Fair is Fair, a question for Europe

[Giovanni Wine]

I don't think Europe will became a unified nation, not in the next 50-100 years at least, it took a long time just to have a unified Money and economy.

Plus, I don't think that Germany, France or the UK will ever be willing to give up their independence, knowing of the possibility of a leader coming from on of the other two countries. Then in Europe every nation have her own culture and language.... no... I don't think a "United States of Europe" will ever be realized.

But... if it will happen, then we should get only 1 vote, as China and USA

Saluti

[Roland]

"... goal is to compete worldwide with the US"

Compete ? In what ?

"Question, to keep things fair, would Europe be willing to unite in the UN and only have one vote?"

If we get to a common foreign policy, yes.

"Would this change how you view the UN?"

Why should it ?

[Monk]

This avatar was created by Stebu, the evil side of Stefu.

[MikeH]

I don't agree that the sole goal of the EU is to compete with the US, the main original goal was to make trade easier between the countries, after all the EU countries mainly trade with each other. Assuming it was all set up to compete with the US is a very self centered view of the situation, sometimes countries in the world make decisions which don't have anything to do with the US. A side effect of the move is that it will mean that we have a stronger world influence as a group, that's an additional benefit for our secondary export markets, outside the EU.

If we ever get to one EU had one government then we should drop to one vote.

As a return question, despite the things we disagree with the US on, we (the EU) don't disagree on as much as a lot of third world countries, would it really serve the US to have us reduced to only one vote?

[Bereta_Eder]

EU started as a way to avoid another world war.

now it has degraded to being about the rapid expansion of freedom of movement of capital and the forceful establishment of neoliberal policies although it does retain its first aim.

where to go from here... there are guidelines but they are just that - guidelines

[Bereta_Eder]

it was never about creating a counter force to the US
this came up as an idea to enthuse the masses later on, it has no gravity, it is a myth (for now?)

[rah]

Originally posted by MikeH
As a return question, despite the things we disagree with the US on, we (the EU) don't disagree on as much as a lot of third world countries, would it really serve the US to have us reduced to only one vote?

Another good question. And you are correct, it probably wouldn't serve the US to have you reduced to only one vote. But that really highlights the point I'm trying to make. Would your interests be impacted by being reduced to one vote? I think yes. Thank god for the veto. And it does highlight why the US isn't always thrilled with the UN. We feel quite outnumbered sometimes. And YES, maybe a proportional representation might make for a stronger UN. I agree in principle with the UN, just not the way it's currently set up. We need something to help the world as a whole. The current model isn't it. The same US paranoia is why the US is unhappy about the World Court Concept.

And I agree that Europe will probably never be fully integrated into one entity to compete militarily in the world. But listening to the likes of ST. Marcus, a lot of people feel that it is posible. If not, just to feel like an important player again. His absence in this thread is particularly amusing.


RAH

This really can't be compared to NAFTA since no common currency is used.

[rah]

Sorry, forgot about this one.

Originally posted by GP
Rah...it was a great question. And very interesting to think about. kudos.

(BTW we shou;d get together for drinks. I'll be in Chi town in a couple weeks.)

Post your plans, and maybe Ming and I can meet you somewhere.

RAH

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Tom201
France will never give up. They will insist on calling their nation seperatly, no matter how close the EU gets

Why France only ?

[MikeH]

Rah: EU members don't always agree on UN votes, not at all in fact. Especially on military resolutions. The UK, for instance, often votes with the US when other countries vote against. It's not as simple as one policy always being the right thing for the whole of the EU which is why it'd be hard to have a common foreign policy.

Best thing about this thread, intelligent debate with hardly any trolling. Nice.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Tom201
France will never give up. They will insist on calling their nation seperatly, no matter how close the EU gets

Why France only ??

[SlowwHand]

The "EU" is a flash-in-the-pan effort that will never work due to the "Me,me,me" attitude of Europe.
It would be little less than the individual states of the U.S., but they can't handle the concept in Europe.

