Politics How has the EU changed Europe?

[Brooker]

What are some other reasons?

 

[Maciamo]

Here's a question... Do you think the E.U. was created in order to balance out the power of the U.S.? Or are the reasons seperate from that? Be honest.

No. The first reason for the formation of the EU was to avoid wars between the countries by promoting trade, then mutual understanding and cooperation between the countries. Unifying Europe is not a new idea. Charlemagne tried (at least France, Germany, the Benelux, Switerland, Catalonia and Northern Italy) in the 9th century, Charles V of Habsburg in the 16th century hoped to conquer France and England so that all Europe would be his, then Napoleon had the clear purpose to unify Europe and harmonise the laws, measure unit and create a common currency.

The US has had little to do with the EU until recently (especially since Bush came to power, as many Europeans feared that the US had gone to the "dark side of the force" and needed to be held in checks). In the aftermath of WWII, the US was seen very positively in many European countries, while now it isn't.

 

[Brooker]

Unifying Europe is not a new idea.

But it's never worked before because they tried to do it by conquering, not by cooperating. So, this is a very historic time.

as many Europeans feared that the US had gone to the "dark side of the force" and needed to be held in checks

That's what I'm saying. It's not motivated by a desire to cooperate with the U.S., but rather motivated by a desire to compete and oppose the U.S. (which may not necessarily be a bad thing unless things get out of hand).

I'm not trying to say that everything revolves around the U.S., and I'm sure there are reasons for the formation of the E.U. that have nothing to do with America, but it seems logical that Europe might want to band together as a reaction to the U.S. being the lone super power in the world and, with Bush in office, the U.S. isn't trusted to make wise decisions or decisions that much of Europe will approve of.

The thing that makes me the angriest about what Bush has done while in office is that he's been "The Great Divider," ruining America's relationships with so many former allies, and that makes the world a more dangerous place. The world is safer when countries get along and work together. As a diplomat, he's a complete failure.

Sorry about the Bush rant, this is supposed to be about Europe. I just haven't ranted about Bush in a while. The Dems have pretty much crawled into their caves waiting for the next four years to be over.

 

[Maciamo]

That's what I'm saying. It's not motivated by a desire to cooperate with the U.S., but rather motivated by a desire to compete and oppose the U.S. (which may not necessarily be a bad thing unless things get out of hand).

But the EU's origins are in the aftermath of WWII. The EEC was founded in 1957, when people didn't see the US as a competitor or evil power at all. Maybe the problem is that you see the EU as a new thing because of the recent introduction of the Euro. That is usually what people outside Europe can see as a unifying factor. How many people outside Europe know that the EU dates back to the 1950's, the EU Parliament was founded in 1979, and the EU citizenship and removal of the borders within the EU took place in 1992. The Euro was originally intended to replace national currencies in 1992 as well, but they got 10 years behind schedule. Anyway, most of the planning for the big project that the EU is took place when the relations with th US were at their best. The idea of the EU as a counterbalance to the US has only become popular in the last few years.

 

[Brooker]

Oh, well I guess it's just good timing then. So, the E.U. has been around since the 50's, but it's been growing in influence and now the countries share the same currencies?

 

[Duo]

I think that in a way the EU is today a natural evolution to counter weight the power of the US. As Maciamo stated the idea of a united europe is nothing new, we only need to go back to the early 19th century where Alexander the I of Russia was in favor of united europe and where even some french thinkers wanted a european parliament etc, and that the EU itself only got started in the 50's but after the fall of the USSR i would argue that on that moment there Europe and America split on their needs and desires for the future. For America it was a chance to establish dominance, whereas for Europe finally a chance to start something right. And as history has taught us one single power can't stay in power forever so the EU as it is developing now I would argue is the natural rival of the US in economics and political terms. Europe is mainly a socialist system of goverment, the majority of countries anwayys, whereas the US still remains highly capitalistic, furthermore there are deep rooted cultural differences that were overshadowed by the USSR and the US and Europe were forced to act only on the common values, but now with no enemy everything is begining to surface. Europe has become a very secular place whereas the US still remains highly religious. Natural differences like these are bound to give rise to the EU as the potential rival of the US. Although the EU initially may have not had that purpose it is certainly gaining it now. I think that we are living in a very interesting era here in Europe but I also have some reservations on how the EU will develop although I'm an optimistic person and I like to think that the the EU could be something very new and unique.

 

[Brooker]

I would argue is the natural rival of the US in economics and political terms.

At the moment I'd say the US is much more concearned politically and economically with China. Although America and Europe don't always agree, that relationship is much more stable than America's relationship with China.

People here were filling their pants when that American spy plane and Chinese fighter plane collided, killing the Chinese pilot, or the time America accidentally bombed a Chinese embassy. Everyone feared that the tensions might lead to war and America doesn't want a fight with China. It'd be like two heavyweights beating the crap out of each other, both sides would come out bloodied and bruised.

alexriversan wrote...

brooker, i do not know if you have been in europe. now, we have one currency, people can travel more easily between all european countries.

