One of the arguments against the EU is that it does not give individual countries enough control over fiscal and monetary policy. Each country's conditions differ, with individual measures needed.

France is currently running afoul of the 3% cap on defecit spending.
EU Rejects French Budget Leniency Bid, Warns of Fines

They say that cutting taxes AND defecit spending are necessary right now to come out of the current recession.


The EU seems determined not to give individual members the ability to control there own economic situations.

Do you think this "central planning" of the European economy will eventually lead to its downfall? Is there an upside to such an approach?

No I don't. Because, I believe; that most pro EU citizens of Europe accept that central authority and control is the whole point of the Union. Or to put it another way; the EU must become a single solid Union state if it is ever to be a convincing rival to the USA.

There are many powerful Europeans and they want their old global position back... and many others who are prepared to follow them, picking up the crumbs.

The USA is the only reason why the EU is happening, and as long as the USA remains a commercial and economic threat to Europe, then the EU will survive.

Each country lost a bit of sovranty when the EU was formed. I was against it then and I am against it now.

I think they have more power than they should. I certainly wouldn't want a North American Gov't telling the US how to spend or not spend their money. hogwash.

30 years from now, I predict there will be no more France, Britain or Italy. But only the EU.

--cheers

On a side note, it looks as though Chirac's and Bush's idea of getting out of the recession are the same

Digital Patriot



Why?



They will continue to exist in the same manner that American states exist within the American Union.

You are not the first American I have seen, express an opinion against the EU like this. Why do you feel that?
If America is as good as you all seem to think, then why should other nations not seek to repeat the success?

Without rancour, I must confess, that your stated opposition, appears to be because you do not wish to share the power which America currently enjoys... is this so?

Yes it will. This is what i feared the most about the EU. Is that it will become a state in which individual states cannot operate without the permission of a higher authority.

Soviet Union all over again

The individual contries will want to control themselves. They don't want some guy who runs the whole EU to tell them what to do. This is how the United States entered our civil war over slavery. The southren states wanted slavery, the U.S. Government said no & that they must allow freedoms for slaves, and it all went to hell from there. Therefore, this might cause a HUGE civil war in Europe.

The EU, although it seems like a good idea will eventually rob all of the individual nations of their sovereignty. If the EU could exist in the same sense as the UN, it would be fine. However, when it begins to act as one body, controlling it's individual states by one central government, these nations begin to lose a lot of their national identity (they have already lost their individual currencies). I am not upset because of this "sharing of power with America", however I am upset that the Union might cause these nations to lose their national identity and become nothing more than the EU.

As TLW pointed out, the individual countries will loose much of their national sovereignty and heritage.

There is a vast difference between the states when they were absorbed then, and the countries the EU is absorbing now.

Take Germany and France. Each speak their own language, have (had) their own currency, have their own culture, their own traditions, their own cuisine etc etc. The more the EU takes power, the more of that individuality will be lost.




Correct. But at a great price, with less power than they enjoy now. It will be a sad day when an entire country is nothing more than one of our states is now.



As someone else already pointed out, it SOUNDS like a good idea. But I think the implementation is poor. The EU will gobble up more power than I think they should have, or that I would want them to have if I lived in Europe.



Appears? No, that is your own assumption. Competition is a good thing, and I welcome it coming from anywhere. In fact, it can be very beneficial.

Example: Toyota makes a better car than many American mfg'ers. I believe many American companies intentionally make faulty equipment to earn more money on the repairs and maintainance. When American people start buying more foreign vehicles because of their reliability, it will be a wake-up call for American companies to make better products.

--cheers

TLW

Many Europeans feel the same as you do, but an awful lot of people over here already regard our individual cultures as fading before the onslaught of an American led global culture.

In France they have tried to protect their language, but they are failing, whilst here in Denmark, American words and expressions (but not English) are steadily replacing the old Danish ones. Today, Danish children even swear in American, something which did not happen back in the eighties.

So, the loss of national identity is already happening... and its happening fast.

Moif,

I was living in Spain during the making of the EU, I wasnt too hot on the idea for a few reasons.

