NationStates Jolt Archive

... Im a nationalist internationalist. which can be summed up thus.
I love my country, but i wouldnt mind it being part of a bigger one :)
SOooo... Why DOESNT europe unite, "OOoh our cultures would be overrun"
Big deal. If a culture isnt strong enough to survive it should be overrun, and 1 coutnry DOESNT mean 1 culture, look at Britain. Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish even Cornwall has a different culture.
So culture isnt a good reason.
Because it would corner the international market economy.
... dude... isnt that a GOOD thing?!?! besides, Europe need not stop at Europe ;p Europe is in fact, Geographically not a continent. It is part of a Supercontinent Eurasia (includes africa.) so... WHY DONT WE UNITE??

You sir, clearly have not studied this at ALL

I'll just spell off a list of things that should get you understanding why people are hesitant about European Intigration

Black Wednesday

Irish Interest rates

The Common Agricultural Policy producing massive surplusses

Dwindling Cod Fish Stocks as a result of the Common Fisheries policy

Common interest rate

Eurozone slugish economic growth

Ulitmately, yes it may be a good thing. But in practise at present there are things that are making it all very difficult. I agree it will be a good thing. When it works

Supercontinent Eurasia (includes africa.)
Uh-huh. Right. I'm clearly not drunk enough to follow your train of thought...

Uh-huh. Right. I'm clearly not drunk enough to follow your train of thought...

Geographically Eurasia is one big continent, Europe was simply considered a continent for ages.
Africa is also included in Eurasia

Geographically Eurasia is one big continent, Europe was simply considered a continent for ages.
Africa is also included in Eurasia

You also have no knowledge of plate tectonics. Africa and Eurasia are clearly seperate continents. Or have you not noticed that the only place they touch is Egypt, and that very slightly. What is your arguement for Africa and Eurasia being the same continental plate

The Common Agricultural Policy producing massive surplusses


When the CAP was instituted, Europe was a net importer of foodstuffs, now it is a net exporter. The CAP was a total sucess of European common policy. And now, it's a victim of that sucess. The problem on scrapping CAP lies not on the concept of European Union, but yes on the politicians that are shortsighted and coward.


Dwindling Cod Fish Stocks as a result of the Common Fisheries policy


A common fishery policy is what keeps fish stocks from being depleted. Do you think that fish have a nationality? If it wasnt for a common policy, one coutnry could fish everything and leave the others blank.


Eurozone slugish economic growth


Uhuh, the Spanish are complaining alot with their 3% growth a year.


Ulitmately, yes it may be a good thing. But in practise at present there are things that are making it all very difficult. I agree it will be a good thing. When it works

Yea, one thing that makes it dificult: No democracy.

I sincerely hope that there will be a Federal European Union of States with a central elected government and prime minister. I'm a staunch European Federalist. Together we have a larger economy than the US. If we can work together and put that economy working for the greater good of society we can be the Canada of the old world. For this to happen however alot of euro skeptic mentalities must change.

The problem with the EU : it is a club of richs. Basically they band together to rape the third world. I'm all for the African Union, but the European Union is a bad thing for the world. At this rate, the EU will be the next USA in 10 years : a big pain for the world.

The problem with the EU : it is a club of richs. Basically they band together to rape the third world. I'm all for the African Union, but the European Union is a bad thing for the world. At this rate, the EU will be the next USA in 10 years : a big pain for the world.

Except that the US is very much capitalistically focused (its a word now dammit :p) and also very militaristic, whereas the EU is - at present at least - much more socialist, and in the main against military action - as they proved pre-Iraq when everyone except us refused to join the US in invading.

Incidentally some or all of that may be completely wrong - I'm far too tired to tell. Seems to make sense though, so I'll take my chances.

The problem is not if we should unite or not. The problem is how, why and to do what.

European Union, since the begining, is built as purely economical and non-democratic thing. It is used by governements to impose on their own people the "Washington consensus", taking decisions the people don't want inside the mists of the EU, and then coming back to their country and saying "well, it's not our fault, it's EU, we can't do otherwise".

The European "Constitution" was very significant about that: it wanted to impose to every country full capitalism, without giving the EU any power to regulate the economy, and keeping the completly non-democratic way of taking decisions.

