The begining of the end for the EU?

Remove all ads!

Italian minister said Italy should consider quitting the euro

It appears that the EU may be starting to unravel bit. Nations rejecting the consititution, and now at least one nation considering abondoning the currency, and given the slide of the Euro probably more than one, things are not looking so well for what was supposed to be the worlds next superpower.

While is is still very early to ask, an interesting question is, can the EU continue to make any substantive progress, and will it ever achieve what was intended? For the record, my belief is that theoretically yes, but in reality, probably not.

 

That would be dire news for the Republic of Ireland, as they were the ones to benefit most. I don't think the British north will be so keen on a united Ireland now.

 

The EU has gone too long of a road to fall apart now. The worst that might happen is an split where a couple of significant nations break free from the EU. The Netherlands and UK would be my guesses but I doubt even this will happen. Euro is indeed in trouble since the two biggest Euro nations (France and Germany) refuse to follow the agreements and this is causing great frustration in those who play by the rules, I doubt that Italy leaves the EMU, the change back would be too dramatic for the economy, it simply would not be worth it at least not at this point.

As for EU becoming the next super power it's doubtful since the EU is far from united and probably will ever be completely united. Not that I would want it either. I'm not all that much for increasing the political power of EU on the international field, and I don't support a common foreign policy. A common economical policy I however do agree of since I believe it in the end will be the only thing that can guarantee our ability to stay competitive in front of the future challenges.

 

I have to echo Morgoroth's comments here. I do not think that the term "superpower" beyond economic was what the EU had intended. Granted, by joining economic forces it also grants you some political power, but that is under the assumption that the vast majority of countries within the EU would agree to a common political or foreign policy - something that is very unlikely to occur. So the idea of the EU becoming a superpower in the traditional sense was not the motivation of the EU, and certainly the idea of a superpower in the military sense, was never a goal of the EU.

 

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, and admiting that my knowledge is limited, I have a feeling that American business interests would likely not have been too fond of the EU becoming a serious rival economically. I can see them using whatever tactics possible to sabotage the whole system.

The American Government, on the other hand, likely would have supported the deal as it increases the chance for international stability.

Whatever the case, I don't see the EU ever becoming more than a very loose economic federation of allies -- the cultures involved are just too entrenched to sign over vast areas of social and other policies to a central organization.

 

Does anyone else find this ironic?

 

Slightly, yes AMaster. Mark Steyn (a columnist) once wrote a series of pieces on how France is trying very hard to be the "big boy" in Europe these days -- according to him, France wanted to dominate the Union so they could deal more effectively with the US. It stands to reason that if they want to dominate the EU the way the US tends to dominate the world these days, they'd take on US stances and bend rules for their own benefit. Sad but true.

 

The EU is a project that is has been rushed forward much faster than anyone could ever anticipate. This means that it hopefully can survive these roadblocks it now encounter but the fact that things have been rushed without properly letting people accomodate themselves to all the new things is the main reason it is getting problems now.

The talk about a EU superpower is mostly heard from the European ecquivalent of the American think thanks, the intellectual elite is very keen on it, including myself. Even among us though the most optimistic of futures dont hold a united European superpower for a decade or two. The thought about a European superstate is widely rejected among the populaces in Europe and pretty much among those in political power too. The only ones talking about an EU superstate are Europeans like me with delusions of grandeur and paranoid yankees like you Darkwolf. =P

Edit: I have never been known for my humility, even though I am not really a part of the intelluctual elite I am talking about I pretty much share their views.

[ June 03, 2005, 21:49: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

I can see that humility doesn't exactly run in your family, Joacqin Ah, well, I've been accused of arrogance in times past myself.

How come no one ever calls me a "paranoid Canadian"?

In this case, though, I'd like nothing better than to see a united Europe take on the U.S. head to head (economically, that is) -- comptetition is always good for economies!

 

I'd like to see a united Europe cooperate with the US to invade China. Viva la imperialism!

 

I most certainly do, since I posted it in the first place and it was meant to reveal a bit irony in how the two big boys of the continent act.

Domestic European politics has very little to do with the US. Allthough I feel that the French support for common European troops is in part an attempt to compete with the US ability to station troops just about anywhere around the globe, the French have far greater problems and intrests with EU than fighting the US dominance.

The leftist intellectual elite yes, but they are just a bunch of dreaming hippies anyway.

 

I like those quotes in the modern Swedish 20 seconds style. Masoni said, paraphrased, the Euro sucks and Trichet is a bitch. Trichet is the head of the European Central Bank. And like I said in the other thread, the problem with the Euro is, there is one currency but no common economic policy. And that's a serious problem.

