Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on June 08, 2005, 10:34:40 am
-
What do you think of it?
I personally keep hearing things like "the EU is crumbling" and "there will never be a 'United States of Europe'" because of this, but I think that's BS. I think it's going to happen, but it might take one or two rounds of no votes before they get it right.
-
The EU will go ahead, no matter what anyone thinks. It's too far along to be stopped now. The no votes may delay it a bit, or may slightly change the terms under which Europe become a superstate, but barring a not-too-minor miracle, it's bound to happen.
-
I doubt there will be a United States of Europe any time soon, basicly because the current EU is much more of an alliance then a federal government.
-
It will happen within our lifetime I bet.
-
It's good that they voted no. I don't support the law and I don't want to see USE. I already hate €uros. Feels like the independence is taken away bit by bit.
-
It's inevitable, I'm just glad to see somebody is catching on to hopefully compete even more with the chinese and the U.S. as well. I don't mean Cold War but a little economic competition never hurt anyone..... wait I take that back.
-
Originally posted by Primus
It's good that they voted no. I don't support the law and I don't want to see USE. I already hate €uros. Feels like the independence is taken away bit by bit.
Why? The EU is really europe's only hope of competing in a meaningful way with the US and China. With the exception of Germany, the economies (both current and potential) of the countries within the Eurozone are pretty insignificant compared to the present US economy or the potential chinese economy.
-
There will never be a United States of Europe... because despite the hype the people of Britain won't stand for it.
-
I hope you're right. I don't understand why we have to have the same things to be an union... And I do support EU, but not this way.
-
Originally posted by vyper
There will never be a United States of Europe... because despite the hype the people of Britain won't stand for it.
Still, if it came down to it, and there was enough solid continental support, surely Britain could just be excluded (or, more accurately, opt out).
-
Originally posted by Primus
I hope you're right. I don't understand why we have to have the same things to be an union... And I do support EU, but not this way.
I agree.
History rarely repeats but sometimes it rhyms.
I dont live in Europe, neither have I ever been to europe but from what I see their struggle to unify seems strikingly similiar to the 13 American colonies trying to form their union. I also see an inevitable roadblock, the same one suffered by the USA in the 1860's. If the countries of Europe do manage to forge a confederation then they should be cautious to do it in such a way that they dont piss off a good majority of Europe. The consequences of a hasty or unsatisfactory union could be drastic.
*anticipates the great civil war of Europe, 2012*
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
I agree.
History rarely repeats but sometimes it rhyms.
I dont live in Europe, neither have I ever been to europe but from what I see their struggle to unify seems strikingly similiar to the 13 American colonies trying to form their union. I also see an inevitable roadblock, the same one suffered by the USA in the 1860's. If the countries of Europe do manage to forge a confederation then they should be cautious to do it in such a way that they dont piss off a good majority of Europe. The consequences of a hasty or unsatisfactory union could be drastic.
*anticipates the great civil war of Europe, 2012*
Except for the, you know, several thousand years of history as independent nations. Otherwise you're spot on.
-
Europe's already had several civil wars, anyways...
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Still, if it came down to it, and there was enough solid continental support, surely Britain could just be excluded (or, more accurately, opt out).
Big loss(!). Look at the Eurozone's economies to find out why.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Big loss(!). Look at the Eurozone's economies to find out why.
I'm not saying that it'd be ideal, but if it comes down to it, surely United Europe without Britain (though presumably with some kind of opt in reaty thingo or whatever) is better than no United Europe at all.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Except for the, you know, several thousand years of history as independent nations. Otherwise you're spot on.
It's less than 2000. Britain was part of the Roman empire.
But yeah, there's a lot of history there that I doubt people will just give up. I've never been to Europe, so this is said with a certain amount of uncertainty, but I'd sooner give odds of Europe economically collapsing and reforming into one big country than I would of it merging peacefully. After all, the EU is better off economically than the US right now.
-
Ahum *coughs*
England was part of the Roman empire. They met the scots and shat a brick (to use a nice glasgow expression). Hence why there's a big wall mid way up the UK ;)
-
From what I've been reading about the referdum results, a minority are actually afraid of losing "sovereign right" and "nationality". The reason it was rejected in France was because they thought there was too much free marketism and not enough worker protections or something like that.
-
There's more resons to that than just these two, but I'm kindda fed up hearing about that topic: so it got a "no"? Too bad ( I voted yes), but life goes on, Europe will certainly not crumble from the dismissal of a new treaty, and, btw, there will never be a USE, France wouldn't go with that :p (deGaules refused the joined european army back then especially for that reason, and that's why we got the EEC, an economic alliance, instead).
Oh and England has been part of France for hundreds of years, too, thanks to king William :p ( MWAHAHAHAHAHA! )
-
Whose ancestors made France into Denmark's bi*ch first. :p
I guess both our countries are actually Danish by your logic then :D
-
I wouldn't be so sure about the USE. Okay, in name maybe, but the new Constitution would already give EU courts the ability to over-ride the rulings of national courts. Add to that a common currency, a common EU "rapid deployment force", which by its very existance will de-emphasize the importance of national militaries, the ability to cross borderers with extreme ease, and an ever more unified foreign and economic policy, and you see how the EU will in short order become very much like a United States of Europe, with nothing left but ever-diminishing cultural differences.
