Does the EU take away your autonomy?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by TOUCHPUMP, Aug 28, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    Thanks for all the bold. I wasn't sure I was going to be able to read your post.

    LOL [face_laugh] yeah sorry for that. It was very late when I posted that (like 1am) I was a bit grumpy :D

    Most of us Americans are still trying to figure out why you Europeans hate us so much

    I've no idea to be honest. Somehow I dislike you guys with no apperent reasons...
    Perhaps it's the same reason why so many Americans dislike EU?

    Let's go back to topic...
  2. Lordban Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2000
    star 5
    Let me add a footnote : in fact a substantial number of European countries have signed the Kyoto protocol and the ICC treaty. USA are being singled out on the matter because they're indeed the exception and not the clearest example of the rule.
  3. TOUCHPUMP Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2002
    star 1
    "Most of us Americans are still trying to figure out why you Europeans hate us so much."

    "I've no idea to be honest. Somehow I dislike you guys with no apperent reasons...
    Perhaps it's the same reason why so many Americans dislike EU?"


    I just noticed something with these statements. The first one refers to people, like European people hate American people. It seems personal.

    The second refers to someone hating a political entity.

    Not sure if I'm reading too much into this.
  4. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    One of the reasons I would like to see a stronger EU is to reduce the US's involvement in NATO. After the fall of the USSR, the US indicated the desire to remove itself from the organization, but there was concern that the abscence of the US in that organization would leave a vacuum that a resurgent Germany would fill. And due to that nation's actions in the previous century, it was highly desired that the US would remain in the organization.

    Please, correct me if my recollection is in err.
  5. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    After the fall of the USSR, the US indicated the desire to remove itself from the organization, but there was concern that the abscence of the US in that organization would leave a vacuum that a resurgent Germany would fill. And due to that nation's actions in the previous century, it was highly desired that the US would remain in the organization.

    Really? I can't remember that they were afraid of that. Seeing as the current Germany has little to do with Pre WWI (under the Kaizer) or Pre WWII Germany (Depression) it seems like a baseless fear to me. Who said that?
  6. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    I remember discussing it in 1998 with my professor in my Masters International Relations class. I agree that Germany of today has little in common with that of earlier generations, and I seem to recall one of the biggest concerns from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (who were petitioning for admittance into NATO) was that their geographical positioning to Germany would relegate them to "Buffer" zone status, this time for the Germans instead of the Russians, and they desired the US to remain in the organization to offset that possibility.

    I'll ask Obi-Dan about this, as he is the resident German scholar.
  7. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    I know of no tendency from the US foreign policy establishment that wishes to devolve from NATO. That would be silly.
  8. HavocHound Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2000
    star 4
    I support all of the European underground resistance movements that oppose the UN and the EU. Actually, I support all the resistance movements all over the world that oppose the UN and the EU.
  9. TOUCHPUMP Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2002
    star 1
    Havoc:

    What kind of support do you provide?
  10. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    So havoc why do you offer aide to any EU resistance?
  11. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    I found the item I mentioned in my lecture notes. It was a desire by Eastern Central Europe for the US to remain involved in NATO following the collapse of the USSR to counter the effect of Germany's status as an industrial superpower.

    Take it as you will, this is from my professor in the class, Dr. Witold Lukaseski. It is also mentioned in Adrian Hyde-Price's The International Politics of East Central Europe as well as Keith Crawford's East Central European politics today . Both have 1996 copyrights.
  12. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    The reality is of course that Germany is today Europe's most dominant country economically and it drives together with France practically everything in the EU (the UK prefer to not get involved in most issues but then they shouldn't complain that decisions are made elsewhere).
    The Euro was an important step foward for the European nations to compete economically with the US, Japan and an evolving China. The next step has to be to provide a Common European Economic Policy so that the Euro will be able to gain influence.
    What needs to change also (but that might prove to be a lenghty process) is the constant veto smaller nations put in. Currently the Nice Treaty is on hold because Ireland won't agree on it. We're living in a democracy where the majority should decide yet 300 Million people cannot ratify a treaty because a country of 3 Million people vetoes it. What makes it especially ironic is that Ireland is the single biggest recipient of EU aid (there isn't a train or motorway in the country that wasn't built with EU aid) and the economic aid is the one reason why Ireland had an economic boom over the last 10 years.

