Live-Wire Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 Will the EU survive? Consider the Bretton Woods and European Snake. Consider cultural, currency, political, and finiancial differences. Consider current success and failure of the European system - the Euro as a strong currency, France's declining African power based on the franc, the rejection by the brits, budget deficit caps, german inflation-hatred, and Russian instability. Consider the effect of the entrance of Slovakia and the Czechs, on the short list. Consider the capping of individual state FDI incentives. Consider the U.S. as an example of the uniting of states. Discuss.
Bacchus Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 ok, i'll try Considering bretton woods; when was it...? in 46' or 47'. Anyway, since GATT a lot changed; New technologies appeared (internet as an exemple) and those sometimes opened new markets which influenced geopolitics. With the advance of new communications techs, the time span needed to understand an economical current was greatly diminished. This had repercussions on the way investors understood the market and currency exchange. New analytic tools were developped and with them new strategies. briefly, GATT (Bretton woods offspring so to speak) was quickly overwhelmed and obsolete and "ALENA" ( french abbreviate for free exchange between US and CAN...) came forth. Some markets were standardized to offset the currency differences, etc. Balance was achieved and north americans countries survived and prospered. Euro is strong for now, it will fluctuate i think (as anything else) but it will endure. France links with African countries aren't representative of EU health i think. Countries where France was implicated (west african, sub saharian countries like Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Senegal, etc) already have their own banking system based on CFA (1 CFA = 100 old francs) but those were separated if i'm not mistaken and anyway wasn't worth anything. I'm not sure it will influence EU in any ways....but i'm no specialist. Rejection by the brits....Well, i think that in this particular case, england will be the one suffering the most from not being in the EU. England economical power isn't strong enough to stand up to 400 million customers. even if they had a sky rocketting export rate and interior product (which isn't the case i think) it couldn't resist the wave for a long time... German inflation-hatred...mmh, i'm not sure how it will influence economy. EU isn't about cultural consensus...it's about economical levy. I'm not sure yet what influence it will have on society as a cultural body. Russian...Russia instability is slowly sinking into place i think...but then again, that's one subject i know practically nothing about. I think though that it will "federate" itself in the next 20 years. slovakia, Czechs etc...i know nothing about... US as an exemple...Well...it is surviving an onslaught of hatred and critics. US reponse seems to be one of protectionism..which in the long term isn' that good imo. and long term is what counts when we are speaking of countries. US stance seems to be one that closes in on itself whereas EU is in the opening stage. In fact, i think a lot of ppl looks toward the EU to balance US power trip...which isn't good either imo. If you ask me...EU will survive, US will survive also...the question is what will survive the fight between these two? Give EU 50 years and US will have a real challenge coming its way...not some crazy, backwater country dictator with alleged WMD, but real live economical war with no political ties other then money. A war where customers possess real power and where Marketing-mind-tricks rules...MUAHAHA! Yea, EU will survive.
Bacchus Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 Marketing mind trick!! :eek: MWUAHAHAHA! :edit: double post.
Guest feef Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 I see the EU as an attempt to model the US system, but it has many barriers that simply don't exist for the US. Language, culture, national pride (when you've been an indepedent nation, relinquishing control to the EU can be difficult), changing over to the euro, etc. It also, I believe, too heavily regulates, stiffling business. It's still pursing the European socialist dream. They're using idealism to dictate policy rather than experience. UK is doing quite well now so they've started to distance themselves from it. They're a strong, proud nation that can trade and do business with the entire world without the need to remain beholden to the EU. The future of the EU is unclear, but the UK is going to do just fine.
Guest EvagirL Posted November 22, 2003 Report Posted November 22, 2003 From looking at the EU as an Int'l Gov't Org, I'd have to say it's been quite successful, and has great potiential for growth in the future. Here are some random reasons found in some readings I've done. An organization like EU's general main purpose is to attain a "unity" of unified political, economic, social, foreign, and defense policies [or at least some of them for the case of EU]. Unlike the UN, members of the EU has surrendered some of their individual state sovereignty in turn for authority on some of the decisions on other member states. This does not infringe upon each state sovereignty because The Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992 were approved by each individual state through their own political system. Unlike the UN and its Charter where states has no law binding them to act upon the decisions of the UN, the states of EU are obligated by law to act accordance to the decision of EU. The European Commission, Council of EU, European Parliament, Court of Justice, and Court of Auditors serve in excellence to check and balance each other to ensure proper function. Advantages include the Euro [currency for all EU members but UK], a common foreign and security policy, the end to tariffs and barriers on the movement of trades between the states, economic production, and prevention of wars. [it was also used to prevent the spread of communism during the economic downfall]. A major counter-argument state that there is too create a loss in sovereignty, iden!@#$%^&*y, and culture.But sometimes the benefits can greatly outweigh the downsides. In conclusion, another vote for the survival of EU.