Here in the states we know how expensive and useless a centralized government can become, basically serving their own interests and little else. In the EU you have countries with very varying value systems and economies, I couldnt see how a central government could represent all of of them efficiently or in a timely way. ( Imagine Germans and Italians trying to work together to accomplish something that suits them both) We have similar problems with all the varying interests in the US and making fair laws for everyone.

Another thing I really didnt like was that the lower Meditterranean countries, mainly Spain, Greece and Canary Is. were selling off their patrimony in the form of all their best beaches and fine land to the german hoards of rich developers who turned them into giant resorts.(ruined them) Many of these farmers had never seen a million Mark and easily sold off their land, effectively turning their children and grand children into waitors to tourists with no inheritance.
( Cash never lasts long) The impact on the land and water sources was enourmous, besides the filth poured into the ocean. It was a disaster and ugly.

It seemed to me at the time that the EU was really going to benefit the rich northern countries while turning the poorer ( but the ones with the sunny Med ) into slaves, buying up their land and making them dependant.
Of course I havent been back to Europe in years and dont know how its all going. My neighbor tells me Spain is in ashambles with alot of crime never seen before.

In other words, it will be like the Soviet Union like i said

Go America, I think that point of view is apples and oranges. The central government in the EU does not dictate but manages EU affairs, and EU contires are not subjected to singular doctrine nor a Federal Police force. They are all democratic and retain soverienty over most of their own affairs. I think your assumption they will be like the Soviet Union is an exageration.

GA



And so who are the communists?

I think what Goamerican is getting at is the remarkable similarities between the European union and its emerging identify with the old Soviet Union. Both had a ideological project which purported to transcend traditional national cultures and nationalities and instead create a new European (or Communist/Soviet) mass consciousness.
Both were ruled and directed (or plan to be) by a bureaucratic elite of Eurocrats or Communists who have their own privileged status as a new political class. The old soviet elite enjoyed tax benefits, chauffeured cars, free flats, special food, medicine, health-system etc. The same system runs in Brussels.
Both attract the two different kinds of peoples. The Soviet Union had its Communist believers who fanatically believed that they were working towards Communism. Similarly, the idealistic European ideologues in Brussels genuinely believe that they are working towards a European superpower in the 21st century. At the same time, the power structure of the USSR and the emerging United Europe attracts the pragmatic and technocratic cream which mouth the European slogans but are really in it for power, privilege and status. (Not that theirs anything wrong in wanting that).
Both the USSR and Europe see the United States as a economic and geopolitical threat rather than a strategic partner. The development of a European identify is based on challenging the extremes of American unilaterism and hyperpowerdom. Similarly the USSR and for many within Putins Russia the same, the USA remains the main obstacle to their geopolitical ambitions.
Personally I support the European Project and hope to be part of it, and we do now live in a post-democratic age since the multitude of the masses have literally given up on participating in national democracies. The only way to avoid socio-economic disaster and the extreme right threat is to develop supranational technocratic elites which avoids the populist dangers of the masses. Of course, the illusion of European democracy needs to continue, but the reality of political power must be through cosmopolitan, intelligent and tolerant European political class.

Is this sarcasm? The eyeroll seems to indicate it, but it IS written like communist propaganda...

The analysis is very good. The conclusion doesn't seem to follow, however.

Amlord, the interpretation is in the eyes of the beholder...

Yes Yes Yes Give that boy a cigar. Thank You Thomas. You've made my point more clearly. Mine was a bunch a gibberish to me

Actually we do have a central government that is increasingly usurping the powers of the individual states.

In order to hold the Euro stable there has to be a level of central control on monetary and fiscal policies of the individual nations.

Well Thomas, You may believe democracy is dead (and given T Blair's opinions on he matter, I don't blame you), but no one in Scandinavia will agree with you.

If the EU does degenerate into another Soviet Union, then I know of several nations up here ontop of the globe that will be leaving pretty quick!

I do not agree with your analysis at all.

Mostly because I see no evidence of any great ideological movement. Sure a few technocrats in Brussels might be riding the gravy train... but there's still a very long step between them and the former Soviet elite.

The people of Europe (outside Italy) hold the power. If you don't believe that, then its too bad. But I'd like to see just where your evidence for your claims is...

Moif, the EU is far from becoming as powerful as the Soviet Superstate, but its getting there.