What we need is a real union of european people, able to stick together to fight neoliberalism, and not a union of european countries organising reckless competition of every people against every people, every citizen against citizen within Europe.

But the capitalist forces will oppose such an "union of european people", able to create european-wide social systems, european-wide public services, european-wide workers rights, ... so it's not easy at all.

Because Italy wouldn't be a boot anymore.

Duh.

It's Europe. Simple answer.

Except that the US is very much capitalistically focused (its a word now dammit :p) and also very militaristic, whereas the EU is - at present at least - much more socialist, and in the main against military action - as they proved pre-Iraq when everyone except us refused to join the US in invading.

What you state is true for european countries, and for european people, but saddly not for European Union. European Union is as much capitalist as the USA, imposing to member states constent disbanding of social programs, privatisations, and so on. In WTO and similar organisations, the EU is as reckless as USA, and sometimes even more, to force third world countries to accept neoliberalism. On some things, the EU is even more capitalist than the USA. For example, while the US Federal Reserve has a double goal of fighting against inflation AND against unemployment, the EU Central Bank has a signle goal of only fighting agaisnt inflation.

It's Europe. Simple answer.
Unfortunately as a European resident in the past 9 years I can confirm that this is still sadly true to some extent. Not as much as it used to however.

Why doesn't Europe unite? Because we are 25 different nations, and that's just the current members, with 25 different ways of doing things.

We have umpteen different languages and cultures.

I'm not sure any nation has been successfully created by a merger with other pre-existing nations without severe difficulty and centuries of effort. Spain was unified in the late 1400s and they're still having trouble. Russia is constantly pressurising various semi-independent republics to stay. And Germany's unification was a disaster for all of Europe, and by extension the world.

And an EU that enforces social policies and the like is the last thing we should want. Some of us think that liberalism has something to be said for it in a global economy, and the EU over-ruling a national government trying to ensure the prosperity of it's own people is something we should prevent.

And Kiloguya, if what you are saying were true, we would actually have an open market for goods and services, there would be no CAP, and the ECB might be competently run.

You sir, clearly have not studied this at ALL

I'll just spell off a list of things that should get you understanding why people are hesitant about European Intigration

Black Wednesday

Irish Interest rates

The Common Agricultural Policy producing massive surplusses
What do they do with those surpluses? I read about them once, but forget. I think they just let them rot in a pile, while their leaders heckle the US about not helping hungry people in Africa.

What you state is true for european countries, and for european people, but saddly not for European Union. European Union is as much capitalist as the USA, imposing to member states constent disbanding of social programs, privatisations, and so on. In WTO and similar organisations, the EU is as reckless as USA, and sometimes even more, to force third world countries to accept neoliberalism. On some things, the EU is even more capitalist than the USA. For example, while the US Federal Reserve has a double goal of fighting against inflation AND against unemployment, the EU Central Bank has a signle goal of only fighting agaisnt inflation.

Really? Oh... arse. Ok then lol - I'll take your word for it. As I say, I'm far too tired to think coherently or... anything.

Why doesn't Europe unite? Because we are 25 different nations, and that's just the current members, with 25 different ways of doing things.

We have umpteen different languages and cultures.

I'm not sure any nation has been successfully created by a merger with other pre-existing nations without severe difficulty and centuries of effort. Spain was unified in the late 1400s and they're still having trouble. Russia is constantly pressurising various semi-independent republics to stay. And Germany's unification was a disaster for all of Europe, and by extension the world.

And an EU that enforces social policies and the like is the last thing we should want. Some of us think that liberalism has something to be said for it in a global economy, and the EU over-ruling a national government trying to ensure the prosperity of it's own people is something we should prevent.

I completely dissagree. I firmly believe a federal european government is something we should look for. I certainly do. That is my opinion and I will continue to do my best convincing others of the benefits of having a europe surge as the worlds largest economy by putting our diferences and any pathetic nationalism aside. I feel that we should think, speak and feel not as French, German or British but as Europeans.

I think surpluses are now dumped at below market price in third world countries.

Certainly for sugar, the EU subsidised price is below cost price for African growers, and so they go out of business so we can pay tax money to sugar beet growers.

Hell, may as well give it a go. But if a federal Europe fails, it will discredit the idea of 'Europe' for generations.

