Michael Folkesson
Banned
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 0
I haven't seen this topic before, and even though it is an old thread, I think it is thought provoking and as such an inspiring subject for discussion.
Addressing the OP, I think that this is not the purpose of the European Union, as it is built on basic values and principles in direct conflict with such an idea. Keeping in mind the influence by the First nations and non-European people immigrants and slaves, it is somewhat a viable thought, as the American nations are founded by Europeans making it an extension of our European culture and peoples. The same goes for great many colonies, Oceania non the least. From that point of view, most of the world might be considered becoming members of the EU. We have left a rather large and often brutal civilizational footprint lingering globally.
But - without going into the founding and enlargement principles of the EU - one might wonder why non-European nations like the US and Canada would benefit. FTAs and other trade agreements as well as political agreements can be met without submitting North America under European law and government. I think it would be a rare thing to find people who would support such a development on either side of the pond.
As previously brushed by Strettger, the world is slowly both dividing and coming together in the simplexity and formation of Civilization States. This tender path of the European Union that was treaded 60 years ago has developed so very carefully and in it's own time constantly under the sword of Damocles and against the horns of antagonism, rivalry and vile and misguided nationalism. Were there any such development to be made for the US, it would presumably be with it's neighbor states and major cultural and economical partners, forming a North American Union. Considering that the whole of North America is made up of only three countries does set it apart from the other large continents of the world, making them already large unions and economies. The position of the US globally and it's strong identity and nationalism, I am not sure that would be realistic to hope for a North American Union in the foreseeable future. Even though things change in the system of the world, the US is and will be the big dog of the pack for quite some time. It doesn't seem as if there are any real incentives for that to happen. So far and in future expectations.
That said, I still agree that there is cause and room for flexibility regarding any geographic criteria for what is to be seen as a European nation and much welcome any challenge and discussion as to the outer borders of Union enlargement. I think that we can consider several levels of Europe. The geographic boundaries, European cultures and peoples, and what is in the "European Sphere". What to include in the criteria for future membership is a fundamental part of defining of what the Union is and will become.
I think that we must also recognize and appreciate that the enlargement of the Union is the greatest foreign policy tool of democracy, peace and stability we have; more powerful and effective than any other international policy seen to date globally. Bearing that in mind, it would not be uncalled for to consider the Mahgreb as well as part of the Mashriq becoming integrated and possibly members. Even though unlikely, it would be very beneficial and make sense from a European perspective - non the least considering the ancient common historical as well as cultural legacy we share with these regions; Maghreb maybe the most.
But that is the European Sphere, and it is unlikely that these countries will become future members; they are simply not European nations. The non-European Mediterranean countries will without a doubt continue to co-operate in the ENP and the Union for the Mediterranean.
But these countries might integrate on a deeper level with their neighbors in the principles of the EU forming a Union of their own - be it a part of the AU, an Arab Union or otherwise. Hopefully we might see an Arab Union springing from the Arab League - as of the Yemenite proposal - maybe based on the institutions of the GCC.
But then again - in the perspective of European cultures and peoples - with the precedent of Cypriot membership it is not unlikely the Cape Verde islands might find sufficient support for membership, being the only part of Macaronesia outside the EU. Armenia is perceived as a European nation even though outside of the perceived border of the continent. There are exceptions and there often are.
But a North American membership into the EU is just not realistic. It might have been if the EU was about building a modern empire, a global house of power reasserting Western dominance of the world. But if that is the perception of the European project, I think that one lacks understanding of the idea and the principles of the Union, why the EU is something new and different in history, and why the success of our project is of great importance for more than us Europeans.
Addressing the OP, I think that this is not the purpose of the European Union, as it is built on basic values and principles in direct conflict with such an idea. Keeping in mind the influence by the First nations and non-European people immigrants and slaves, it is somewhat a viable thought, as the American nations are founded by Europeans making it an extension of our European culture and peoples. The same goes for great many colonies, Oceania non the least. From that point of view, most of the world might be considered becoming members of the EU. We have left a rather large and often brutal civilizational footprint lingering globally.
But - without going into the founding and enlargement principles of the EU - one might wonder why non-European nations like the US and Canada would benefit. FTAs and other trade agreements as well as political agreements can be met without submitting North America under European law and government. I think it would be a rare thing to find people who would support such a development on either side of the pond.
As previously brushed by Strettger, the world is slowly both dividing and coming together in the simplexity and formation of Civilization States. This tender path of the European Union that was treaded 60 years ago has developed so very carefully and in it's own time constantly under the sword of Damocles and against the horns of antagonism, rivalry and vile and misguided nationalism. Were there any such development to be made for the US, it would presumably be with it's neighbor states and major cultural and economical partners, forming a North American Union. Considering that the whole of North America is made up of only three countries does set it apart from the other large continents of the world, making them already large unions and economies. The position of the US globally and it's strong identity and nationalism, I am not sure that would be realistic to hope for a North American Union in the foreseeable future. Even though things change in the system of the world, the US is and will be the big dog of the pack for quite some time. It doesn't seem as if there are any real incentives for that to happen. So far and in future expectations.
That said, I still agree that there is cause and room for flexibility regarding any geographic criteria for what is to be seen as a European nation and much welcome any challenge and discussion as to the outer borders of Union enlargement. I think that we can consider several levels of Europe. The geographic boundaries, European cultures and peoples, and what is in the "European Sphere". What to include in the criteria for future membership is a fundamental part of defining of what the Union is and will become.
I think that we must also recognize and appreciate that the enlargement of the Union is the greatest foreign policy tool of democracy, peace and stability we have; more powerful and effective than any other international policy seen to date globally. Bearing that in mind, it would not be uncalled for to consider the Mahgreb as well as part of the Mashriq becoming integrated and possibly members. Even though unlikely, it would be very beneficial and make sense from a European perspective - non the least considering the ancient common historical as well as cultural legacy we share with these regions; Maghreb maybe the most.
But that is the European Sphere, and it is unlikely that these countries will become future members; they are simply not European nations. The non-European Mediterranean countries will without a doubt continue to co-operate in the ENP and the Union for the Mediterranean.
But these countries might integrate on a deeper level with their neighbors in the principles of the EU forming a Union of their own - be it a part of the AU, an Arab Union or otherwise. Hopefully we might see an Arab Union springing from the Arab League - as of the Yemenite proposal - maybe based on the institutions of the GCC.
But then again - in the perspective of European cultures and peoples - with the precedent of Cypriot membership it is not unlikely the Cape Verde islands might find sufficient support for membership, being the only part of Macaronesia outside the EU. Armenia is perceived as a European nation even though outside of the perceived border of the continent. There are exceptions and there often are.
But a North American membership into the EU is just not realistic. It might have been if the EU was about building a modern empire, a global house of power reasserting Western dominance of the world. But if that is the perception of the European project, I think that one lacks understanding of the idea and the principles of the Union, why the EU is something new and different in history, and why the success of our project is of great importance for more than us Europeans.
. 
