NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't make me laugh.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433921,00.html
Exposing Europe's Weakness
By SPIEGEL Staff

European governments are celebrating the agreement over a peacekeeping mission for Lebanon as a success for the EU's common security policy. But the difficulty assembling the force troops shows just how far Europe still has to go before it can claim to have a common foreign policy.

In the end, it wasn't just a success -- it was a big success. Almost a breakthrough. Appearing at a press conference on Friday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan mused: "Europe has lived up to its responsibility and provided the backbone of the force."

Next up was German Foreign Minster Frank-Walter Steinmeier. "This was a success for Europe," he told the gathered reporters. If things go well in Lebanon, enthusiastic Italian Foreign Minister Massimo d'Alema said, perhaps the international peacekeeping force could later be deployed to restore order in the Gaza Strip.

But ultimately, the foreign minister's meeting in Brussels on Friday was a big piece of political theater. It provided a happy ending to a something that European leaders had threatened to turn into a farce. The 11th-hour agreement to send a 7,000-strong European contingent as part of the UN peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon created the illusion of a common foreign policy among European Union member states that doesn't truly exist. Indeed, the actual state of the EU's joint foreign policy was perhaps best expressed by Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioka.

An angry Tuomioka told a Finnish newspaper in early August that his 24 colleagues in the EU play a "game of intrigue" and that they prepare for joint meetings as if they are preparing for "negotiations with countries of potentially hostile intent." Every single document relating to the Middle East conflict "is known within an hour in Tel Aviv and apparently Washington and Moscow, too." That, the Finn argued, is no way to forging ahead with a working common foreign policy in Europe.

Not that anyone flinched. At best, the only thing that may have surprised Tuomioka's colleagues was the clarity of his words. The 25 minister are perfectly aware of the state of making foreign policy in the EU.

For the past seven years, Europeans have been attempting to expand a union that until now has largely been limited to economic policy to also include foreign and security matters. The aim was to prevent the kind of paralysis seen during the bloodshed in the Balkans in the 1990s. Back then, Europe was unable to stop the wars and ethnic cleansing as Yugoslavia disintegrated.

As a consequence, European leaders agreed in 1999 to create a 60,000 strong European rapid reaction force. Even though there are already European forces present in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Democratic Republic of Congo under the EU flag, the rapid reaction force's readiness for deployment is limited.

Indeed, the idea remains fiction today that the EU could secure a position at the forefront of world order with a collective foreign policy and a self-contained defense. Even the idea of being a second-tier player -- behind the US but close or alongside Russia and rising powers like China and India -- seems remote today. And as far as French President Jacques Chirac's dream of a Europe that could "balance out" the United States goes? It has been long forgotten.

For unlike its rivals on the global political stage, Europe does not act as a single unit. There is no single government that can issue orders to a unified army. There isn't even an EU foreign minister who could help bring together the diverging interests of the Portuguese, the Poles, Germans, Irish, Brits and French into a single policy. In the end, each country is looking out for its own interests -- despite any vows to the contrary.

There has hardly been another time when that was as clear as it was last week. Europe continued to haggle long after developing countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Malaysia had given clear troop commitments to the United Nations. Above all, it was the French who did the most to confuse the situation.

Waffling in Paris, reservations in Berlin
At the beginning of August, Paris signalled that it would be ready to make 5,000 soldiers available for the peacekeeping force. Less than three weeks later, however, Chirac drew back. Initially, Chirac announced his country would only send 200 men to strengthen the existing blue helmet peacekeeping force in Lebanon. The news shocked Paris's European partners.

Diplomats across Europe tried to figure out why Chirac had changed his mind. Were there tensions between the office of the president and the Foreign Ministry? Was there a quarrel between Chirac and the military? Or was it just an adept maneuver on the part of the French -- as was witnessed during the negotiation of UN Resolution 1701 -- to use its troop offer in order to extract more concessions from the Americans?

Or perhaps Chirac just briefly dropped the ball. Throughout the negotiations over the resolution in New York, Chirac engaged in the process from his vacation and, when an agreement was finally reached in the cease-fire, he was able to claim to be its "father."

"Chirac was so happy, and rightfully so, about convincing Bush to stop the combat operation," a Chirac advisor said, describing the French president's behavior, "that he neglected the consequences."

Under pressure from military leaders, Chirac quickly pulled back. The French army's leadership is still deeply traumatized by a brutal car-bomb attack in Beirut that killed 58 French soldiers in 1983. Instead of the hoped for larger contingent of troops, a smaller number of French soldiers landed in southern Lebanon last week. The image of two rubber dinghies carrying the French flag landing at on the beach at Naqura in Lebanon was the subject of much mockery and derision.

Nevertheless, in the end the French got the conditions they needed to provide a clearer mandate for the troops they would send to the Mideast. On Thursday night, Chirac came around: France announced it would send up to 2,000 men and that it would also be willing to lead the force. The decision came as a relief to Germany. If the French had ducked out, the call for German troops would have become much louder. And that's exactly what the government in Berlin was seeking to avoid.

For weeks, the German government has kept a low profile. After all, in Europe the formation of troops is a strategic maneuver whereby whichever country blinks first loses. When German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung suggested that Germany would "not be able to refuse" a military contribution, he was promptly ordered back in line. German history, Chancellor Angela Merkel said, portentously, demanded serious reserve about deploy troops there.

Berlin only made an offer at the point where it could no longer delay doing so -- eventually agreeing to send war ships to the Mediterranean. Germany -- the continental European power -- would limit its contribution to a handful of ships from the German fleet. In total, Germany will send 1,200 troops who would use speed boats, reconnaissance jets and frigates to patrol the Lebanese coast. However, Berlin is still awaiting a formal request from the Lebanese government before it can help patrol the 225-kilometer long stretch of coastline. Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, must also approve the mandate.

Rome's gambit
The weakness showed by Paris, London and Berlin, provided the Italians with a chance to position themselves as an important European player. With its offer to send 3,000 troops to Lebanon, the new left-wing government of Romano Prodi was able to elegantly differentiate its foreign policy from that of predecessor Silvio Berlusconi. The former prime minister sent Italian troops to Iraq to be alongside the Americans. But Prodi's move will enable him to sell himself as an arbiter of peace to voters. It also enables him to cautiously distance himself from Washington without irritating the US.

The motives for the individual EU member states were so tangled and complex that, for a time, they made it look as though there wouldn't be a powerful peacekeeping force for Lebanon. Elmar Brok, a German member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union Party and chairman of the Foreign Policy Committee of the European Parliament, described the "back and forth" as "embarrassing." Meanwhile, a confidant of the German defense minister said the negotiations were reminiscent of an oriental bazaar -- and comparable to the months-long tug-o-war in Europe over the military mission to provide security during Congolese elections.

Indeed, that could be the next endurance test for Europe foreign policy. If the Congo deployment, which is scheduled to end in November, takes longer than expected (and many believe it will), it will bring with it the next agonizing over what member states send troops. France has already signalled that it will need the troops it currently has stationed in Congo for the long-term deployment in Lebanon.

I quoted the whole article for a change, because it's not too long and really worth reading.

Fact of the matter is that despite the economic and military power of the EU...it is not a world power, and won't be any time soon. And the reason is that they are not pulling on the same string. When it comes to real issues, the sort of things that determine where countries will stand in the future - like sending troops, making agreements regarding resources (common EU energy and resource policy?) and the like, it's every man for himself. I noticed that not too long ago with the Congo mission. The sort of diplomatic mudwrestling going on when the composition of that force was being worked out wouldn't have been out of place in the 19th century.

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect all these countries to work together virtually as one? Or is it just the politicians' fault? Am I wrong in my analysis?
Does Europe matter?

Don't make me laugh.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433921,00.html


I quoted the whole article for a change, because it's not too long and really worth reading.

Fact of the matter is that despite the economic and military power of the EU...it is not a world power, and won't be any time soon. And the reason is that they are not pulling on the same string. When it comes to real issues, the sort of things that determine where countries will stand in the future - like sending troops, making agreements regarding resources (common EU energy and resource policy?) and the like, it's every man for himself. I noticed that not too long ago with the Congo mission. The sort of diplomatic mudwrestling going on when the composition of that force was being worked out wouldn't have been out of place in the 19th century.

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect all these countries to work together virtually as one? Or is it just the politicians' fault? Am I wrong in my analysis?
Does Europe matter?

Europe will never be a superpower and it has France who are destined to lose every war they embark on unless they have America to do most of the fighting.
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion: all you leave behind is a load of noisy baggage"
"The question is not "Can we rely on the French?" but "How long 'til the French collapse?"
Also, Europe already has one superpower...no need for more.

Don't make me laugh.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433921,00.html


I quoted the whole article for a change, because it's not too long and really worth reading.

Fact of the matter is that despite the economic and military power of the EU...it is not a world power, and won't be any time soon. And the reason is that they are not pulling on the same string. When it comes to real issues, the sort of things that determine where countries will stand in the future - like sending troops, making agreements regarding resources (common EU energy and resource policy?) and the like, it's every man for himself. I noticed that not too long ago with the Congo mission. The sort of diplomatic mudwrestling going on when the composition of that force was being worked out wouldn't have been out of place in the 19th century.

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect all these countries to work together virtually as one? Or is it just the politicians' fault? Am I wrong in my analysis?
Does Europe matter?

Europe will never be a superpower and it has France who are destined to lose every war they embark on unless they have America to do most of the fighting.
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion: all you leave behind is a load of noisy baggage"
"The question is not "Can we rely on the French?" but "How long 'til the French collapse?"
Also, Europe already has one superpower...no need for more.

Europe will never be a superpower and it has France who are destined to lose every war they embark on unless they have America to do most of the fighting.
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion: all you leave behind is a load of noisy baggage"
"The question is not "Can we rely on the French?" but "How long 'til the French collapse?"
Also, Europe already has one superpower...no need for more.

You silly Francophobes make me laugh. Your ignorance of world history astounds me.

Europe will never be a superpower...
You made only this one point in your post, yet you didn't tell us why you believe this.

Also, Europe already has one superpower...no need for more.
If you're talking about the UK - not really. They don't matter any more than the French do, perhaps even less so, since they don't actually have an independent foreign policy anymore and just tag along with whatever the US does.

You silly Francophobes make me laugh. Your ignorance of world history astounds me.

Ignorant? Me?
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

You made only this one point in your post, yet you didn't tell us why you believe this.


If you're talking about the UK - not really. They don't matter any more than the French do, perhaps even less so, since they don't actually have an independent foreign policy anymore and just tag along with whatever the US does.