Its undemocratic or enlightened elitist nature can be shown here:

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main..../ixnewstop.html

The EU makes it almost impossible to withdraw, so if Scandinavia don’t like it, tough luck.

“Radek Khol is an analyst at the Czech Institute of International Relations. He agrees with Vahl that there are no current legal mechanisms to allow members to leave the EU. "Within the current treaty on the European Union, [leaving the EU] would be effectively impossible. Nevertheless, the new constitutional treaty, which is prepared by the Convention on the Future of Europe, is already putting such a clause into the relevant chapters [of the text]," Khol said.
The preliminary draft of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is currently under discussion by the Convention on the Future of Europe. Article 46 of the treaty discusses the procedures and consequences of voluntary withdrawal from the EU by the decision of a member state.”

Furthermore, “Article 46 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states. In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions.”

Moif, as power concentrates in Brussels the expansion of the European political class will mushroom, including more and more lobbyists, consultants and administrators of European-wide labour unions, corporations etc

The EU as developed incrementally, so different agencies jostle with each other for greater administrative power. For example the phrase in the new Constitution, The EU will have the power to "co-ordinate the economic policies of the member states" and "define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy".
Who knows how these vague phrases will translate into reality, but the history of the Eurocrats so far shows that they are extremely clever in creating political facts on the ground so to speak. The trend is clear, Brussels is the future, the apex of political power in the European Civilisation.

Notice the similarities between the Soviet nonemklaturiat and the new European class:

http://www.bullen.demon.co.uk/eurofc.htm

Exclusive schooling
Elite health-care

“Brussels has hundreds of eateries and some of the finest restaurants in Europe. Nevertheless, MEPs and their staff have four restaurants and three bars - not to mention three banks, a post office, and a travel agency. If they want to work out, there's a fitness center, a squash court and saunas. If their brains gete stressed by making rules, there's even a meditation room.”

The old USSR had special-access restaurants etc

Guaranteed pension and job for life.

Good positive article on the Eurocrats: http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/label_fran...sidence/04.html

People moan about the Euocrats privileges, but they never understand the responsibilities that go with public duty to the European people. They deserve their perks!

The European people Moif have accepted everything so far with the Project. The people have no choice but to go along for their own benefit. I foresee that the next generation will be the first generation to b genuinely European. The great challenge for Brussels to make people, particularly young people, patriotic and European.
If the xenophobic elements of the masses eventually wake up to the fact that sovereignty and power has been transferred to Brussels, it will be too late. Anyway by than there will be a European Army and hopefully a European Interior Ministry.

The EU has made efforts to combat xenophobia:

“Legislation now before Parliament will make "xenophobia and racism" one of 32 crimes for which the European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable offence must also be a crime in the UK.
Alongside the arrest warrant, EU ministers are negotiating a new directive to establish a common set of offences to criminalise xenophobia and racism.”
Xenophobia in my opinion should also include, once the political situation is ready for it, arrest for Anti-Europeans. People who expose anti-European xenophobia shouldn’t be allowed any civil rights.

It seems that a de facto European Interior Ministry is being developed, see this link, click "save target as" on your right mouse button on the third link down.
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/ukie?p=E...or+Ministry&y=y

Wow, arresting people for xenophobia. That is chilling. It could easily be used to squash anti-EU sentiments.

I wasn't surprised to learn that no mechanism for leaving the EU is currently in place. It is (in my opinion) one of the weaknesses of our Constitution. When the Federal government becomes dictatorial, individual states MUST have a recourse. If they don't, nothing can stop the central state from bullying individual states (or countries in the case of the EU).

Very informative Thomas.

Er... Thomas. There is a simple way for a nation to leave the EU today. They simply hold a referendum by their own national laws, and if the vote goes in favour of leaving then they have left.

Its as simple as that.

Its because it so simple that the new DRAFT constitution attempted to smuggle in the two thirds opt out rule.

But that rule, along with the rest of the constitution has yet to be ratified by a single member state, so your claim that The EU makes it almost impossible to withdraw, so if Scandinavia don’t like it, tough luck is invalid, since there is no legal way that the EU could hold onto Denmark until Denmark (and all the other EU nations) has accepted the the EU constitution.