And there is a place for a Europe wide organisation. I don't think we're ready for a European federation, and a failed attempt would destroy the entire edifice.

You also have no knowledge of plate tectonics. Africa and Eurasia are clearly seperate continents.Just because they're on different tectonic plates? So india is a seperate continent? And western north America? (West of the andreas vault)
There's far more seperate tectonic plates then there have ever been considered to be continents..

I completely dissagree. I firmly believe a federal european government is something we should look for. I certainly do. That is my opinion and I will continue to do my best convincing others of the benefits of having a europe surge as the worlds largest economy by putting our diferences and any pathetic nationalism aside. I feel that we should think, speak and feel not as French, German or British but as Europeans.

Just because it's big doesn't mean that it's the best: America has a much higher GDP per head, which is what counts at the end the day. Luxembourg has a smaller GDP than China, but how many Luxembourgish people are economic migrants to China?

Also, you can't just put things like nationalism aside. The borders of Europe were defined by bloodshed, so you can't just expect internationalism to break out across the whole continent like a rash. Since when have large multi-ethnic states been successful anyway. Yugoslavia and the USSR certainly didn't stand the test of time.

(Btw don't mention America as an example of multi-thnic harmony: 1) it's not, and 2) Europe's history means that identity is much less flexible than in America.

Just because it's big doesn't mean that it's the best: America has a much higher GDP per head, which is what counts at the end the day. I'm pushing for a federal europe because I believe it is in the europe's best interest to do so. It has nothing to do with the US. It has alot more to do with the Asian economic boom than the US as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't care less about the GDP in America and no it's not what counts at the end. Compare the USA's GINI coeficient to the rest of the world and you will see what I mean. The Human Development Index and Report is what counts in the end.

Also, you can't just put things like nationalism aside. The borders of Europe were defined by bloodshed, so you can't just expect internationalism to break out across the whole continent like a rash.
Of course not. I didn't say it would be easy. However I share the ELDR's view for the future of Europe. Setting nationalism aside is a vital component of a better stronger europe.

(Btw don't mention America as an example of multi-thnic harmony: 1) it's not, and 2) Europe's history means that identity is much less flexible than in America.
Prior to this post I haven't mentioned America at all.

I'm pushing for a federal europe because I believe it is in the europe's best interest to do so. It has nothing to do with the US. It has alot more to do with the Asian economic boom than the US as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't care less about the GDP in America and no it's not what counts at the end. Compare the USA's GINI coeficient to the rest of the world and you will see what I mean. The Human Development Index and Report is what counts in the end.


Of course not. I didn't say it would be easy. However I share the ELDR's view for the future of Europe. Setting nationalism aside is a vital component of a better stronger europe.


Prior to this post I haven't mentioned America at all.

Do you think that Canada should join the USA?

Absolutely not. Canada would have nothing to gain from joining the USA. Canadians live better and longer than americans. We get better education and we're more likely not to get shot.

Europeans have everything to gain from a federal Europe. All they will stand to lose will be their national pride. On the other hand a continental pride could easily develop.

After reading numerous points I will point out that some pastors have noted that biblically Europe will never unite. Still not sure on that (whether one believes in the bible or not not an issue here, just their use of bible info to point out their views is my concern). The whole bible is legit vs bible is false debate is something totally different that I do not wish to get into

In terms of nationalism it is possible to be nationalistic but still belong to a greater Union. A union can have advantages of less government bureaucracy leading to faster transport of goods and people leading to better economies of scale and therefore a higher living standard based on just these aspects. However then of course there is increased competition leading to lower cost suppliers winning leading to a lower living standard (since the highest cost for most employers is of course labour).

One might look at the above paragraph and state what does the first part have to do with the second. Quite simply put, if a nation is losing jobs to another nation then nationalism in the form of hatred may come to the forefront and doom the union in terms of its ability to work together. There are some who will argue strong corporations though are necessary for a higher standard of living however strong corporations do not normally provide that higher standard of living unless forced to by the society.

Therefore what is the answer in regards to a united Europe in light of all my dribble above one might ask (assuming one is still reading). Simple, the answer lies in smaller trading blocs that are limited on expansion. At least that is my theory. Meaning no united Europe for the good of the people, but at the same time enough union between some member states so that corporations can grow to be able to expand and make enough of a comfortable profit that they would be not as unstable in light of commodity or currency fluctuations.