Only because the US is doing the right thing

How do you like them apples? Think up a good response in the 20m or so i will be away

Ignorant? Me?
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Honestly, that's really not funny anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France

Note carefully the American war of independence, and do some reading on the actual french involvement in it.

Only because the US is doing the right thing
Look at me not caring about your attempted threadjack in the slightest.

This isn't about "right" and "wrong", it is about how important nations are in the international concert of power. It's been interrupted a bit by the emergence of the superpowers in the latter half of the 20th century, but that exceptional time is over. We're returning to a pre-WWI sort of situation.

And fact of the matter is that what the UK says doesn't matter to anyone any more than what France says. Indeed, probably less so since the UK has a reputation of simply being a lapdog of the Americans by now.

And compared to the US, China, a resource-equipped Russia or indeed India and perhaps Iran soon, what the UK, France or Germany have to say about the world matters to virtually no one. The only way Europe could be another real player in this concert is if they all worked together - which they don't.

A while back I made up an analogy about all this: The US is the Roman Empire, the Chinese are the Parthians - and Europe are the Greek city states claiming all sorts of cultural and historical importance but on the way to being discarded.

Europe will never be a superpower. You can't get the original 15 to even agree on a fishing policy; how does anyone truly expect 25, soon to be 27, to seriously agree on anything as controversial as unification?

The only skill Brussels has perfected over the last 50 years is how to line the pockets of its officials with our cash.

It's been a long time since I've posted...but this merits my attention.

The EU has the potential makings of a superpower; why? It has the highest GDP globally, meaning it has immense wealth, it has a history of imperialism, it has a huge population and, if it plays its cards right, it could have a high level of technology.

Now, why won't it be in the near future? The EU, while aiming at fostering competition and upholding the tenets of capitalism is inefficient and bureaucratic. It needs reform. It is meant to be a trade alliance, and I see no reason why it cannot be a military one (for defensive purposes). I will oppose every measure, however, to see it becoming a supranational organisation. That would make it all the more inefficient and useless.

What must be done is reforming it into a confederal union, along the lines of Switzerland, where the nation-states conform to certain common rules, yet retain a large measure of indepence and autonomy. It must also commit itself to capitalism proper, and give up any socialist pretensions. We did not put it up there to tell us how to live our lives. It is metamorphosing from blessing to a vile behemoth, absorbing Europe's wealth and wasting it. For instance, the latest budgetary deal was pathetic. It hardly managed to reform the EU's budget and emphasize on things that matter. Now, nations must waste ever more cash on dying pursuits. Then, perhaps, it will emerge as a superpower.

Reformation along these lines would make fewer the objects of disagreement, and allow the EU to focus on what really matters - the creation of a freely competitive common market, accountable to its citizens and constituent members.

<snip>

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect all these countries to work together virtually as one? Or is it just the politicians' fault? Am I wrong in my analysis?
Does Europe matter?


Why would they work as one? They are different countries with unique identities. This needs to be protected, not overriden by EU. I can understand cooperation on some matters (including foreign policy and common military) but work as one is unneccessary and wanted only by marginal people, obviously including you (most europeans place their nationality first, europeanness later).
As for superpower EU or world power EU...Who cares? The important thing is the quality of life of Europeans(which is high) and our independence (which we mostly are). Interfering to other people's bussiness is of no interest to me and many other europeans....

Why would they work as one? They are different countries with unique identities. This needs to be protected, not overriden by EU. I can understand cooperation on some matters (including foreign policy and common military) but work as one is unneccessary and wanted only by marginal people, obviously including you (most europeans place their nationality first, europeanness later).
As for superpower EU or world power EU...Who cares? The important thing is the quality of life of Europeans(which is high) and our independence (which we mostly are). Interfering to other people's bussiness is of no interest to me and many other europeans....
I agree. What should it matter whether or not the EU is the next big empire?

Economic cooperation is also very important by the way.

It's a little unfair to say the EU/Europe (whichever one you want to talk about) will never be a world superpower.

The 'unity' phase is still really only in it's infancy. Only half a century ago, we were at each other's throats. This is probably the first time since Pax Romana that there has been any sort of productive move forwards.

Of course there are difficulties, you are asking 25-30 regions of different cultures, languages, histories (sometimes conflicting) and goals to all work together for a common cause. This isn't like the beginnings of the United States, there are a lot of problems entrenched is Europe.

As the century continues and as the United States declines as a world power (and it is like it or not), the simplistic realisation that relatively small countries banding together pose a stronger bloc against India, China et al.

Sure, Europe/EU isn't a 'superpower' in the traditional sense nor is it likely to ever project it's military in the same way- but as a bloc becomming more and more unified, the next 50-70 years will be interesting to say the least.

The EU is a joke. It's like they saw the US system and decided to make a really bad copy of a system that barely works as is.

I'm trying to figure out what the president of the EU does exactly.

Europe will never be a superpower and it has France who are destined to lose every war they embark on unless they have America to do most of the fighting.
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion: all you leave behind is a load of noisy baggage"
"The question is not "Can we rely on the French?" but "How long 'til the French collapse?"
Also, Europe already has one superpower...no need for more.

You are just an American, arent you?

The EU is a joke. It's like they saw the US system and decided to make a really bad copy of a system that barely works as is.

I'm trying to figure out what the president of the EU does exactly.

...

what president of the EU, you ignorant fool? :rolleyes:

I agree...
Hehe. You're the Smithers to NN's Monty Burns.

Hehe. You're the Smithers to NN's Monty Burns.
Well, don't you agree too? Isn't the imperialist nation the worst threat to the libertarian ideal?

It's been a long time since I've posted...but this merits my attention.

The EU has the potential makings of a superpower; why? It has the highest GDP globally, meaning it has immense wealth, it has a history of imperialism, it has a huge population and, if it plays its cards right, it could have a high level of technology.
You have made the mistake that most of those who dream of a united EU make here, though; that is, you have started at the finish and worked backwards. I'm sure if you added up enough countries anywhere in the world you could make it up to the highest GDP; Australia, Japan, maybe Kenya, toss in Bangladesh and so on.

Simply adding up the combined totals of the EU nations and saying that is a good enough reason to combine, and/or a strong enough incentive, is never going to work.

Now, why won't it be in the near future? The EU, while aiming at fostering competition and upholding the tenets of capitalism is inefficient and bureaucratic. It needs reform. It is meant to be a trade alliance, and I see no reason why it cannot be a military one (for defensive purposes). I will oppose every measure, however, to see it becoming a supranational organisation. That would make it all the more inefficient and useless.
I agree. The bureaucracy and corruption so deeply inbedded in the EU is embarrassing and criminal. It has now been more than a decade since the budget auditors have agreed to sign off the EU's accounts; they simply refuse to when nearly 90% of the budget cannot be account for.

90%!

The EU is very skilled at the moment of being an almighty gravy train, and very poor at doing any of the things we actually want it to do.

What must be done is reforming it into a confederal union, along the lines of Switzerland, where the nation-states conform to certain common rules, yet retain a large measure of indepence and autonomy. It must also commit itself to capitalism proper, and give up any socialist pretensions. We did not put it up there to tell us how to live our lives. It is metamorphosing from blessing to a vile behemoth, absorbing Europe's wealth and wasting it. For instance, the latest budgetary deal was pathetic. It hardly managed to reform the EU's budget and emphasize on things that matter. Now, nations must waste ever more cash on dying pursuits. Then, perhaps, it will emerge as a superpower.

Reformation along these lines would make fewer the objects of disagreement, and allow the EU to focus on what really matters - the creation of a freely competitive common market.
I do agree that the only way a closer union would happen is in a loose confereration; however, I believe that this was most likely five years ago, with the introduction of the Euro. The chance has been missed now, and the current trend in EU politics seems to be towards disintegration and looser ties, not the other way round. I just can't see the EU nations ever reaching a consensus on unification when they can't even reach one on voting rights of new nations.

The EU is a joke. It's like they saw the US system and decided to make a really bad copy of a system that barely works as is.

I'm trying to figure out what the president of the EU does exactly.

Case 1: Young colonies with no culture and small populations join as a federation against a common threat (Brits).

Case 2: Countries with thousands of years of cultures and distinct identities, languages, countries that have been waring for centuries join in what started as a trading block and then sorta became like a confederation (not a federation yet).

I think Americans shouldnt post in this thread not to strengthen the obvious stereotypes about them...

You have made the mistake that most of those who dream of a united EU make here, though; that is, you have started at the finish and worked backwards. I'm sure if you added up enough countries anywhere in the world you could make it up to the highest GDP; Australia, Japan, maybe Kenya, toss in Bangladesh and so on.

Simply adding up the combined totals of the EU nations and saying that is a good enough reason to combine, and/or a strong enough incentive, is never going to work.
I am not a believer in the adage that there is strength in numbers. However, my point was, that the EU's total GDP is indeed very high. It's not merely adding up countries up in this case; remember, the EU acts as a unitary economic agent as well as a collection of nations.


I agree. The bureaucracy and corruption so deeply inbedded in the EU is embarrassing and criminal. It has now been more than a decade since the budget auditors have agreed to sign off the EU's accounts; they simply refuse to when nearly 90% of the budget cannot be account for.

90%!

The EU is very skilled at the moment of being an almighty gravy train, and very poor at doing any of the things we actually want it to do.
It's pathetic, and it's making us all the poorer. The point of the EU is economic prosperity and an integrated market, not to transform into the next USSR. It has its merits - for instance, combatting monopolies and the existence of positive human rights. However, it oversteps the mark by regulating nearly everything.

I do agree that the only way a closer union would happen is in a loose confereration; however, I believe that this was most likely five years ago, with the introduction of the Euro. The chance has been missed now, and the current trend in EU politics seems to be towards disintegration and looser ties, not the other way round. I just can't see the EU nations ever reaching a consensus on unification when they can't even reach one on voting rights of new nations.
Well, all it takes is that single visionary with the right plans in mind. I am hopeful someone will come along and show the EU the way to go. Perhaps the EU should collapse. Then something better can rise out of its ashes.

Case 1: Young colonies with no culture and small populations join as a federation against a common threat (Brits).

Case 2: Countries with thousands of years of cultures and distinct identities, languages, countries that have been waring for centuries join in what started as a trading block and then sorta became like a confederation (not a federation yet).

I think Americans shouldnt post in this thread not to strengthen the obvious stereotypes about them...

I actually agree with Ny Nordland.... w...t.....f......

