EU: the European Union, a unified state in the making

[Munin]

Thx to ekrem ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...age-during-debate-with-peres-over-gaza-6.html ) I m making this post about the EU, because many people don't seem to understand what the EU exactly is. Since I have studied a lot about it and because I am a european I m probably able to answer a lot of your questions. And it is possible to create a debate about other Issues with the EU.

The EU right now is what you could describe as a phase between a group of countries and one country. The original purpose was pure economically and to avoid another conflict over resources and raw materials (because of free trade this situation is "solved"), while it was initially not ment to be anything else this became the first step to creating some sort of governing organization that looks like a european country (EU) above a EU-member country.

Some good information about the EU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union


Some recent information about the EU development: the EU is now (re)making the constitution of the EU ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe ), because of some problems in 2005 the EU member state leaders needed to adapt it so it could be accepted by the democratic countries that rejected it in a referendum (each country has to sign it individually).

 

[Munin]

And you know what the flag of the EU reminds me of?

This old flag:

 

[mightypeon]

Aestitically, Norway beeing in is so damn nice. Without Norway, the Skandinavian Lion looks well, not really like a Lion.

 

[WilliamC]

Munin

Do you see the EUs plans to further expand their military alliances as being a threat to NATO and a sign of Europe beginning to distance its self from the American Empire?

 

[Munin]

Munin

Do you see the EUs plans to further expand their military alliances as being a threat to NATO and a sign of Europe beginning to distance its self from the American Empire?

I don't see the EU as a pure military alliance, in its first purpose it was pure economically (a trade agreement) then justice got involved in it and then we got a unified coin, ... the military aspect only has just recently began to develop. It would be like saying that the US is a pure military alliance of states, in a way the EU and the US are becoming very similar to each other. But the EU is still advancing into the what the US is today.

Another thing is that all EU countries are members of NATO, so it is not like it is a new alliance. It is more an new "country" that is developing, this country will also be part of NATO. NATO will still be important, it will only be between less countries (Because the EU that will be a member will only be 1 country).

It is not because EU countries are working closer together that the EU will be working less close together with the US. You could see it as a new country (that exists out of former separated countries) that will (re)join NATO.


One reason for this development is that the member states don't have much individual power anymore, if for example France wants to have something done in the international scene then it is like a david vs goliath job to get huge powers like the US & Russia to act: for example the green-energy project that the EU has been working on for years, trying to promote more solar and wind power and trying to change the world into something less polluting.

In the future EU will probably become somewhat identical to the US as a country, the EU will be a bigger voice on the international scene and the small countries won't be abused by their small geopolitical status when they are up against countries like Russia (a country that has been using the division of European countries in its advantage: divide and rule => the strongest one makes the rules).

So in short: it is a development that can be seen as coincidental nation-building (initially that was not the goal), not a new alliance that is being made to replace an old one. The closest thing you can compare it with is a new country that rejoins (the countries were already part of those alliances) all existing alliances. That is why I made the comparison with the old american flag, it is a similar process (one that the US already has gone through). But in another way it is not :Each European country has its own language, its own national culture, its own long history as a nation, ... .






( This text below here is the most important part of my answer, so if you d want to skip the previous part of it ... )

I ll try to compare it with something the US could do: You have NAFTA (something very similar to the first agreement that evolved further into what is today called the EU) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement . Imagine that NAFTA would be upgraded: that Mexico, the US and Canada all have the same currency, have open borders (no border control: you can just walk over the border while and won't notice that it was there because you don't have to stop there for a passport check or something else) and that their came a bigger "government" & "parliament" that represented all tree countries, this process evolves further and further: that big democratically elected government that is able to make laws that each of the 3 countries have to abide by make the new Federal laws, the countries themselves give away the agriculture department to this big government and the federal government kept giving power of itself away to this big government. US, canadian and mexican politicians are all represented in that one big government and it keeps getting more power from the 3 countries that are in it.

But it is hard to imagine that this could happen because of the huge immigration problems that the US already has with mexico, but I could see it happening with canada. That (Mexico & mass immigration) is the same reason why the EU will probably not let Turkey join the EU: we have to big immigration problems with Turkey (f.e. 3% of Germany are Turks).

 

[cunclusion]

It is an interesting hypothesis of the situation in Europe. It looks like the economic issues around the world might actually push this plan into action sooner or cause a major breakdown. This is mostly due to the debt of certain countries in Europe. The main focus was Spain, Italy and Eastern European countries during the downturn would run into a rule in place that states they cannot exceed a debt to GDP ratio dont remember off the top of my head but I think that was one of the rules Germany wanted in place.

