Sort of like the UN.
I wish them success, but I don't see them acheiving it. The in-fighting, debate, debate, wrangling for superiority within the framework of the EU...
I think they have shown already that they will be in-fighting more than acheiving anything of value.
I really thought it was awful the way Chirac insulted the smaller countries.
But, at any rate, it will be interesting to watch.
Sofia wrote:Sort of like the UN.
Actually, not at all: the EU has a directly elected parliament ... ... ...
http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm
Walter, you must realize that most Americans' understanding of what goes on in Europe is pretty minimal. And that includes our current leaders, I'm afraid...
D'art--
I understand just fine.
It will still be a representative body, jockeying for superiority with different motives and goals.
Like the UN.
Sofia
Perhaps you really have a look at my link.
Walter, I briefly checked out your link...very detailed.
What do you and other Europeans view as some of the factors which Americans may not be able to grasp about Europe?
Mapleleaf wrote:Walter, I briefly checked out your link...very detailed.
What do you and other Europeans view as some of the factors which Americans may not be able to grasp about Europe?
Rome wasn't build in a day, neither will Europe. But isn't it an incredible achivement already? 60 years ago we crushed eachothers skulls. And now we sit at the same table and most of the time come to an agreement. Representatives from all memberstates are working hard in The Convention now and their conclusions will be made public next month.
EU binds its member states via immense numbers of laws - the acquis communautaire, that has precedense over domestic law. Unlike UN it has common agricultural and social policy, police force, functioning courts, implementation mechanism WITH sanctions and punishments. It rests on different principles and seeks very different goals, all in all, comparison to UN is not very useful, at best.
Thanks, frolic, Walter and dag. Nice to read what Europeans (or former Europeans) have to say on the subject. I get tired of hearing Americans explain it for us...
The comparison is this:
A representative govt.
Only the members are far more diverse than say the British parliament or the US congress. Not quite as varied as the UN...
But the myriad of issues they face, coupled with the extreme variance of needs, goals and cultures, represent quite a political tangle. The Brits and US, and other nations, have more concentrated issues. The UN is not focused on the detailed issues that will face the EU.
Hence, I feel the EU faces far greater problems than the UN or individual govts.
Sofia, if I have forgotten your background, forgive me, but is it possible your viewpoint is an example of a North American trying to explain a European experience?
Your opening post didn't specify who was welcomed to speak and who was not.
Since non-Americans are free to post their opinions about America, and since this is an open forum, I consider it my right to opine unless the thread header specifies otherwise.
Sofia
The United Kingdom is a member of the EU.
Walter,
What made you think I didn't know that? I was comparing the national govts of England and the US to the larger bodies of the EU and UN.
Well, Sofia, because of your comparison I've thaught so.
UN and EU are completely different, as dagmar and I tried to explain previously.
The relation of the US's parliament (and all the others) to the UN and those of the UK and all the other EU-member-states to the EU is a different pair of shoes.
Well, why don't we move past that minor disagreement...
The recent UN disagreement has sparked new divisions in the EU. Notably France's rudeness to the smaller Eastern European countries, and the Franco German rift with England. Even though Blair seems to be making attempts to patch the thing up, I believe there is a real rivalry between England and France for the best seat at the EU table.
Given all the political divisions and egos, don't you think the myriad of conflicting goals and needs of each distinct region are a bit overwhelming? It would be hard enough to see to the needs of such a large piece of land, even if were one country.
dag said EU law has precedence over domestic law. Does this mean the member states have given up their laws for EU laws, or there are two sets of laws for member states--domestic and EU?
Member laws have to be confirm with EU laws.
Some laws/regulations are completely by EU, member states/parliaments just ratify them.
From the Britannica:
Quote:"The Treaty on European Union
The Maastricht Treaty (formally known as the Treaty on European Union), which was signed on February 7, 1992, created the European Union. The treaty met with substantial resistance in some countries. In Denmark, for example, voters who were worried about infringements upon their country's sovereignty defeated a referendum onthe original treaty in June 1992, though a revised treaty was approved the following May.Voters in France narrowly approved the treaty in September, and in July 1993 British Prime Minister John Major was forced to call a vote of confidence in order to secure its passage. An amended version of the treaty officially took effect on November 1, 1993.
The treaty consisted of three main pillars: the European Communities, a common foreign and security policy, and enhanced cooperation in home (domestic) affairs and justice. The treaty changed the name of the European Economic Community to the European Community, which became the primary component of the new European Union. The agreement gave the EC broader authority, including formal control of community policies on development, education, public health, and consumer protection and an increased role in environmental protection, social and economic cohesion, and technological research. It also established EU citizenship, which entailed the right of EU citizens to vote and to run for office in local and European Parliament elections in their country of residence, regardless of national citizenship.