The last time I was in Europe was about a year before they made the change to using the Euro. Someone on the street even handed me a sample of what the bills would look like, which I still have.

 

[Meiki]

I don't really believe in the EU, they came up with the idea, because no single country in Europe can ever stand up against the US or some upcoming Asian superpowers. But even then, we lag 20 years behind the US.
Well, 'we' isn't a good word.
I just feel that each country has its own culture and history. I mean dutch people are different from spanish, italian from french. We are different.
We can form an economical union, that's it.
There are always the lesser countries in Europe.
Some have an own identity, some are more established.
There will never be an European cuisine. I love Italian food, not European.
Like there's french cuisine, and there was a famous american restaurant-critic who said about the dutch "yes, they cook, but it isn't cuisine".
I wouldn't want other people, countries to lift on my country's succes.
Yes, there are collaborations between countries in Europe, but we don't share the same cultural aspects.

 

[Duo]

That's crap. There is no such thing as a pure culture. Look at France, they were heavily influenced by the british ideas during the enlightment that led to the French revolution. Look at socialism, wouldn't you argue that most western european countries run on a socialist ideology? Yes of course every country has different things, but look at the states in the US, even though they are the same country, things are different like day and night in certain areas, east coast and west coast, north and south. Also, every country in Europe has its own history but it is closely related to that of the many other European countries. Both World Wars were most heavily fought in Europe, if that doesn't bring historical relations together i dont know can. The Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, all things that were common for most European countries. The middle ages, the renaissance, the industrial age, colonialism, imperialism, I mean what more do you want :lol: Population influx and emigration and whatever have you, european countries are related in many many ways; they are more similar than different. The idea of a united Europe is a very old one, so don't think that this is just some new development, is something that has been deeply intrinsic in the European sub-concious and we are slowly letting it surface. About other countries living off the work of your country, aren't you exagerating there? There are certain standards and requiremetns that countries have to meet in order to enter the EU, just so that they wont ride on the coat tail of the powerful countries. You think that France and Germany are stupid and want the less developed European countries living off their work ? Working together makes simple sense, united we can do way more than alone.

 

[Brooker]

Yes of course every country has different things, but look at the states in the US, even though they are the same country, things are different like day and night in certain areas, east coast and west coast, north and south. Also, every country in Europe has its own history but it is closely related to that of the many other European countries.

Various places in America aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty close. The main difference is varying political views. Countries in Europe are far more different from each other than American states are to each other.

Both World Wars were most heavily fought in Europe, if that doesn't bring historical relations together i dont know can.

This seems like a reason European countries would have trouble uniting.

Economically is one thing, but I do think Europe has some big hurdles to overcome if they're ever going to see themselves as one whole rather than many serperate units.

 

[Duo]

That's how it all starts. You are underestimating the power of economics. It drives everything, or so Marx would argue. The economical incentives are great drive for countries to join the EU and give up rights in order to be part of this Union. I'm not saying the EU will become a closely united federal organization, not yet at least, that may take as much as 100 years to happen, if at all. However, I see that the biggest hurdle that the EU had, uniting west and east, is now over and with Romania and Bulgaria suprisingly enough signing up to join up in 2007, the road is paved for the rest of the remaining countries. It seems that the EU has geared things up, in terms of membership anyways. I think that people are overexagerating these differences between nations in Europe. I've travelled enough through Europe to notice big similaraties especially amongst different regions of it. The Italian will closely relate to the Spaniard and southern french person, whereas the flemish in belgium can have close ties to the Dutch, the scandianavians amonsgst themselves and so forth, so is just a matter of realizing that the similarities in europe go further than just regionalism. The Italian and the Belgian both expect good public higher education, pensions, etc etc, they are used to a certain similar lifestyle even though their cultures are different, they share common things. Plus the cultural difference is a good thing, it provides more and more sides to the European facade. The chaotic south and the orderly north, things dont have all to be 100% the same. And even look at many projects like the Eurofighter, Airbus, the channel under la manche. Things like this will bring nations together because the ruling class will realize the benefits. The common man in France and Germany doesn't necessarily know how his country should behave, what direction to go into. He will listen to the ruling class, the politician and the bureaucrats, who have started to realize the benefits of being together. And furthermore, with the younger generations being born into this reality, a reality of Europe, the feeling of being a European citizen will consilidate itself more and more as the old makes way for the new citizens of Europe.

 

[Maciamo]

I don't really believe in the EU, they came up with the idea, because no single country in Europe can ever stand up against the US or some upcoming Asian superpowers. But even then, we lag 20 years behind the US.

Funny that we should hear this from someone who is not even ethnically European, but Chinese. You seem to have little knowledge about the origins of the EU. The concept of unifying Europe is much older than the feeling of counterbalancing the US. The US wasn't the first world power until the 1950's, when Britain and France lost their colonial empire. The idea of unifying Europe already existed 1200 years ago with Charlemagne, then 500 years ago with Charles V of Habsburg, then again 200 years ago with Napoleon. Napoleon did a lot to faciliate the unification, mostly by making every country he conquered ride/drive on the same side of the road (on the right), making everyone use the Metric system, giving all those countries the fundamental rights of the French Revolution (Human Rights, Civil Rights, etc.), reform and uniformise the institution, etc.