...

Absolutely not. Canada would have nothing to gain from joining the USA. Canadians live better and longer than americans. We get better education and we're more likely not to get shot.

Europeans have everything to gain from a federal Europe. All they will stand to lose will be their national pride.
Ahahaha! Funny! So you're saying that the economic differences between the US and Canada are more pronounced than between the 25 European countries?

Absolutely not. Canada would have nothing to gain from joining the USA. Canadians live better and longer than americans. We get better education and we're more likely not to get shot.



I don't see how a joining the USA would shorten the lives of Canadians! People live longer in Vermont than in Texas, but that doesn't mean that they should separate.

How do Candians live better than americans?

Do you think that Canada should join the USA?


No. Canada is a commodities based economy. Argentina already proved in 2001 the negative effects of tying a commodity based economy to a consumption economy such as the US. Many will argue Argentina and Canada are two different entities and they are correct in that analysis however our economies rely upon the same thing, the value of these commodities on the open market. Having a unified currency will set Canada up that a strong US dollar would cripple our ability to sell our natural resources except in cases where we have a vast majority of those resources available (such as fresh water - yes I know Brazil has more but we still have a lot). *

I realize that the question noted should Canada as a whole join the US, however for that you need to analyze the economic impacts upon which most argue we should join before you even begin to look upon the social aspects.

Being Canadian has a ton of advantages, that the US does not offer. This does not mean the US is bad, it just means we are both different. From guns, to crime, to medicare, to military, to ideology etc we are different. A unified North America would no doubt hurt the working class citizen. Further our Canadian social fabric would be in question if we joined the US.

That said with a possible referendum looming upon the horizon in 2007 it may be a question that Canadians may have to brace themselves for depending upon the 'wind of politics'

*= In no way do I support the sale of our fresh water anywhere for the record.

The economy that, the GDP this...
What are we talking about here? Is Europe only about finance? What about the culture sharing, peace and what about we just learn from each other and unite as people and not merely as bank accounts?
Funny we all talk about the 25 countries. Isn't Romania part of Europe? Looks like you have to be rich to be european. Japan and the USA should apply really. It doesn't matter if they are not in europe provided they have the money.

Russia and China... Well, Japan might join us if stops screwing around demanding more land :)
Join us. No capitalism or communism or democracy or other utopistic bullshit - plain dictatorship and militarism and the future is ours. Muhahahaha!!!:headbang: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :rolleyes:
And plus - we'll become the Eurasian Federation or whatever we call it... and we'll get the Junior Ape back into his cage.
PS. Cut the crap with Iran :) Peace.:D

The economy that, the GDP this...
What are we talking about here? Is Europe only about finance? What about the culture sharing, peace and what about we just learn from each other and unite as people and not merely as bank accounts?
Funny we all talk about the 25 countries. Isn't Romania part of Europe? Looks like you have to be rich to be european. Japan and the USA should apply really. It doesn't matter if they are not in europe provided they have the money.

Hehe nice. Besides, if we were to unite we'd unite cos we were all annoyed at America ;p no getting round it. Anti-Americanism will unite europe.

I'm all for a federal Europe though such a nation isn’t for now since:

1) there is no need to unite

2) the common cause that unites for such an action would be to become strong the problem comes when you realise we are already strong

3) we already have an acceptable level of unity and we already look out for each other under the current E.U

4) currently we have nations looking to join under the present E.U how many do you think will be eager to join once the membership cost is national sovereignty

5) the rich-poor divide in Europe is massive if we were to unite the west would suffer a massive fall in living standards larger than that seen during the Germanys union

6) nations with small populations will lose much political power if a democracy is formed if we however give these people more votes there would be revolution on the streets of every town in the E.U

7) there is too much division on how a union would work particularly in the universal laws of each state which are either so liberal they are basically the same old E.U or too demanding for some nations to accept

Already Europe is coming closer together but you will have to be patient as a union will take much time and effort but this time and effort will bring us together for a lasting union much like you must be patient with a pie lest you suffer food poisoning

Well apart from the whole European Union thing......
I guess it is hard when you have so many different cultures and so many different languages how can you be unified?

