For god's sake, Europeans, don't let skip! Not this time!! (1 Viewer)

[Martin]

I very much agree on Turkey, I would love for them to join one day but I realize it won't be for a long time yet.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Slagathor]

Indeed Martin.

Kaiser - that is an EXCELLENT post! I salute you! :thumb:

 

[Layce Erayce]

++ [ originally posted by Kaiser Franco ] ++
The process of unification of Europe has been going on for 50 years now (since the treaty of Rome in 1954) and it has brought nothing but positive effects. At first its main goal was to make war impossible in Europe through economic integration : if Germany had wanted to attack France again, it was attacking its own interests too. It worked.

As the EU expanded from its original 6 members (the Benelux countries, France, Germany and Italy) to 9, then 12, 15 and now 25, it broadened its objectives : we now have created a 460 million economic and political entity which is the biggest single market in the world, with an 11 trillion GDP equalling that of the US.

I believe the most positive effects of this is the fact that countries that were once poor witnessed an economic boom after joining the EU. Ireland's GDP per head was 60% that of the EU average in 1973. Today it's 120%. Spain and Portugal were poor and just emerging from dictatorial regimes before accession : today Portugal has developped and Spain is one of the most dynamic and fastest-growing economies in Europe. The same is most likely to happen with the new Eastern European countries that have just joined the European family. Isn't it great to see Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, countries that were under the soviet yoke only 15 years ago, embrace democracy and the market economy?

The EU is also the single biggest aid donor to third world countries. The share of our GDP allocated to foreign aid is more than twice that of the US. Through the Euromed programme, we provide infrastructures and training to Mediterranean countries from North Africa and the Middle East. We levy trade tariffs on some of their produtcs and all we ask in return is the promotion of the rule of law and democracy in those countries. I believe this is a more thought-out approach than unilateralist "democracy-enforcing".

As regards Turkey, they have been knocking on the EU door since 1963, and we have always refused them accession, essentially for two reasons : one is the very relevant power that the Army has in the political life there. We can't accept a country where generals are able to depose and elected government whenever they feel like. The other is of course its poor human rights' record, and particularly its treatment of the kurd minority. We take minority rights very seriously, and Turkey does not meet EU standards in that respect. Personally, I think it would create a great precedent if a secular muslim country like Turkey joined a Western entity such as the EU. That would dismiss the clash of civilisations (Islam vs Christianity) that some are calling for. But on the other hand, I think Turkey still has a lot of work to do if it wants to be eligible for membership, and we can in no way revise or lower our accession criterias. Also, there is a question of homogeneity : the current members have more or less similar social and legal systems that can be integrated. The EU is much more than a free-trade area, and I fear that by taking in Turkey we might hinder the integration process.

Anyway, I can only repeat Erik's call now and encourage the citizens of the EU to go en masse to the ballot boxes next June. It is essential that they take an interest and make their voice heard in EU affairs : democracy has to be participative if it is to deliver results.

Im not against the benefits of unification- I want to make that clear. Its just that total unification sounds frightening, and that if it goes all the way decisions will be made unilaterally, and will be executed by Europe as a whole. A confederal army? An european president? How much power will these branches have? How much will they accumulate over time? Will they eventually make national government powerless and cultures obsolete?

The reason I think it will deepen the gap is because eventually the US will have a 'Union' they can trade and communicate with who are on their level and they will depend on each other almost exclusively, as common technologies make it more convenient and efficient for them to trade with each other. This will obviously lead to an 'elite group' being formed- who India and China will join if all goes well for them.

All this spells for me is global oligarchy, where the victims will be (poorly) 'developing' countries. Think US unilateralism but with the US AND Europe. Of course I could be wrong, so I wait for your opinion on this.

And btw- Im in the US, but I didnt support the unilateralist "democracy-enforcing" . I was both against the war in Iraq, and the means by which the US went about doing its thing regarding Iraq.

 

[Kaiser Franco]

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++


Im not against the benefits of unification- I want to make that clear. Its just that total unification sounds frightening, and that if it goes all the way decisions will be made unilaterally, and will be executed by Europe as a whole. A confederal army? An european president? How much power will these branches have? How much will they accumulate over time? Will they eventually make national government powerless and cultures obsolete?

The reason I think it will deepen the gap is because eventually the US will have a 'Union' they can trade and communicate with who are on their level and they will depend on each other almost exclusively, as common technologies make it more convenient and efficient for them to trade with each other. This will obviously lead to an 'elite group' being formed- who India and China will join if all goes well for them.

All this spells for me is global oligarchy, where the victims will be (poorly) 'developing' countries. Think US unilateralism but with the US AND Europe. Of course I could be wrong, so I wait for your opinion on this.

And btw- Im in the US, but I didnt support the unilateralist "democracy-enforcing" . I was both against the war in Iraq, and the means by which the US went about doing its thing regarding Iraq.