[rah]

Originally posted by MikeH
Rah: EU members don't always agree on UN votes, not at all in fact. Especially on military resolutions. The UK, for instance, often votes with the US when other countries vote against. It's not as simple as one policy always being the right thing for the whole of the EU which is why it'd be hard to have a common foreign policy.

Best thing about this thread, intelligent debate with hardly any trolling. Nice.

Yes, coming to a consensus on any issues is difficult, and I never meant to imply that Europe always votes together, but they do have a lot of shared interests. Even in the US, different areas of the country provide a wide range of opinions on almost every issue. Which is probably why the call to patriotism is used so often. It's a great unifying tactic that Bush has used effectively but probably almost worn out. (as can be seen in US newspaper editorial sections.) He will not be able to guarentee blind following in the future.

RAH

[MikeH]

Absolutely.

Just as I say that about the decent way this thread has gone Slowwhand gets in a quick nasty jibe. Oh well.

[SlowwHand]

Not really, Mike. It's just a viewpoint. When has Europe ever worked as one?
It's just an observation of the facts.

[Bereta_Eder]

Sloww-that was what the americans were saying when the europeans were drafting the common currency blueprints decades ago.

no american (and many europeans) believed it would ever happen and yet here I am with (very few )but still EU coins...

[SlowwHand]

And it only took decades. WTG!

[Bereta_Eder]

yes, decades

so little time indeed considering the olympic task it was

[rah]

Yes, originally I was one of those that chuckled when a common currency was proposed. I though, yeah France will go along with that.

But I was wrong about that, and while I'm still skeptical about further unification, I can't entirely rule it out.

RAH

[Bereta_Eder]

actually the "axis" (don't make nasty thoughts now) of Berlin - Paris is what kept the EU going...
and still does to a large extend.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Not really, Mike. It's just a viewpoint. When has Europe ever worked as one?
It's just an observation of the facts.

I think it's an observation of the segment of the EU population that doesn't want to work together but not of the growing understanding between EU countries. It's possible it won't work but at the moment it's working ok. I don't think you can prove it based on what's happened historically. There's always a first time for something to work.

And yes, it's a Berlin/Paris axis at the moment. If the UK was fully behind it as well who knows what could happen?

[Bereta_Eder]

The UK always had reservations becasue of some reasons (of different importance each)
as

its belief that it can exist better as a 100% nation state being outside continental europe
its "Special" relationship with the US
its "traditional" rivalry with some european countries


so far the UK WAITS untill the EU is succesful in something and THEN enters when it is sure it will gain from it and it will be better off than before.

it happened when the EU was formed, i think it will happen agaion with the euromoney.


but basically the UK takes the *slap* as being the one country that holds back further EU integration for its own shortsighted and tottally national interests.

of course this is an exageration although it does hold some truth but not so much as some believe.

lately it has become somewhat fashionable to badmouth the UK for something other EU countries have reservations also.

generally the feeling is like the UK doesnt take any "risk" in EU integration as other Eu countries do so it shouldnot take any "benefits"

[ZoboZeWarrior]

EU isn't finished okay ... It took time to have a common currency, certe !

But don't forget than european country where at war 50 y ago.
We have different language and each country is carrying a long history. The task is not easy.

[SlowwHand]

The U.K. should be taking the lead.
Of course, that will lead to the same type criticism that the U.S. endures. They'll just have to get used to it.

[Bereta_Eder]

why should anyone take the lead and of all others the UK?

it is a collective effort and the point is to, exactly, step out of this mentality

if nothing else, france should be taking the lead for being the frontrunner of usch grandiose effort. the UK should be tied up and stoned to oblivion for constituting an obstacle to further peace and prosperity of europe (stoned as in throwing rocks at it)

[MikeH]

I agree, we (the UK) should be penalised for being complete arses about the whole thing.

[Roland]

If we start with coal and steel, the EU is now maybe 50 years old. Well, it took the Yanks from 1776 to 1865 to come up with a clear single federal entity - so I guess we can take our time, can't we ?

[MikeH]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The U.K. should be taking the lead.

Why should they be taking a lead? They pay in more money than they get out in benefits.

[SlowwHand]

You really and truly want the freaking French to take the lead?

You then deserve what you get.