The economy that, the GDP this...
What are we talking about here? Is Europe only about finance? What about the culture sharing, peace and what about we just learn from each other and unite as people and not merely as bank accounts?
Funny we all talk about the 25 countries. Isn't Romania part of Europe? Looks like you have to be rich to be european. Japan and the USA should apply really. It doesn't matter if they are not in europe provided they have the money.
You're right... I'm too tired to think for myself and just copied what I'd read before without thinking... aren't there about 44 countries that have territory in Europe?

By being polite and smiling and nodding when people say something you dont understand ;p

The economy that, the GDP this...
What are we talking about here? Is Europe only about finance? What about the culture sharing, peace and what about we just learn from each other and unite as people and not merely as bank accounts?
Funny we all talk about the 25 countries. Isn't Romania part of Europe? Looks like you have to be rich to be european. Japan and the USA should apply really. It doesn't matter if they are not in europe provided they have the money.

lol. Note I did note on nationalism though I admire your point about Japan and the USA since in the end that is really what a united Europe (this time around) is about anyhow. :)

Actually I don't see the many different languages as a problem for Europe. On the contrary, I believe it is a richness. People talking the same language don't understand each other anyway. Along with the many languages are the many different ways to express things and many cultural treasures. All modern languages are built on several ancient languages. At the begenning of human history there was maybe 3 words in the language. Now look at the english language. Nobody here know half of 1% of the english words. In Europe, we know even less than 0.01% of all the different ways we have to express ourselves and that is a very great opportunity to learn and to build a new superior culture from there.

. Nobody here know half of 1% of the english words. In Europe, we know even less than 0.01% of all the different ways we have to express ourselves and that is a very great opportunity to learn and to build a new superior culture from there.

Sounds like a challenge to me... Aardvark... (gets dictionary)

Except that the US is very much capitalistically focused (its a word now dammit :p) and also very militaristic, whereas the EU is - at present at least - much more socialist, and in the main against military action - as they proved pre-Iraq when everyone except us refused to join the US in invading.


well, Denmark did join too :)

but i think the difference between the countries is too big to make a fusion possiple. Take Denmark ie., we pay a high tax (40% of every full-time emplyee pay 62% marginal-tax) and a great deal of the money goes to free healthcare, education(and even cash paid to people under education) and economic aid to people withhout work. I dont think the danes would like a change in this system, and I think only limited amount of people in other european contries, which dont currently have such a system, would be agienst having one.

I think all other european contry have some special triats that can exist togther with some of the other contrys.

I'm not sure any nation has been successfully created by a merger with other pre-existing nations without severe difficulty and centuries of effort. Spain was unified in the late 1400s and they're still having trouble. Russia is constantly pressurising various semi-independent republics to stay. And Germany's unification was a disaster for all of Europe, and by extension the world.

Even the United States weren't united without problems.

Better not! thats a stupit question? Like saying Canada mexico and america should unite

Better not! thats a stupit question? Like saying Canada mexico and america should unite

gets me thinking

it would be a geographical class structure with the working class living in Mexico the middle class living in America and the upper class living in Canada could such a system form in North America? I say it could

The EU cannot unite. The sheer depth of history, some of it extremely close to the srface, means it is not going to work in the near future.

Once the USA drove out the Native Americans they had virgin territory, that from the start belonged to them, and developed with one currency, one language and one political culture.

Europe as a continent includes I think nearly 50 countries. Certainly above 40. Slightly depends where you draw the line. But even within the current EU you have 25 different political cultures. France would not accept their cherished 'French model' being overturned by the EU. Nor would Britain accept being forced to alter the workings of the NHS to suit a European federation. Any federation would have to give substantial freedom in social policy to the federal states. That is achievable. Where it would fall apart is in member states requiring separate foreign policies. One state can only have one foreign policy...and yet on almost every significant foreign policy decision the separate states go their own way, and would not accept being over-ruled.

Why not take an Austro-Hungarian View. Different Interior Policy, same foreign policy, and any NEW laws\funds\taxes happen to all the places.

When the CAP was instituted, Europe was a net importer of foodstuffs, now it is a net exporter.
Maybe cos under CAP foreign food is almost banned?

For the Federalists, I'll make a bargain.

Evidently, a competently-run organization will be able to produce audited accounts that can be demonstrated to show a proper financial position. If you want to join a bigger organization you will want it to show it is in good financial health.

