A bigger EU

[Yelof]

There seems to be a few EU citizens on the cellar and I am sure others might have opinions.

What future for a 25 member europe ?

Personally while I am a commited europhile the actual institutions of the EU seem bloated and undemocratic, I lump the blame for this on the national Parliments who have underminded any attempt the create a Europe-wide democratic mandate (deciding for a President that is elected by other heads of state not directly, maintaining the eu parliment as an expensive powerless talking shop and thus sapping voter enthusiasm in it)

I would be in favour of any level of power-sharing in Europe as long as it clearly defined in easy language (like the us constitution) where what power rested with each level of government (regional-national-european)

While I applaund the coming together of Europe East and West I feel early enlargement before a political future was decided was a trick by europhobes to sabotage any hope of future agreement.

In the meantime and in future the eurocrat rules where the national politicians fear to establish a rival democratic mandate.

[elSicomoro]

Quite frankly, it seems as if Europe is trying too hard to compete against the US. There's way too much nationalism to ever become that united in Europe, IMO.

[Yelof]

Europe is trying too hard to compete against the US

I have heard that opinion before and I think it a bit skewed, I don't think many feel the purpose of the EU is to compete against the US*
but instead it comes from two realisations

1) The realisation that the two european civil wars of the 20C were disasterous and pointless and must never be repeated

and

2) the best way to avoid such wars is to bind europe together in connections of intercommerce and mutual cooperation.

The problem is that some (the worst culprit here has been the UK) just want the ecomomic benifits such a free market brings without seeing that a common market, open borders, freedom of movement and employment require some level of european control and instead of entrusting that control to democratically elected pols, they leave it to horrible convoluted compromises hammered out between heads of state and then enforced by an ever growing army of eurocrats.

If EU law was code, you wouldn't be able to complie it



*ok maybe some of the French do

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Yelof
the best way to avoid such wars is to bind europe together in connections of intercommerce and mutual cooperation.

But there have already been attempts to do such a thing on a smaller scale...for example, Yugoslavia. And we ALL know how well that turned out.

Can the EU keep nationalism in check? I dunno...we're talking hundreds of years of history.

[Yelof]

Yugoslavia was a whole different kettle of fish, it was carved out of the Austro-Hungarian empire at the end of WW1 as a reward for the Serbs by the allies without asking any of the nationalities that ended up in it. And it did work for a long time, it didn't have to fall apart, it seems quite likely the Miliosivitch provoked it's collapse to further his own and Serbian aims.

Nationalism exists, but most of Europe is post-nationalist in character, the people here in Portugal tell jokes about the Spanish, but beyond that and football they mostly couldn't care less and any sort of conflict is near unthinkable.

To me, human sociciety has been a journey of the expansion of the US to include THEM that began with your family of cavemen sitting around the camp fire and will one day hopefully end with the world and the Nation State was a stopping point on the way but not the be all end all

[tw]

Originally posted by Yelof
I have heard that opinion before and I think it a bit skewed, I don't think many feel the purpose of the EU is to compete against the US*
but instead it comes from two realisations

1) The realisation that the two european civil wars of the 20C were disasterous and pointless and must never be repeated

and

2) the best way to avoid such wars is to bind europe together in connections of intercommerce and mutual cooperation.

It goes right back to the original purpose of NATO and other European alliances:
1) to keep Russia out
2) to keep the Germans down &
3) to keep the US in.

A united Europe will only keep the US engaged. Details of how those objectives apply have changed. But fundamental objectives still remain. A united Europe will always hold US attention.

[wolf]

[tinfoil]The EU is just the test run/shakedown cruise for the One World Government.[/hat]

(you knew I was going to say it. You were just waiting)

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Yelof
Yugoslavia was a whole different kettle of fish, it was carved out of the Austro-Hungarian empire at the end of WW1 as a reward for the Serbs by the allies without asking any of the nationalities that ended up in it.

Eh, not quite. The Croats and Slovenes were concerned about Italy's territorial ambitions during WW1, and wanted to form a kingdom with Serbia. And from what I've read lately, all the parties involved in the formation of Yugoslavia seemed more than willing to participate at the time.

And it did work for a long time, it didn't have to fall apart, it seems quite likely the Miliosivitch provoked it's collapse to further his own and Serbian aims.

No doubt that Milosevic hastened its downfall, but do you really think Yugoslavia would have withstood the fall of communism? I have to say no.