If you're talking about the UK - not really. They don't matter any more than the French do, perhaps even less so, since they don't actually have an independent foreign policy anymore and just tag along with whatever the US does.

Not that I agree with morgallis, but the UK are a lot more important then that.

Not that I agree with morgallis, but the UK are a lot more important then that.
Under its current government? Please...

Note carefully the American war of independence, and do some reading on the actual french involvement in it.
*grins*

Hehe. You're the Smithers to NN's Monty Burns.
I think I love you.


[/pointless non-contribution to thread. Back to work.]

Case 1: Young colonies with no culture and small populations join as a federation against a common threat (Brits).


Since when did England have no culture?

It must also commit itself to capitalism proper, and give up any socialist pretensions.Oh please, no.. Leave out economic idealism altogether, please. I don't want capitalism forced on me anymore than communism..
I like our welfare state as it is, thank you very much.

Well, all it takes is that single visionary with the right plans in mind. I am hopeful someone will come along and show the EU the way to go. Perhaps the EU should collapse. Then something better can rise out of its ashes.
I think it's past that point. 'The Usual Suspects' of Britain and to a lesser extent Denmark and Sweden have always been opposed to anything to do with unification, but since France and The Netherlands, two of the founding members of the EEC, rejected the constitution, we're in a whole new game.

The overwhelming feeling is now one of apathy, and I believe that unity will never occur under the European Union. In fact, I would say the only thing that would drive a feeling of unification again is probably the collapse of the EU.

Since when did England have no culture?

He meant the colonies. Duh.

Oh please, no.. Leave out economic idealism altogether, please. I don't want capitalism forced on me anymore than communism..
I like our welfare state as it is, thank you very much.

The EU was created with the objective of economic integration and the creation of a liberal free market. So economic idealism underlies its very existence. Don't like it? Leave the EU, by all means... or perhaps let it collapse. Then create your own nanny-state alliance, and commit collective (or even collectivist) suicide.

I think it's past that point. 'The Usual Suspects' of Britain and to a lesser extent Denmark and Sweden have always been opposed to anything to do with unification, but since France and The Netherlands, two of the founding members of the EEC, rejected the constitution, we're in a whole new game.

The overwhelming feeling is now one of apathy, and I believe that unity will never occur under the European Union. In fact, I would say the only thing that would drive a feeling of unification again is probably the collapse of the EU.
Hmmm, it has two options: reform or death. I am just worried if it does die, that it will take a very long time for something new to arise from its ruins.

My hopes are turned to Britain. I desire that it forms a Commonwealth alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and re-enacts its 19th century principles of individualism and liberalism and drops this Labour fascism nonsense it currently adheres to. Then the rest of the world will be blown aback in awe of its success.

The EU was created with the objective of economic integration and the creation of a liberal free market. So economic idealism underlies its very existence. Don't like it? Leave the EU, by all means... or perhaps let it collapse. Then create your own nanny-state alliance, and commit collective (or even collectivist) suicide.

Some day, we'll have to define "the nanny-state", since you also agree with welfare when it is neccessary...

Some day, we'll have to define "the nanny-state", since you also agree with welfare when it is neccessary...
Minarchism allows for a state that spends up to 30% of its GDP, roughly, on welfare, law and order and such. Anything more than that begins turning into a nanny-state. This is the upper limit most libertarians are willing to accept.

The EU was created with the objective of economic integration and the creation of a liberal free market. So economic idealism underlies its very existence.Not to the extend of forcing countries to abandon their social policies.

Then create your own nanny-state alliance, and commit collective (or even collectivist) suicide.?!? That just absolutely makes no sense..

My hopes are turned to Britain. I desire that it forms a Commonwealth alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa...

Yeeeah.... that'll happen.

Not to the extend of forcing countries to abandon their social policies.
Countries with differing economic systems can trade, but would find it very difficult to integrate. Hence the current disaster in the EU.

?!? That just absolutely makes no sense..
Umm...countries with a common economic objective should unite. Simple enough for you now? :rolleyes:

Look at me not caring about your attempted threadjack in the slightest.

This isn't about "right" and "wrong", it is about how important nations are in the international concert of power. It's been interrupted a bit by the emergence of the superpowers in the latter half of the 20th century, but that exceptional time is over. We're returning to a pre-WWI sort of situation.

And fact of the matter is that what the UK says doesn't matter to anyone any more than what France says. Indeed, probably less so since the UK has a reputation of simply being a lapdog of the Americans by now.

And compared to the US, China, a resource-equipped Russia or indeed India and perhaps Iran soon, what the UK, France or Germany have to say about the world matters to virtually no one. The only way Europe could be another real player in this concert is if they all worked together - which they don't.

A while back I made up an analogy about all this: The US is the Roman Empire, the Chinese are the Parthians - and Europe are the Greek city states claiming all sorts of cultural and historical importance but on the way to being discarded.

Your analogy falls flat on the fact that the UK has the fourth (or indeed third) best army, the second best navy and the fourth best airforce on the planet. In addition a fleet of nuclear submarines with over 120 hydrogen bombs. The Greek Citiy states never fielded armies of such excellence comapred to the Armies of their competitors. The UK will continue to take an active role in changing the world for the better, following the US only when it is the right thing to do.

Yeeeah.... that'll happen.
Were the prospects of the EU even visible to European nations right after WW II? I highly doubt it. Likewise, is the prospect of a Commonwealth alliance visible right now? Not to most.

If you find it improbable now, do not be shocked in the future when the very thing I mentioned is brought into existence. All it takes is one determined individual and a flock to follow them.

Your analogy falls flat on the fact that the UK has the fourth (or indeed third) best army, the second best navy and the fourth best airforce on the planet. In addition a fleet of nuclear submarines with over 120 hydrogen bombs. The Greek Citiy states never fielded armies of such excellence comapred to the Armies of their competitors. The UK will continue to take an active role in changing the world for the better, following the US only when it is the right thing to do.
Oh dear. I thought Anthony Eden was the last person to believe that the UK was still a superpower.

It didn't do him much good, really.

*grins*


I think I love you.


[/pointless non-contribution to thread. Back to work.]

And by NL's stupid logic, WYTYG is NL's Smithers ;)

Were the prospects of the EU even visible to European nations right after WW II? I highly doubt it. Likewise, is the prospect of a Commonwealth alliance visible right now? Not to most.

If you find it improbable now, do not be shocked in the future when the very thing I mentioned is brought into existence. All it takes is one determined individual and a flock to follow them.

Why stop there? Why not reunite the whole Empire?! :rolleyes:

It's been a long time since I've posted...but this merits my attention.

The EU has the potential makings of a superpower; why? It has the highest GDP globally, meaning it has immense wealth, it has a history of imperialism, it has a huge population and, if it plays its cards right, it could have a high level of technology.

Now, why won't it be in the near future? The EU, while aiming at fostering competition and upholding the tenets of capitalism is inefficient and bureaucratic. It needs reform. It is meant to be a trade alliance, and I see no reason why it cannot be a military one (for defensive purposes). I will oppose every measure, however, to see it becoming a supranational organisation. That would make it all the more inefficient and useless.

What must be done is reforming it into a confederal union, along the lines of Switzerland, where the nation-states conform to certain common rules, yet retain a large measure of indepence and autonomy. It must also commit itself to capitalism proper, and give up any socialist pretensions. We did not put it up there to tell us how to live our lives. It is metamorphosing from blessing to a vile behemoth, absorbing Europe's wealth and wasting it. For instance, the latest budgetary deal was pathetic. It hardly managed to reform the EU's budget and emphasize on things that matter. Now, nations must waste ever more cash on dying pursuits. Then, perhaps, it will emerge as a superpower.

Reformation along these lines would make fewer the objects of disagreement, and allow the EU to focus on what really matters - the creation of a freely competitive common market, accountable to its citizens and constituent members.

Right on!

PS: Change sex and marry me :)

The EU will never be a superpower simply because IT IS NOT A NATION. You ppl from the rest of the world don't get it, do you?

In Europe’s current situation it may be more trouble than its worth to actually go about unifying especially since it will mean a considerable loss of power in the U.N and considering an over active American public seeing enemies everywhere (which mean the potential for the U.S to stop providing defence)

But one day the situation may arise where the E.U comes under direct threat this is when the nations of the E.U will pull together and when the dust settles the E.U flag will be flying as one unified nation ready to shape the world as it pleases. Just to bad this isn’t likely to happen considering Europe has no enemies

Currently you could call the E.U a superpower but it then it becomes the strangest confederacy in history with almost no laws on the individual states

Why stop there? Why not reunite the whole Empire?! :rolleyes:
As usual, fears of the Empire's resurrection. How infantile. Why not, rather, look at it as a unification of nation's with a common culture and economic ideal? The world is globalising quickly, and the UK as a lone nation stands very little chance to succeed on its own.

Your analogy falls flat on the fact that the UK has the fourth (or indeed third) best army, the second best navy and the fourth best airforce on the planet. In addition a fleet of nuclear submarines with over 120 hydrogen bombs. The Greek Citiy states never fielded armies of such excellence comapred to the Armies of their competitors. The UK will continue to take an active role in changing the world for the better, following the US only when it is the right thing to do.

The UK got 60 million population. Compared to 1.3 billion China and 1 billion (and increasing really fast) India and 300 million (increasing) USA, it'll be an insignificant island within 50 years....

And by NL's stupid logic, WYTYG is NL's Smithers ;)

Ah, but see, Neu Leonstein is no Monty Burns. So, sadly, the analogy fails. :)

The EU will never be a superpower simply because IT IS NOT A NATION. You ppl from the rest of the world don't get it, do you?
It's trying to become one (for instance, the failed Constitution). Right now though it isn't.

Your analogy falls flat on the fact that the UK has the fourth (or indeed third) best army, the second best navy and the fourth best airforce on the planet. In addition a fleet of nuclear submarines with over 120 hydrogen bombs. The Greek Citiy states never fielded armies of such excellence comapred to the Armies of their competitors. The UK will continue to take an active role in changing the world for the better, following the US only when it is the right thing to do.

The Japanese Imperial Army was bigger in the beggining of WW2 than the US army, but wise leaders of Japan still feared the US (Namely Yamamoto).

Why? Because they knew it doesnt so much matter the army you have, but the army your economy can sustain once geared up for war. And Britain is only the fourth economy in the EU. Do you really think than in a one-on-one fight, in the long run, Britain could win Germany? They barely won in WW2, when they were even more powerfull and Germany was fighting in two fronts.. :|

The UK got 60 million population. Compared to 1.3 billion China and 1 billion (and increasing really fast) India and 300 million (increasing) USA, it'll be an insignificant island within 50 years....

