Old Europe meets

[Drake Tungsten]

You could have at least jacked the thread to something interesting rather than trot out stupid trolls.

Wow, someone's a bit pissy today.

[TCO]

I can see an argument for or against having an independent alliance outside of NATO. What I can't understand is the statements about it. "We don't see this as competing with NATO". WTF? "We don't see it as duplicative." WTF again?

It seems that Euros love process over substance at times. Instead of clearly framing the issue and going down one road or the other, they want a gradual train of process which will lead in some direction that thwy won't own up to right away. FYI: I did a merger/reorganization in Europe and this type of double-talk and process over substance was rampant.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Political science

The definition of "Old Europe" is : what pisses Fez off.
The definition of "New Europe" is : what pleases Fez.

I can't wait to see Spain opposing the US on some issue

I don't exactly know how to describe Old Europe vs New Europe. But there is something that clicks with people in the phrase. Even for those people enraged by it. A certain je ne sais quoi.

I think it may have to do with embracing post Soviet Union capitalism. So you have the free Eastern Europe countries, UK, and (at least for right now) Spain and Italy. It's not a statistical argument based on this tax rate or that. (Don't jump all over me Roland, I'm thinking out loud.) But when you see the sorta stodgy economy and attitude of Germany, France, Belguim it clicks together.

[Spiffor]

To me, the only realaity in the word "old Europe" is that France and Germany were the old motor of the EU, and "New Europe" wants to replcae (or rather complete) this old, exhausted motor.

Past the prejudices, the mentalities are not that different between "old Europeans" and "naw Europeans", except maybe the Brits.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by War of Art
Because one of the EU's largest millitary powers has no independance from the US?? If America says "Lets'have a war", do the Brits ever say no? How could Europe be a counter-balance to the US if they never stand up to its bullying?

-Jam

Brits can say no anytime they want and USA would understand.


However watch out for the Old Eurocom alliance!!!

No blood for chocolate!!!!

[Giancarlo]

Spain and Italy are going to stay in the New Europe. We aren't gonna fall behind like the Old Europe. And beside take a look at France's or Germany's economy.. disaster. They didn't modernize their industries and are left with an outmoded economy...

[Kropotkin]

Fez, oh yes tell me more about how outdated the german industry is!

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's funny to see those Euros complain about the term 'Old Europe' when the stuff they say about the US is ten times worse.

If you can't take it, don't dish it.

[Bereta_Eder]

"The new is nice but the old is otherwise"

(doesnt translate as well)

[Kropotkin]

Imran: There's quite an obvious definition of the US. The terms old and new Europe is just something a spin doctor came up with. It's not better than terms like "the evil empire". Now, I don't speak for anyone else but when I talk about an issue I prefer to have it without terms that are infected by subjectivity.

[Bereta_Eder]

I dont think it's bothersome considering where it comes from. Just funny if you think who the new europe really is.

Like France and Germany, once horrible enemies, now working together. That's new. UK being the little doggie of the US that, man, is oooold

[Spiffor]

You may be interested in this.

From Le Monde, 30. April 2003

Blair contre Chirac
LE MONDE | 30.04.03 | 13h20

LES CRISES ont un avantage, elles facilitent les clarifications. La profonde division qui a traversé l'Union européenne à propos de la guerre en Irak oblige les Européens à répondre à une question posée depuis longtemps mais toujours éludée : que veulent-ils faire ensemble ?

A deux jours d'intervalle, Tony Blair et Jacques Chirac ont apporté des réponses opposées. Il ne s'agit plus des controverses entre partisans de l'intégration et eurosceptiques, comme l'étaient les gouvernements britanniques quand les conservateurs étaient au pouvoir. Tony Blair est le premier ministre le plus européen que la Grande-Bretagne ait eu depuis bien longtemps. Il dit et il répète qu'il est favorable à la construction européenne. Il regrette les occasions manquées par ses prédécesseurs. Il veut que son pays adopte le plus rapidement possible l'euro pour qu'il puisse jouer un rôle plein dans l'Union. Il a – pour reprendre l'expression que de Gaulle appliquait à la France – "une certaine idée de l'Europe". Le problème pour la diplomatie française est que cette idée ne correspond pas à la sienne.