 

[WilliamC]

Munin,

I agree that the EU, which evolved from the European economic Community (EEC), was not intended to be purely a military alliance, out of interest the Western European Union (WEU) military concept date back to 1948 Western European Union - Union de l'Europe Occidentale[/url]) an year before NATO came to the table thus predates NATO the EEC and EU. The aims stated by the WEU were: "to afford assistance to each other in resisting any policy of aggression" "to promote unity and to encourage the progressive integration of Europe".

However I feel that NATOs continued expansion to include accelerated membership for former members of the Soviet Block, is unsettling the status quo in Europe with the placement of elements of the US "defensive" missile shield in Poland and the Check Republic turning the heat up on Russia, I can see some similarities with the Cuban missile crisis.

The agreement to allow NATO aircraft to fly through Ukrainian airspace may well have contributed to Russia engineering the recent gas crises in that country which cascaded across Europe. Although Russia has used this tool historically for other purposes.

I would also propose that the lack of appetite amongst certain European elements of NATO to fully support those nations which have actively engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan may suggest that the historical one for all all for one concept with the all following the one is no longer the case. NATO evolved into an organization intended to face down the Russian bear, a role it has fulfilled, it may however have run its course and in Europe may indeed be relegated, if it survives, to second fiddle to the WEU as the EU evolves, as you suggest into an integrated nation like alliance.

 

[Munin]

Munin,

I agree that the EU, which evolved from the European economic Community (EEC), was not intended to be purely a military alliance, out of interest the Western European Union (WEU) military concept date back to 1948 Western European Union - Union de l'Europe Occidentale[/url]) an year before NATO came to the table thus predates NATO the EEC and EU. The aims stated by the WEU were: "to afford assistance to each other in resisting any policy of aggression" "to promote unity and to encourage the progressive integration of Europe".

However I feel that NATOs continued expansion to include accelerated membership for former members of the Soviet Block, is unsettling the status quo in Europe with the placement of elements of the US "defensive" missile shield in Poland and the Check Republic turning the heat up on Russia, I can see some similarities with the Cuban missile crisis.

The agreement to allow NATO aircraft to fly through Ukrainian airspace may well have contributed to Russia engineering the recent gas crises in that country which cascaded across Europe. Although Russia has used this tool historically for other purposes.

I would also propose that the lack of appetite amongst certain European elements of NATO to fully support those nations which have actively engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan may suggest that the historical one for all all for one concept with the all following the one is no longer the case. NATO evolved into an organization intended to face down the Russian bear, a role it has fulfilled, it may however have run its course and in Europe may indeed be relegated, if it survives, to second fiddle to the WEU as the EU evolves, as you suggest into an integrated nation like alliance.

William,

I don't know exactly what you re saying now, A nation can not make an alliance of its own. I simply can't see that the EU has something to do with being a military project although it now has a very big military project, as I stated in my previous "that was not the initial idea": now this of course changed, we have a European government a european parliament, a European justice system, European banks, ... we re not so far of from being a Nation.

The idea of the (WEU), the military concept that dates back to 1948 is an idea of separated nations forming a military alliance. The EU military concept however is one of 1 "nation" with 1 military, 1 government, 1 parliament, 1 currency, ... It will also be cheaper if the EU has a military because borders that have to be defended will be much much smaller. I don't think the WEU concept is comparable with this EU-military concept.

About NATO, I think you re not completely right. It is true that the Russian bear is weaker now, but this world is still not as peaceful as you think that it is. The Russia-Georgia conflict has shown us that Russia is not an international partner or an "ally", that Russia still acts on its own and still is an authoritarian state. Even the Chinese, with all their peaceful intentions can become a threat in the future. The chinese may be peaceful people, but their leaders certainly are not (this was shown by the violent oppression of the tibet protests right before the olympic games). Also China says it will declare war on Taiwan if it ever would declare independence (which shows the imperialistic nature of this Chinese government). I have already made a thread that questions this and gives enough arguments that favor the idea that China may be a serious threat to the West in the future ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/65406-what-is-china-up-to.html ). Also remember that China is the 3rd biggest economy in the world (China passes Germany in economic rankings - CNN.com).

 

[Modbert]

The EU will be the first of most likely three super states made.

Expect to see a NAU (North American Union) and a AU (Asia Union) follow if this succeeds. I don't like the sound of that at all, so much power in so few hands.

 

[Munin]

The EU will be the first of most likely three super states made.

Expect to see a NAU (North American Union) and a AU (Asia Union) follow if this succeeds. I don't like the sound of that at all, so much power in so few hands.