Population has absolutely no effect on how powerful a country is.

The Japanese Imperial Army was bigger in the beggining of WW2 than the US army, but wise leaders of Japan still feared the US (Namely Yamamoto).

Why? Because they knew it doesnt so much matter the army you have, but the army your economy can sustain once geared up for war. And Britain is only the fourth economy in the EU. Do you really think than in a one-on-one fight, in the long run, Britain could win Germany? They barely won in WW2, when they were even more powerfull and Germany was fighting in two fronts.. :|

Germany's army is far weaker than the UK's, and its economy far sicker. The UK would win hands down. Hitler admired the British for their warrior ethic even.

Population has absolutely no effect on how powerful a country is.
Agreed. Nukes, and a willingness to use them, do though.

Ah, but see, Neu Leonstein is no Monty Burns. So, sadly, the analogy fails. :)

I dont exactly own a nuclear plant...

As usual, fears of the Empire's resurrection. How infantile.
I'm not afraid of it. How can I be afraid of something that will never happen? I may as well fear the Mongol horde wheeling West once again... oh wait..

Why not, rather, look at it as a unification of nation's with a common culture and economic ideal? The world is globalising quickly,
I don't see the common cultural link between modern South Africa and Australia to be honest (bar imperialism). I'm questioning why you stopped at Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa? What about India, Pakistan, [then] Rhodesia, Sudan, Nigeria, Ireland?

and the UK as a lone nation stands very little chance to succeed on its own.

Hence the links with her European neighbours. The success of the EU is the only option, as failure cannot be allowed.

It's trying to become one (for instance, the failed Constitution). Right now though it isn't.
it will never become a country. not as long as some of its members are starting to see the light

Germany's army is far weaker than the UK's, and its economy far sicker. The UK would win hands down. Hitler admired the British for their warrior ethic even.

As was the US army compared to the Japanese Army in the beggining of WW2.. weaker.

And the "sick" economy of Germany is still bigger than the Economy of Britain.. imagine if it was healthy :D

Population has absolutely no effect on how powerful a country is.


Then why isnt Norway the superpower of the world, with the 2nd highest GDP per capita and 1st in UN HDI index?
When India and China close the GDP per capita gap (which they are closing), they will be thousands of times more powerful then UK...

I'm not afraid of it. How can I be afraid of something that will never happen? I may as well fear the Mongol horde wheeling West once again... oh wait..
This is entirely different though. This isn't about the resurrection of the Empire. It's simply about an economic alternative.


I don't see the common cultural link between modern South Africa and Australia to be honest (bar imperialism). I'm questioning why you stopped at Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa? What about India, Pakistan, [then] Rhodesia, Sudan, Nigeria, Ireland?
Afrikaaners are far closer to English culture than you would imagine. We observe many British traditions. As for the native Africans, they too still adhere to some British cultural elements left behind from the days of the Empire.

What about India et al you say...I doubt they'd want to join with the UK in such an alliance. Nor would they consider it necessary. India's internal market is enormous. Plus, given their history with the nation, I wonder if they would choose to do so. Australia, Canada, NZ and South Africa, on the other hand, might still be willing to enter an economic alliance with Britain. It would be a coalition of the willing, so to speak.

Hence the links with her European neighbours. The success of the EU is the only option, as failure cannot be allowed.
Nah, I do not see it as the only option. It's one of a few options though. The UK could well unite with its former colonies.

Then why isnt Norway the superpower of the world, with the 2nd highest GDP per capita and 1st in UN HDI index?
When India and China close the GDP per capita gap (which they are closing), they will be thousands of times more powerful then UK...

Because they have incredibly low influence, with a very small army who arn't awash with Nukes.

Then why isnt Norway the superpower of the world, with the 2nd highest GDP per capita and 1st in UN HDI index?
When India and China close the GDP per capita gap (which they are closing), they will be thousands of times more powerful then UK...
GDP is but one measure of economic power. The country's purchasing power parity is still pathetic. And China risks dissolution due to internal strife and discontent.

it will never become a country. not as long as some of its members are starting to see the light

You are aware that being against the constitutional treaty doesnt necessarely mean against European construction right? Because i am a ferverous pro European, and i'd vote against that on the basis that
a) It wasnt made by an elected constituant assembly
b) It gives too much importance to NATO in common defense structures of Europe.

As was the US army compared to the Japanese Army in the beggining of WW2.. weaker.

And the "sick" economy of Germany is still bigger than the Economy of Britain.. imagine if it was healthy :D
The British army isn't just a little stronger than the German one...it is several times more powerful.

Bigger does not equal better. Britain's economy on the whole is more flexible and able to bear the costs of a war than the German one.

it will never become a country. not as long as some of its members are starting to see the light
I hope not.

I wouldn't mind it if it reformed into a Swiss-like, minarchist confederation. Until then though, I see it as nothing more than trash.

You are aware that being against the constitutional treaty doesnt necessarely mean against European construction right? Because i am a ferverous pro European, and i'd vote against that on the basis that
a) It wasnt made by an elected constituant assembly
b) It gives too much importance to NATO in common defense structures of Europe.
I am opposed to the EU becoming a super-nation. An alliance, yes. It's not its place though to become one huge, inefficient national entity.

You are aware that being against the constitutional treaty doesnt necessarely mean against European construction right? Because i am a ferverous pro European, and i'd vote against that on the basis that
a) It wasnt made by an elected constituant assembly
b) It gives too much importance to NATO in common defense structures of Europe.
but more and more people are starting to oppose the EU. do you not know that?

This is entirely different though. This isn't about the resurrection of the Empire. It's simply about an economic alternative.

we already have this don't we?

Afrikaaners are far closer to English culture than you would imagine. We observe many British traditions. As for the native Africans, they too still adhere to some British cultural elements left behind from the days of the Empire.

the west avoids anything that can be called African imperialism like the plague

What about India et al you say...I doubt they'd want to join with the UK in such an alliance. Nor would they consider it necessary. India's internal market is enormous. Plus, given their history with the nation, I wonder if they would choose to do so. Australia, Canada, NZ and South Africa, on the other hand, might still be willing to enter an economic alliance with Britain. It would be a coalition of the willing, so to speak.

you are forgetting we already are in more of an economic alliance

Why do I get the feeling this has more to do with South Africa than the U.K (and 2 world wars plus a cold war showed Britain we are very much part of Europe)

The British army isn't just a little stronger than the German one...it is several times more powerful.

Bigger does not equal better. Britain's economy on the whole is more flexible and able to bear the costs of a war than the German one.


I digress; In a war effort, Industrial output is what matters. It is true that British economy is more efficient, but it is also a more service based economy - Against the more industrialized Germany, it wouldnt be able to churn out enough military hardware; And wars tend to mess up a bit the normal market mechanisms; I mean, look at the USSR in WW2 - No one can call that an efficient economy, but they had a far larger output that Germany still

GDP is but one measure of economic power. The country's purchasing power parity is still pathetic. And China risks dissolution due to internal strife and discontent.

I'm talking about within 50 years. UK isnt a superpower but is a world power now. However, it'll be insignificant within 50 years....

This is entirely different though. This isn't about the resurrection of the Empire. It's simply about an economic alternative.
If memory serves, the Empire did alright for herself economically...



Afrikaaners are far closer to English culture than you would imagine. We observe many British traditions. As for the native Africans, they too still adhere to some British cultural elements left behind from the days of the Empire.
No, I asked what the cultural similarity is between Australians and South Africans (not between South Africa and Britain, and Australia and Britain).

You seem to be talking less about an equal partnership in this "commonwealth" and more like the U.K sitting merrily on the heap of the other partners- sort of like a modern version of Mercantilism.

What about India et al you say...I doubt they'd want to join with the UK in such an alliance. Nor would they consider it necessary. India's internal market is enormous. Plus, given their history with the nation, I wonder if they would choose to do so. Australia, Canada, NZ and South Africa, on the other hand, might still be willing to enter an economic alliance with Britain. It would be a coalition of the willing, so to speak.
I'm sure Australia and NZ would find it more economically viable to trade with local powers (China, Japan etc). And I'm sure Canada would rather trade with the U.S.

What are you basing this "willingness" of Canada, Australia and NZ to join on? Is there some poll you can point me to that shows their interest in stronger Commonwealth ties (or near 'old Empire' ties)?

I am French, dear little Americans...
Of course, you're ALWAYS right. Of course, war is ALWAYS the best solution. Of course, your army ALWAYS resolve all the problems... But, hey, you know what??? In Europe, you look just as rich little children: capricious, always ready for a good fight, because that's how you deal: "hey, we're right, they are wrong, we're powerful, they are not, let's attack them!!!"... Ah!

But you know what, the whole world is not like you!!!! WE don't have to follow USA!!!
If, tomorrow, Chirac says "Okay, US are right, we have to fight in Lebanon!", we would demonstrate...Because you don't know ANYTHING about war. You don't know what occupation means.

EU IS a superpower. Its political influence is strong. Whatever you say.

France has no lessons to take from America. We're quite different. The way we see politics, nation, and war is different.

Maybe EU has problems. Maybe it's difficult to all get along. But EU is also strong...I believe in it...Our politicians are old, ok. So if I were you, I wouldn't say that Europe will "collapse". The next generation has many ideas!!!

Without Europe, Spain would be a very poor country. Maybe we made mistakes. Maybe USA is the most powerful country...And sorry if I said you were all idiots before...Why can't you just admit that we have other way to see the world???
Maybe one day Europe will really fail...But that's not tomorrow, believe me! I just can't imagine France without Europe...That's a great concept!!!
Maybe I'm idealist...But if everybody aged 15 today is as idealist as me, we will build something very cool tomorrow, isn't it???
I prefer optimism and positive state of mind!!! There are many things to do! And American won't make me think that we're wrong...After all, it's becoming usual to be criticized when we don't agree with USA...But, it's alright...We're gouverned by stupid men...But at least, they don't say "I was misunderestimated" ;) Sorry...I don't know why, but I couldn't believe a man who doesn't speak correctly his own language! (yes, i'm talking about GW Bush, after all, you're not the only ones to know how to use "coups bas" (<---donno the translation in english) )

Don't make me laugh.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433921,00.html


I quoted the whole article for a change, because it's not too long and really worth reading.

Fact of the matter is that despite the economic and military power of the EU...it is not a world power, and won't be any time soon. And the reason is that they are not pulling on the same string. When it comes to real issues, the sort of things that determine where countries will stand in the future - like sending troops, making agreements regarding resources (common EU energy and resource policy?) and the like, it's every man for himself. I noticed that not too long ago with the Congo mission. The sort of diplomatic mudwrestling going on when the composition of that force was being worked out wouldn't have been out of place in the 19th century.