To me, human sociciety has been a journey of the expansion of the US to include THEM that began with your family of cavemen sitting around the camp fire and will one day hopefully end with the world and the Nation State was a stopping point on the way but not the be all end all

[uppity]We had no cavemen in OUR family![/uppity]

[jaguar]

The problem with the EU now is it's getting far too big to function effectively. A lot of people are pointing to the way the big guys are having their own private meetings outside the major ones because nothing ever gets done, there is too many people. Meetings that used to have a couple of people now have over 20 and cannot be used for any confidential matters, the whole thing is gumming up and needs overhauling, pretending that all states are equal when you've got something like 80% of the population is about 5 states is becoming a destabilizing force.

[DanaC]

Well. As a Brit an English chick and a European ....I am absolutely de-fucking-lighted that what I consider much of the rest of Europe is back in the fold where it belongs *smiles*

The realisation that the two european civil wars .....

I am glad to hear the wars characterised in that way. I have always considered that the wars we have fought in Europe have been brother against brother cousin warring cousin. ( in our ruling class's case literally )

Our histories are so heavily intertwined as to be one. You only have to look at how our languages and cultures have influenced each other over the centuries

Poland in particular I am happy to see back in the European mainstream.

I just wish......really really wish the British Government and the national media could have been a little less fucking churlish about the whole thing. As far as I am concerned we should be breaking out the fatted calf and welcoming back our brothers and sisters.

As to whether it will or can work. I would like to think so. Of course it would require that prominent members such as my country would stop sabotaging it with their own selfish and politically cowardly agendas.

And the NATO thing....Thats one way of looking at it. If you choose to punctuate European consolidation at the end of WW2. Personally I see it as a much longer process. The area I live in was once an independant kingdom which regularly went to war or skirmished across the borders with it's neighbouring country. Long after "England" was unified under one king the area I live in was proud of its independance and resntful of "English" rule.

The idea that Yorkshire could erupt into fighting which spills across the pennines and sees streams of refugees fleeing to the south.....Or that the men of Galloway could ravage the Lands to their south and send thousands of slaves back for sale in Norway or Flanders......seems strange to the modern eye.

At various times Europe has danced to a German tune in the Holy Roman days....and French tune in the days of Gallic expanse...running through the lot is the blood of Scandinavia ....And I havent even taken into account the Roman world.

We're a family and we have been squabbling amongst ourselves for centuries. Early attempt at European Union?

[wolf]

Originally posted by DanaC

We're a family and we have been squabbling amongst ourselves for centuries. Early attempt at European Union?

Another, more recent attempt, resulted in WWII. Europe does not have a good record of working and playing well with others.

[smoothmoniker]

I can understand England's hesitation at open borders. It means they relinquish control of their immigration policies to Hungary and Croatia. That wouldn’t exactly thrill me.

-sm

[DanaC]

Doesnt bother me in the least! We have an ageing population we need more immigrants....frankly anyone who has travelled long distances just to have the chance at a decently paid job has already proved they have something about them and are likely to add to benefit our society overall

Besides that whole immigration thing is a bit of a red herring in the UK. We have plenty of room and we have very few people trying to get in compared to many other countries. Frankly we can afford to be generous with our immigration policy we need them as much as they need to be here.

What does upset me rather, is the fact that those asylum seekers who came to the UK from the new accession countries a few years ago ( many of whom have been waiting for acceptance for two and three years) and who have been barred from working this whole time and therefore been forced to live on the 70% social security which is awarded them are now able to work and therefore have had all assistance withdrawn as of the day of accession. Thats it theyre on their own. One case i saw involved a Roma Gypsy woman who had fled persecution and is now losing the house she and her 5 children have been living in for the past 2 years....unless of course she can find a job and get paid and pay a months rent all in the next 3 days......Having disallowed her from working through this whole time I would have thought some backup would be given now instead of just pulling the rug from under her feet.

I detest the small minded petty attitude my country has towards the people who most need our help and understanding.

[Yelof]

Eh, not quite. The Croats and Slovenes were concerned about Italy's territorial ambitions during WW1, and wanted to form a kingdom with Serbia. And from what I've read lately, all the parties involved in the formation of Yugoslavia seemed more than willing to participate at the time.

The Croats claim to have never been asked and Yugoslavia seemed racked with problems because of this from the start. WWII brought genocide by both sides but mainly by the Croats Tito brought federalism

Galbraith, who was ambassador to Croatia in the Clinton administration, maintains that Yugoslavia's breakup was not inevitable. If Slobodan Milosevic had been willing to settle for "a looser federation," Galbraith argues, "there is every reason to think that Yugoslavia—and not just Slovenia— would be joining the European Union this May.

Quote from an interesting article proposing Fedralism as a solution to Iraq's problems

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Yelof
The Croats claim to have never been asked

Heh...I'm not surprised. In the end, they're really no better than Serbia.

The Slate article is interesting, but I think there were way too many differences for Yugoslavia to remain one country after the fall of communism. That would have been like Russia trying to hold on to Georgia, the Ukraine, etc.