FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Walter, True! However, what happens in the US will probably take longer into the future than what's happening in Europe. The politics and economy of this world is changing at a fast pace, and how the dynamics of continent, country, state, and individuals will also change much faster than in the past.

0 Replies

On the contrary, I hope that Europe can make the EU work. That there is a serious controversy now ongoing concerning governance of the European Commission, is simply a fact. Moreover, the shape of an eventiual compromise solution has not yet emerged.

Given the problem of assimilating a large number of new members while, at the same time, advancing the integration of the whole, there is an inevitable possibility of stalemate. How this issue may or may not be resolved is a matter of historical interest to spectators both in Europe and beyond it.

I don't think that most Americans see the EU as a potential rival for America. Not that an integrated Euroipe couldn't do such a thing, because it would certainly have that capability. Rather we have not been inclined to see our relations with the nations of Europe in those terms, given the history of our mutual achievements.

However the increasing prominence of characteristic French attitudes towards Amewrica among the leading European nations could indeed make rivalry the likely outcome. Steve, in his post above, certainly expresses that view himself, even including the expressed hope for world leadership at the hands of the European Union. How that might be an improvement on the present situation, Steve does not say.

I would say that the "European Project" is the hope of Europe, not the world. This will not be the first time that independent states have pooled their sovereignty to create a larger, democratic union. Indeed some former colonies of England, after freeing themselves from British misrule, did exactly the same thing more than two hundred years ago.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Indeed some former colonies of England, after freeing themselves from British misrule, did exactly the same thing more than two hundred years ago.

Ehem. Yes.

We are trying hard to free us from Emperor George :wink:

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I get the impression from George that he would secretly like nothing better than the European project to fall flat on its face, and hence give the Americans the opportunity for further meddling.

Same here, despite the response.

His speculation frequently implies failure and also frequently implies a US/EU conflict in which he has a clear favorite.

e.g.

georgeob1 wrote:

The EU has been remarkably successful to date as a Union of sovereign states. Is that success likely to continue with the new members without real structural modification of EU governance?

georgeob1 wrote:

Given the increasing multi-polarity of the world; the greater assertiveness of developing countries; the increasing political effect of EU integration; and the growing divergence of both public attitudes and government policies between Europe and America, I believe a trade war (or worse) between the EU and the USA sometime in the next two decades is very likely. One could well entertain the notion of 'better now than later' at some point.

So I think Steve is spot on to speculate that there is nothing George wants more than for the US to come out on top of this forseen conflict.

Which is, of course, understandable, if not objective.

0 Replies

I don't hope for a conflict or even a rivalry. Moreover, I don't believe that the United States has done anything to make one inevitable. I do see in the post cold war attitudes of the major European governments the seeds of an ambition that could indeed bring about such a rivalry or conflict. If such a thing were to develop, I do indeed have a favorite, just as do the others in this dialogue.

All of this is rather obvious.

0 Replies

I agree and don't think a real conflict is likely.

But I hope for it.

0 Replies

I do think it is likely and regret it.

0 Replies

Competition is good for the soul. <shrugs>

I don't think the US made it inevitable but I do think our actions make it wise for them to mount the challenge.

0 Replies

Quote:

This will not be the first time that independent states have pooled their sovereignty to create a larger, democratic union. Indeed some former colonies of England, after freeing themselves from British misrule, did exactly the same thing more than two hundred years ago.

Missed the 'mis' in misrule first time of reading. :wink:

I don't think its fair to say Britain misruled its North American colonies. It wasn't possible in those days to have anything other than a fairly light touch on colonies several thousand miles away. Moreover if we had done a proper job in stamping out rebellion as perhaps we should, none of this United States nonsense would have come about. I blame the seditious activities of a few malcontents and the Germans. If King George wasnt mad and if his Hessian mercenaries had been half way competent, things could have been quite different. As it was some colonies remained loyal. They clearly didn't feel the heavy hand of British 'misrule'. Smile

But to address your point above about union of states...comparing the newly independent colonies in N America in 1780 with the old established countries France Germany Britain etc 200+ years later just doesnt work. For one thing, the Europeans have no common bond of throwing off foreign "misrule". (Except perhaps that of George 2, as Walter points out) They have quite an independent history of their own. And being mindful of that history, is one of the major driving forces encouraging them to do better in future. This is why I suggest it sets a good example to the world.