Most of the things you evoked are already present. 50% of new legislation in European countries now emanates directly from Brussels. We already have a European executive power : the Comission, whose President is the Italian Romano Prodi. He is appointed by the heads of states and governments in the European Council of Ministers, but as the Comission is evolving into a de facto European government, he will rather sooner than later be directly elected by the citizens. We have a legilslative branch : a European Parliament, whose role is to check the action of the Comission (it has the power to make it resign, like it did in 1999). And finally we have a judiciary branch, the European Court of Justice, which is protecting citizens' and member states' rights (for instance I have now the power to sue my country at the Court if I consider that it infringed or abused my rights).

One of the most essential principles of the EU is the so-called "principle of subsidiarity". This means that all decisions should be taken at the local level first, and that EU legislation or directives should only be implemented when local legislation does not contemplate a solution. Member states have handed over considerable shares of their sovereignty to Brussels over the years, but veto rights remain in crucial areas such as taxation, defence and welfare systems.

No one (apart from a few europhobic English tabloids) seriously believes that we are losing or will lose our national cultures and identities. In tomorrow's Europe, Italians will still drive Vespas, Dutchmen will still grow tulips and Hungarians will still eat gulash, lol. What has already happened is an erosion of nationalisms, which to me is an excellent thing. Nationalisms are the main reason why our Continent has been teared apart by wars for over two millenia. Since the creation of the EU, we have been at peace with each other for 60 years, the longest warless period ever. And we have learnt to know each other like never before, as the suppression of borders allows me to cross Europe from Finland to Portugal without needing a passport.

Regarding a European Army, we are set to create a small but highly trained 60 000 rapid reaction force. This will probably be a first step towards a proper European Army. Again, this is only natural in my opinion. So far we are an economic giant and a political dwarf, a bit like the US were at the start of the XXth century. Having made an internship at NATO, I must say I wasn't very happy with the decision-making process there : basically all partners sit around the table and take orders from the American delegate. I think we should be able to stand on our feet without constantly rely on the US, like in the Kosovo war. This will benefit both Europe and America.

I don't think that the emergence of the EU, China and eventually India as global powers will be nefarious to less well-off nations. On the contrary, a multi-polar world will provide more voices and options. The US and a strong EU should be more able to press China to make democratic reforms follow their recent economic liberalisation. A politically assertive EU could propose its own solution to the israelo-palestinian conflict, instead of just criticising America's unconditional support for Israel. The same goes for all those war-torn and famine-stricken African countries which are currently being left aside. And although the US and Europe are political allies (despite recent disagreements), we are direct economic competitors. And competition is good for everybody. The euro is quickly asserting itself as a solid alternative currency to the dollar. OPEC countries for instance are considering switching their petro-dollars into petro-euros, because the currently strong euro would make it more convenient for them to sell their oil. Finally the EU is being emulated by other groups of countries : South-East Asian countries have created their own free trade area, ASEAN, while Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have founded the Mercosur.

 

[Layce Erayce]

++ [ originally posted by Kaiser Franco ] ++


Most of the things you evoked are already present. 50% of new legislation in European countries now emanates directly from Brussels. We already have a European executive power : the Comission, whose President is the Italian Romano Prodi. He is appointed by the heads of states and governments in the European Council of Ministers, but as the Comission is evolving into a de facto European government, he will rather sooner than later be directly elected by the citizens. We have a legilslative branch : a European Parliament, whose role is to check the action of the Comission (it has the power to make it resign, like it did in 1999). And finally we have a judiciary branch, the European Court of Justice, which is protecting citizens' and member states' rights (for instance I have now the power to sue my country at the Court if I consider that it infringed or abused my rights).

One of the most essential principles of the EU is the so-called "principle of subsidiarity". This means that all decisions should be taken at the local level first, and that EU legislation or directives should only be implemented when local legislation does not contemplate a solution. Member states have handed over considerable shares of their sovereignty to Brussels over the years, but veto rights remain in crucial areas such as taxation, defence and welfare systems.

No one (apart from a few europhobic English tabloids) seriously believes that we are losing or will lose our national cultures and identities. In tomorrow's Europe, Italians will still drive Vespas, Dutchmen will still grow tulips and Hungarians will still eat gulash, lol. What has already happened is an erosion of nationalisms, which to me is an excellent thing. Nationalisms are the main reason why our Continent has been teared apart by wars for over two millenia. Since the creation of the EU, we have been at peace with each other for 60 years, the longest warless period ever. And we have learnt to know each other like never before, as the suppression of borders allows me to cross Europe from Finland to Portugal without needing a passport.

Regarding a European Army, we are set to create a small but highly trained 60 000 rapid reaction force. This will probably be a first step towards a proper European Army. Again, this is only natural in my opinion. So far we are an economic giant and a political dwarf, a bit like the US were at the start of the XXth century. Having made an internship at NATO, I must say I wasn't very happy with the decision-making process there : basically all partners sit around the table and take orders from the American delegate. I think we should be able to stand on our feet without constantly rely on the US, like in the Kosovo war. This will benefit both Europe and America.