    People that are afraid to "lose their national identity" shoudl realize that they won't survive economically if they stay out of the EU. Sooner or later even Switzerland will join.
  13. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    People that are afraid to "lose their national identity" shoudl realize that they won't survive economically if they stay out of the EU. Sooner or later even Switzerland will join.


    One of the scariest things I have read in a long time.
  14. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    One of the scariest things I have read in a long time.

    Why would that be?

    Basicly speaking it is true.

    Would a state survive on it's own if it broke lose of the US?
  15. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    Completely different situations. In the US, states chose to join the Union. They did not have to. What is being said here is that if a nation state decided not join the EU, they would be economically destroyed for that decision.


    When I read that statement I heard this little voice inside my head say "They will join us, or die."


  16. AL Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1998
    star 5

    It does not take a soothsayer to tell you Europe is in trouble. Externally, Europe's security and standing in the world are threatened both by Islamic terrorism and perceived American unilateralism. Internally, deep?seated concerns about immigration and rising crime, coupled with popular antagonism towards the "bureaucrats of Brussels", risk a fundamental rift between the EU and the people it is supposed to represent.

    Every one of these issues needs urgent action. Yet the simple truth is that, in its current form, the EU is incapable of tackling them. Kissinger's famous phrase ? "When I need to get in touch with Europe, who do I call?" ? is as true today as it was in the 1970s. A quagmire of competing interests and power?bases makes concerted European action all but impossible. As the international political temperature rises, this lack of a strong executive grows increasingly dangerous.

    Simply strengthening the EU's executive, however, is not the solution. Indeed, to do so would exacerbate more problems than it solved. The EU is widely mistrusted by the people of Europe: it is seen as an arcane, power?hungry bureaucracy, divorced from the everyday needs of the people. Most fundamentally, it lacks democratic accountability. Any attempt to increase its executive powers without first strengthening its popular mandate is likely to have dire repercussions ? as the rise of far?right, anti?EU populist parties across Europe attests.

    In other words: Europe needs teeth, but it also needs greater democratic accountability. The EU's overwhelming priority needs to be reforming its structure to accommodate both.
  17. Olivier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 2
    Maveric

    None of the 15 states currently in the EU had to join it. Rather, each of them was quite willing to enter the union, and had to wait for its application to be accepted.

    I think what was meant here is not that the EU would willingly make things difficult for those country if they don't join, but rather that it would be easier for them to thrive if they join. Actually, the EU is not actively looking for new members. On the contrary, it is currently weighting the pros and cons of accepting those who have akready applied for membership.

    I agree that the situation is different in the US. Simply because, apart of the 13 original states, each new state was either conquered or bought by the US. None of them, to my knowledge, existed as an independant country before it joined the union (I'm not sure about Hawai. What was Hawai's status before joining the US?).

  18. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    Completely different situations. In the US, states chose to join the Union. They did not have to. What is being said here is that if a nation state decided not join the EU, they would be economically destroyed for that decision.

    So you deny the fact that Texas & the rest of the Confederate states that wanted to leave the union were forced to rejoin after losing the civil war? hmmm?
  19. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    In the US, states chose to join the Union. They did not have to.
    So you deny the fact that Texas & the rest of the Confederate states that wanted to leave the union were forced to rejoin after losing the civil war? hmmm?

    Nice example, GAP that was literally, as I quote Maveric,
    "They will join us or die".
    They died alright :p

    and of course Hawaii which was annexed to USA, thus Hawaii did not chose to join USA.

