14 Jun 08
Originally posted by JigtieNo - what you describe will not happen.
How many of you think it will happen regardless? Why? And why you'd want it
or not?
I'm uncertain of this one, myself. 😕
Europe does not consist of states (in the US sense) but of countries.
These countries have a common history and to some extend common goals for the future, therefore what we can have is the countries united in a union to pursue common goals: it’s called the EU.
There is no doubt that membership is voluntary for the countries, though (as recent history shows) not necessarily for the population.
Grossly simplifying, there are 3 views on the goal of the EU
Left : The EU is a capitalist project, the purpose being to further the needs of cooperation’s, providing a framework for them to maximize profits while restricting legitimate social legislation in the member states.
Center : The purpose of EU is to solve common problems that are usually not possible to affect by the single country in a region that is so interconnected that decisions by one country always have consequences across the border.
Right : The EU is a communist project (subsidizing poor regions with tax money) and/or a anti-national project (reducing soverenty by imposing uber-national laws and allowing foreign nationals to work and live in the member countries).
I think many end up answering; a little bit of all of the above.
In my view the basic idea is sound, Europe consist of countries that have to work together in order to make the most out of the continent that they share.
The form is difficult to decide on.
I’ve voted no to a number of the treaties that have been presented over the years, but I’ve also been impressed with some of the results so far. I think that the current process of including more and more of the former eastern European block is extremely important for the future of Europe.
14 Jun 08
I hope it doesn't happen.
The EU is great as it is now. The rotating presidency, the subsidiary principle, the lack of a common foreign policy, the absence of a European government but a collection of representatives for governments, the possibility to opt-out of certain aspects, these are all things that I don't want changed.
The EU should be kept as a multilateral institution that serves as an umbrella for the cooperation of different countries. I think that federalism undermines cooperation and focuses on a majority rule that might not make sense for so many different countries.
I may be a strong supporter of the EU, but I'm glad the Irish voted No because this treaty is taking it into a direction I don't personally like.
14 Jun 08
Originally posted by JigtieThere is just a matter of time. And there will be a South American kind of union too, and a Asian ditto. But now we talk about several decennia in the future.
The United States of Europe
How many of you think it will happen regardless? Why? And why you'd want it
or not?
I'm uncertain of this one, myself. 😕
I think we shouldn't rush things. We have our expansion of EU to bring the European states together. Then things have to settle. Only thereafter we can start thinking of a United States of Europe.
My answer: It will happen, eventually.
14 Jun 08
5 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEU is more of a collaboration between different countries to achieve
I thought it already did. It's called the EU.
stability and peace between the 495 million people living in those
countries. To be a member nation it must be a democracy and not violate
any human rights. EU is not a government though.
However, if the 27 member nations vote yes on the Lisbon treaty it would
take a big step in the direction of a United States of Europe. The Lisbon
treaty is in fact a sort of constitution. I'm still not sure if that's a good or
bad thing. Like Palynka I'm a big supporter of EU the way it is. It's proven
a winning concept in fighting crimes and stabilising the overall economy in
Europe among other things.
But if you look at the Iraqi war (just as an example) you will see that
some nations supported it and some didn't. If EU was indeed a
government, all nations would have to either support it or not.
Argh, I sure as hell don't want Tony to president Sweden, and USE is the
dumbest acronym ever. I think I'm gonna have to say I dislike the idea
of USE, but somehow, like Fabian I think it's sort of inevitable.
Even though Ireland voting no should stop the treaty (because all
member nations must ratify it) I have a feeling that other treaties like it
will be suggested in the future until all nations agree. In 2005 it was
France and the Netherlands who stopped the constitution of Europe, and
here we are voting on the Lisbon treaty which is more or less the same
thing. The EU leaders seem set on the idea of a European constitution.
It should be noted that most member nations voted yes not through a
democratic procedure. The idea was to keep this more or less a secret
from the common man. Only in Ireland was it necessary for the
government to allow the people to vote (why I'm not sure). That's part of
why I think USE will be true soon enough, because the EU leaders are
using every opportunity to bypass the democratic process that EU is
supposed to secure. Politicians can be pretty scary sometimes. Hubba!
17 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Jigtiehttp://www.slate.com/id/2193688/?from=rss
How many of you think it will happen regardless? Why? And why you'd want it
or not?
I'm uncertain of this one, myself. 😕
Excerpts:
"..a woman in Galway City declared that she wouldn't vote for the treaty because she feared her sons would then be drafted into the new European army—an army that the treaty does not create."
"As is always the case in these situations, it seems most voters hadn't in fact read the treaty, or didn't understand it, or used the referendum to express their feelings about something else altogether—something like the urgent need for direct flights to London."
"During doomed referendum campaigns, the political class, whether Irish or Danish or French, is always unable to sell some complicated institutional reform to the general public and is never able to explain to the voters why they should care."
More Excepts:
"This week's villain is Ireland, possibly the country that has benefited most from its membership in the European Union. During the first two decades of its membership, the Irish received some $50 billion from other European taxpayers..."
"The decisive Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty last week thus has a certain poignancy: The country that owes more to "Europe" than any other has now blocked, possibly forever, a set of reforms that, in lieu of that rejected constitution, was meant to give "Europe" a real foreign-policy face: a proper president, for example, and a minister of foreign affairs."
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by spruce112358What does that have to do with anything?
http://www.slate.com/id/2193688/?from=rss
"This week's villain is Ireland, possibly the country that has benefited most from its membership in the European Union. During the first two decades of its membership, the Irish received some $50 billion from other European taxpayers..."
"The decisive Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty last week thus has ...[text shortened]... reign-policy face: a proper president, for example, and a minister of foreign affairs."
Ireland does not "owe" anything to the EU institutions and to claim so is to be completely misinformed about what the EU has been so far.
Besides, I (and many other pro-EU Europeans) believe the EU is better off without a "proper president" and without a "real face" of foreign policy.
17 Jun 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedAs for owing EU something, I agree with Palynka. What Ireland's received
from EU and what they've given back, is all in line with the agreement
that was made when they were accepted into the union. They owe EU
nothing more than what their membership currently requires of them. You
certainly can't say they were obligated to vote yes because of how much
they've gained from EU. That goes against the very concept of EU.
I'm curious though. Exactly why would you want EU to have a president
and a larger influence in the politics of the member nations and how do
you think we'd benefit from it? I haven't actually sat down and read the
amendments so I might also be misinformed, I guess.
17 Jun 08
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedNothing in the agreement says that Ireland "owes" anything politically to the EU. It's their right to express themselves that they don't want the EU to go in that direction.
It's ridiculous to say that they should shut up and roll over just because they received funds that were part of a previous deal that all parties had already agreed to.
The vote may have been due to misinformation by the "scaremongers" or not, I'm not disputing that because I simply don't know enough about it to comment. That's a valid line of argument, unlike the "Ireland owed it to the EU" one.