Therefore the EU, if one were to produce a closer merger and abandon one's own independently run economy, will be able to prove that it is properly run.

So if any Federalist can provide signed-off, audited accounts for any time over the past, let's say 10, years, that would be good evidence in support of a single Euro state.

Come on then. One set of accounts since 1995. That's all I ask. If you cannot do that you have to concede that it's a bad idea.

When the CAP was instituted, Europe was a net importer of foodstuffs, now it is a net exporter. The CAP was a total sucess of European common policy. And now, it's a victim of that sucess. The problem on scrapping CAP lies not on the concept of European Union, but yes on the politicians that are shortsighted and coward.

I dont know if you noticed, but there are now 25 countries in the EU. They cannot all continue to recieve the same level of funding as before. Yet the old benefactors want to keep the benefits, where as the new ones want what they consider is rightfully theres


A common fishery policy is what keeps fish stocks from being depleted. Do you think that fish have a nationality? If it wasnt for a common policy, one coutnry could fish everything and leave the others blank.

Yes, in theory. But ITS NOT WORKING! The number of inspectors is pitiful compared to the size of Europes fishing fleet. And when the inspectors do come up they come AFTER the ships have returned. So if they have over fished, they just throw the excess back into the sea.


Uhuh, the Spanish are complaining alot with their 3% growth a year.

The French and the Germans are barely breaking even, so they want low interest rates. When Spains economy starts to overheat, they arnt going to be able to cool off with higher interest rates. That happened to Ireland and it will happen to Spain if something isnt done

What do they do with those surpluses? I read about them once, but forget. I think they just let them rot in a pile, while their leaders heckle the US about not helping hungry people in Africa.

Actually they destroy a third of it, and sell/give the rest of it to Africa on the cheep. When I say on the cheep I mean practically free. This undercuts all the local producers, meaning that you just go about creating even more poverty.

Just because they're on different tectonic plates? So india is a seperate continent? And western north America? (West of the andreas vault)
There's far more seperate tectonic plates then there have ever been considered to be continents..

You ever heard the term "Subcontinent"

Bump

Why not take an Austro-Hungarian View. Different Interior Policy, same foreign policy, and any NEW laws\funds\taxes happen to all the places.
not the greatest example. political instability in the Austro-Hungarian Empire is what led to Gavrilo Princip assassinating Franz Ferdinand, an event which is generally accepted as being the last straw that set off the tension that had been building in Europe. it is oddly relevant to some of the points already made that it was the rich countries screwing around in Africa and the Balkans that created this situation. so it may be argued that the Austro-Hungarian model was a factor in the chain of events that led to the world wars (yes, both of them).

besides, that's actually the way things seem to be headed, we just have to let things take their course. forcing unity like in yugoslavia just creates unneccescary tension. let's just hope it works out well and doesn't become the uber-capitalism that has been predicted and is, unfortunately, very possible.

I dont know if you noticed, but there are now 25 countries in the EU. They cannot all continue to recieve the same level of funding as before. Yet the old benefactors want to keep the benefits, where as the new ones want what they consider is rightfully theres

And...? I don't remember agreeing with the current state of things.


Yes, in theory. But ITS NOT WORKING! The number of inspectors is pitiful compared to the size of Europes fishing fleet. And when the inspectors do come up they come AFTER the ships have returned. So if they have over fished, they just throw the excess back into the sea.

In other words, you agree with the usefulness of the policy, except you want it properly funded. I can agree with that.


The French and the Germans are barely breaking even, so they want low interest rates. When Spains economy starts to overheat, they arnt going to be able to cool off with higher interest rates. That happened to Ireland and it will happen to Spain if something isnt done

Technically, you are speaking of diferentiated interest rates for the entire EuroZone. Well, that writes off the French of the equation, because current interest rate is optimum for them (and only them); Secondly, you can control an economy overheating by applying a restrictive fiscal policy. Third, the growing (yet, still incomplete) economical integration will shun away the need (if there is one) of diferentiated interest rates. Fourth, even if you had such interest rates, the single currency would still be logical. Fifth.. uhh.. I think there was a fifth, but I forget :p

In other words, you agree with the usefulness of the policy, except you want it properly funded. I can agree with that

And properly enforced. There is no proper procedure of punishment for overfishing in CFP waters.