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect all these countries to work together virtually as one? Or is it just the politicians' fault? Am I wrong in my analysis?
Does Europe matter?
Europe as a collective should have influence for what it is( a collective) but does it really matter?
No, because it isn't really one entity.

If memory serves, the Empire did alright for herself economically...
And? I never said it didn't.


No, I asked what the cultural similarity is between Australians and South Africans (not between South Africa and Britain, and Australia and Britain).
Huge. We have many similarities. We enjoy the same sports, speak the same language (with a very similar accent too), we have many common elements in our respective mentalities and so on. Aussies and my compatriots tend to get on very well.

You seem to be talking less about an equal partnership in this "commonwealth" and more like the U.K sitting merrily on the heap of the other partners- sort of like a modern version of Mercantilism.

Like bigger EU countries benefit from the EU? Heh... It's an alliance meant for free trade and movement, not redistributing the UK's wealth.

I'm sure Australia and NZ would find it more economically viable to trade with local powers (China, Japan etc). And I'm sure Canada would rather trade with the U.S.

What are you basing this "willingness" of Canada, Australia and NZ to join on? Is there some poll you can point me to that shows their interest in stronger Commonwealth ties (or near 'old Empire' ties)?
I am basing it off the fact that they adhere to a common economic system.

we already have this don't we?
Umm...we do? If you are referring to the EU, I meant an alternative to it.

the west avoids anything that can be called African imperialism like the plague
So? This isn't about imperialism.


you are forgetting we already are in more of an economic alliance

Why do I get the feeling this has more to do with South Africa than the U.K (and 2 world wars plus a cold war showed Britain we are very much part of Europe)
An economic alliance the UK is fed up with. And no, it has nothing to do with my nation really. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing South Africa reform before joining such a union. Perhaps into a confederal nation.

I am opposed to the EU becoming a super-nation. An alliance, yes. It's not its place though to become one huge, inefficient national entity.


EU won't become a super-nation: too many different cultures!!! Too many political systems!!!! For an example, the strongest economy in EU is GB, isn't it? But, if, tomorrow, someone says "Ok, let's build a super-nation, we'll take the most positive points in each nation, so, we'll adopt British economical system!", French would protest strongly, because it's not compatible with our welfare system...And God know how we love it!!! I took this example because I know my country and wouldn't risk to take another example that I don't really know...
We will never be more than an alliance...Because we're all very different!

EU won't become a super-nation: too many different cultures!!! Too many political systems!!!! For an example, the strongest economy in EU is GB, isn't it? But, if, tomorrow, someone says "Ok, let's build a super-nation, we'll take the most positive points in each nation, so, we'll adopt British economical system!", French would protest strongly, because it's not compatible with our welfare system...And God know how we love it!!! I took this example because I know my country and wouldn't risk to take another example that I don't really know...
We will never be more than an alliance...Because we're all very different!
Agreed. As for your country's economic system, I thought you were fed up with the high unemployment and poor corporate performance of your nation?

Like bigger EU countries benefit from the EU?
Em, no. The smaller countries in the EU benefit most. Then they begin to give back. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland are examples of this. Thats kinda the whole point of the EU- having a lot of stronger economies, no weak links in the chain. I see nothing wrong with that.

Heh... It's an alliance meant for free trade and movement, not redistributing the UK's wealth.
The UK has a rebate. It gets £3 billion back every year. If anything, its Germany and France's money that gets shifted around. I hear nowt complaining from them.


I am basing it off the fact that they adhere to a common economic system.

Like... most of the Western world.

Umm...countries with a common economic objective should unite. Simple enough for you now? :rolleyes:Sounds simple enough, but what does that have to do with nannystates and commiting collective suicide, and what did that have top do with anything I said?

Em, no. The smaller countries in the EU benefit most. Then they begin to give back. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland are examples of this. Thats kinda the whole point of the EU- having a lot of stronger economies, no weak links in the chain. I see nothing wrong with that.
So then how is an economic alliance of stronger countries a bad idea? Australia, Canada and NZ could all compete as well as cooperate with the UK.


Like... most of the Western world.
Not really. France and Germany follow quite different systems to the Scandinavian countries, which in turn follow distinctly different systems from the Anglo-saxon model and so on.

Sounds simple enough, but what does that have to do with nannystates and commiting collective suicide, and what did that have top do with anything I said?
What I meant is I don't consider that kind of state viable in the long run, unless it has unusual extrinsic aid, such as oil.

Collective states need a common enemy for them to work.

So then how is an economic alliance of stronger countries a bad idea? Australia, Canada and NZ could all compete as well as cooperate with the UK.
Except the UK is operating with its neighbours in its economic sphere. I would imagine Australia and NZ would find it more economically sensible to trade with its regions economic powers (Japan, China, Taiwan, Indonesia- like it already does) than it would to trade with your "Commonwealth" solely or primarily.

Similarly Canada vis a vis the US.

It would seem to be that they would be putting themselves at a greater disadvantage for the sake of their old colonial master. Thats why I don't see it happening.

Except the UK is operating with its neighbours in its economic sphere. I would imagine Australia and NZ would find it more economically sensible to trade with its regions economic powers (Japan, China, Taiwan, Indonesia- like it already does) than it would to trade with your "Commonwealth" solely or primarily.

Similarly Canada vis a vis the US.

It would seem to be that they would be putting themselves at a greater disadvantage for the sake of their old colonial master. Thats why I don't see it happening.
Then perhaps they could engage in a trans-atlantic alliance with North America? Again, they enjoy a similar economic system and close ties already. The EU is becoming more and more difficult to manage by the day. Something has to change. If the EU does not reform, and becomes a burden for the UK, the UK must have somewhere else to go.

Collective states need a common enemy for them to work.

Let us declare war against djibouti!

Agreed. As for your country's economic system, I thought you were fed up with the high unemployment and poor corporate performance of your nation?

Yeah, we are!! But here is the contradiction!!! We won't sacrifice any of our rights!!! We consider that there are other solutions, and that our parents and grand parents fought too much to let our rights go!!
I know, it looks very difficult to understand...

Just a little story: This year, we had Jennyfer. At school, she was our american assistant for english lessons. She is so nice!!! But you know, this year, there were...strikes and demonstrations!
We explained her why we were fighting. She was impressed...Because we're 15 or 16 and we're fighting for our rights...Our generation is scared. Because our politicians are crap: they're not able to propose a good liberal politic, neither a good social politic. So we're very affraid, we know that it will be hard to find a good job, later. And we don't want to lose the laws that protect us a little...
I think that if you're not French, it's difficult to understand...

Why shouldn't the EU just be an economic superpower, what good does it do to be a military superpower? The EU is already one of the biggest free-trade zones in the world and economic growth is improving. If there were some real reforms to the EU institution to stamp out corruption, then the EU's economic power would grow even more.

I don't know understand what good being a military superpower does for Europe. It is good that the EU is part of peacekeeping missions like in Lebanon, but what nation is going to attack any country in Europe? I don't sit up at night thinking, "What if someone tries to invade the UK?" Honestly, I am more concerned when the local football side plays their arch rivals here than that. If it wasn't the Americans, the UK would use its hydrogen bombs. If it was the Americans, the French would probably nuke them thinking they were next. But I can't imagine that even the Americans would try it. What would they gain from it? Maybe the oil in the North Sea, but that is even a very big stretch. What would the EU have to gain from being a military superpower other than resentment? It is things like attacking other countries that brought on the attacks on the Tube in London and the commuter trains in Spain. I think that Europe would be better off to stick to peacekeeping than become an aggressive military superpower.

Then perhaps they could engage in a trans-atlantic alliance with North America? Again, they enjoy a similar economic system and close ties already. The EU is becoming more and more difficult to manage by the day. Something has to change. If the EU does not reform, and becomes a burden for the UK, the UK must have somewhere else to go.

Fine with me. You don't want to be a part of the EU, fine bye bye, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Your "commonwealth" idea reminds me of the EFTA. Great idea at the start, but no one wants to hang around with the aging state bent on reliving its glory days of yore.

Why shouldn't the EU just be an economic superpower, what good does it do to be a military superpower? The EU is already one of the biggest free-trade zones in the world and economic growth is improving. If there were some real reforms to the EU institution to stamp out corruption, then the EU's economic power would grow even more.

I don't know understand what good being a military superpower does for Europe. It is good that the EU is part of peacekeeping missions like in Lebanon, but what nation is going to attack any country in Europe? I don't sit up at night thinking, "What if someone tries to invade the UK?" Honestly, I am more concerned when the local football side plays their arch rivals here than that. If it wasn't the Americans, the UK would use its hydrogen bombs. If it was the Americans, the French would probably nuke them thinking they were next. But I can't imagine that even the Americans would try it. What would they gain from it? Maybe the oil in the North Sea, but that is even a very big stretch. What would the EU have to gain from being a military superpower other than resentment? It is things like attacking other countries that brought on the attacks on the Tube in London and the commuter trains in Spain. I think that Europe would be better off to stick to peacekeeping than become an aggressive military superpower.

:) I love you!!!!!

Em, no. The smaller countries in the EU benefit most. Then they begin to give back. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland are examples of this. Thats kinda the whole point of the EU- having a lot of stronger economies, no weak links in the chain. I see nothing wrong with that..

I agree it is one of the aims of the EU that I do agree with.


The UK has a rebate. It gets £3 billion back every year. If anything, its Germany and France's money that gets shifted around. I hear nowt complaining from them..

Germany has every right to complain that they are shouldering the largest share of the EU funding (and one of the largest by per capita).

France has less of a reason to complain as they receive back nearly all the money they put into the EU. One of the original reasons for the rebate was to compensate the UK for receiving so little funding (even when the economy was called the sick man of Europe) due to its significantly smaller farming sector. Instead it had other econmic and social problems which the EU funding structure did not deal with

It is less justified now, but while CAP is still such a major part of the EU funding structure it is still justified to a point.

Now back on topic, I believe the EU will become an economic super power though I doubt it will ever become a military super power. If the EU was threatened by a major outside power (i.e. not terrorism or anything like that) then it will force the member states to work together and cooperate. Otherwise I don't believe the people of the memeber states will support diverting funding to the military when they see no need.

Anyway we like arguing with each other, think of us like a large dysfunctional
family :)

Yeah, we are!! But here is the contradiction!!! We won't sacrifice any of our rights!!! We consider that there are other solutions, and that our parents and grand parents fought too much to let our rights go!!
I know, it looks very difficult to understand...

