I’m sure SK and Merlin could tell us a lot about the politics surround the formation of the EU and the US. It sounds like they’re having a federal dispute, kinda like the individual states originally had a few hundred years ago. Interesting, no?
What I find funniest is that Tony Blair is apparently seriously considering running for President of the EU.
I don’t think so. France and Germany would like to create a single country by the name of United States of Europe, and England is the fiercest oppositor to that idea. So I don’t think Blair would be running for president.
So that means we might hae to call him “Pee-U”? Get it? Pee…ah forget it.
The EU is interesting, one of my professors actually thought it was one of the great miracles of the twentieth century, because its the only multi-state organization where the states have given up a significant amount of their sovereignty to the organization. This is ironic when you consider that Europe is traditionally the most warlike area of the world. They were unified of course because of the Soviet threat, and its my opinion that we may see the EU be granted even more power and sovereignty over its member nations in the face of a new American threat. Yes, the creation of a United States of Europe may become a real thing depending on how assertive American foreign policy becomes.
Tony Blair running for president of the EU is funny because he has alienated Britain from the rest of Europe because he supported us in Iraq, and also because Britain has thus far generally resisted giving the EU more power.
Originally posted by Ren
So I don’t think Blair would be running for president.
That’s what I thought as well, but recently he was mentioned in the British press as having ambitions for that post. It might have been a misquote or something, though.
As Curtis metionned, its very interesting to think about because of that. I mean christ , 2 world wars within 50 years, tore the whole area apart. Its amazing how fast changes can occur. Also, he mentionned the Cold War. A lot of new countries were part of the Soviet Union a bit over 10 years ago. That’s a mind job also.
Us brits are having enough trouble with the damn currency changes (make your mind up Gordon!), never mind trying to rule the EU. Sounds like a misquote.
Although it would be amusing to watch Our Beloved Idiot trying to run for the post…
Don’t be too amazed about the rapidity of the EU’s formation, it was born out of simple necessity. After Europe’s near suicide in the 20th century they learned two things.
- The USA, Russia/Soviet Union and the major eastern powers were getting to be frickin’ pretty important.
- Causing continental or even global melees every 30-50 years for over a century or two taps out your nation’s ability to do much of anything, especially once Industrialized warfare began.
Europe moderated itself because it was tapped out economically and because the US and Russia would’ve squeezed it into insignificance if they didn’t work together. Sometimes it just takes millions of dead, Maginot lines and “peace in our time” to drive home these sorts of necessities to nations.
ditto for why Britain is the most resistant to the EU, they have the least need for them and would have to give up a lot. Whereas Bulgaria is quite receptive to the idea for opposite reasons.
From what I’ve understood it is debated, yes: Whether the European Union should remain like it is, or become something like the United States of Europe.
The latter is, in my opinion, not likely to happen: As it would mean having to unite the policies of twenty five ( as it is likely to become ) diverse countries. We’ve already seen tensions within the Union related to foreign and defense policies ( Reference: Iraq ); the tensions aren’t likely to become less tense with more members. Maybe sometime in the far future; when the differences are less, or even gone, but not now.
The US was the exact same way at its inception , Nul.
I’m crossing my fingers that they don’t, because my planned line of RTS games (stop laughing) has the EU become a unitary political being at the onset of the first game. So if they do, it won’t work as well.
Originally posted by Sinistral
The US was the exact same way at its inception , Nul.
hardly. The US at the time of its inception first of all were not terribly diverse states; they all shared the same language, ethnicity, background, and in most cases, the same religion. They were located rather close to each other, were used to dealing with one another (particularly economically), were only 100 years old or so, weren’t used to warring with one another every 5-10 years at the drop of a hat, and had just recently banded together to “throw off the yoke of monarchist oppression.” Not exactly the same boat the EU is in.
There was nonetheless a very strong sentiment amidst part of the populace about how the power should be distributed (states vs federal). That’s what I’m referring to and that’s the big issue I think.
Originally posted by MegamanX2K
I’m crossing my fingers that they don’t, because my planned line of RTS games (stop laughing) has the EU become a unitary political being at the onset of the first game. So if they do, it won’t work as well.