You have to look 20 or 30 years into the future, assume that the trends towards centralizatralization will continue in earnest, and then judge.
-
Europe won´t become a USE per se, but it will become a semi federation eventually. Each nation will maintain its local government just as any american state does, with the exception that changes to the legislation, like changes to the constitution and penal code, will be done in Brussels.
While the US has all the power focused in one man, the european federation will be more like a corporate counsil type of thing, with a chairman and a counselor from each member state.
Each nation would still conduct elections, with the exception that the presidents and prime ministers we elect would become part of that counsil. Like the russian federation. Well, kinda...
-
Well, for one, Europe finally uniting under one banner is probably the best thing that could happen on this miserable rock, i mean, how can you stand against something that will see the worst disasters of Humankind to date, the First and Seconds World Wars, a thing of the past never to be repeated...
...Surely, there will be no 'United States of Europe', for, as has already been said, many countries won't stand for it (namely Britain & France), for should Europe unite ala the US, each country will be giving up the independence and national identity they have fought so hard to preserve over the past several Thousand years or so....
...Best case scenario; in another attempt or so, a Constitution will be created and the EU will unite a damn good portion of Humanity in peace, and will be a new step towards a Global Identity for Humanty. Also, if this happens, the EU will likely become a Global Superpower overnight, creating a perfect balance of SuperPowers that is need on this planet; the current SP - the USA, the soon to be a SP - China, and the EU. Reviewing history, one can plainly see that one must have three superpowers to be balanced. One superpower leads to that power becoming very much like the US is now and has been since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which has really been discussed to death so i don't need to go into why it's a problem. Two Superpowers will lead to a rivalry situation, namely that of a Cold War, which is a bad, bad thing. Three SuperPowers will create a Balance, like the old Shakespearian story of King Lear, a kingdom divided in three will have balance, in two, it will have chaos...
...So, really, the EU is all but inevitable, which is definitely a good thing Globally Speaking...
-
I was under the impression the Constitution was more about economic free-market liberalisation than actually any form of 'unionisation' (in the sense of an USE).
Here's a set of things on the bbc giving an overview, anyways;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3825521.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3954327.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm
-
'What the constitution says:
The Union is said to be subsidiary to member states and can act only in those areas where "the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather... be better achieved at Union level." The principle is established that the Union derives its powers from the member states.
What it means:
The idea is to stop the Union from encroaching on the rights of member states other than in areas where the members have given them away. Critics say that the EU can act in so many areas that this clause does not mean much but supporters say it will act as a brake and is an important constitutional principle. '
Doesn't sound to bad for me. I'm for the EU constitution and I don't think that any EU countries will lose much more of their sovereignity than they are doing right now. To want to protect one's own interests, cultures, and things like that would be fine, but getting in the way of everyone else because of your own 'patriotism' is something else.
-
Agreed, and 'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel' is always apposite...
-
[q]To want to protect one's own interests, cultures, and things like that would be fine, but getting in the way of everyone else because of your own 'patriotism' is something else.[/q]
[sarchasm] Yes because it's failed us in the past hasn't it? [/sarchasm]
-
I always find it interesting to contrast the nature of the UK - a union of independent countries (and part of one conquered) - with that towardsthe EU. Particularly with regards to national identity.
-
In that Scots, the Welsh and the catholic Northern Irelanders spend half their time moaning about independance?
-
Moaning about being ignored, usually. Just watch the BBc report in the news on the EU rebate, and listen to the quote from Chirac.
-
I don't see how any reasonable parallels can be drawn between the states of America before they were unified, and Europe. These are entirely different peoples we're talking about now: language, culture, it's all very diverse. A union coming out of that - the way the US is at the moment - seems impossible.
-
Impossible today, yes. But in thirty years time, maybe not so much. I think that, especially with the youth, English is quickly becoming sort of like a natural second language, which almost everyone can speak with some degree of fluency. Look at the various Europeans (excluding Brits) on HLP, just as a small example. And everything I have seen indicates that a large portion of the population of most West Europeans countries, and increasingly so in the East, are proficient in English.
As for culture, well I think that cultures literally worldwide are quickly becoming homogenous, more so with each passing year. Now when I say quickly, I don't mean over a period of a few years, but rather decades. Still, quicker than at any time in history that I am aware of. The global village and all that. Given that European countries have pretty similar societies, nothing radically different, this unification of culture isn't going to come up against any major obstacles that I can see. Also, factor in that travel between EU member countries is really easy, and that as the already high living standards are raised, more people can and do travel or even live abroad, and you see that I'm not so far off the mark.
edit:
or to put it another way: the whole world is becoming a United States of Earth, Europe is just doing it quicker.
-
Every town in the world will have a McDonalds, and everyone will be fat
-
Originally posted by Rictor
or to put it another way: the whole world is becoming a United States of Earth, Europe is just doing it quicker.