The Treaty on European Union specified an agenda for incorporating monetary policy into the EC and formalized planning that had begun in the late 1980s to replace national currencies with a common currency managed by common monetary institutions. The treaty defined a set of "convergence criteria" that specified the conditions under which a member would qualify for participation in the common currency. Countries were required to have annual budget deficits not exceeding 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), public debt under 60 percent of GDP, inflation rates within 1.5 percent of the three lowest inflation rates in the EU, and exchange-rate stability. The members that qualified were to decide whether to proceed to the final stage?-the adoption of a single currency. The decision required the establishment of permanent exchange rates and, after a transition period, the replacement of national currencies with the common currency, called the euro. Although several countries failed to meet the convergence criteria (e.g., in Italy and Belgium public debt exceeded 120 percent of GDP), the Commission qualified nearly all members for monetary union, and on January 1, 1999, 11 countries?-Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain?-adopted the currency and relinquished control over their exchange rates. Greece failed to qualify, and Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom chose not to apply for membership. Greece was admitted to the euro beginning in 2001. Initially used only by financial markets and businesses, the euro was introduced to the general public on January 1, 2002.
The Maastricht Treaty significantly modified the EEC's institutions and decision-makingprocesses. The Commission was reformed to increase its accountability to the Parliament. Beginning in 1995, the term of office for commissioners, who now had to be approved by the Parliament, was lengthened to five years to correspond to the termsserved by members of the Parliament. The ECJ was granted the authority to impose fines on members for noncompliance. Several new institutions were created, including the European Central Bank, the European System of Central Banks, and the European Monetary Institute. The treaty also created a regional committee, which served as an advisory body for commissioners and the Council of Ministers on issues relevant to subnational, regional, or local constituencies.
One of the most radical changes was the reform of the legislative process. The range of policies subject to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers was broadened. The treaty also endowed the Parliament with a limited right of rejection overlegislation in most of the areas subject to qualified majority voting, and in a few areas, including citizenship, it was given veto power. The treaty formally incorporated the Courtof Auditors, which was created in the 1970s to monitor revenue and expenditures, into the EC.
As part of the treaty's second pillar, members undertook to define and implement common foreign and security policies. Members agreed that, where possible, they would adopt common defense policies, which would be implemented through the Western European Union, a security organization that includes many EU members. Joint actions?-which were not subject to monitoring or enforcement by the Commission or the ECJ?-required unanimity.
The EU's third pillar included several areas of common concern related to the free movement of people within the EU's borders. The elimination of border controls conflicted with some national immigration, asylum, and residency policies and made it difficult to combat crime and to apply national civil codes uniformly, thus creating the need for new Europe-wide policies. For example, national asylum policies that treated third-country nationals differently could not, in practice, endure once people were allowed to move freely across national borders."
I'm a bit in a hurry, but I'm sure, my previously given link provides all this information, too.
It certainly confirms my feeling of no longer being an American citizen (except legally), but rather someone more concerned about the world. I think when you believe your country has turned criminal, the response must to be do whatever you can do stop it while giving one's allegiance to those fellow countrymen and other citizens of the world who want to help. My feeling about France's actions is that France is rather like a guy in the street who stuck out his foot to trip up the fleeing bank robber and now is being beaten up by the crowd for trying to stop the show... I'm on the side of the counterbalance and of a world in which there are no superpowers, but rather adult and peaceful nations working together.
As I understood it, the UN was never set up to be union of countries setting laws and regualtions for all. Rather, it had more of a watchdog role, a place where participating nations could come and be listened to, a body that would look to what was happening in the world, with various agencies set up within it to help and advise. Wheras the European Union is more or less what it states - a union of different European states, where trade and commerce and other things would be discussed and decided upon. And the one currency - the Euro - would be one of its strongest representations.
This business about France is distressing on many levels. It does present a childish and immature picture of the U.S. But France has been consistent in its attitudes and actions. From the start it thought, for many reasons, that pre-emptive war with Iraq was wrong, and it stuck by its principles. And then it finds itself punished and snubbed by an administration that had to look for many reasons for its pre-emptive strike. And the plain and simple fact is that most nations and countries in the world thought and still think that we were wrong on moral grounds, practical grounds - almost any grounds. And further - they rightly thought our motives from the beginning were clear and simple.
What is emerging is a picture of the U.S. wanting a puppet satellite country from which it can then set out to conquer and destroy others- most preferable those that have any connection to one of the ruling factors thus far on earth --- the control of the oil supplies.
I believe, Walter, that Bush has yet to contact your man? And they give short shrift to Canada, Mexico, Chile. I am further embarrassed when they publicize the names of the "willing coalition," including countries we've never heard of, countries who said they'd recognize air space, countries who've said they'd supply 70 troops, countries put down for the sake of showing numbers. And no, the Eastern European countries don't really count yet - they've just been admitted to NATO and are in the throes of that.
Sofia - I'd be mindful of declarations of disunity. When all is said and done, it looks like the Europeans think more of each other than they do of us. The Euro is growing stronger, as is the E.U. And one of the unifying things seems to be a growing dislike and distrust of the U.S. But, the U.S. as personified by the Bush-Rove-Rumsfeld administration. When the democrats come in, there will probably be a sigh of relief in many quarters.