From your first quote article, I read this;


This is simply not true. The EU did not 'brush aside' a No vote in Denmark. Instead they offered a better deal which was accepted. Its no good for the Telegraph to start crying about it, its simple democracy, a choice was there and we said no. A second choice was offered and we said yes. If the EU is so undemocratic as your article claims, then why does Denmark not have the Euro? Why has the all powerfull EU not just 'brushed aside' the Kroner?

...and why was Norway (The then richest nation in Europe) even allowed to vote no to EU membership?


The fact is, the EU is based on the USA. It is an attempt to create a federal union of states, and it has nothing what so ever in common with the former USSR.




And are you trying to tell me that Lobbyists, Consultants, Administrators of Labour Unions and Corporations do not exist in the USA but only did in the former Soviet Union?? That the existence of these institutions (which all already exist in every democratic nation on the planet) some how justify the claim that the EU is the new USSR???




No I don't. Your point rests on the fact that the old Politburo members lived in a luxurious isolation from the rest of the population, but fails to address the giant fact that the USSR was well established by the time the corruption set in. That the MEP's are elected officials, and can be removed by democratic process, and most important of all, that the EU is still being built, so a lot of errors are bound to happen along the way, especially ina place as corrupt as Europe is.

And anyway, all of your examples are already known in the public arena, and are being discussed freely... something which certainly could not happen in the USSR.




No choice??? Again I refer you to the example of Norway.




Sorry, but I don't have acrobat reader any more. I dumped it affer it downloaded a virus onto my computer.

All right Moif, at the moment, there is still a way to withdraw from the European Union. The fact that the Eurocrats have devised such a complicated procedure for the draft Constitution shows that in the future, it the article is accepted, than it will be impossible for nations to withdraw.

Considering that the debate was focused on the comparisons on the old Soviet Union and the present EU, I didn’t feel it was necessary to show that the coming Federal Europe is partially modelled on the USA. However, it is silly to suggest that the evolution of the European Union is similar to the evolution of the United States. The driving force behind the reality of growing power to the supranational bodies and institutions have been the Franco-German axis and the Eurocrats (e.g. the Commission). It is by its nature undemocratic, since the driving force is the political elites.

According to one MEP:

“The experience of the last four years has shown me quite clearly just what a sham of democracy the European Parliament really is. It is really just a rubber-stamping agency for the Commission.”

You refuse to talk about the planned criminalisation of “xenophobia” or the planned ban on anti-European parties. Personally, I am not opposed to these measures, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that the EU remains a purely democratic experiment.

The most potent symbol and reality of the coming European Superstate is the new European Central Bank. This transfer of economic sovereignty to the European level inevitably leads to the transfer of political sovereignty (e.g. European government).

Good article on the EMU: http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/ind...article=101#ecb

Notice the secretive and undemocratic nature of the bank. Only the wilfully ignorant refuse to accept that the European Union will be a illusionary democracy with the real power in enlightened elitists.

To show the remarkable similarities between the old Soviet Union and the present evolution of Europe, you must read this article. Altiero Spinelli a revolutionary Communist was one of the greatest founders of the European Project.

http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/ind...ive?article=104

In case you don’t believe me, here is a pro-EU site on the founders of the EU. Spinelli is there.

http://international.tamu.edu/eucenter/lesson6.htm

“SUMMARY: Students will conduct research on the founding fathers of the European Union and share their research through computer-aided presentations. Students may be paired or work in groups for this project.
Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967)
Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Alcide de Gasperi (1881-1954)
Walter Hallstein (1901-1982)
Jean Monnet (1888-1979)
Robert Schuman (1886-1963)
Paul Henri Spaak (1899-1972)
Altiero Spinelli (1907-1986)”

Moreover, neo-communists in Eastern Europe are enthusiastic supporters of the European Union. No coincidence there.



The European Commissioners live in luxurious isolation from the rest of the population! Sovietology is everywhere! The inner circle in the Convention are the Presidium (the Soviet politburo during certain periods was called the presidium). The name Commissioners is similar to the old thirties Soviet title of Commissar. The planned Congress for the Peoples of Europe is almost exactly like the former Soviet the Congress of People's Deputies.

