| Author |
Message |
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
 Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
A Dutch aqaintance of mine summed up why things are going this way in Europe. I've heard the same thing from many EU citizen friends of mine from both "old" and "new" Europe:
"In Europe, i'm Dutch, and she's Swedish, and he's Polish and etc, but in America, we're all Europeans. No matter where were from."
The EU is just moving way too fast. Its trying to do in 25 years what its taken some countries 300 years to do while trying to aspire to an impossible goal: to become a supranational state (something that the UN even isn't) and eradicate nationalism and the herrenvolk (master race) virus in Europe. This is given the fact that the EU has no real social, defense, or foreign policy.
In fact, the UN is a good example. Part of the reason why the UN is so inefective is because of the nationalist aspirations of its members and how they use the UN's system of checks and balances to check and balance each other. The same is happening in the EU right now. Vortek's points all tie into this.
Vorteks is correct somewhat, but he is even falling into the same trap the EU is falling into regarding nationalism in that its more historical and cultural reasons thats the root of the problem, rather than economic and political causes, which is why they don't want Turkey in and would rather let in the poorest Eastern European countries in over Turkey. I've even seen and heard of Israel being elected to join the EU over Turkey.
Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia have never felt themselves as part of Europe, as the Brits always have been historically fircely defensive and suspicious about anything coming from Europe. The British media probably assail the French more than the neo-cons in the US do. Ireland and Scandinavia always like to play it neutral. Both Sweden and Ireland aren't even NATO members either and Sweden has't participated in any European war in over 300 years or before the Maastrict and Shenegen treaties, 400 years in any European treaty.
Besides, the Swedes feel that the EU is encroaching on their unique social and economic model which is already under strain by globalization.
The Dutch are just being defensive. After WWII, they've been ultranationalistic and defensive. Look at their history: they've been defeated and controlled by Spain, France, Britain, and Germany. They see the EU constitution as another attempt at domination by foreign powers. Also like the Swedes, they feel that their unique way of life and social policy that they fought long and hard for is under another European attack.
You can't expect Europe out of all places to simply forget and ignore the rabid nationalism and their past history in order to do something that has never been done before. The EU should've just stayed with the Nice treaty and the EMU while addressing the nationalism and create ideals and goals that everyone can agree on and can work with rather than create an some "United States of Europe" just for the purpose of an ideology and to compete with other superpowers and nothing else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vorteks
VIP
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 571
Location: European Union
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| e wrote: | | Its trying to do in 25 years what its taken some countries 300 years to do while trying to aspire to an impossible goal |
Which countries? If the experience of uniting volontarily different languages and cultures into one economic and political structure has already been experienced (Switzerland, Belgium, Canada,Spain...), none of those were maid out of countries that had 1000s years of history which undeniably gives them an identity as nations. As a matter of fact, they are traditional provinces federalisms, like Italy, Germany or the USA with language specificities. The European Union doesnt aim to become a nation, federalists are a minority , but a Union of Nations with common economic and political rules. IMHO this is a very new experiment.
The United Nations are obviously not comparable to the European Union as well. This is a diplomatic platform which has its efficiency to set territorial disputes and keep conflicts local.
I agree the distrust shown towards Turkey is to be found in the european history and its christian homogeneity, but it s not the only concern. Turkey cumulates 3 disadvandtages : common borders with middle east unstable areas, a very repressive tradition and a HUGE population.
If the recent acceleration of the development of the European Union is motivated by liberal globalisation pressure and the need to develop a self suffisant economic zone with regional privileged relations, the post WW2 true motivation was and is a pacified trading zone freed from nationalistic antagonisms.
Current protective reactions, which are still a tiny portion of the european population, are not nationalist in the traditional sense (feeling of a national superiority) but really based on economic considerations, the illusory nostalgy of a nation that protected the weakest better than open markets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zinku120
Frequent Guest
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 22
Location: France
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a few things that i've observed -
1. the treaty was not explained well to people. and the 'non' is a reaction to it. too many people said that the french government just told them that it is the way forward, without explaining the finer details. and the 'non' camp was able to pick on the negative aspects and make them look big. lot of people decided to reject something that they are not sure about.
2. there could be a re-run of this referendum, but it doesn't look like happening in the near future. maybe if all the other countries pass it, then.
