeans have with other Europeans.

This is not to say we do not have diversity in the US. We do, but it is not as pronounced as it is in Europe.

By the way, I live in the US, lived in Spain for a wonderful 3 years, and have traveled in other European countries.

I find it highly unlikely the EU will ever become as integrated as the US, but if they coordinated their foreign and defense policies theyd probably gain much more influence in the world

I find it highly unlikely the EU will ever become as integrated as the US, but if they coordinated their foreign and defense policies theyd probably gain much more influence in the world
'much more influence' as opposed to... the little influence Western Europe has now?

the EU is good for business. its good for travel.

i think id hate giving over so much control of my country to another government that i am a minority in.

'much more influence' as opposed to... the little influence Western Europe has now?
Basically, we'll go from "Vying with the US for top dog" to "We own you all. Now do our bidding". Honest. >.> <.< >.> <.<

I find it highly unlikely the EU will ever become as integrated as the US, but if they coordinated their foreign and defense policies theyd probably gain much more influence in the world

Very true.

Right, the US has been one country for something like 200 years or more now. I'd be disappointed if they still have big differences (apart from the racial thing...)
But NOW Europe has its' differences, but no more so than the various parts that formed the US all these years ago. So the potential is there, with a bit of patience.

And I say that a political Union is the ideal we need to pursue, even if it is a little unrealistic at the current time.

I think that it may be a while before the current nationalistic feelings die down. The UK Independence Party has been stirring people, trying to advocate withdrawal from the EU completely. And the current constitution is at a standstill due to the 'No' votes in France and the Netherlands.

Right, the US has been one country for something like 200 years or more now. I'd be disappointed if they still have big differences (apart from the racial thing...)
But NOW Europe has its' differences, but no more so than the various parts that formed the US all these years ago. So the potential is there, with a bit of patience.

And I say that a political Union is the ideal we need to pursue, even if it is a little unrealistic at the current time.
Hawaii and Alaska have only been part of the US for 45/46 years.

The movement for a European Union began in the early 1950s, as the Cold War was gearing for eventual climax. Fears of Communism, the Bomb, and another European conflict drove this idea forward. But in all rationality, the Bomb has outlawed war between the developed nations, for one simple reason: mutually assured destruction. In this paradoxical, ironic sort of way, the most powerful weapons ever conceived preserve the peace between the developed nations.

After all, most wars that occur now are between either nations without such weapons, or perpetrated by a nation with it, against a nation without.

A stronger union really isn't necessary. A stronger economic alliance is certainly useful to combat Asian and North American competition, but I don't think that anything stronger is really required.

Hawaii and Alaska have only been part of the US for 45/46 years.

They've only been states about that long. They've both been part of the US for longer. Alaska was bought in the mid 1800's apparently (1867 is what someone said). Hawaii was sort of forcefully (rather illegally) annexed somewhere around 1900.

(ignore any spelling or grammatical errors....it's a little late)

My ideas on the EU are that cooperation is a good thing, but not in the way it is done now. As citizens of the EU you only get to elect one part of the system and that part has almost no power. The EU of now is only an undemocratic, capitalist bunch of countries dominated by the larger ones' leaders, wherein countries like mine (Netherlands) have almost nothing to say or our brilliant leader (he is such a loser) is too affraid to say anything that would oppose any other nation. Personally I think there should be a union of nations but I would like it to be the United Socialist States of Europe. Under full democratic control by the people not the big bosses as it is now. Hence my choise of the 'other' option.

My ideas on the EU are that cooperation is a good thing, but not in the way it is done now. As citizens of the EU you only get to elect one part of the system and that part has almost no power. The EU of now is only an undemocratic, capitalist bunch of countries dominated by the larger ones' leaders, wherein countries like mine (Netherlands) have almost nothing to say or our brilliant leader (he is such a loser) is too affraid to say anything that would oppose any other nation. Personally I think there should be a union of nations but I would like it to be the United Socialist States of Europe. Under full democratic control by the people not the big bosses as it is now. Hence my choise of the 'other' option.