In fact, the analogy can go further. The European Parliament is similar to the rubberstamping Supreme Soviet. The European Council is like the Soviet Council of Ministers. The Commission will be like the politburo. Of course, to an extent this is superficial, but to most objective observers, clearly there are historical parallels.
The MEP’s are democratically elected, but almost nobody knows who his or her MEP is. Th turnout is appalling (at least in Britain) and many join to get on the Gravy Train.

“Most MEPs earn considerably less than EU officials (they are paid the same as members of their own national parliaments) yet they can, and do, claim lavish expenses. With monthly allowances for office staff and "other costs" running at up to $9,400 a month, many MEPs employ wives or other relatives to keep it all in the family.
In addition, the daily $230 allowance for attending debates and committee meetings is good pocket money, especially when you can sign the register on Friday morning, then take off for the airport and home, as a recent TV documentary caught some doing.
And then there are the travel reimbursements. In one recent investigation the EU Court of Auditors found that 69 percent of claims for reimbursement for airline travel were unwarranted. Rules now require MEPs to produce actual proof of travel - a boarding pass, or rail ticket. But since they still get paid a set rate for a set route, regardless of the actual costs incurred, members can simply take a cheaper travel option and pocket the difference.
Some MEPs have been getting as much as $290,000 a year in travel and office allowances - totally unacceptable, say reformers, who point to mounting public criticism.
"Sleaze in the European Parliament is rising to the level where it risks doing very seriious damage to the image of the institution," warned Dutch MEP Gijs de Vries recently in the European Voice. Adds Pauline Green, MEP for London North, "How can we concentrate on developing a shared vision of the future if the people of the EU have lost faith in us?"”

Of course Moif, its good that intelligent, well educated Europhiles like yourself believe that the European Project is fundamentally democratic. I really shouldn’t be talking about this, since its pointless and counterproductive. However, I don’t believe that the Project will ever be democratic, the system is already in place, the enlightened European elite are preparing to finally develop and administrate the European Superstate in the 21st century, to challenge America in the world power-stakes.

Long live the Eurocrats!

Thomas



Believe it or not Thomas, but I'm not a Europhile. I am neutral in regards to the EU. Some aspects of it I accept and even embrace. Others I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

I won't, for example be voting to ratify the EU draft constitution... for more or less the reason you quoted. It makes it too difficult for a member state to leave the Union. I don't believe that other nations should be allowed to veto the democratic vote of a member state. And I think by adding this clause, the EU risks inviting people to go to war to free themselves of the union.

Also, I don't trust the French. The Germans I have nothing against. They are more or less honest (about their EU aspirations at any rate). The French however, are a bunch of back stabbing ingrates who will do anything to safe guard their own perks whilst pulling the rug out from the rest of Europe.

My biggest problem with the EU is the fact that it IS dominated by the French and German (for want of a better word) axis, but I see the cause of this problem is Britain's hesitation to get their act together and take their rightfull place at the head of Europe. France's biggest triumph thus far has been to keep Britain at arms length, (and Margret Thatcher was nothing short of a gift from heaven for French aspirations!!)


Thank you for the links, I shall peruse them at leisure... alas, I am very busy and cannot take the time to answer your post in great detail.

Now, i've never seen an actual copy of the proposed EU constitution but i think i've seen an article about where it won't allow countries to leave after it is signed. That's very disturbing and so Soviet Union all over again



Ooo...got to agree with you there Mofie. Chirac's comments about the EU candidates who would lose their membership chances if they sided with America in the War on Iraq was disturbing and very undemocratic:

Chirac blasts EU Candidates

GA



They would be able to leave, but only if two thirds of the other EU nations voted to let them!

Oh. My bad

Still, that sounds unfair. A country should be able to leave without asking for permission from 2/3 of the group

yes, but when you try to make a system, say like an economic one, what is the point of it without stability or trust or that some nation could just leave. I listen to NPR, and i know what the u.k is dealing with in respects to joining the u.n somewhat, i can only hope they do it. Most nations major concerns with the eu is them giving up thier culture in many current aspects and those of the future, but they all realize, well most of them that the eu is created to combat the growth and power of nations like the u.s. These same concepts were of the talks between a conservitive and some other type of u.k politicians, and i guess is the rage behind the eu concept and struggles. Not only that but it made the euro, something i hope to get my hands on someday

And say if alaska did not want to be u.s but for canada, do you think that this would happen very easily if at all.