3. concern about outsourcing - the 'polish plumber' being the icon of the 'non' camp.
anyway, this treaty does not change anything. maybe, it will give more ammunition to france and germany to form a 'core' group within the EU that they were proposing sometime back. but the referendum is a sign that people are not too happy with the recent (and planned) expansion. there're still reservations in their mind about accepting the eastern-european countries, let alone turkey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Moderator
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 854
Location: Касабланка
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| e wrote: | | The Dutch are just being defensive. After WWII, they've been ultranationalistic and defensive. Look at their history: they've been defeated and controlled by Spain, France, Britain, and Germany. They see the EU constitution as another attempt at domination by foreign powers. Also like the Swedes, they feel that their unique way of life and social policy that they fought long and hard for is under another European attack. |
correction: The Dutch were never controlled by the British. And our nation didn't exist before some tradesmen and political figures thought it'd be more profitable to become independent of the Habsburg empire.(Spain, in this case. was the throne of Philip II. His family inherited/married into Spain several generations before)
| e wrote: | | You can't expect Europe out of all places to simply forget and ignore the rabid nationalism and their past history in order to do something that has never been done before. The EU should've just stayed with the Nice treaty and the EMU while addressing the nationalism and create ideals and goals that everyone can agree on and can work with rather than create an some "United States of Europe" just for the purpose of an ideology and to compete with other superpowers and nothing else. |
I'm Dutch and I'm supposed to vote tomorrow for this constitution. I don't particularly agree with you on this subject. The european constitution is no attempt to create a 'superstate' at all. This is only an argument used by some of the guys who need to be against it, to stay true to their Euro-scepsis.
A major problem with this constition is that it contains many existing agreements and several new ones between the member-states of the union on subjects as diverse as agriculture, monetary policy, animal rights etc. Subjects that hardly deserve a place in a document that should serve as a constitution.
This gives every ignorant who 'feels bad' about europe his own little private reasons to fight the concept of the 'constitution' as a whole. The fact that the constitution will actually serve to improve the effectiveness of the union, by defining the relations between its institutions and those between the member states more clearly is hardly brought forward in the discussion.
Instead, when people talk about the constitution they use small subjects like agriculture, acceptance of Turkey etc. In some cases they even totally ignore the fact that their discussion's subjects are either already largely under control of Brussels, or just beyond the control of their little countries national government anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Which countries? If the experience of uniting volontarily different languages and cultures into one economic and political structure has already been experienced (Switzerland, Belgium, Canada,Spain...), none of those were maid out of countries that had 1000s years of history which undeniably gives them an identity as nations. As a matter of fact, they are traditional provinces federalisms, like Italy, Germany or the USA with language specificities. The European Union doesnt aim to become a nation, federalists are a minority , but a Union of Nations with common economic and political rules. |
I wouldn't use those countries as examples: Except Switzerland, each of those countries are currently experiencing violent (Belgium not as violent) serparatist movements which tie into my point that "nationalism" and "union" --particulary one so hastily done such as in those countries don't particulary mix. I don't think the Basques, Catalonians, and Queboquois would say they "volunteered" to join these countries. Italy, Germany and the USA each have their own greusome civil wars before (in the case of America, during) they became unions. And being a union didn't necessarily mean total peace.
I don't think you don't understand how the UN is setup Vorteks. The UN is almost exactly what the EU is now. It may have started as and its primary goal as a diplomatic entity, but its now the worlds largest aid/care/development/security/law/cultural and environmental agency. It is held together by a union of nations with common econmic and political rules in its "constitution" of sorts: the UN Charter. The major difference between the EU and the UN are that the UN is international in scope while the EU is limited to Europe. The EU tries to regulate and enforce everything possible while the UN leaves that up to member states. The UN and EU pretty do many similar things, each member has votes and has to contibrute money, loans money, gives aid, and invests in development in undeveloped countries, creates or sets standards of environmental and social policy and is an enforcer of human rights in its own court at Den Haag.
| Quote: | | develop a self suffisant economic zone with regional privileged relations, the post WW2 true motivation was and is a pacified trading zone freed from nationalistic antagonisms. |
Right. Which is what the EU is now and should generally stay that way for now. But the fact that its trying to exist as a UN of sorts within Europe is what the problem and that its still under nationalistic antagonism which is why the EU has no common defense, diplomatic, or even (to an extent) social policy.