Technically, you are speaking of diferentiated interest rates for the entire EuroZone. Well, that writes off the French of the equation, because current interest rate is optimum for them (and only them);

Exactly. Thats the problem. The French and Germans are the only ones that benefit from the Euro's current state. Fixed interest rates of a currency across a large number of nations means one of two things. Either you listen to a small group of nations and thus the interest rate is set in terms with their economic needs at the expense of everyone else, or you listen to everyone and create a massive compromise that equates to practically doing nothing.


Secondly, you can control an economy overheating by applying a restrictive fiscal policy.

I'm going to assume you mean tax, and not the nonsense like the medium term fiscal stratagy as imposed by Margret Thatcher. And while that is true, tax is only one spehere of control. If you have to fluctaute tax to accomadate other countries interest rate needs, then how will you use tax to the benefit of your needs.


Third, the growing (yet, still incomplete) economical integration will shun away the need (if there is one) of diferentiated interest rates.

That will only happen if all our economies are virtually identical and have the same needs and the same trends go across them all. Which may happen in say about 50 or 70 years, but even that is a very optimistic guess. The fact is to keep economies afloat you need national control of interest rates


Fourth, even if you had such interest rates, the single currency would still be logical.

For trade purposes yes, I agree

WHY DONT WE UNITE??

Screw all the economic reasons for not uniting (although I'm sure they're completely valid). The main reason I do not want countries in general to unite into one is the fear of a one-world government which will try and take away our rights and freedoms.

I don't mind about culture clashing or anything, I think the mixing and culture-incest of brother and sister nations is a great thing. Culture doesn't need to be preserved or stagnated or anything. Let culture do what culture wants.

It's just that a large number of different countries with different governments means it's more likely that there will be one you won't mind living in. This is the same reason I'm a raving isolationist. I'm not xenophobic - I support essentially open borders everywhere. I just don't want the international community to make it so there are the same laws everywhere.

What if the giant Eurostate turned into some awful fascist oppression nation, dopey communist healthy-living-fest, or wage-slaving, hobo-neglecting capitalist hell? Whatever your political ideology, one huge Europe-country makes it easier for whatever ideology you DON'T support to dominate you and ruin your life.

well, Denmark did join too :)

I differ. I say, well, Denmark did join too :(

It's just that a large number of different countries with different governments means it's more likely that there will be one you won't mind living in. This is the same reason I'm a raving isolationist. I'm not xenophobic - I support essentially open borders everywhere. I just don't want the international community to make it so there are the same laws everywhere.

What if the giant Eurostate turned into some awful fascist oppression nation, dopey communist healthy-living-fest, or wage-slaving, hobo-neglecting capitalist hell? Whatever your political ideology, one huge Europe-country makes it easier for whatever ideology you DON'T support to dominate you and ruin your life.

And while I agree here, co-operation is certainly necessary between these various different governments.

United Europe =/= one giant eurostate.

Do you think that Canada should join the USA?
Yes. Yes. YES.

Absolutely not. Canada would have nothing to gain from joining the USA. Canadians live better and longer than americans. We get better education and we're more likely not to get shot.

Canada would have huge economic gains; our growth is way behind that of the US because of our government's stupidity despite our resources being superior. Canadians do not live better than Americans; our GDP per head is significantly less, and as someone who has lived in both countries, I can say that (many, but not all) Americans definitely do live better. Our life expectancy is less that three years better than theirs, and I can't imagine how it would be affected by a US takeover, anyway (the states themselves have varying life expectancies).

As someone who has also been educated in both countries at different points, I say it is unfair to judge the entirety of the US on the education systems of a few failing states; it's not like Canada is stellar, either. Both have some bad states/provinces and some good states/provinces. I for one got a much better education in the US, one that allowed me to skip a year of university in Canada. As for the shooting, again, it depends on the neighbourhood. Stop painting an entire giant country with one brush. There are some good and some bad points about the states, but I don't see how any of the bad ones could affect Canadians enough to offset the economic gains we would stand to make by joining the Americans.

In other words, you agree with the usefulness of the policy, except you want it properly funded. I can agree with that.
The only country in western Europe that does not need to worry about overfishing is Iceland. And it's outside the CFP.