It seems to me the US was forged out of a union of initially tiny states to make one country, which became very big. In Europe we are seeing the coming together of major countries not to make one MegaState, but as a Union of nation States sharing the same goals and aspriations.

Its often said in this country (by idiots imo) that by joining the euro and fully embracing the EU, Britain becomes less British. But Britain itself is a union of Scotland England Wales and Northern Ireland. Does it make the French any less French for belonging to the EU? or the Germans? or the Scots (who are much more in favour - the auld alliance?- of things European than the englsih). People have a fundamental misunderstanding about the EU. The idea of one big European superstate was never feasible, if it ever existed.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote

Quote:

For one thing, the Europeans have no common bond of throwing off foreign "misrule". (Except perhaps that of George 2, as Walter points out)

Quote:

Mr Cook told the BBC he believed Mr Blair had been driven to war by "missionary zeal" and the desire to show loyalty to US President George Bush.

Quotation from: Blair 'must admit WMD defeat' :wink:

(loyal: faithful in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or government)

0 Replies

Steve,

There are many differences between the circumstances surrounding the union of the American states following the revolutionary war and the current events associated with the formation and enlargement of the EU. You have touched on some of them. However, it remains noteworthy that the EU is today stuck on precisely the same issue that plagued the American leaders of circa 1780 in their struggles to create the constitution for a durable union. What will be the limits of the powers of the new central government ?, and how will a correct balance be struck between the interests of the large, populous states and the smaller ones ?

We found a solution in a bicameral legislature and a limited executive power. It has been fairly successful, though I don't think anyone would claim it is the last word in such things. So far the European nations have not yet found their solution. The process is evolutionary, and it is far too early to predict failure for them. My opinion is that the present structure of the European Commission more or less precludes a satisfactory compromise on the matter and that eventually some structural change must be found. (That, however, may force an uncomfortable reexamination of the question of independent executive authority for the EU.). I also believe that there is less common experience to bind the nations of Eastern and Western Europe than existed in the admittedly simpler situation in North America in 1776 - 1789. That, plus the more highly differentiated nationalities and cultures of European nations to which you referred, all makes the chore a good deal more difficult.

I also believe the most serious issues in this process have only just begun to be faced. The unifying effects of the Cold War have ended. To some degree they have been replaced by a desire for some alternative to the United States - an idea which you expressed clearly in a post above. I don't believe that is a healthy or even sufficient motivation to unite states as disparate as Portugal and Estonia to the Franco German (UK??) "core", now being touted.

I also believe the example of Bosnia provides a disquieting example of the inability of a "united" Europe to live up to the elevated rhetoric with which it surrounds itself, any more than does the United States, which it so willingly and frequently criticizes.

You referred to "U.S. meddling". In what? European affairs? Bosnia? Perhaps you meant the Middle East and other remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Who created that mess?

0 Replies

Walter

I've often expressed the view that something momentous and still largely secret must have happened when Churchill met Roosevelt during WW2 on board the Prince of Wales in 1941.

It's only my speculation but I can't help feeling that it was agreed that if the USA came into the war to defeat Hitler then Britain would finally hand over the torch of global imperialism.

That is, the price Britain would pay for American support was withdrawal from Empire, (except for the bits useful as military bases) and an acknowledgement that the foreign policy of the two countries would be harmonised. Certainly the intelligence communities worked hand in glove ever since.

We have not, in my opinion, been a truly independent sovereign nation since then. We have our own domestic policy of course. The Americans would never be so crass as to tell us we could not have the National Health Service, or nationalise industries as we did in the 1940/50 (although some of them thought it was tantamount to communism), but when push comes to shove in the international sphere, you can't get a cigarette paper between the policies of the two countries.

Except once. Vietnam. Harold Wilson refused to send British troops. And in 1976 he suddenly resigned taking everyone by surprise amongst dark rumours that he might have been a communist agent.

Legally we are a sovereign nation. We like to think of ourselves as a sovereign nation. But the reality, and the track record would suggest otherwise.

George - back later

0 Replies

Well by 1941 the United States had already experienced one unhappy attempt at intervention in European rivalries. The process at Versailles in 1918-1920 left a very bad impression in American political circles, leading to a period iof 'isolationism' here.

Are you sugesting that Britain could have practically held on to her empire after WWII by any tolerable means? I din't think it would have been possible, even had the United States been willing to see it.