Rick correctly brought up its problem. Its trying to regulate more areas and discuss issues that have no place in a constitution and are already heavily regulated. It should be modelled after the UN charter that only sets up economic, defense and social policy that can be enforced individually by member states or by general consensus. Not create agrcultural and social policy for France that already have their own policy.
| Quote: | | Current protective reactions, which are still a tiny portion of the european population, are not nationalist in the traditional sense (feeling of a national superiority) but really based on economic considerations, the illusory nostalgy of a nation that protected the weakest better than open markets. |
That may be the case in France and some of the continental countries, but as I said before, not GB, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. Countries historically anti-European and independant. Go to anyone in London, Stockholm, Belfast, and Aarhus and call them a "european" and see what they'll do to you. The amount of Euro bashing and discrediting of Europe that goes on in British and even Swedish media is worse than what the conservatives do in the United States.
Last edited by e on Tue May 31, 2005 8:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrSpice
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3431
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| French are afraid that they will continue losing their cultural and economical power to English/American/East-European forces. And they are afraid of competition with low-paid East-European countries that have low taxes and work forces that is willing to work longer and for less money than workers in France. Both France and Germany are slowly turning into over-taxed, slow-growing giants that are unable to compete with new developing countries because of their overly generous welfare system, high taxes and excessive regulation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gonzock
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Posts: 101
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| e, Basques and Catalonians have been part of Spain since 15th century. Actually they defeated muslims and created what is today called Spain. They are even more spaniards than the rest if you could call it that way. The problem you said of volunteer to join those countries doesnt exist. The problem is that a minority doesnt want to be part of the nation anymore and this problem began before the civil war. In the case of Basque country began as a christian-republican movement and ended up as a nationalist movement (and also this helped to exist the terrorist group ETA). The Catalonians have been allways very close to the rest of Europe (border with France) and because of that and they have been richer than some other provinces of Spain and they think of themselves of being more cosmopolitan and bohemian they want now (only a minority with no terrorism) to be alone or at least to have their own government (=manage their own money). So, the problem didnt exist before, the problem exist now and is also a problem of our culture that theres allways centripeta-centrifuga movements. I dont know about Queboquois |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vorteks
VIP
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 571
Location: European Union
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting stats, thanks for bringing them up here, e. I think you are mixing UN with other international coordination structures like WTO. A common market requieres some harmonisation to allow a really free circulation of goods, services and persons, which, in your polls, comes first as a reason for a unified europe. I can witness from France how Europe helped the country evolve in terms of democracy, transparency and respect of the citizen. The positive side of this popular moodish move will be to bring conciousness to european politicians they shouldn t force always more reforms without the prior consent of populations.
Reality is a bit more complex than what you are showing, Mr Spice, may be I should have added oversimplification as a drawback of the usamerican character.
If the most unskilled workers are indeed endangered by investments in Eastern Europe, french firms actually benefit from it, increasing their margins. As a matter of fact, this means more profit taxes which benefits to the whole population. The high level of taxes forces french companies to be extremely competitive, which might explain our systematic positive trade balance. The trade balance between France and eastern Europe is actually positive, we sell more services and technology than we import processed goods.
A social caring system is not compulsary a handicap and I believe it makes a society as a whole more coherent and evolved. But everbody can benefit from it if, and only if, wealth is not being confiscated by public corporatisms. Leaders being themselves public servants, they are reluctant to undertake the reforms needed for the liberation of energies, and this is at least 50% of the dissatisfaction vote.
As for Germany, you seem to be a few trains behind. The socio democrats did start very unpopular but necessary reforms in Germany, cutting public expenses everywhere they could. Of course, more insecurity means discontent, and they lost lastest elections, but at least they dared to start the needed reforms.
Regarding Quebecois, if they wanted independance, they would have it by now. This means on one hand that the canadian constitution respects regional identities enough to allow a culturual independance (like the spanish one),and on the other hand that the majority of quebecois are attached to their canadian identity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Moderator
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 854
Location: Касабланка
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh.. no. I certainly think the EU can and even should play a role in certain areas of economic policy. European regulation and subsidy systems in agriculture have been around for a long time already. There's a lot of discussion on the contents, but surely it has a place. Also for quality of products etc. there are lots of useful european regulations that needed be implemented into national legislation.
Often these European regulations come in quite handy: there are many cases of injustice in which a apply to European regulations is the final chance to set things right for inhabitants of any of the member states. The EU can be a great tool, for those who know how to play it.
I am merely pointing out that these are separate subjects and should be kept out of a constitution.
Now it is time though for me to use my vote. I thought about not showing up at all, in case less than the needed 30% was expected to vote in the referendum. Since the general tendency is that the Dutch will vote against, it could have been a good strategy to help in rendering the referendum irrelevant.