I know what you mean but the problem with this is that people who oppose the EU often use the fact that the democratic part of it (the EP) has no powers to show why the EU is a bad thing. However, if the leaders of the memberstates were to give the EP (European Parliament) a lot of powers, it would:

a) make the EU more democratic
b) make the EU more powerful and 'accountable' to the people
c) make the national parliaments obsolete (eventually)

So... Most of the national politicians agree with points a) and b) but are unwilling to give the EP too many powers because they are afraid of c).

Herein lies the dilemma... :confused:

I'd like to see a USE but not through the EU. The EU is based on deregulation and run by corrupt fat cats and undemocartic organizations. It's not in any way the framework for a democratic federal state.

Essentially, I agree with Aldo the 2nd.

Most people in the UK that I know are euroskeptic, and to be honest, I don't blame them. All the EU does is give us Brits is grief, and is massively expensive.

Personally, I think Kilroy, Mandelson and the EU diserve each other.

There are many examples where forced integration of different cultures into one have failed terribly. The recent trend is not to unification, but to dissociation. Czechoslovakia no longer exists but is now the Czech republic and Slovakia as separate identities I believe. Yugoslavia came apart at the seams also. Even Great Britain which had a single parliament for centuries has de-centralised to give the Scots their own parliament, and the Welsh their assembly. OK, government is still pretty much central in London for Scotland and Wales, but these are signs that one style, one rule, one course doesn't suit all.

Different people and cultures want different things. Their priorities are different and any "Union" should reflect that. The EU doesn't, and never can.

The current EU is 25 countrys, all speaking different languages, many with different religions, different Ethnic backgrounds, different styles of government, different moral standards (note not better or worse but different),

There are many examples where forced integration of different cultures into one have failed terribly. The recent trend is not to unification, but to dissociation. Czechoslovakia no longer exists but is now the Czech republic and Slovakia as separate identities I believe. Yugoslavia came apart at the seams also. Even Great Britain which had a single parliament for centuries has de-centralised to give the Scots their own parliament, and the Welsh their assembly. OK, government is still pretty much central in London for Scotland and Wales, but these are signs that one style, one rule, one course doesn't suit all.

Different people and cultures want different things. Their priorities are different and any "Union" should reflect that. The EU doesn't, and never can.

The current EU is 25 countrys, all speaking different languages, many with different religions, different Ethnic backgrounds, different styles of government, different moral standards (note not better or worse but different),

That doesn't necessairily mean that nations are dissociating. In the UK we are devolving some powers that should be made on a local level to Scotland (and soon Wales). However, some decisions should be made on a national level and some on a European level. What countries are doing is to try and put different powers on a different level to make them more democratic.

The differences between the different nations shouldn't be a problem. The problems at the moment are caused by the EU - because it's undemocratic and not run by the people.

I can see no reason why a democratically run USE could not work. It wouldn't have to be cenbtralised, as many people seem to think.

The problem is that which nation is going to be altruistic enough to sacrifice its own self interest for the benefit of the other European nations.

Would Italy (where a vote on abortion I seem to recall was abandoned due to lack of turnout caused by the Catholic church urging people not to participate) allow any central European power to enforce different abortion laws upon them? Would France allow the CAP to be changed? Would the Dutch allow tighter drug/euthanasia/prostitution laws to be enforced on their liberal nation?


To use some old phrase, it's "horses for courses". "One man's drink is another man's poison". One size doesn't fit all, either in ethical, political, economic, or cultural terms.

Vive la difference! Remove the tarriffs, open the world up to trade with no barriers.

The EU is a nice little earner for French farmers and Eastern European countries. It is a waste of money for Britain - a really bad deal. The idea of a USE is scary - personally i'd hate to be ruled from Brussels.