Yes it will. The EU is pretty much a socialist organization, countries want to do what is best for them, they don't need an overseeing body, it doesn't make any sense and will only slow the economic process in Europe.

CP

I am joining this thread now. Some interesting points have been made thus far.

Moif, I can only thank you for your cold-blooded presentation about the EU. It was neat and well-put. I don't have as much eloquence!

I didn't like your part about my people (French). We are definitely not the backstabbers you mentioned. That remains your opinion of course, but I had to tell you it's a bit disrespectful for my folks. I'd like to understand why you're thinking that way.

Thomas, the EU is not a clone of the USSR. I don't think that it's bound to become a clone of the US either. We're Europeans after all, so we're doing things the European way.

The US had the war of independance and the Secession war. The USSR had mass deportations, executions and gulag (more than 30 millions deaths in all). You see, no political system is perfect.

Our countries are very old. However, our union is so very young in comparison. I understand the critics of each of you about the European system. I agree that it's not perfect, but bear with us because we have to start somewhere.

My grandfather was part of the French Resistance. He was betrayed by an English double agent and deported to Dachau, where he spent two years. Think about the movie "Schindler's List" and it will give you an idea of the horror he went through. When he came back, his father was dead and his home and town (Dunkirk) were turned to ruins.

He forgave to the Germans. He forgave. He knew friendship between our peoples would achieve more than 6 years of destruction. I believe that the Fathers of the Union thought the same. And today, I still believe in this ideal.

Sorry to sway a little off topic, but I had to make you understand how I felt.

I never said that the EU would be a clone of the USSR, rather there were certain similarities between the two states. Theres nothing wrong with that, certain aspects of the USSR in my opinion were very good, the professionism of the Red Army, the emphasis of elitism and educating clever youngsters and the harsh but necessary means to keeping control of criminals.



Your not back-stabbers but you insist (like the British) that France should be at the heart of Europe rather than accepting your subordinate position within a German led Europe bloc. For example, the French still insist on using the French language, when it would be far more sence to use English.



I am certainly NOT a critic of the European political system! I think that the European Project is wonderful!

Thomas, in regard to what you wrote, I'd like to make my points a little clearer to you.

First, I know you didn't say the EU is a clone of the USSR. I just said it wasn't. I'd like to remind you that you were relating your earlier comments to a soviet-styled hierarchy, which does not apply to our system.

Second, it is quite normal for France to want to play a key part in Europe. Could you tell me why we shouldn't want that? As a European, I believe that each country has a part to play, within Europe and beyond. Look at our ties with Africa. Look at the strong relationships between England and the Commonwealth. Look at Spain and South America. Germany is the n°1 economical power and its location is perfect within a united Europe. I believe that each country which is part of the EU can bring a lot to the whole system. We still have so much to know about each other, so much to accomplish together. I am very optimistic about it.

I agree that some politicians will definitely try to get more influence and power through the might of the EU. This is only short-term policy for short term electoral and personal goals. We can't avoid that unfortunately.

Third, your comments about the 'sense of English' don't make sense to me. Why should we give up our national language? We are already learning two foreign languages at school (90% English in all cases), so why destroy our own? As you can see I can understand, read and write English. It is way sufficient to allow me to communicate with you. You certainly know that many Europeans already use English between themselves for trading and exchange. It has become the language of commerce throughout the world.

I'll tell you what makes sense Thomas. Every European should learn at least two other languages from other European countries. That would be a wonderful compliment to our neighbors and a great opportunity to learn and share with them.

What the French political elite find so difficult to understand is that they aren’t running Europe anymore. For example, President Chirac demanded that Kim Dusinberg, the head of the ECB resign after four years to be replaced by a Frenchmen. Now, everybody, I repeat everybody in Europe apart from the awkward French were happy with Kim staying for eight years, but the French almost derailed the whole Euro project because of their nationalist fantasies.

Its madness to continue to insist that French is an equal language to English in the chambers of Europe, face it, English is the international language and should be used for European discourse. This is not to say that French shouldn’t be taught, of course not, but we need to understand that Germany is going to lead the Europe bloc, and adapt to our subordinate position (both France and the UK).