I don't think that the emergence of the EU, China and eventually India as global powers will be nefarious to less well-off nations. On the contrary, a multi-polar world will provide more voices and options. The US and a strong EU should be more able to press China to make democratic reforms follow their recent economic liberalisation. A politically assertive EU could propose its own solution to the israelo-palestinian conflict, instead of just criticising America's unconditional support for Israel. The same goes for all those war-torn and famine-stricken African countries which are currently being left aside. And although the US and Europe are political allies (despite recent disagreements), we are direct economic competitors. And competition is good for everybody. The euro is quickly asserting itself as a solid alternative currency to the dollar. OPEC countries for instance are considering switching their petro-dollars into petro-euros, because the currently strong euro would make it more convenient for them to sell their oil. Finally the EU is being emulated by other groups of countries : South-East Asian countries have created their own free trade area, ASEAN, while Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have founded the Mercosur.

So eventually all economic, religious cultural, racial, ethnic, national, and social, boundaries will be wiped away.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++


So eventually all economic, religious cultural, racial, ethnic, national, and social, boundaries will be wiped away.

Maybe thats a good thing, to a certain extent.

 

[Kaiser Franco]

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++


So eventually all economic, religious cultural, racial, ethnic, national, and social, boundaries will be wiped away.

I don't know if they will, and I don't know if it is desirable that they all do (I don't think there should be such a thing as a one world government for instance). But ideally there will be bigger and more stable regional entities competing and collaborating with each other.

 

[Layce Erayce]

Andy: maybe it is.

Kaiser thats true, however I guess Im just not so comfortable with them all being governed by one government. I mean if a french fuslim decides that the ban on headscarves in France is unfair they can always move. But where do they go if all of Europe have the same law?

Off-topic(kinda): What are your views on the french headscarves ban?

 

[gray]

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
Off-topic(kinda): What are your views on the french headscarves ban?

Ridiculous

 

[Layce Erayce]

That was my first thought. Then I backtracked and decided to reserve judgement for after I read the actual statute or whatever that forbids it.

 

[Fred]

for your information a few muslim countries ban headscarves too.

 

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
Off-topic(kinda): What are your views on the french headscarves ban?

Its not a headscarf ban, its a ban of religious signs altogether.

In Europe we have something called a divide between church and state. This, oddly enough, has never been implemented at schools though (who are government institutions just as much as ministries). This ridiculous exception has been rectified: religions have no place in governments of free nations.

That includes catholic crosses and whatever more as well. It is NOT a headscarf ban despite the media focusing on that.

 

[nina]

I suppose the jewish kids in France aren't allowed to wear the little hats (sorry if I don't know the proper name) and they have to shave their locks?

 

[Slagathor]

At public (governmental) schools they aren't allowed to wear those 'hats', no. They don't have to shave off their locks though, but really, who wears those nowadays anyway?

 

[Torkel]

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
In Europe we have something called a divide between church and state.

Some places in Europe.

 

[Fred]

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++


Its not a headscarf ban, its a ban of religious signs altogether.

In Europe we have something called a divide between church and state. This, oddly enough, has never been implemented at schools though (who are government institutions just as much as ministries). This ridiculous exception has been rectified: religions have no place in governments of free nations.

That includes catholic crosses and whatever more as well. It is NOT a headscarf ban despite the media focusing on that.

in our religion women must wear headscarves you know.

 

[gray]

Hang on, if this is a divide between church and state, what business does the state have interfering with the affairs of the church?

 

[Fred]

good point

 

[Kaiser Franco]

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
Andy: maybe it is.

Kaiser thats true, however I guess Im just not so comfortable with them all being governed by one government. I mean if a french fuslim decides that the ban on headscarves in France is unfair they can always move. But where do they go if all of Europe have the same law?

Off-topic(kinda): What are your views on the french headscarves ban?

Duke, as I said, the principle of subsidiarity makes sure that local laws apply first and that EU laws only act as a complement. The EU provides broadlines, but on precise issues, it's member states that ultimately decide. Like that happens in the US as regards gay marriages, for instance : the fact that it's legal in Massachusetts doesn't mean that it is or has to be in Michigan too.

The headscarves ban? Totally justified. Religion can get the "hell" out of public institutions imo. In Italy muslim associations asked us to remove crosses from classroom walls because it somehow offended them. Fair enough : we remove the cross, you remove the headscarves, I say.

The same goes for the upcoming European Constitution : some lobby groups pressed for it to contain an allusion to Europe's judeo-christian heritage. Although I acknowledge that this is indeed our common heritage, I don't think such a mention has any place in the Constitution of a secular entity.

 

[Kaiser Franco]

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
Hang on, if this is a divide between church and state, what business does the state have interfering with the affairs of the church?

Public education is not an affair of the Church, it's an affair of the State. That's what secularism is all about.