The EU has the problem of winners and losers, because it's impossible to harmonize the economic policy. But the Central Bank has a clear line, and that's monetarian stability is the highest priority.

And this creates a situation where countries like the UK, Finland, Spain, Austria and Sweden profit while Italy, France and Germany loose.

Italy has come into recession. And the usual Italian answer on recession has been to devaluate the Lira. And actually, the Italians aren't the only ones that are kind of unhappy with the Central Bank. There are many demanding, that the Central Bank should change it's monetary policy and devaluate the Euro. (I personally haven't made up my mind about this).

To is there an end to the EU: No, I don't think so. Since the first agreement about coal, the European economies have grown into eachother in an irreversible way. Or said in other words, if the EU desintegrates, it will also draw Microsoft, Heineken, Amazon, Nokia and General Motors with it in it's grave, because this companies suddenly would sit on useless facilities in the wrong places. I wonder how people would bitch around, if beer prices suddenly rose 50%.

Yeah, that's the problem. The whole 3% was a foolish idea from the beginning. It was set up, because they was neither the competence or the political body to harmonize economic politics. Yet they've written currency priorities in stone. Huge mistake.

By the by, I think it's ironic that Germany and France always have to take the blame for the Scandinavians and Finns ****ing Portugal. The northern countries pushed the EU-law through, that forbade Portugal the cardboard production, that made the Portuguese economy plunge as a consequence and missing the criteria.

[ June 03, 2005, 22:39: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Hate to disagree with you, Morgoroth, but it has always seemed to me that the purpose of the EU has been to boost and augment the economies of the members so they would not be so easily pushed around by the biggest economic bully on the block -- the U.S.A. France especially seems to have a paranoia about the U.S. being too powerful, though since they may have a point, perhaps "healthy fear" would be a better term.

 

I think that's more an North-American view. From here it looks like it's mainly about Schengen-Dublin and the free circulation of people.

 

When I saw that France rejected the constitution, I cried. What we are witnessing here is no less than the abortion of what some of us had hoped to be the second superpower.

 

joacqin,

Paranoid? Possibly. About the EU, hardly. I have had no doubt that this would be little more than a washed down hybrid NATO/NAFTA (minus anyone on this side of the pond of course). Maybe in another 50 years when the individual cultures of Europe have been watered down sufficiently by immigration something like what you want may occur, but I still have faith that America will rise to the occasion, and will hardly be sublimated beneath the power of the EU.

Personally, I think that the key to success is going to be western Europe relinquishing some power and starts giving some respect the eastern European nations. Barring a major historical event (by that I mean something that makes 9/11 look minor), until western Europe changes its attitudes about its eastern neighbors, there will always be too much contention for anything more than the occasional minor agreement. I will be happy to admit that my opinion is that of an outsider, who has never visited eastern or western Europe, and that my opinion is based upon what I have read in the press, and speaking with a small number of eastern Europeans (for some reason they are more willing to talk politics, and I seem to run into more of them ).

The sad thing is that you have your sights set on the wrong super power. The US is not anywhere near the threat that is rising in China. If you want to talk about something to get paranoid about, that would be the place to start.

 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.

 

The think thanks here eye China as much if not more than the US. It is just that the US is more adventurous at the moment and thus makes a better focus. It is also as LKD says, a European superpower would try to rein in the US but hopefully through cooperation and trade. The very fact that the US have a powerful friend that might frown upon some of the more "bold" actions might make the US chill for a bit.

I am in favour of a multi polar world, the way we have it today with only one super power is way too dangerous. If that superpower in some way went completely out of control or berserk there would be no one to stop it and in the first place no one to discourage it from going berserk if it happens to put a proper mad man at the helm. I have no faith in humanity and am convinced that we will put more mad men in power with the full blessing of the people and if that happens anywhere, be it the US, a fully fledged EU or China I hope there will be powers to stand against it.

 

This stuff moves in cycles. The current politicians are using their "bold actions" to further their political ends. Once America has wasted enough of its blood and treasure, and it's no longer so politically advantageous, people here will return to their senses and take a more rational approach, regardless of what the powers in Europe are designing.

 

Except for the occasional as unavoidable as noisy turmoil, Europe is a success story, and will continue to be. Europe as a whole has never done better economically and politically.

We went a long way together, and after all I have no doubt that Europe will get over this. It's a time of re-orientation.

So: The begining of the end for the EU? Only in your dreams, Darkwolf.

The EU will continue to feed paranoid armageddonite US conspiracy nuts like them here (or them here, not to mention here for that instance) for quite a while

[ June 06, 2005, 04:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]