I don't see africans agreeing upon that (to many African Nations are still waging war against each other), neither do I see Chinese communists and a Japanese democracy / Indian democracy go well together.

The only other Nations that I do see capable of doing something like that is the merging of the USA and Canada into 1 superstate.

The other thing is that is good for the US too, because the US will have a stronger ally that almost has exactly the same ideology.

 

[Modbert]

I don't see africans agreeing upon that (to many African Nations are still waging war against each other), neither do I see Chinese communists and a Japanese democracy go well together.

Who says there will be a African Union? The 3 super states will probably split that up somehow since they don't see any African country as a viable power.

China is currently living in interesting times; it's trying to be a capitalist country economy wise but a communist country government wise. Something's gotta give and it will be the government. Especially with the amount of civil unrest going on as time goes on.

 

[GHook93]

Don't think it would happen. Too many different languages, cultures, peoples and nationalisms! They may come more together economically, but that is as far as it goes. In the mean time as a counter-balance to the EU, the US should drop out of NATO and join CURIB (China, US, Russia, India, Brazil)!

Thx to ekrem ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...age-during-debate-with-peres-over-gaza-6.html ) I m making this post about the EU, because many people don't seem to understand what the EU exactly is. Since I have studied a lot about it and because I am a european I m probably able to answer a lot of your questions. And it is possible to create a debate about other Issues with the EU.

The EU right now is what you could describe as a phase between a group of countries and one country. The original purpose was pure economically and to avoid another conflict over resources and raw materials (because of free trade this situation is "solved"), while it was initially not ment to be anything else this became the first step to creating some sort of governing organization that looks like a european country (EU) above a EU-member country.

Some good information about the EU:
European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some recent information about the EU development: the EU is now (re)making the constitution of the EU ( Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), because of some problems in 2005 the EU member state leaders needed to adapt it so it could be accepted by the democratic countries that rejected it in a referendum (each country has to sign it individually).

 

[Modbert]

Don't think it would happen. Too many different languages, cultures, peoples and nationalisms! They may come more together economically, but that is as far as it goes. In the mean time as a counter-balance to the EU, the US should drop out of NATO and join CURIB (China, US, Russia, India, Brazil)!

No, they shouldn't; get off the crack.

Russia would most likely leave CURIB and join NATO.

The U.S. and China rarely agree on anything, Brazil and India really bring nothing to the table either.

 

[Munin]

Don't think it would happen. Too many different languages, cultures, peoples and nationalisms! They may come more together economically, but that is as far as it goes. In the mean time as a counter-balance to the EU, the US should drop out of NATO and join CURIB (China, US, Russia, India, Brazil)!

The democratic US and authoritarian & communistic China in one alliance???
dream on man, the US will stay in NATO and it will have a big friend in it that is called "EU".

It already has happened for the biggest part, there even is a EU constitution. The EU government already has the authority of deciding the agricultural policy of every nation in the EU. They have not only come together economically, but have also made a european parliament that makes European laws that are implemented in all EU nations. And if a EU law contradicts a national law, then this national law will be erased or changed so it follows EU laws. EU-citizens can even bring their country to a EU-court if it violates EU-laws (these are things that already happened).

 

[Munin]

Don't think it would happen. Too many different languages, cultures, peoples and nationalisms! They may come more together economically, but that is as far as it goes. In the mean time as a counter-balance to the EU, the US should drop out of NATO and join CURIB (China, US, Russia, India, Brazil)!

No, they shouldn't; get off the crack.

Russia would most likely leave CURIB and join NATO.

The U.S. and China rarely agree on anything, Brazil and India really bring nothing to the table either.

Russia joining NATO???

You do know that Nato doesn't favor authoritarian states, right? And that NATO is also ideologic?

 

[Modbert]

Russia joining NATO???

Russia 'may join NATO' - Europe, World - The Independent

That's from 2000, Putin would be in NATO if the U.S. wasn't because Russia would basically run the show.

Come 2010 when Russia gets their pipeline in place, Ukraine along with Europe will be at Russia's mercy energy wise in reality.

 

[Munin]

Russia joining NATO???

Russia 'may join NATO' - Europe, World - The Independent

That's from 2000, Putin would be in NATO if the U.S. wasn't because Russia would basically run the show.

Come 2010 when Russia gets their pipeline in place, Ukraine along with Europe will be at Russia's mercy energy wise in reality.

From your source:

Asked by Sir David if Russia would ever join Nato, Mr Putin replied:"I don't see why not. I wouldn't rule out such a possibility. But I repeat - if and when Russia's view are taken into account as an equal partner."