I just feel that each country has its own culture and history. I mean dutch people are different from spanish, italian from french.

Different of course. There has never been any talk of making the EU a single culture. That would be horrible, but anyway virtually impossible. The values of the EU is "unity and diversity", i.e. share the same fundamental values and rights, while preserving our cultural differences as a asset. Usually people who have lived in many European countries (like me) tend to be the most pro-EU, while the most Euro-skeptic usually don't know much about othe countries, or cannot see how similar European are compared to the rest of the world. Well, some Brits maybe cannot see that because they think that North Americans or Australians are closer as they share the same language - but not necessarily the same values, history and geography.

There will never be an European cuisine. I love Italian food, not European.

You visibly have no idea of what the EU is about. The EU's concept will never be to have a single European cuisine, but to be able to say that Italian pasta, French cuisine, Spanish tapas, German sausages, British Fish'n Chips, etc. are an integral part of European culture. It's like you were against the unification of Italy in 1860 because everybody would be forced to eat the same dish, and local specialities would disappear. Well, it didn't happen (e.g. pizza in Rome and Naples are noticeably different).

 

[Maciamo]

but look at the states in the US, even though they are the same country, things are different like day and night in certain areas, east coast and west coast, north and south

True, and the US is a new country with virtually no deep-rooted regional dialects, cuisine, habits, etc. These things are only starting to appear nowadays, as people develop their own regional culture within the US, albeit coming from different parts of the world and not being the least ethnically homogenous. That's why I am not afraid that Europe becomes a monolithic culture. There will never be a nation-wide habit of siesta in Sweden like in Spain or Italy.

 

[joel.lindgren]

I think that Scandinavia remains quite pure genetically

Swedish population: 9 million.
Number of people who aren't Swedish (biologically, say from another race or country): over 1 million.


Genetically pure? We've got a ton of jews who escaped from Germany, we also have alot of Finnish who fled to Sweden during the war with Russia. That was a couple of generations ago, and now we're up to well over 1 mill non-swedes, and that is not countring how many "original" Swedes who' s got bloodlines from other European countries, and there seems to be more people in Sweden with wallonian blood than without.

Just because we've got a little water between us an Germany doesn't mean were all white,tall, blond and all that crap.

 

[Maciamo]

Swedish population: 9 million.
Number of people who aren't Swedish (biologically, say from another race or country): over 1 million.

Genetically pure? We've got a ton of jews who escaped from Germany, we also have alot of Finnish who fled to Sweden during the war with Russia. That was a couple of generations ago, and now we're up to well over 1 mill non-swedes, and that is not countring how many "original" Swedes who' s got bloodlines from other European countries, and there seems to be more people in Sweden with wallonian blood than without.

People from other countries could be from the same race. Other Scandinavians, as well as Germans, Dutch or Belgians are ethnically Germanic, so the same race. To give you an example, I am from walloon descent, but every time I meet Swedish or Danish people they think I Scandinavian too from my looks. They often say that I look more Swedish than many Swedish (or more Danish than many Danish). If you can't tell people apart physically, consider them as part of the same ethnic group. I can immediately recognise people of Italian or Arabic descent in Belgium, but not those of German, Dutch or North French (=Frankish) descent.

Having a look at the statistics, I see that 329,000 of the 1 million "foreign-born Swedish" are from Finland, Norway, Denmark , Germany of the UK. I won't consider them as ethnically different. Add to this about 200,000 other Europeans, and that's only about 500,000 people really ethnically different (5.5% of the population).

 

[Brooker]

The concept of unifying Europe is much older than the feeling of counterbalancing the US.

The fact that the concept has been around for a long time is kind of irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's finally happening now and in much larger steps than ever before. If the idea has been around for so long, why now? I think things have changed in recent years to make such a change both possible and advantageous.

 

[joel.lindgren]

Maciamo: In sweden when we talk about immigrants, if you've lived in Sweden since birth or most of your life and are a Swedish citizen then you are Swedish. The Swedish-Finnish mostly came to Sweden like 50-60 years ago, and most of them now are 1 or 2 generations following that time, they are as much Swedish as I am and when saying "immigrants" they aren't counted in that statistics, neither are a chinese person who's parents moved here 30 years ago. And now when we're in the EU, people who move from within that union aren't immigrants either, most immigrants are from the arab world. (And I'm not saying that THAT'S why they're immigrants)


If your're talking about Non-swedes in Sweden (no matter what ethniticity), what I've read there's about 20% that aren't "pure" Swedish.
But then what is a Swede? Sweden isn't very pure in that way, We're far up north and the whole country was sort of founded on people moving up here from different places. It's not an old civilization that has been "ethno pure" since the beginning, maybe with the exception of the Viking days.

And furthermore I wrote saying "from another race or country", not that you have to be from another race to be non-Swedish. I don't see a black or asian person being less of a Swede than somebody white from another country, I've grown up with people from Korea, Bangladesh, Thailand etc. and they are as Swedish as I am.