»nintendo64 Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 Let's put it this way, if the EU fails USA will have to deal with another Fallen Soviet Union with deficit problems, so it better work and it is working. Plus USA is a superpower and EU is becoming one, but in contrast of the Soviet Union, this one is friendly to USA (at least for the most part). -nintendo64
Aileron Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 Rejection by the brits.... Well, i think that in this particular case, england will be the one suffering the most from not being in the EU. England economical power isn't strong enough to stand up to 400 million customers. even if they had a sky rocketting export rate and interior product (which isn't the case i think) it couldn't resist the wave for a long time... Recognize that Napoleon tried to pit the United Kingdom against the rest of Europe. Also, note that this was probably the stupidest decision he ever made. The UK laid economic beatings on the rest of Europe. Yes, a LOT has changed since then. England isn't the ecomomic power it once was. Germany has grown and Frace has diminished. However, my two points are that first off you don't know what can happen and secondly that history favors England over Mainland Europe.
Bacchus Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 yea, but that holds only if you consider only england's history...France (and European countries) share their lot of achievements, and don't forget that england "Lingua franca" was french (or a derivative...whatevr the word) until the norse came in. Also, History favors the winner/conqueror and that depends on the fighter point of view...some of them fighters won't admit that they lost or are losing (ok, i could name some but i'll refrain ) The point is, EU will survive wether England is in or not.
Aileron Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 Well, ofcourse. The EU will survive easily. The countries of Eupope would otherwise be in economic decline if they do not sacrifice their sovreignty and merge their cultures. Basically, the only way the EU will die is by replacement. Most likely, within the next 200 years the countries of Europe will cease to be, and the continent will only be of one country named "Europe". Now, due to the current way the UN is structured, this will not be a complete merge - one country gets one vote. The only question is Russia and the United Kingdom, which have distinct enough cultures to not wish that. Given how both of these countries have permanent seats on the Security Council, it is unlikely that either of them will buy into this merge. Now maybe my opinion is too strong. However, was is positive is that there is a major merging of cultures and economies in mainland Europe. Thus, the power of the EU or it's clone will only get stronger. The countries that need to watch out for this are non-European states. They have the challenge of making the distiction between European Political trends that they should stay out of and Worldwide political trends they should join. Thus, when France makes a UN proposal that is backed by Germany, Spain, Austria, and Poland, countries like the US and Japan have to determine weather or not there opinion is universal or local to Europe. It is worse for the semi European nations of the United Kingdom and Russia. Not only do they have the problems of non-Europeans, but they also have to determine their level of involvement. This is because these two nations have a stronger sense of iden!@#$%^&*y as well as geographic isolation. (Yes, geographic isolation does still matter - you can't email a 20 ton shipment somewhere.) Thus, they want to make ties with the rest of europe, but not a strong of ties as Germany and France would like.
madhaha Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 Question posed: Will the EU survive? Survive what? How long would you consider "survive" to be? A year? 10 years? 100 years? A millenium? Clarify.
Aileron Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 good question. My interpretation is about 50 to 100 years. I am also counting the possiblity of clone organizations.
Bacchus Posted December 1, 2003 Report Posted December 1, 2003 I understood "survival" in " will it become stable enough to have perennity or will it crumble to small federate economy before achieving maturity". If EU achieves maturity, it's existence is somewhat guaranteed til something "ex-centris" destroy or threatened it, like war, disaster etc.
Aileron Posted December 2, 2003 Report Posted December 2, 2003 My opinion, the EU will last about 20-30 years. After that, it would be replaced a a stronger more central organization that demands more control. The UK and Russia will have reservations about joining the new organization, thus weakening it. However, this organization will survive for a time period close to 100 years, depending on how friendly it is to countries outside their organization.
Bacchus Posted December 2, 2003 Report Posted December 2, 2003 What makes you think that? I wonder about your premises (spl) underlying your last statement.
MonteZuma Posted December 2, 2003 Report Posted December 2, 2003 I don't think anyone can predict with any certainty what will happen to the EU or any other ins!@#$%^&*ution (UN or NATO for example) beyond about 10-20 years ahead. You can only learn so much from history - and nobody knows what direction the global economy will take. Too many factors to consider. Is it possible for Europe to become a federation of States in the very distant future? Monte.
