SPD sellout complete: Merkel becomes chancellor

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
now maybe their should be two groups, and EU nation state and an EU collection of nations that have free trade and other such nice things

That's what I'd want. This idea is getting more and more attention each time a EU project fails. This is one of the main reasons why I voted against the constitution.

I really hope that we'll be able to part our merry way, and that the Brits can undertake their project to completion, without destroying ours.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That's what I'd want. This idea is getting more and more attention each time a EU project fails. This is one of the main reasons why I voted against the constitution.

I really hope that we'll be able to part our merry way, and that the Brits can undertake their project to completion, without destroying ours.

That I think would be a very bad idea. If for example france and germany joined in such a union, maybe with a minor country or two, I think that the rest of europe would be scared away to join. My guess is that all scandinavian countries and most of the eastern countries would run screaming away. At the same time both Spain and Italy would probably go their own way.

The result would be a deep split of europe.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is one of the main reasons why I voted against the constitution.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I really hope that we'll be able to part our merry way, and that the Brits can undertake their project to completion, without destroying ours.

Forgot to ask - when you say "our project" you mean the french (/your) project ?

There are probably many evil things to say about England, but thinking that they are the only ones to be against "our project" isn't quite true - I would actually not be surprised if those rosbifs were part of a majority.

[Az]

Forgot to ask - when you say "our project" you mean the french (/your) project ?

Oh, man, this is such a poor troll...

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Az

Forgot to ask - when you say "our project" you mean the french (/your) project ?

Oh, man, this is such a poor troll...

I wish it were, but when Spiffor claims it's brits project against the rest of the european countries project, I have to oppose since at least Denmark isn't part of this, and I guess several other countries think the same.

[Az]

Yeah, but what about most of europe? I think that Spiffor is definetly right.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
That I think would be a very bad idea. If for example france and germany joined in such a union, maybe with a minor country or two, I think that the rest of europe would be scared away to join. My guess is that all scandinavian countries and most of the eastern countries would run screaming away. At the same time both Spain and Italy would probably go their own way.

The result would be a deep split of europe.

Well, it has to be done in an intelligent fashion. If we have an arrogant ******* like Chirac to "lead" this project, the Union would self-destruct because every little cleavage, that shouldn't be a problem in normal time, will apeear as a monstrosity.

Personally, I think Europe is chock-full of cleavages, but that only one cleavage hampers its future: it is whether we want a political Europe or not.

I think the Brits who want a political Europe are extremely marginal. I also think that there is something deep in the Scandinavians (whom I otherwise admire for their fantastic social-democratic societies), that makes them also much more reluctant than most for such a thing.

OTOH, many other populations could accept a loss in national sovereignity, because of a different political culture. Sure, what the different populations want to do in a political Europe is different: the 79% of Poles who would support a common security policy are thinking about the big bad Russia, while the 65% of French who do so are thinking about the big bad US (and China). Sure, the 78% of Poles who want the EU to fight against unemployment as a priority have a very different idea about it than the many Belgians (don't remember the stat on top of my head).

But in any case, these countries can accept the idea of building something together, and they can even accept the idea that it will mean some concessions to the others. This is the kind of trait that is needed in a political EU. I don't think the Brits can show this trait any massively, unless a radical change happens. I also don't see Scandinavia evolving toward having more of this trait.

So, we're stuck with fundamentally opposed visions for Europe. We have the choice of bickering more and more viciously (Among the French, I am actually not that bitter toward the Rosbif stance - there is much much worse than me, both among those who love Europe and among those who don't care about it). Or we have the choice of parting, and actually go further.

But obviously, for the 2-tier Europe to be successful, it has to be done by people who are sensible, rather than by maximalists and megalomaniacs. Obviously, Chirac is the worst man to do this.

[BlackCat]

Could be, but I have the audacity to think otherwise - besides the scandinavian countries, I think that several of the easteuropean countries are very reluctant to give up their newly won independency.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Forgot to ask - when you say "our project" you mean the french (/your) project ?

Nope, because France isn't especially good in this regard. I feel much more like a Belgian actually

There are probably many evil things to say about England, but thinking that they are the only ones to be against "our project" isn't quite true - I would actually not be surprised if those rosbifs were part of a majority.

When you look at the figures I linked to, the Scandinavians are similarily skeptical about the EU as the Brits, especially the Danes. The Swedes are more hesitant (half of them supports the Euro, but the support for a common foreign policy is spectacularly low). The Finns feel much more European, and their main "skeptical" trait is that they feel nobody cares about them.