My game idea showed Europe as almost one country: Sweden. Yes, the swedes took over everything. They were too peaceful, damnit! They were hiding something from us!
And I’d rather not comment on the EU.
Oh no, having a president for the EU won’t work today. Hell, most of us here don’t even want to have that goddamn EMU that all the politicians are so crazy about. What they fail to notice is that Germany and the other countries who have changed the currency are having serious economical headaches due to the prices going up on all the small things like coffee. In the end things get really expensive and the job salaries aren’t rising in the same speed.
Our dear prime minister of Sweden said something oh so lovely a while ago, funny that since he neeever does anything to anger anyone:
“We’ll have the public vote about EMU in the autumn 2004, then we’ll change the currency in 2005.”
Neat.
And Swedish public votes aren’t decisive, they are advising to the politicians who can still overrule it if they find it necessary -_-
Thank God for Australia, the strip mine of the world 
Nothing intelligent to add, I just think that The united States of Europe is unlikely at best, its just too diverse in terms of socio-political ideals.
The US is getting just a TEENSY bit too big for its boots in terms of foriegn policy, but thats all been discussed before.
True, but whereas Europe just argues amonst themselves, the US actually has the power to step in and make things right, if only they would get 1) a better president and 2) a better foreign policy advisor. My two cents.
-> "Oh no, having a president for the EU won’t work today. Hell, most of us here don’t even want to have that goddamn EMU that all the politicians are so crazy about. "
I agree that EU presidency is unlikely to happen anytime soon, but not on that premice. While the scepticism of EMU is in majority in Sweden at the moment (though I’d bet big money it’ll turn out 50/50 in the end with a small overweight on either side, as it always does), the majority of EU citizens are positive to (as well as members of) the monetary union.
-> “What they fail to notice is that Germany and the other countries who have changed the currency are having serious economical headaches due to the prices going up on all the small things like coffee. In the end things get really expensive and the job salaries aren’t rising in the same speed.”
False. Some countries have experienced temporary price gains, but this is due to producers taking advantage of the consumer’s lack of experience. Once people get used to the new currency, the products regain their actual value if there’s a sound amount of concurrence (if there isn’t, they were probably overpriced to begin with).
Large scale system changes are always potentially problematic. When agral units (foot, acre, etc.) have been replaced with SI units (metre, square metre, etc.) through history, things like groceries have had tendencies of overpricing, because people weren’t able to tell if they got exactly the same amount of, say, sugar as before to the same price and so were easily screwed over. When left side traffic were replaced with right side traffic in various countries around the world, the amount of traffic accidents generally increased for a short while. In both these cases, the situation of course eventually went back to normal as people’s experience of it grew.
What I’m saying is that the problem you’re mentioning is a problem of changing systems rather than a problem of the new system in itself. Both the other examples I mentioned eventually led to something better (if you ask me, at the very least), because the SI unit system allows for faster and easier calculations and conversions between different physical systems, and traffic moves over national borders all the time and so the more general the traffic system is, the smoother such transition becomes. Indeed, so is the case with currency, and that’s one of the reasons I’m for, myself.
- > “And Swedish public votes aren’t decisive, they are advising to the politicians who can still overrule it if they find it necessary.”
Well, they would risk being thrown off come next government election (which is decisive), but I do agree that the concept of advisory voting is strange. It smells of pseudodemocracy.
-Radar-
Well the EU is still far away to become something like the United States of Europe. Too many different interests of the members, many languages etc. At the moment the politicians of the bigger nations in the EU try to get something of a “majority” vote for important matters, because at the moment only one “NO” from a small nation like Luxembourg could stop everything… but of course the smaller nations don’t like this idea very much.
In the end I wish I could live in a truly united Europe. I mean so far its really cool to be able to pay with the same money in a neighboring country and travel/work freely throughout the member states.
And the EU has its roots of the so called (in German) “Montan-Union” which was a union of several industries like coal, steel etc. They created a supranational organization to control these “key”-industries (which would also prevent one country to build up a big army/weapons again). The EU wasn’t founded because of the fear of the Soviet Union (that was the NATO).