As long as it doesn't mean US hegomony over the Earth is that necessarily a bad thing?
-
Even if it does mean US hegemony over the Earth, is it a bad thing even then?
Bush is out in a few years, and it doesn't seem too likely the next President will be Republican, after all.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Bush is out in a few years.
Hopefully :)
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Even if it does mean US hegemony over the Earth, is it a bad thing even then?
That much is. 350m people controlling a world full of 6 billion is a recipe for trouble.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
As long as it doesn't mean US hegomony over the Earth is that necessarily a bad thing?
That all depends on your socio-political views. Personally, I would rather it not happen, but I recognize that it's beyond anyone's power to stop it. So I accept it and move on, but also realize that the how and when are not set in stone, so there is wiggle room.
As for the US, I think the age of US hegemony is more or less over. Their influence is quickly dwindling, and militarily they're just not all that ferocious anymore. Try as they might, they can't hold on to their former power any longer. Now that doesn't mean that they will just disappear, far from it, but they will be increasingly more bark and less bite. A single occupation stops them dead in their tracks, so obviously they're not as big a power as people imagines. A bully doesn't usually rely on strength, he relies on the appearance of strenght. Iraq was supposed to be an example to world, and so it has become, but not in the way Bush wanted. I wouldn't worry to much about the US, Bush is the product of a nation who sees itself in decline and tries to fight the invitable.
edit: I realize this must seem to be contradicting everything I have ever said, but I don't mean it to. I'm not saying the US is powerless, or ever will be, and that their actions should not be strutinized and condemned when necessary, they should, but in my opinion they can't sustain their hegemony very far into the future.
-
Actually that's pretty much how I see it except that I lean in favour of a world government system (As long as it's the right one. There are far too many ways for it to go horribly wrong).
-
I think the US only had a sense of prospective hegemony when there was an equivalent 'threat' to it; peope would work with the US during the Cold War because it looked like it would come down to between them and the USSR.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[sarchasm] Yes because it's failed us in the past hasn't it? [/sarchasm] [/B]
Might I point out that WWI started because of patriotism. None of the countries were willing to step down in case of humiliation. What appeared to be a small war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia resulted in a Russian mobilisation and a declaration of war on France and Russia by Germany. Maybe patriotism isn't the right word, but rather nationalism. Both are a bit 'aggresive' IMO, and I see no reason why mingling with everyone else shouldn't be preferred over patriotism, except when your country is attacked and is in danger.
-
or to put it another way: the whole world is becoming a United States of Earth, Europe is just doing it quicker.
Here's a better name for it: The Galactic Terran Alliance. :D
-
Didn't the Galactic Terran Alliance come first? And isn't Delta Serpentis the capital planet for the terrans in GTVA? No Earth involved. ;)
-
The GTA was the result of the slow formations of the nation state, superstate, and then world state.
We're in the throes of the superstates. Wait 100 years for the GTA ;)
-
Originally posted by General Freak
Might I point out that WWI started because of patriotism. None of the countries were willing to step down in case of humiliation. What appeared to be a small war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia resulted in a Russian mobilisation and a declaration of war on France and Russia by Germany. Maybe patriotism isn't the right word, but rather nationalism. Both are a bit 'aggresive' IMO, and I see no reason why mingling with everyone else shouldn't be preferred over patriotism, except when your country is attacked and is in danger.
That's sort of simplifying the issue, though; the reason for the escalation of a regional war/occupation by A-H into a pan-european war was as much down to the Alliance system as any form of nationalism.
-
That's sort of simplifying the issue, though; the reason for the escalation of a regional war/occupation by A-H into a pan-european war was as much down to the Alliance system as any form of nationalism.
There are multiple causes for it. One of them was the alliance system. One of the others was nationalism. Nationalism is what started it, but the alliance system only made it worse.
World War 2 on the other hand was caused mainly by nationalism and ethnocentrism.
The bottom line is that nationalism is nothing but trouble.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's sort of simplifying the issue, though; the reason for the escalation of a regional war/occupation by A-H into a pan-european war was as much down to the Alliance system as any form of nationalism.
But actually, none of the alliance's were binding. Look at the Triple Alliance, and Italy declaring war AGAINST Germany and Austira-Hungary on 1915. Neither Britain or France took action when Germany declared war on Russia, their ally. France did nothing except wait for German to make the first move and Britain went to war because of the 1839 Treaty of Westminster and not because of any recent alliances. The only thing about the alliance system was that people THOUGHT that if one country went to war, its allies would join in and also that it just posed as a very clear threat/target (like East vs West in the Cold War).
-
If you note that firstly, Serbia was nominally allied with Russia over the annexation of Bosnia, then that gives a key impetus to the initial outbreak of war. And the alliance system, as you pointed out, cause pre-emptive declarations of war. The Italians also had a 1902 agreement with France which effectively removed them from the Triple Alliance with Germany and AH.
And there's the other issues such as British opposition to Germanys colonial and naval expansion; i.e. it's not solely down to nationalism IMO, but multiple political, military and social factors on top.