People here tend to forget that Holland is an export-oriented economy that highly benefits from the cooperation the EU brought. The EU brought our country a lot of prosperity in the past decades. I hate the sight of its current conservative movement and their quest to cast their country back into the Neolithic age.
Today i will vote in favour. Tomorrow morning i will take the first train to Germany. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vorteks, you still don't understand. I wasn't mixing up the Un and the WTO (where did THAT come from) and you obviously don't understand how the UN works. Let me explain and compare and therefore you'll see the connection between the UN and EU and how both can learn from each other.
The UN is actually 6 groups merged into one: The General Assembly, the Security council, ECOSOC the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat, the Trusteeship council and the ICJ (Internaional court of Justice) which is all binded by its "constitution", the UN charter. Now see how similar that setup is to the EU and the EU Council, Parliament, Commission, and President which is all binded by the EU constitution.
While the UN general assembly and Security council are pruely political and diplomatic just like the EU parliament and commission, the ECOSOC is just like the EU council which covers the "day-to-day" living standards and laws of its members. I bet you didn't know that the IMF, the World Bank, the International Labor Organization, Food Agricultural Organization, WHO (the World Health Organization) and countless other international organization and so on are all part of the UN. Based on the activities of ECOSOC, Agricultire, trade, development, investment aid and etc regulation, enforcement and practice as well as humanitarian asisstance probably consist of 90% of the UN's activities. Similiar to that of the EU.
The only MAJOR difference is that EU laws are automatically binding upon, irregardless of local laws and sovierignty (which is the biggest problem the euroscpetics have) as long as you are a signatory and ratifier to Nice, Shenegan and etc, while the UN laws, rules, and regulations have to approved by everyone, much less the member states.
The UN charter (read it here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) and the UN in general should be the model that the EU should use for its constitution and for its practices. Agricultural and trade policy do not belong in an consitution |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vorteks
VIP
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 571
Location: European Union
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You re right e, with our UN passport we can go whereever we want without any need of VISA and, as USA proved, its decisions are always enforced by ALL its members  If logic can t convince you those are two completly different constructions even tho they have common peace keeping motivations, may be derision can...
Anyways, the first consequence of this vote here is another government with a new prime minister :
Remind you of something?...2003...March..NO!
If he might help us perpetuate the image of irresistible french sex appeal, he unfortunatly won t help us reduce unemployment under the 10% bar. Another talkative pure produce of the french technocracy who never worked in the private sector...22 month till next elections  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
You obviously still don't understand Vorteks, and you still obviously don't understand and have a good grasp of the English language, but i'm tired and I wont bother with you anymore.
I also don't understand why in the world did Chirac pick him out of all people. The US and the UK will REALLY hate France now. Why didn't Chirac just resign or call for early elections like his buddy Schoder is doing in Germany or at least pick someone that hasn't pissed off and antagonized the world (like Sarkozy, or the defense minister who I can't spell her name)?
Chirac, Vorteks, de Villepin, the French. Go figure. 
Last update: the Dutch just predictiably rejected the constitution. The Brits, Irish, and the Danes will now predictiably do the same. While Sweden remains the dark horse whose parliament will now vote no in order to save face for future elections.
So you have half the EU that wants it and half that doesn't. Interesting situation. Does anyone believe that this constitution will survive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
You obviously still don't understand Vorteks, and you still obviously don't understand and have a good grasp of the English language, but i'm tired and I wont bother anymore.
I also don't understand why in the world did Chirac pick him out of all people. The US and the UK will REALLY hate France now. Why didn't Chirac just resign or call for early elections like his buddy Scrhroder is doing in Germany or at least pick someone that hasn't pissed off and antagonized most of the world and will actually do something about its economy like Sarkozy, or the defense minister who I can't spell her name?
Chirac, Vorteks, de Villepin, the French. Go figure.
Last update: the Dutch just predictiably rejected the constitution. The Brits, Irish, and the Danes will now predictiably do the same. While Sweden remains the dark horse whose parliament will now vote no in order to save face for future elections.
So you have half the EU that wants it and half that doesn't. Interesting situation. Does anyone believe that this constitution will survive?
BTW: At last spotting, 48% of people in Quebec still want independence.
Last edited by e on Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Moderator
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 854
Location: Касабланка
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
63% against.... this moderator is taking the first train out of his country tomorrow morning. Hope they will let one of europe's black sheep cross the german border  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