There comes a time when sacrifices must be made though. You can be poorer, and enjoy all your current rights, or you can adapt to the world economy.

Fine with me. You don't want to be a part of the EU, fine bye bye, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Your "commonwealth" idea reminds me of the EFTA. Great idea at the start, but no one wants to hang around with the aging state bent on reliving its glory days of yore.
Time will tell. The EU may well collapse sometime soon. It's long-term sustainability is questionable.

As for my own native country, I think if South Africa were to break apart into newer nations, as many now within it wish it did, it would benefit from a strong relationship with Britain. We still have very close cultural ties, and I feel at home in Britain more than anywhere else in Europe.

There comes a time when sacrifices must be made though. You can be poorer, and enjoy all your current rights, or you can adapt to the world economy.

Or we could keep our rights and start to ask our dear ministers to be paid less (they have no taxes to pay...), we could give more rights to growing companies, we could just see the fact that more and more french graduate as a positive thing and exploit the tons of good ideas they have, etc...
Hey dear, we've many ideas... We never protest without having ideas, but nobody listens to us...My friends and I collected all the ideas we had during demonstrations; and we talked about it. And you know what??? Most of them are good and exploitable!!! The problem is that the ones who take decisions are those who come from ENA and Science Po, the big Politic Colleges of France... And they were educated to have the same ideas!!! So, finally, they have n idea!!! But we have some.. I'm sure that, if they only let us a chance to try, French economy would explose!!!! But it wont happen....

There comes a time when sacrifices must be made though. You can be poorer, and enjoy all your current rights, or you can adapt to the world economy.

Or we could keep our rights and start to ask our dear ministers to be paid less (they have no taxes to pay...), we could give more rights to growing companies, we could just see the fact that more and more french graduate as a positive thing and exploit the tons of good ideas they have, etc...
Hey dear, we've many ideas... We never protest without having ideas, but nobody listens to us...My friends and I collected all the ideas we had during demonstrations; and we talked about it. And you know what??? Most of them are good and exploitable!!! The problem is that the ones who take decisions are those who come from ENA and Science Po, the big Politic Colleges of France... And they were educated to have the same ideas!!! So, finally, they have n idea!!! But we have some.. I'm sure that, if they only let us a chance to try, French economy would explose!!!! But it wont happen....

Or we could keep our rights and start to ask our dear ministers to be paid less (they have no taxes to pay...), we could give more rights to growing companies, we could just see the fact that more and more french graduate as a positive thing and exploit the tons of good ideas they have, etc...
Hey dear, we've many ideas... We never protest without having ideas, but nobody listens to us...My friends and I collected all the ideas we had during demonstrations; and we talked about it. And you know what??? Most of them are good and exploitable!!! The problem is that the ones who take decisions are those who come from ENA and Science Po, the big Politic Colleges of France... And they were educated to have the same ideas!!! So, finally, they have n idea!!! But we have some.. I'm sure that, if they only let us a chance to try, French economy would explose!!!! But it wont happen....
I see what you mean now. You aren't referring to rights, exactly, but rather to freedom (such as the freedom of enterprise), and I agree. You have to smash your government bureaucracy.

Hey dear, btw? :p

I mean freedom and rights..
Here, since 2004, youth is the politician's target. As most of us don't vote, they choose to sacrifice especially OUR rights to make economy grow... But their ideas are bad, and it won't be good for economy!!!

For an example, this year, just before the exams, our prime minister wanted to write a law that make that young people could be fired at any moment without any reason...and that's very bad to start your life isn't it?
They always do that: making laws that are bad for us at the exams time, when they think we can't protest...Unfortunately, we protest even when it's exams time...

Hey dear, btw? :p

Yep!!!! :)

I mean freedom and rights..
Here, since 2004, youth is the politician's target. As most of us don't vote, they choose to sacrifice especially OUR rights to make economy grow... But their ideas are bad, and it won't be good for economy!!!

For an example, this year, just before the exams, our prime minister wanted to write a law that make that young people could be fired at any moment without any reason...and that's very bad to start your life isn't it?
They always do that: making laws that are bad for us at the exams time, when they think we can't protest...Unfortunately, we protest even when it's exams time...
I'm not so sure about how effective such firing rights are...perhaps they would be better when applied to older employees than younger ones. I'd have to read an economist's analysis on the matter.

There isn't such a thing as a "right to make the economy grow". There is such a freedom though.

Don't make me laugh.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433921,00.html


I quoted the whole article for a change, because it's not too long and really worth reading.

Fact of the matter is that despite the economic and military power of the EU...it is not a world power, and won't be any time soon. And the reason is that they are not pulling on the same string. When it comes to real issues, the sort of things that determine where countries will stand in the future - like sending troops, making agreements regarding resources (common EU energy and resource policy?) and the like, it's every man for himself. I noticed that not too long ago with the Congo mission. The sort of diplomatic mudwrestling going on when the composition of that force was being worked out wouldn't have been out of place in the 19th century.

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect all these countries to work together virtually as one? Or is it just the politicians' fault? Am I wrong in my analysis?
Does Europe matter?

Europe matters. The question is, when are they going to have the individual nation-states surrender most of their power to a central federal government. And if they do, how long will it take for them to stop ruling by committee.

The current military operation is being done "by committee". If you don't pick one group to be in charge, and give them wide military and political latitude to do what is necessary to accomplish a set of central goals (telling them what you want to accomplish but NEVER how to accomplish it), it will be a disaster.

A good example of how badly things can go "by committee" was the air war over Yugoslavia. Funny rules about flight routes, what you could bomb, and when, got planes shot down (one British Harrier was shot down trying to look for a lone Serbian tank that it took an hour to get permission to attack from highest headquarters), got civilian passenger trains bombed on bridges, and was a general screwup - fits and starts, halts and crazy orders.

The overall consensus is that the EU must reform before it can proceed onwards. However, the issue of reform raises the question "Reform in which direction?" What should the EU be reforming into? Should it be reinforcing its status as a purely economic union or should it be trying to become a political, economic and military confederation? To summarise, what is Europe going to be? Only once this question is answered can Europe move forward.

So why isn't this question being answered? The reason is simple: population apathy. The citizens of the various nations currently do not care about Europe. It is too far off for most of them: most people do not understand how the EU works or what it has to do with them and their situation. That is very few actually bother with MEP elections: they simply do not view them as relevant. The EU needs to reform to bring this apathy to an end. MEPs need to be empowered and the European Parliament needs to be granted greater strength. This way people may start to believe that their voice in Europe matters and so will be less inclined to apathy.

So, how do you solve population apathy? By reforming the EU. How do you reform the EU? By solving population apathy. It seems rather like the eternal question "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" And I do not know the answer.

One more point: people seem very enthusiastic about exposing the differences between the European states but they rarely touch on the similarities that exist. Believe it or not, there is a common European heritage and a pan-Europe culture. These similarities should be given at least some attention before we start saying that the European states are too different to ever successfully get along.

Yep!!!! :)

Very gay of you ! XD

I think that there is freedom for companies and right for people isn't it???

And, if you want my opinion, don't read a brittish analysis!! :p
I've read them...They don't talk about the social situation...(we have a newspaper called "International Letters", and it's about what others countries think of us...They had an entire n° about what foreign countries think about CPE )

If you can find a French one(don't worry, there are objective ones!! :) ) or a German one (German are our neighbours, I think they are those who understand us in the world...maybe Russian understand us though... :confused: I should ask my russian teacher....)

Very gay of you ! XD


:rolleyes: Why??? My english teacher always called us "dear"... XD

:rolleyes: Why??? My english teacher always called us "dear"... XD
Firstly, because I am gay, I know what words we use. That is one of them. :p Women tend to use it mostly.

I am a girl!!!

I think that there is freedom for companies and right for people isn't it???
There is, but not so much in France as elsewhere. Like you said, your politicians cause your country much problems.

And, if you want my opinion, don't read a brittish analysis!! :p
I've read them...They don't talk about the social situation...(we have a newspaper called "International Letters", and it's about what others countries think of us...They had an entire n° about what foreign countries think about CPE )

If you can find a French one(don't worry, there are objective ones!! :) ) or a German one (German are our neighbours, I think they are those who understand us in the world...maybe Russian understand us though... :confused: I should ask my russian teacher....)
I'd rather read something by a neutral economist than newspapers really. Anyway, the easy firing rules have a problem; corporations rely on employee loyalty - if you can just fire someone, it means they will develop no such loyalty. However, that should be for the corporation to find out, not the government to legislate.

There is, but not so much in France as elsewhere. Like you said, your politicians cause your country much problems.


I'd rather read something by a neutral economist than newspapers really. Anyway, the easy firing rules have a problem; corporations rely on employee loyalty - if you can just fire someone, it means they will develop no such loyalty. However, that should be for the corporation to find out, not the government to legislate.

1)YES our politicians ARE SO STUPID!! less than GW Bush anyway, but they are !
2) Maybe we should sacrifice some of our rights/freedom/what you want, but not like that...I'm waiting for a political leader with great ideas, but here, they're all...old and fat and too rich to know what living a poor life means, they have no ideas, all they want is power and they don't even hide it!!! Seriously, if I had to vote next year, I wouldn't know who I'd choose as the President of Republic...Every year, we have crisis, every year, we protest, we strike, we block schools...Hum..I wonder who will resolve our problems...

Europe matters. The question is, when are they going to have the individual nation-states surrender most of their power to a central federal government. And if they do, how long will it take for them to stop ruling by committee.

Never, I hope.

*snip*
Agreed. The Parliament, right now, is the EU's weakest body. It needs to be strengthened so the EU can once more become accountable to the very people it serves. I personally hope the direction the EU chooses is a confederal union, along Switzerland's lines, with a minarchist, liberal* economic and social outlook.

One more point: people seem very enthusiastic about exposing the differences between the European states but they rarely touch on the similarities that exist. Believe it or not, there is a common European heritage and a pan-Europe culture. These similarities should be given at least some attention before we start saying that the European states are too different to ever successfully get along.
Couldn't agree more. I do not want European countries to sacrifice their cultures, not at all. But to insist that they are so different that cooperation is impossible is nonsense.

*As in libertarian, or classical liberal.