Another example of French particularism, which restricts the growth of a United Europe, the agricultural subsidies where the French continue to refuse any meaningful reform. I’m sure there are many more, and France isn’t the only country to insist the national position over the European interest, but frankly your continued Gaullist pretensions are holding up the Project and angering the Germans.



Of course, but lets by realistic here. Germany is the economic behemoth of Europe, it is in the strategic position to dominate Eastern Europe, it is only natural for Germany to lead the European bloc and France will be in the subordinate position. Once everybody accepts German “first-among-equals” leadership of Europe, than the system can evolve successfully, with all nations benefiting.

I understand you don't lile the attitude of what you call the French elite. I don't like cocky behavior myself. I didn't like what Chirac said about some of the Eastern European countries who are about to join the EU. That was despicable.



Your concepts are interesting, but you are making things too plain and global. You just can't include all the French people in your stance, that makes no sense at all.



Do I hear the thumping sound of fascist boots? Your assumption is not founded, Thomas. You think it's madness. I don't. I don't see why my language, or German, or Hungarian, or Polish should be removed from the European chambers. I consider our countries as equals, because we are part of the same team. We have significant differences, but we remain the EU as a whole. What's the point in taking our languages away from the general body?



It's true that we have a problem with favoring euro policies before ours. The agriculture reform is not an easy one, because we actually harbor most of the farmers of Europe. Initating a reform will cause trouble. And politicians hate trouble... so they'll keep it at bay for as long as possible. That's the problem when you have both a national parliament and a supra national parliament.

Like I said before, the EU is a work in progress. Of course, many other things should be altered. For example, the EU gives a tremendous amount of money back to the UK each year. Some will say that this is the price to pay to have England as a part of the EU. I don't agree with that system, because it's extremely unfair for all the other members. Why does it remain that way? The UK is among the top 3 of Europe!

The Gaullist pretensions you are talking about don't exist anymore. DeGaulle vision cannot fit into the Europe of today. His vision was based on the mugnificence of France, throughout the ages. But only about France. Now, our leaders need to work together. France just can't impose the EU members to take its direction. It simply doesn't have the power for it. Nor has Britain, or Germany by the way.

France has had a growing vision about its role in the world, since the Enlightenment of the 18th century. France believes that its mission is to enlighten the rest of the world and bring a better life to all. This idea may sound outdated, but it's still active today through our diplomacy. Some French people believe that France should be the head of Europe, showing the way to all the other members. I think that it's wrong and dangerous. Personally, along with many other French citizens I'm sure, I believe that our vision is here to help and contribute to the whole European process. It's all about adaptation and respect.

Finally, Thomas, I'd like to point out that I'm not part of the French political elite. My views are just the ones of a simple citizen, just like you.

In practise some member-states will have more clout than others, France and Germany have always dominated the Project since it was founded fifty years ago. To suggest that Luxemburg has the same influence as Germany is frankly utopian. The reality is, and the French people and their political elite need to learn this, the Germans are going to lead Europe in the twenty first century, whether we like it or not.

In the ECB council, the French bankers still insist on speaking French which causes immense practible problems for the rest, who are prepared to speak Engish as the normal language. I'm not saying that the French shouldn't be allowed to speak their own language, in fact all Europeans should learn French, but in the day-to-day buisness in the European instiutions, does't it make sence to use English? Thats not being fascist, thats being realistic.



The rebate occured because the system leads to far more of Englands money going to the EU instead of getting back. Thatcher found it impossible to get the EU to reform and streamline the Commisions finances (there still is a huge amount of waste) so the British rebate is only fair.

Horyok, how do you see EUropean-American relations changing? Do you think that Europe will become a regional competitor against America? As a Frenchmen, how do your public see the EU in relation to the Americans (who hate you BTW)?

Dear Thomas,

Your way of putting things through is getting more and more radical. I don't like that. I know that you'll keep on responding and arguing about everything I have to say anyway. Since you seem to think I'm some kind of an utopist, I guess that my opinion doesn't matter much to you, O Realistic One.

Now, I'm going to answer your question. Europe is already a world competitor of the US. I will take two examples to show you how.