He added: "Isolationism is not an option."

However, Russia opposes Nato's plans to embrace former Warsaw Pact countries into membership and opposed its actions in the Balkans during the Kosovo conflict.

But Mr Putin stressed: "Russia is part of the European culture and I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and the civilised world."

Putin says it, but this is not what NATO-members have proposed. Russia joining NATO will probably destroy it, destroying all morals about democracy and human rights. All big NATO members will veto it.

This is not likely to happen unless Russia someday becomes a perfect democracy that doesn't violate human rights. Putin probably said it to please the west and show his 'goodwill'. You have to see this statement into its context.

 

[GHook93]

Russia would most likely leave CURIB and join NATO.

If America left Nato and pull all troops from the Balkans and told comrade Putin that the US would let them have full reign over their sphere of influence in the balkans ad the former Soviet States. They would listen. America reached out to be part of the Saigon Six

The U.S. and China rarely agree on anything,

but the Shanghi Co-Op was created in a response to NATO! If the US left NATO the SCO might be more open to the US joining. If the US took the open position, in which we take privately, that Tibet and Twaiian are part of China, then China would be much more open to the US. Since China has open more and more to capitalism, there has been less and less tension. There are a lot of American countries in China, more than any other country. We are their biggest customer. You well over-estimate the tensions!

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brazil and India really bring nothing to the table either.

LOL, they are just 2 of the members of BRIC. They are emerging world power. Both are large countries with large work forces. India produce more new Scientist a year than any other country including the US.

BRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ekrem]

Don't think it would happen. Too many different languages, cultures, peoples and nationalisms! They may come more together economically, but that is as far as it goes. In the mean time as a counter-balance to the EU, the US should drop out of NATO and join CURIB (China, US, Russia, India, Brazil)!

Partly agree on the nationalisms.
Europe is divided between those who would give up national sovereignity and move to a structure "munin" is describing and those who reject giving up sovereignity and want the EU to be a economical union. Because of this in Europe there is talk of the Europe with 2 sailing speeds.
Apart from this Europeans disagree on many issues. Just take the issue how to deal with Russia. The Eastern European states together with UK want a harder approach, countries like Germany and Italy want cooperation with Russia.
Or take Kosovo's sovereignity from Serbia big differences between countries like Greece and UK.
Or take Georgia's and Ukraine's membership to NATO, big differences in position between Germany and UK.
Take Iraq issue (Rumsfeld's talk of Old and new Europe).

The EU constitution was rejected by France and Ireland. Fearing losses in national sovereignity. Countries like UK will always remain with their national sovereignity no matter what comes, countries like Poland will always be nearer to USA then its major European neigbours due to its history with major European powers. Alliance with USA guarantees Poland's independence and security.

There is many more, and the conclusion is, that EU is split within on several issues and those issues are not small but in some cases threatening sovereignity and security.
There will be not a "nation state EU". There is an EU with nation-states and this will remain so.

 

[Munin]

Russia would most likely leave CURIB and join NATO.

If America left Nato and pull all troops from the Balkans and told comrade Putin that the US would let them have full reign over their sphere of influence in the balkans ad the former Soviet States. They would listen. America reached out to be part of the Saigon Six

The U.S. and China rarely agree on anything,

but the Shanghi Co-Op was created in a response to NATO! If the US left NATO the SCO might be more open to the US joining. If the US took the open position, in which we take privately, that Tibet and Twaiian are part of China, then China would be much more open to the US. Since China has open more and more to capitalism, there has been less and less tension. There are a lot of American countries in China, more than any other country. We are their biggest customer. You well over-estimate the tensions!

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brazil and India really bring nothing to the table either.

LOL, they are just 2 of the members of BRIC. They are emerging world power. Both are large countries with large work forces. India produce more new Scientist a year than any other country including the US.

BRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You guys are overreacting, the EU as a superpower would be seen as a positive evolution. The US would not leave NATO because the EU is a superpower, this is the same with the English Empire that lost its power over the US (a while after it declared independence): they were/are the closest allies. Why would Europe be bad for the US? Post WWII europe always has supported the US, some european countries only opposed the US when they did something "stupid" (invading Iraq) but even then a lot of European countries supported the US and also went to war with Iraq to support the US.

Russia or China as a superpower however are a whole different story, the US sees both as a national security threat. When russian warships go to south America then it is all over the US news. The same would happen if the Chinese did it. But when the Europeans do it (and they do it regularly to support the war on drugs) it is normal because europeans are the closest military allies that the US has.