1)YES our politicians ARE SO STUPID!! less than GW Bush anyway, but they are !
2) Maybe we should sacrifice some of our rights/freedom/what you want, but not like that...I'm waiting for a political leader with great ideas, but here, they're all...old and fat and too rich to know what living a poor life means, they have no ideas, all they want is power and they don't even hide it!!! Seriously, if I had to vote next year, I wouldn't know who I'd choose as the President of Republic...Every year, we have crisis, every year, we protest, we strike, we block schools...Hum..I wonder who will resolve our problems...
It seems this is going on throughout Europe. Germany finally got its Messiah, in the form of Angela Merkel, but now she is incapacitated by her useless coalition partners. France doesn't even have someone like that on the horizon. Hopefully something will change.

To be honest, I would be suprised to see the EU last past 2020, I think It will fall apart beofre then, with a nation(s), storming out, possibly Germany or UK. Another way would be economic collapse baecause of the Euro, which is already casing difficulties, as what may be good for France or who ever else happens to decide the rates, may not be good for say ITaly, this may eventually lead to an economic crisis, and collapse of the Union...


IT could also have the UK being Booted out....

Never, I hope.


Then you can't "strengthen" the EU parliament. Without the individual states giving up some power to a central government, the central government remains weak and ineffectual.

Then you can't "strengthen" the EU parliament. Without the individual states giving up some power to a central government, the central government remains weak and ineffectual.
If they were giving power over to a confederal body, I would say okay. I am all for local power centres as opposed to excess centralisation and bureaucracy. I do not want an EU governed centrally. I just want one in which trade can take place freely and that can decide on foreign policy issues collectively. No more.

Make the EU something along the lines of Switzerland, and stress the principle of subsidiarity. That would do a lot to help the EU move forward.

I mean freedom and rights..
Here, since 2004, youth is the politician's target. As most of us don't vote, they choose to sacrifice especially OUR rights to make economy grow... But their ideas are bad, and it won't be good for economy!!!

For an example, this year, just before the exams, our prime minister wanted to write a law that make that young people could be fired at any moment without any reason...and that's very bad to start your life isn't it?
They always do that: making laws that are bad for us at the exams time, when they think we can't protest...Unfortunately, we protest even when it's exams time...

I fully believe that the firing rights laws would have been best applied to all employees, not just the youth.

I fully believe that the firing rights laws would have been best applied to all employees, not just the youth.
Agreed. If the company suffers as a result, then let it learn by itself. The government shouldn't interfere.

French President Jacques Chirac's dream of a Europe that could "balance out" the United States goes?

oh please jacques chirc's was talking out of this ass when he said that
there is on way that will happen because of the way france is

I just want one in which trade can take place freely and that can decide on foreign policy issues collectively. No more.

What's wrong with the US Constitution?

What's wrong with the US Constitution?
It's terrible. It's is so open to interpretation as to make it as good as meaningless, and it allows people to ignore morality/common decency/the obvious answer in favour of whether it is 'constitutional'.

It's terrible. It's is so open to interpretation as to make it as good as meaningless, and it allows people to ignore morality/common decency/the obvious answer in favour of whether it is 'constitutional'.
Wow, swift response. Yes, I concur with these, and I will also add that I do not think it is suitable for Europe. We need something like Switzerland, not the USA.

It's terrible. It's is so open to interpretation as to make it as good as meaningless, and it allows people to ignore morality/common decency/the obvious answer in favour of whether it is 'constitutional'.

Well, instead of measuring the morality, measure the overall success of the instrument since its inception.

Overall, I think the US has done rather well for a breakaway colony.

Well, instead of measuring the morality, measure the overall success of the instrument since its inception.

Overall, I think the US has done rather well for a breakaway colony.
It is highly successful externally. Internally, it is still arguing about things that the rest of the West sorted out fifty years ago, and is following policies worthy of a Middle Eastern tinpot dictatorship.

It is highly successful externally. Internally, it is still arguing about things that the rest of the West sorted out fifty years ago, and is following policies worthy of a Middle Eastern tinpot dictatorship.

What do you think life is like here in Virginia, a state that gave up a lot of its sovereignty with the first US states?

What do you think life is like here in Virginia, a state that gave up a lot of its sovereignty with the first US states?
Tell me.

It is highly successful externally. Internally, it is still arguing about things that the rest of the West sorted out fifty years ago, and is following policies worthy of a Middle Eastern tinpot dictatorship.

Please....we may have some social policies that we are arguinga about...gay marriage, gun control...whatev', but you cant say we havnt done well internally. We have managed to get 50 very different areas of the continent (and some off) to unite together as one, while keeping their own unique cultures, something that I cannot say about your European Union.

You may not like America, and thats ok...but to deny our success and internal cooperation is retarded and wrong.

Please....we may have some social policies that we are arguinga about...gay marriage, gun control...whatev', but you cant say we havnt done well internally. We have managed to get 50 very different areas of the continent (and some off) to unite together as one, while keeping their own unique cultures, something that I cannot say about your European Union.

You may not like America, and thats ok...but to deny our success and internal cooperation is retarded and wrong.
I have nothing against America at all.

And 'my European Union'? You haven't read the thread at all, have you?

I have nothing against America at all.

And 'my European Union'? You haven't read the thread at all, have you?

Yes...and you were commenting against the problems we have internally, I was just correcting you. :)

Tell me.

Life in the US varies from state to state - a lot of the internal things you hear in the news are NOT being debated in all states. It's because the Federal government has limited power to resolve internal issues not related to commerce or defense.

Which is why a lot of things were settled internally a long time ago via state legislatures and courts.

The habit of trying to reverse these things, and get a "winner take all" solution through the Federal government (especially through the courts) is a phenomenon that largely began in the 1960s.

Here's what the county is like where I live:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County,_Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herndon,_Virginia

You can get an abortion here. You can get educational assistance from the state. The elementary and secondary schools here are among the best in the nation (top 3%). Our local unemployment rate has never been above 6 percent in the past 25 years.

You can also carry a pistol, openly, on your hip. And despite the presence of guns in our area, our violent crime and murder is very low (for America). In fact, the FIRST policeman ever killed in the line of duty in Fairfax County was killed last year - it had never happened before.

Life in the US varies from state to state - a lot of the internal things you hear in the news are NOT being debated in all states. It's because the Federal government has limited power to resolve internal issues not related to commerce or defense.

You can get an abortion here. You can get educational assistance from the state. The elementary and secondary schools here are among the best in the nation (top 3%). Our local unemployment rate has never been above 6 percent in the past 25 years.

You can also carry a pistol, openly, on your hip. And despite the presence of guns in our area, our violent crime and murder is very low (for America). In fact, the FIRST policeman ever killed in the line of duty in Fairfax County was killed last year - it had never happened before.
I wasn't talking about abortion or same sex marriage; what had come to mind was exactly the things you are advocating; gun crime, capital punishment and a questionable human rights record. I think the US has been one of the greatest forces of good in the world of the last century; I think it's such a shame it gives its critics such ammunition through policies such as the execution of juveniles.

This State to State variation, allowed through a vague constitution and a religious reverence towards the opinions of its 18th Century writers, leads to all sorts of anomolies and encourages a small town, stuck-in-the-last-century attitude. It is something that Europe should avoid, not look to as a role model.

This State to State variation, allowed through a vague constitution and a religious reverence towards the opinions of its 18th Century writers, leads to all sorts of anomolies and encourages a small town, stuck-in-the-last-century attitude. It is something that Europe should avoid, not look to as a role model.

I guess you'll tell the Swiss to stop handing out fully automatic assault rifles to every adult male, along with 1000 rounds of ammunition. Right?

I guess you'll tell the Swiss to stop handing out fully automatic assault rifles to every adult male, along with 1000 rounds of ammunition. Right?
I would never encourage the proliferation of privately owned arms. Right.

I would never encourage the proliferation of privately owned arms. Right.

Well then, how does the EU plan to deal with Switzerland. Or Finland?

It's easier for me to buy a fully automatic weapon with a silencer in Finland than it is in the US.

Well then, how does the EU plan to deal with Switzerland. Or Finland?

It's easier for me to buy a fully automatic weapon with a silencer in Finland than it is in the US.
*Chuckles*

We'll worry about that when the Swiss actually join the EU.

And again, have you read the thread? I've been talking about the break up of the EU, not supporting a unified state, so how we 'deal with' Finland concerns me little.

*Chuckles*

We'll worry about that when the Swiss actually join the EU.

And again, have you read the thread? I've been talking about the break up of the EU, not supporting a unified state, so how we 'deal with' Finland concerns me little.

I thought we were talking about making the EU a more effective political entity. Which usually implies giving it more power.

And if every state is going to keep its sovereignty, except on matters of foreign policy, then you can't tell any individual nation to stop something that is internal.

Like handing out weapons to its civilians. Or allowing the sale of silencers to civilians with a simple permit.

I mean freedom and rights..
Here, since 2004, youth is the politician's target. As most of us don't vote, they choose to sacrifice especially OUR rights to make economy grow... But their ideas are bad, and it won't be good for economy!!!

For an example, this year, just before the exams, our prime minister wanted to write a law that make that young people could be fired at any moment without any reason...and that's very bad to start your life isn't it?
They always do that: making laws that are bad for us at the exams time, when they think we can't protest...Unfortunately, we protest even when it's exams time...

From a neutral point of view, that seemed like a good idea.
If i remember correctly, the idea was that under 26 year olds could be fired quite easily, unless they had been working in that job for less than 2 years.
Considering the extremely high unemployment of the young in france, it was hoped that this might make companies more likely to hire young people. As most university student finish studies around 26 years, it would not have affected them dramatically. It is difficult to get a good job in france without a university degree, this law might of made it easier for poorer, less educated people (the minorities that had recently been rioting) to find work.
The protests were short sighted. IMO of course

I thought we were talking about making the EU a more effective political entity. Which usually implies giving it more power.

And if every state is going to keep its sovereignty, except on matters of foreign policy, then you can't tell any individual nation to stop something that is internal.

Like handing out weapons to its civilians. Or allowing the sale of silencers to civilians with a simple permit.
This is exactly my point as to why the EU will never become stronger, though. No nation will accept such an interference in its national sovereignty, but at the same time the Union will always try to interfere in such areas. 12 year olds in the UK now have to be in child seats because of the EU; did we ask for it? No. Did anyone care about it? No. Did it go through Parliament? No. It just happened.

I would agree with you in the sense that the only way the EU will gain strength is if it agreed to surrender some of its current powers; but it is so bureaucratic and self-centred it will never do so. The EU, in its current form, exists only to fuel the ideologies of a few in Brussels; it has no grounding in reality. Such top-down political entities are doomed to fail.

I thought we were talking about making the EU a more effective political entity. Which usually implies giving it more power.