There is a marked difference with the new members. Most populations in the new members show a large support for a common foreign policy (though obviously, not the diktats of Chirac). Hungary is more enthusiastic than Belgium about the creation of a political union, and Belgium is the only old member in that top 5.

Of course, the French project isn't what many of these countries want. Actually, I can pretty much only think of Greece that would really support a French project, because we see eye-to-eye on many issues. However, the idea of a political Europe in principle has a large support among new members.

[Colon™]

When you say "political union" what exactly do constitute by that? While the French may be in favour of a political union, they share the Brits' distaste for strengthening the EU institutions, preferring to keep power firmly in the hands of the national governments and relegating the commission to a pure bureaucracy. Germany and Belgium have been tending to support the federalist route, France has not.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon
When you say "political union" what exactly do constitute by that? While the French may be in favour of a political union, they share the Brits' distaste for strengthening the EU institutions, preferring to keep power firmly in the hands of the national governments and relegating the commission to a pure bureaucracy. Germany and Belgium have been tending to support the federalist route, France has not.

Indeed, which is why I'm considering myself more as a Belgian than as a Frenchman in this regard

I think the French obsession with national governments will fade away once Chirac leaves. Especially if he is replaced by a socialist, as the new style of government will finally bury the Gaullist dinosaur.

I think France has the potential to accept that it is just another country now. If we stop having leaders that think France is so special, the new style of leadership will set the tune, and the transformation of the French worldview should have considerably progressed within the years of that French leader (in short: things will evolve whether Sarkozy or a socialist becomes the next president - thing [i]won't[/i) evolve if Villepin is elected).

[BlackCat]

@Spiff

You are quite right that Chirac doesn't score high as project leader, but it isn't only a question about someone to present it in an acceptable manner. It's the whole concept about centralising a list of serious matters that makes people back away.

There is no doubt that danes think it's a good thing to cooperate with the rest of europe but there are limits. They can maybe be moved but not in a hurry and certainly not if it involves giving up soverignity. That can actually join most parties from the extreme right all the way over the middle to the extreme left.

Your example on what different countries sees as a threat actually is a serious problem for joining europe in an common foreign policy. How will you find a common denominator for such different views ? That is not possible, and if you try to apply "majority rules" then there will be serious problems. A simple example is Iraq where Denmark without any doubt would have been a minority despite the fact that a majority of danes supports the war.

I think that it will take centuries to get europe as homogenious as f.ex. US that it will be possible to make an european union similiar to the american.

Actually it has no haste - we still need to get countries such as Ukraine into the union, and there are much more important issues that has to be taken care of before fantasising about a political union on high level (no offense meant - it's ideas that move the world .

[C0ckney]

this is why i resisted posting in the EU integration thread, it's an interesting discussion, but it involves making long and serious posts, two things i dislike a lot

az, it's not such a poor troll, spiff's 'our' project and similar show he firmly believes in france's divine right to run europe

spiff, your 3rd post on page 8 illustrates very clearly one of things that is central to the EU, and which you somehow seem to have missed. the fact that the EU is a group of 25 independent, sovereign states, each with its own beliefs, concerns and national interests. it shouldn't come as a shock that these different countries are going to be concerned about different things. britain with near to full employment, is hardly likely to be as concerned about unemployment as germany, with 5 million on the dole! that's what i think is great about the EU, 25 countries with many differences in the way they see things, coming together to trade freely.

in all your posts you are comparing britain's vision of the EU to your own utopian (or more accurately, hellish ) vision of it, but this is wholly worthless. what is worth looking at is what france does and its leaders vision of the EU. france uses the EU in pursuit of its own interests, to protect its failing industries and farmers (see 'bra wars' and the CAP), it is not alone in doing this, but it is a major offender. when french leaders talk about a 'european' view or policy, they mean a french one imposed on other countries, chirac is the obvious example, but he's hardly the first french leader to hold such views.

A system of unchecked competition, where the political systems barely coordinate themselves, and where no effort is made to make the Europeans closer from each other, is a system that is bound to create hatred. And this is why the British vision for Europe, as it is extremely limited, is horrible for someone like me who hopes that there will never be a major war anymore between European countries.

oh dear. going off the deep end ain't the half of it. do you seriously think that europe mainly focusing on free trade would lead to war? if yes if no, then why bother writing it.

i had a fair bit more i was going to write, but maybe tomorrow

[C0ckney]

blackcat