1. Boeing vs Airbus in the market of commercial planes
2. United States vs Germany and France about how to deal with Iraq

Remember that being competitors doesn't imply that we are to be enemies.

Finally, I can't answer your question in the name of all my people. I don't know the global opinion! Also, I really don't give a *4 letter word of your choice here* about the fact that some Americans hate us. I don't care either about French hating Americans.

Me and my American wife are happy as we are.

Thomas writes “frankly utopian” that’s funny, france and germany are related to the franks are they not?

Not all Americans hate the French, most Americans have something they hate, just like people in all corners of the flat world.

This is nothing new to me, the struggles the EU faces are mostly about making a more open europen nation, this will have its effects on all cultures that play will it not?

Economic power in the world can shift, say some time down the road and the African block is the monetary giant on this ball of rock will we all learn to speak the chosen language of those people with the money.

I feel the only real reason the EU came about is trying to find an economic way to deal with the u.s. The u.k has strong ties to the u.s I think, more so then most other European nations for various reasons, am I wrong here, I do like the debate between you two, and I am happy for your American wife horyok, I myself want to move to Canada, but that wont be for another five years.

Horyok - please don't turn this debate into a personal spat with Thomas. Let's all stick to debating the ISSUES, please.

I must apologise if I upset you; I just felt that Germany has greater economic and political clout than Luxemburg.



Sorry to call you utopian, I respect your opinions a lot.

You seem to be under the impression that I am opposed to you, you are greatly mistaken. I supported the French line during the war and is a great admirer of all things French. I find the boycott of French goods by American consumers sad and petty, and feel that the anti-French hatred grossly misunderstands the entirely honourable policy of the French government and people.

I have recently done much reading into pro-Europeans and the growth of the EU, and many leading pro-Europeans believe that it is only natural that Germany will lead the Europe bloc. This is not a scary thing, but a good thing since Germany is a progressive, liberal democracy. Of course, France and many other nations will have a vital role to play in the development of the United Europe but Germany being the economic powerhouse of Europe is naturally going to bb a decisive position.

I agree on your views on EU and America, I was only curious to know how the French attitude was. I’m not asking you to be the representative of the French people, but only to give your own perception of what the average French person thinks. Reading the anti-French thread, occupied by a number of leading “patriotic” US posters here, I was disturbed by the intensity of their contempt for the French government, and wondered what the French think.

If you don’t want to converse with me anymore fine but I enjoy discussing with you.

Thomas,

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views. Now they are much clearer to me. Thank you for respecting my opinions.

We'll keep on talking to each other, have no fear! I'll soon post a more detailed reply about your previous questions.




Jaime,

My response to Thomas was designed to keep sticking to the issues. I suppose we couldn't understand each other at some point and there was a need for an explanation. Now the gap between us is filled and the discussion goes on.

Digital Patriot as someone living in the United Kingdom, i would say the British people are getting more American, the reason i say this is, Germany, France and Spain have been sent packing when trying to take over this country, i feel that europe is scared of American and British power in the world, and if the UK joins the EU fully, it would only be America on her own.

i would say the British people would want to be an American state, then be part of Europe, we have more close ties with the US then we do Europe, and if we where part of Europe fully now, we wouldnt have been able to join America in Iraq. when i was in America last year my friends dad who was in the US army and in iraq in 91, said to me, most Americans would think an attack on the UK as an attack on there own country and stand side by side, to defeat who ever was responsible.

I still think the UK will be either an American state or independant in 10yrs time

You must be joking! The British people, post-Iraq have turned against America and formerly leftist views have become mainstream. Anti-americanism is increasingly mainstream, particuarly among the young.



I doubt that most ordinary Brits want to be part of the iraq mess.

Well during the international drama of Iraq, many Brits supported the French line and feel more European than quasi-American, to me you are part of a declining minority.

Everyone i know thought iraq was a good idea, media, made it out to be a whole wrong thing to do, everyone i work with and thats about 250-300 people thought iraq was a good idea, bare in mind they didnt poll the whole country, but both leaders got as much support in both countrys.

But i do stick with what is said, people here would want to aline them selfs with America, more than Europe.

It maybe a mess now, but its starting days, America took a long time to build, of course i dont want to compare they are both different, but rebuilding takes time, rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will Iraq.