And if every state is going to keep its sovereignty, except on matters of foreign policy, then you can't tell any individual nation to stop something that is internal.

Like handing out weapons to its civilians. Or allowing the sale of silencers to civilians with a simple permit.
I want each nation-state to enjoy as much freedom as possible. All the EU should direct is foreign policy, positive human rights and the common market (and by this I mean a liberal free market trade zone, not issues of welfare etc). Nothing more. Hence, I see Switzerland as the best possible rolemodel in this respect.

TSuch top-down political entities are doomed to fail.

Like the UN?

Like the UN?
Well, it's not doing much good at the moment, is it?

Well, it's not doing much good at the moment, is it?

I keep saying that, and people keep bashing me on this forum for saying it.

Well, it's not doing much good at the moment, is it?

I keep saying that, and people keep bashing me on this forum for saying it.

It is.

It is.

So, the UN running whorehouses is a good thing?

So, the UN running whorehouses is a good thing?

as long as they're not getting paid slave labour wages!!!

I guess you'll tell the Swiss to stop handing out fully automatic assault rifles to every adult male, along with 1000 rounds of ammunition. Right?
It's not quite that: every swiss male active in the army has his personal service weapon at home, which he returns when dropping out of the army.
For most soldiers and "Unterofiiziere" (Corporals, and such), it's an assault gun and 50 rounds.
For subaltern officers and higher "Unteroffiziere" (something like warrant officers or non cimmissioned officers, I believe) it's a pistol and 48 round, also for soldiers in the medical corps.
I've got a pistol which I will be giving back later this year, and no, I'm not part of the medical corps...

This weapon is sort of "holy", and for a long time, there have neer been problems. Lately, however, there have been shootings, and it's probable, that by the end of the next decade, there won't be any personal service weapons anymore - army reorganisation and crime prevention going in the same direction.

For the rest, gun ownership is very uncommon, except for hunting and sports guns. Gun control laws are less strict than in the rest of Europe, but are beginning to tighten due to a rise n the proportion of gun use in crime.

We'll worry about that when the Swiss actually join the EU.

Your grand children might live to see that, considering the absolutely terrifying speed we move towards EU :p

Your grand children might live to see that, considering the absolutely terrifying speed we move towards EU :p
I am hoping the future generations that see an EU that is more like your country, rather than the opposite.

Your grand children might live to see that, considering the absolutely terrifying speed we move towards EU :p

I remember going to shooting competitions in Switzerland in the late 1990s.

Hundreds of young people out there shooting rifles.

I thought it was amazing.

I remember going to shooting competitions in Switzerland in the late 1990s.

Hundreds of young people out there shooting rifles.

I thought it was amazing.
Sounds a bit like South Africa in the old days. Awesome. I hate the fact in most of Europe we cannot use firearms.

on a serious note.

I feel the EU has potential.
Looking at the nations individually, you can see alot of strengths. whether its economic flexiblity, industrial strengh, educated populous, etc...

The problem with the EU as a whole, is that we are strenghening our weaknesses. Over protective markets, molly-coddling employees, high company taxes, overly protected farmers, etc...

Alot of europeans know things have to change, but we're too....comfortable.
More flexible employment laws? unions/leftists/students protest saying its not fair for more people to be working!!!
More relaxed immigration policy? people protest about the foreigners taken the jobs (yet not 2 seconds ago the same people said they could not find a job, the foreigner managed and can't even speak the BLOODY LANGUAGE) and loss of culture.
Try to promote larger families? return to the dark ages!!! anti-feminist, etc...

There just seems to be now drive!

*snip*
I agree on nearly everything you mentioned.

As for the immigration debate, I find it laughable that we need more workers or a boost in our native populations, yet we spend a huge chunk of our GDP on agriculture, rather than robotics, which could one day solve such issues, or even pro-natal policies.

@ Europa Maxima: It's nice of you to say that :)

Just don't forget, it took us more than 700 years, a complete destruction by foreign invaders and a (very short) civil war to get where we are now. :eek:
Would you want to wait for that?

Do you know how we got our constitution of 1848 (The first "modern" constitution, we're at the third now)?
We sent out a committee, which looked at all modern states of the day, then came back, that the best model would be the US constitution, but that in its actual form it was absolutely unusable. They then worked to create a constituion uniting roman law, french style republic and US style federation to reunite in one coutry 25 independent states that still are more fiercely indpendentist than even the most anti-Europe briton could ever believe.
It's most important feature is that it's made functioning so complicated that everthing can only move extremely slooooooooooowly. (For example, the absolutely fastest a law can be created is about 4 years. ) It this institutional(!) slowness that has made Switzerland a stable country...

@ Europa Maxima: It's nice of you to say that :)

Just don't forget, it took us more than 700 years, a complete destruction by foreign invaders and a (very short) civil war to get where we are now. :eek:
Would you want to wait for that?
No, I think we can work faster than that if we wake up immediately.

Do you know how we got our constitution of 1848 (The first "modern" constitution, we're at the third now)?
We sent out a committee, which looked at all modern states of the day, then came back, that the best model would be the US constitution, but that in its actual form it was absolutely unusable. They then worked to create a constituion uniting roman law, french style republic and US style federation to reunite in one coutry 25 independent states that still are more fiercely indpendentist than even the most anti-Europe briton could ever believe.
It's most important feature is that it's made functioning so complicated that everthing can only move extremely slooooooooooowly. (For example, the absolutely fastest a law can be created is about 4 years. ) It this institutional(!) slowness that has made Switzerland a stable country...
Exactly why I think it is ideal for the EU. Its provisions are much more likely to give the EU a workable structure than the US Constitution, as it would result in a confederal body, rather than a supranational federation. It could also negatively limit the actions the EU can take in most spheres, which would be ideal.

So, the UN running whorehouses is a good thing?
Yes, that's exactly what I said.

One of the problems of Europe in my view is that, though more and more people want the concept of European Union to be strenghtened, there isn't a consensus amongst them on what direction should the EU take:
A more top-bottom approach? The inverse? A loose federation, a centralized state? You will ear lots of opinions.

And these differences should be sortied out by a functioning Democracy - and lets face it, the EU institutions aren't all Democratic; We elect our leaders that sit in the Council of Ministers, and we elect the EU parliament (which is known for its lack of power). The executive power (The comission) isn't however suffraged by the European people. Therefore it does not have neither the legitimacy nor the power to actually make things go forward - We are stuck with the Council, that is riddled with national interests above the common European Interest, and a Parliament that has no power (our politicians are fearful to give power to the Parliament, as it would likely put asside petty national questions that give those politicians vote).

I believe therefore that for a European Union to gain political strenght, it needs only to gain the courage to trust its citizens, and open its Executive Leadership to the democratic process.

@ Europa Maxima: It's nice of you to say that :)

Just don't forget, it took us more than 700 years, a complete destruction by foreign invaders and a (very short) civil war to get where we are now. :eek:
Would you want to wait for that?



don't you mean 441 years since the first colony that was founded in present day US territory was in 1535?


I think the EU should try an implement a similar system to the US one.

don't you mean 441 years since the first colony that was founded in present day US territory was in 1535?

Switzerland is in US territory? Why wasn't I informed :mad:

I think the EU should try an implement a similar system to the US one.
Nope. Wouldn't work. You need at least something based on roman law, given that the only european country that still uses medieval law is the Unimportant Kingdom :p

don't you mean 441 years since the first colony that was founded in present day US territory was in 1535?


I think the EU should try an implement a similar system to the US one.

Why the US one?

I don't really see much of a chance of there being a European superpower now or any time in the forseeable future. As the article was saying, there are too many disagreements between different countries who just want to pursue their own interests, and it isn't always Britain. And to be honest, I don't really care about being a superpower or being part of one. I also don't see how European military forces being posted into Lebanon is of any benefit or concern to the people of Europe. Europe should cooperate on issues such such as economic development and environmental protection, but we should leave the international squabbles to the rest of the world.

You silly Francophobes make me laugh. Your ignorance of world history astounds me.

It can, however, be said that France has not done well since the Franco-Prussian War. They just barely 'won' the Crimean War, and that was a rather phyricc victory, since the allies somehow managed to lose more people than the Russians. And even then, the British re-wrote history so that the French involvement was to say, 'Good job British people! We love you!' :P

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11613478']It can, however, be said that France has not done well since the Franco-Prussian War. They just barely 'won' the Crimean War, and that was a rather phyricc victory, since the allies somehow managed to lose more people than the Russians. And even then, the British re-wrote history so that the French involvement was to say, 'Good job British people! We love you!' :P
Probably because they did pick worthy opponents.

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11613478']It can, however, be said that France has not done well since the Franco-Prussian War. They just barely 'won' the Crimean War, and that was a rather phyricc victory, since the allies somehow managed to lose more people than the Russians. And even then, the British re-wrote history so that the French involvement was to say, 'Good job British people! We love you!' :P

The Crimean War was a victory because for the British, French, Piedmont (everyone forgets Piedmont) and Turkish forces because they managed to discourage the Russians from undertaking any further expansion in Eastern Europe or Turkey.

Switzerland is in US territory? Why wasn't I informed :mad:

Nope. Wouldn't work. You need at least something based on roman law, given that the only european country that still uses medieval law is the Unimportant Kingdom :p

:eek: thought you said you were from the US. SO SORRY

But only the UK system and the USA have stood the test of time!
They have actually adapted to changing circumstances!

The Crimean War was a victory because for the British, French, Piedmont (everyone forgets Piedmont) and Turkish forces because they managed to discourage the Russians from undertaking any further expansion in Eastern Europe or Turkey.

I know, but it was still a phyric victory as the allies lost quite a few more men than the Russians.
As to the others, I am aware of their involvement, however, the British, from whom most people get their history of the war, re-wrote the whole thing so that:
a. The Baltic and Pacific theatres did not happen, because the mighty British fleet couldnt take down the nasty 'ol Russian forts.
b. The Turks did little but run away
c. The French and Sardinians were just kind of there. They did nothing and the British were oh so brave in their suicidal charges.

A quick wikisearch shows that, by themselves, the French lost only about ~20,000 fewer men than the Russians, the highest lossess of the allies in the war, second place goes to Turkey with its 35,000 dead.
All things considered, the Russians came out on top. They 'only' lost about %10 of their troops commited to the war. The French lost nearly %25 in comparison.
Of course, the Russians commited a huge force, quite a large part of their army, but meh :P

Let us declare war against djibouti!
That poor little Nation on the West Coast of Africa?:eek:

That poor little Nation on the West Coast of Africa?:eek:

East Coast. :D