Yupa Posted December 2, 2003 Report Posted December 2, 2003 if the EU does well I don't see why Britain wouldn't eventually join up - but I have good teeth and clear pronounciation, what do I know
SideBurn Posted December 3, 2003 Report Posted December 3, 2003 well im a brit and we dont wanna join... only that -*BAD WORD*- blair does, and -*BAD WORD*- the queen is afriad of joining it cuz it means she is not important and not needed no more, so if she wants she has the power to make a new election which could -*BAD WORD*- blair over anyway the eu and this one currency thing is -*BAD WORD*-ed, its basicly what we fought ww2 about, germans wanting to take over the world and have 1 big power, every1 has tried it, romans, vikings, etc, all eventaully failed this one nation, 1 currency thing is just another way to take over most of the world, and what will it be like for us, well they can dump all those illegal immigrants over here, which is kinda whats happning atm,, even tho by law they supposed to stop at the first country they coem to anyways cut a long story much shorter, its bad, horrible, were better off out ( plus germans aint allowed nukes since ww2, now they can ez order the use of other contrys nukes now that are in the eu)
Aileron Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 What makes you think that? I wonder about your premises (spl) underlying your last statement.1) The centralization of the EU will continue to grow as long as member nations wish to sacrifice sovreingty for economic gain.2) England and Russia do not wish to sacfrifice as much sovreignty as the rest of Europe. They also have greater ties with the rest of the world, and thus do not get as much benefit. There are several other differences, but I'll just sum it up by saying that UK, Russia, and mainland Europe are in completely different economic boats. I just am guessing about the number years it will take for these differences to arise. The reason why the EU will collapse after this time is because all member nations but two will want something more extreme, but the two strongest will not. After this, probably mainland Europe will create their own little organization, which will probably just amount to a merging of countries. Sideburn is 99% correct in his judgement of the situation. There are some details he missed, such as France's desire to recover their lost glory. Overall, it stems from the general European desire for one powerfull nation. What he is wrong about is his criticism of Blair. Blair, while not looking out for popular interests, is looking out for UK interests. Face it, until the formentioned rift occurs, joining the EU will make a lot of money for the UK. Basically, he is deciding for the UK to get what they can out of this situation while the going is good. Odds are that even Blair would quit the EU before giving Germany access to English nukes. However, until situations like that come up, the best thing the UK can do is get what they can out of it.
Bacchus Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 ok.. 1) i'm drunk2) it's QUITE late3)where tf do you find all these arguments??? There are some details he missed' date=' such as France's desire to recover their lost glory[/quote'] What's that? are you a "french specialist" or are you giving in the anti-french nonsense? ...sry if i sound sensitive, but this is preposterous. France's hubris is nothing compared to US affront of international law. Ever heard of Geneva Convention (spl)? and this is but one exemple amongst many. I mean, this isn't an argument..this is fallacy. Blair' date=' while not looking out for popular interests, is looking out for UK interests[/quote'] If Blair was looking for UK interests he wouldn't have gone to war with Bush. A prime minister isn't voted in office to act like a fking CEO...Blair have to represent his people voices..and those voices were quite eloquent; they were disagreeing with that loose canon sitting in the white house. Odds are that even Blair would quit the EU before giving Germany access to English nukes Wtf does that come from? What makes you think that germany would like (as if it was their only interests...) to have "their hands on England nukes"??? Anyway, you won't agree, i will disagree, you'll answer back, i'll quote til i die, you'll answer back...whatever i'm off to bed, have a nice day, bye.
SideBurn Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 blair just wants to be the president of europe, he said so himself, thats why he wants in now and still refuses to have a refferendum on weather to join or not
MonteZuma Posted December 14, 2003 Report Posted December 14, 2003 blair just wants to be the president of europe...Hardly. He just put himself at odds with a huge chunk of the European population.
madhaha Posted December 15, 2003 Report Posted December 15, 2003 *bumps thread back to the top* Given the current slew of events, things aren't looking too rosy for the EU. Comments?
Dr Brain Posted December 16, 2003 Report Posted December 16, 2003 IMO, only a revolution or war will save the EU from drowning in its own decay. I wish it weren't so, but it's the only outcome I see if the contries don't change. I fear the same death with the UN. I see it going the way of the League of Nations.
MonteZuma Posted December 16, 2003 Report Posted December 16, 2003 IMO, only a revolution or war will save the EU from drowning in its own decay. I wish it weren't so, but it's the only outcome I see if the contries don't change. I fear the same death with the UN. I see it going the way of the League of Nations. The EU is far from drowning in its own decay. It is becoming more powerful all the time. The fact that member States disagreed over Iraq is inconsequential. The EU has bigger fish to fry.
scruff Posted December 18, 2003 Report Posted December 18, 2003 -*BAD WORD*- the queen is afriad of joining it cuz it means she is not important and not needed no moreThe queen has no real power which she could implement, and has not been needed since the end of WWII. plus germans aint allowed nukes since ww2 It is my understanding that Germany is alowed nuclear weapons, but chose not to, as they are governed by a "green party". The whole point of the treaty after WWII wasn't to prevent the Germans from doing things, as the treaty after WWI did, but to integrate them into part of Europe. germans wanting to take over the world and have 1 big power The EU would not be controled by Germany, and niether does the EU wish to take over the whole world, I think you must have confused it with George Bush's views on politics, though I'm suprised he has anym as he is clearly an idiot. As far as I can see, SideBurn is quiet clearly on par with Bush in terms of inteligence. As for what I think:The EU will work, eventually economic pressure will force the UK to join up. It would wield a massive amount of power, and I believe it would eventually overtake the USA. British, French and German technology is far superior to america's, if only they had the right resources to develope it, their problem is a lack of money, the EU would sove this.
Recommended Posts