    EDIT: And of course New Mexico, California, Arizona etc.
  20. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    Europe just realised that any nation cannot compete individually on the world's market because European nations are too small. France cannot provide a proper competitor for Boeing but if they work together with Britain and Germany they could come up with Airbus which is competitive. And this is the basic thinking behind the EU and the Euro. Because once the nations worked together they saw that too much money is lost on exchange rates. Remember that game? They said that if you had 100 US$ and you'd travel through every single one of the 15 EU countries and always change your money at every border and never spend anything then you's end up with 42 US$. So unless you have a common currency your products will be too expensive.
    But we need Britain in this too. Currently the Brits think they can go on their own (despite the fact that there's practically no industry left in the country and a lot of areas are in shambles). Somehow you can't get the Empire thing out of their heads
  21. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    The counter argument is not some sort of hearkening back to an empire or anti-continentalism; joining the Euro means ceding fiscal and monetary independence, and could even effect tax rates. Britains needs and markets are quite different from the conintinental economies, and to view the euro as 'one size fits all' overlooks this fact.

    At this moment in time, joining the euro would be a bad idea for britain. there may come a time when this is not the case, though.
  22. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    I think the main difference between the British economy and , say, the German is that in Germany industry is the dominant factor (mostly homegrown) while in Britain the main contributor to success is no longer industry (a lot of former important industries in Britain like steel and cars have almost vanished) but financial services. The danger for Britain is that financial services relies heavily on foreign markets and investors, most notably the US. While all of Europe is somewhat dependent on US economy, no nation depends as heavily on US investment as Britain. That might well be the main reason why Britain has the position is has
  23. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    Olivier wrote:
    I agree that the situation is different in the US. Simply because, apart of the 13 original states, each new state was either conquered or bought by the US. None of them, to my knowledge, existed as an independant country before it joined the union (I'm not sure about Hawai. What was Hawai's status before joining the US?).

    Texas was an independent nation for nine years prior to the Annexation Act of 1845, California claims that they were as well, but it was only lasted a month and it was during the Mexican American War while the Mexican army was tied up defending their nation.

    Hawaii is a different issue, it was part of the colonization period of the US, and I do agree the manner in which it was taken over was rather dubious. It did not become a state until 1948.


    GAP wrote:
    You deny the fact that Texas & the rest of the Confederate states that wanted to leave the union were forced to rejoin after losing the civil war? hmmm?
    Most definitely I do not. I wholehearted believe that one enters of their own perogative, they also have the ability to leave. However, the Civil War's resolution to the question as to whether a state had that right was that they did not. If you doubt my belief in this, look for the thread from the summer entitled The Confederate Flag: Spitting in the face of Federal Tyranny, or some variation of that title.

    Darth Omega wrote:
    Nice example, GAP that was literally, as I quote Maveric,
    "They will join us or die".
    They died alright

    Yes they did, my family fought on the Southern side of that war. Interestingly enough, they were too poor to own slaves. I wonder why they fought?

    and of course Hawaii which was annexed to USA, thus Hawaii did not chose to join USA.

    I am not implying that the US is not guilty of similar actions, as that would be a complete falsehood, a precursory examination of the US's period of imperialism would eradicate any idea to the contrary.



    EDIT: And of course New Mexico, California, Arizona etc.


  24. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    So Maveric, you agree with me on that, then why did you say that the states in the USA had free choice when you yourself said the opposite?

  25. Tod Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 1999
    star 4
    Tukafo: "What needs to change also (but that might prove to be a lenghty process) is the constant veto smaller nations put in. Currently the Nice Treaty is on hold because Ireland won't agree on it. We're living in a democracy where the majority should decide yet 300 Million people cannot ratify a treaty because a country of 3 Million people vetoes it."

    This is one of the biggest problems with EU. But it's the only way smaller countries can get their voices heard in EU. Giving up this veto right smaller countries would lose all the possibility to affect any decisions made in EU. Democracy means also that everybody should be able to take part of making decisions. But in Union of 300 million people it is difficult for 3 or 5 million people to make any difference. I have no idea how this problem should be solved but I hope that somebody has.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.