Tony Blair vient de le redire publiquement. Il ne veut pas d'un monde multipolaire dans lequel l'Europe constituerait un pôle à côté des Etats-Unis et d'autres ensembles régionaux. C'est cette vision que le président de la République française a au contraire répétée à l'occasion du mini-sommet sur la défense européenne tenu mardi 29 avril à Bruxelles : un monde avec les Etats-Unis, l'Europe, la Chine, l'Inde et l'Amérique latine (Jacques Chirac a curieusement omis de citer la Russie, soit parce qu'il l'intègre dans l'ensemble européen, soit parce qu'elle lui paraît trop faible pour être un pôle de référence).

Tony Blair tient cette idée non seulement pour irréaliste mais pour dangereuse. Il y décèle des relents du système de balance of power (équilibre des forces) qui a produit les guerres des XIXe et XXe siècles. Il est partisan d'un monde unipolaire où les Etats-Unis et l'Europe seraient du même côté, celui de la démocratie libérale, contre les dangers représentés par le fondamentalisme et le terrorisme.

Qui de Tony Blair ou de Jacques Chirac a le plus d'atouts pour faire prévaloir ses vues ? Après avoir affronté une opinion hostile, le premier sort incontestablement renforcé de l'épreuve irakienne. En prenant avec l'Allemagne, la Belgique et le Luxembourg une initiative sur la défense, le président de la République a de son côté fait progresser son idée d'un "groupe pionnier". Toutefois la conception blairiste est majoritaire dans une Union élargie, comme le montrent les réactions indignées ou ironiques au mini-sommet de Bruxelles.

Le débat n'est pas encore tranché. La "bande des quatre" aura du mal à imposer ses vues pour la simple raison qu'il ne peut exister d'Europe de la défense sans les Britanniques, donc sans un partenariat avec les Etats-Unis. Pour être partenaires, encore faut-il avoir un interlocuteur. L'attitude cassante de l'administration Bush n'est pas ici de bon augure.

Blair against Chirac
LE MONDE | 30.04.03 | 13h20

CRISES bring one good, they make things more clear. The deep European divisio about the war in Iraq forces the Europeans to answer a question that has been asked for long, but always avoided : what do we want to do together ?

In two days, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac have brought opposed answers. Those are not about partisans and opponents to European integration, like at the time the tories were in power. Tony Blair is the most European Prime Minister Britain has had in a long time. He repeats he is favorable to European integration. He is saddened by the opportunites former PMs have missed. He wants his country to adopt the Euro as soon as possible so that it can play its full-scale role in the Union. He has "an idea of Europe" -to use an expression from De Gaulle. Problem is, for the French diplomacy, this idea doesn't match theirs.

Tony Blair has said it publically again. He doesn't want a multipolar world in which Europe would be a pole along with the US and other regional poles. It is however this very idea that the French president has repeated during the mini-summit on European defense held Tu. 29 April in Brussels : a world with the United States, Europe, Whina, India and Latin America (Jacques Chirac has strangely forgot to cite Russia, either because he integrates it in the European pole, either because it looks too weak to be called a "pole").

Tony Blair considers this idea unrealistic and dangerous. He sees elements of the Balance of Power system which produced the XIXth and XXth centuries' wars. He favors an unipolar world where the United States and Europe would be on the same side, this of the liberal democracy, united against the dangers of fundamentalism and terrorism.

Who, between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac, has most potential for his views to being followed ? After originally facing a hostile public opinion, the Prime Minister is considerably strengthened by the Iraqi war. By taking the initiative on the European defense with Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg, the French President has created a "trailblazing group". However, the Blairist idea is a majority in the widened EU, as the either indignated or sarcastic reactions to the mini summit show it.

The debate is not done yet. The "bande des quatre"* will have it difficult to impose its will for the simple reason there can not be a European defense with the British, that hence without a partner of the US. To be partners, one still needs a speaking partner. The attitude of the Bush administation about it is not a good omen.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Imran: There's quite an obvious definition of the US. The terms old and new Europe is just something a spin doctor came up with. It's not better than terms like "the evil empire". Now, I don't speak for anyone else but when I talk about an issue I prefer to have it without terms that are infected by subjectivity.

Somehow, the phrase resonates. Quit being such a whiner.

[Kropotkin]

Yes of cource it resonates if you think it makes a point from your political perspective. That doesn't make the term good. IMHO it's just a euphemism for an insult. It's so much easier refute someone with a cliché but that doesn't make ones statements valid or meningful.

[Main_Brain]

its geographical..
Take a Map, take a Look and you'll see why only these Countries.