The historical record is fairly clear that Roosevelt did, as you say, want to see the end of empires, but also that Churchil worked hard to preserve Britain's. Overall I believe Britain behaved in a just and fairly reasionable manner in disposing of her empire after the war - certainly they proceeded with far more intelligence and realism than did the French. I doubt they had the means and ability to do more, with or without our support.

As for deals struck in the waters off Newfoundland in 1941 - you could always have opted to follow the path taken by the French. Would that have been better for anyone? It seems to me that the United States aided Britain then in a more unselfish manner than most such examples in history.

It is certainly true that between WWI and WWII the European powers wasted untold treasure and political power, setting the stage for subsequent American domination. However, it seems very wrong-headed to blame us for that.

0 Replies

steve wrote : "The Americans would never be so crass as to tell us we could not have the National Health Service". well, let's hope it stays that way. american businesses have lobbied VERY HEAVILY (probably with u.s. government support) under the NAFTA agreement to allow u.s. companies to have a piece of the canadian health business. some companies expressed quite forcefully that they do not like the idea of a "nationalized " health service - 'cause it's a little difficult for private companies to make money on it. however, all is not lost ! since there are plenty of health-services outside the "national" health-service, private companies are involved in auxiliary medical services, such as medical clinics (testing services). there is also the "bone of contention" of having "controlled" drug prices in canada. the u.s. drug companies are battling hard to have those controls removed. on the other hand i have noted with interest that quite a few seniors come from the u.s. to canada (often on organized bustrips) to buy drugs at a lower price in canada; in addition some u.s. state-governments want to start to buy and import canadian drugs wholesale for members of their state medical insurance plans. of course canadians do a fair bit of shopping in the u.s. also; so it should come out about even, i would think. ... i remember that two years ago when we travelled around the baltic sea, that we were told that the norwegians did quite a bit of shopping in sweden, and the swedes did quite a bit of shopping in denmark to take advantage of lower prices - i didn't ask were the danes shopped. hbg

0 Replies

hbg, That's all part of comparative advantage. There are many things in other countries that are produced or sold at better prices than at home. I don't see how any government would want to stop that free-flow of commerce.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

steve wrote : "The Americans would never be so crass as to tell us we could not have the National Health Service". well, let's hope it stays that way. american businesses have lobbied VERY HEAVILY (probably with u.s. government support) under the NAFTA agreement to allow u.s. companies to have a piece of the canadian health business. some companies expressed quite forcefully that they do not like the idea of a "nationalized " health service - 'cause it's a little difficult for private companies to make money on it. however, all is not lost ! since there are plenty of health-services outside the "national" health-service, private companies are involved in auxiliary medical services, such as medical clinics (testing services). there is also the "bone of contention" of having "controlled" drug prices in canada. the u.s. drug companies are battling hard to have those controls removed. on the other hand i have noted with interest that quite a few seniors come from the u.s. to canada (often on organized bustrips) to buy drugs at a lower price in canada; in addition some u.s. state-governments want to start to buy and import canadian drugs wholesale for members of their state medical insurance plans. of course canadians do a fair bit of shopping in the u.s. also; so it should come out about even, i would think. ... i remember that two years ago when we travelled around the baltic sea, that we were told that the norwegians did quite a bit of shopping in sweden, and the swedes did quite a bit of shopping in denmark to take advantage of lower prices - i didn't ask were the danes shopped. hbg

That kind of worry - re things like health services, and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme that makes important drugs cheaper for Australians - worries a lot of us re free trade agreements with the US. We soooo do not want a system like the US has!

0 Replies

Not only does many of our alies not want to have our health and drug "benefits," but also our form of decocracy!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not only does many of our alies not want to have our health and drug "benefits," but also our form of decocracy!

What exactly do you mean, c.i., by

"our form of decocracy"

... and which countries would you call

"many of our allies"

for this? (Especially, since the thread is titled "Following the European Union")

0 Replies

Our form of democracy where "security" preempts our civil rights. Where our government holds people from other countries and in the US as "terrorists" at gitmo without human rights to legal counsel or communication with family and friends. To force democracy on Iraq by choosing their leadersihp. To preemptively start war with a country that pose no threats to the American People. Our allies that includes the people of Europe, Asia, and the middle east - actually the whole world - who sees America as a imperialist country.

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know