The European Union

[Danny Ocean]

Well, my parents hate the EU, and all my knowledge of it comes from them (and a few others)

From what I know, The UK puts a lot into the EU for not much back.
OR
We're being bitchy and wanting things our own way. Then again, don't France and Germany do the same?
It's like playground gang wars.

Also, from what I heard from a marine friend of mine, the UK is responsible for the majority of the EU's military exploits, despite having one of the smallest armies. It seems like the founders (France and Germany) just want to use the EU as their military and economic arm or buffer to prevent harm to themselves.

Of course, I'm probably completely wrong, please correct me.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Question about the EU - how are the countries in the EU going to deal with more integration with each other when you consider the disparity of languages between each country?

I live in the UK, and speak English. Well... some English. It is a shameful fact that most English people (myself included) just assume that any Europeans we run into will speak our language. But even outside the UK... what language does a Frenchman moving to Germany speak? English is the most common second language, becoming an Esperanto of the world, but I am pretty sure this is being met with hostility in a lot of non-English speaking countries. This puts pretty effective barriers between each country in the EU.

Also, does the language issue, and indeed all integration issues, have the potential to break into cultural boundaries and possibly damage each nations inviduality?

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

Personally I believe the is EU fine. I only have one problem with them and that's their view on the death penalty. From what I gather they are ardently against it and members of it constantly push to have it banned at the United Nations (well them and Australia...but Australia is just following their lead). I personally disagree with it but I also very much disagree with them trying to push their beliefs onto other nations.

A question...how are relationships between the EU and European nations not part of the EU?

 

[Ken Korda]

Lets see now, there are a few questions, all of which are fairly complex so either this will be one epic post or I'll just answer one and then create a new post for the next. Either way I think I will fairly comprehensively break forum etiquette, for which I apologise. I feel I may have bitten off more than I chew with this thread but I'm not going to give up!

I'm also glad to meet somebody that could provide information for me. Do you know any details about the EU reformation contract or Lissabon contract or whatever they call it right now? (I'm also not exactly sure about the translation) There has been more or less a no information at all policy about that and Austrias politics are fighting quit a bit about wether or not to have a referendum about that. If I'm informed correctly the biggest change will be that decisions in the EU council will not have to be consentuous but only need a three fifths majority.

In English it is generally referred to as either the Reform Treaty or the Lisbon Treaty. Basically, it is quite similar to the Constitutional Treaty that was rejected by France and Holland a few years ago except it has removed mention of EU symbols, anthems, flag etc. which are usually symbols of state.
As to changes, you are not quite correct with yor statement regarding the Council. In 2014 the Council voting procedure will change, in the areas currently voted on by QMV procedure will now be decided by Double majority voting - this means that legislation must have at a majority of votes in the Council and the states which note in favour of it must represent over a certain proportion (I think 60%) of the EU's population. Additionally, the Lisbon treaty will reduce the number of Commissioners from 27 to 15. Also, the presidency of the Council of ministers will be extended to an individual elected by the Council for a renewable two year term and the High representative for Foreign affairs will become the Deputy head of the Council. Finally, the co-decision procedure which currently allows the European Parliament to return and veto legislation to the Council of Ministers will be extended to more policy areas.
Basically the treaty is desiggn to stream line the decision making process and give more power to the directly elected EP to reduce the perceived democratic deficit (which I personally do not beleive exists). The constituional treaty would have unified and replaced all previous treaties into one single document plus introducing these changes. However, due to its failure the Lisbon treaty will just be an addtional document to add to the current treay framework but hopefully it will make the EU more responsive to Europe's needs.

Hope this answers the question and I'm sorry it's so rambling. If any of it is unclear let me know.

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Ken Korda]

Well, my parents hate the EU, and all my knowledge of it comes from them (and a few others)

From what I know, The UK puts a lot into the EU for not much back.
OR
We're being bitchy and wanting things our own way. Then again, don't France and Germany do the same?
It's like playground gang wars.


Also, from what I heard from a marine friend of mine, the UK is responsible for the majority of the EU's military exploits, despite having one of the smallest armies. It seems like the founders (France and Germany) just want to use the EU as their military and economic arm or buffer to prevent harm to themselves.

Of course, I'm probably completely wrong, please correct me.

Unfortunately, this does appear to be the generally held postition of people in the UK. I beleive that it stems for the Murdoch press which have always been fairly anti-european. Not that accusing your parents of reading anything so atrocious as a right wing newspaper. The fact is the EU is very cheap to run, largely because it is not involved in social policy ie, pensions, healthcare education or military expenditure which are the major areas of state spending. I beleive it was the Maastricht treaty which limited state spending on the EU to not more than 1% GDP. The largest area of expenditure for the Eu is the CAP but farmers in the UK benefit as much from it as any across the Union. Apart form this and to be very brief the UK enjoys all the benefits of the Common market as a free trade area which through the last 60 years has been essential to the UK's economic development. As well as being able to negotiate on the world stage with the power of 27 countires rather than just one plus the other advantages such as peace in Europe and the ability to prevent failed states along the borders after the end of the Soviet Union.
As to your second question, to be perfectly frank I could not say for sure. However, I do know that the all EU military deployments have been based on peace keeping rather than direct confrontation, Addtionally, in (I think) 2001, Tony Blair led a major initiative known as th St. Malo agreement which restarted the integration of defence. If the UK is the major contributor to peace keeping missions it is only because it wants to be, the EU cannot currently force a member state to deploy troops when it does not wish to do so

 

[Jharry5]

I'm from the UK, and I'm totally against the EU. I don't like the way that law making has been moved from London to Brussels, with legislation forced to fit all twenty-seven member states even when the internal situations are not compatible with the law in the question. (A prime example is a recent agricultural payment law, can't remember the exact name of it).
Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is a good one, but the centralisation of power has been done insidiouslyand without the prior consent of the British people; no referendum on the Lisbon treaty, Mr Brown? But won't this affect the everyday lives of every person in Britain?

 

[Economist]

Is the European Union the Trojan horse for the New World Order, who also wants to create a North American Union, make superhighways, and take away our guns?

Sounds about right.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2699800300274168460

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Economically, it's a brilliant idea. It takes all the high-cost, highly-specialised nations of europe and says: Free Trade, so costs drop, but no free trade with people with lower costs of production, because they'd wipe us out (like the Chinese). It allows for a degree of co-operation between governments, so we can focus of competing with America, China and so on.

And as for military: If the Russians invaded Europe, they'd get lost halfway through Poland and the SAS would kill them all. Or the world would be reduced to an expanding cloud of subatomic particles, but hey, that's life.

 

[teh0riginalb00n]

Question about the EU - how are the countries in the EU going to deal with more integration with each other when you consider the disparity of languages between each country?

I live in the UK, and speak English. Well... some English. It is a shameful fact that most English people (myself included) just assume that any Europeans we run into will speak our language. But even outside the UK... what language does a Frenchman moving to Germany speak? English is the most common second language, becoming an Esperanto of the world, but I am pretty sure this is being met with hostility in a lot of non-English speaking countries. This puts pretty effective barriers between each country in the EU.

Also, does the language issue, and indeed all integration issues, have the potential to break into cultural boundaries and possibly damage each nations inviduality?

The language barrier is a bit of a non-issue, children in most european countries are taught more than one language, and even if it's a case of people in government not being able to understand each other then there's interpreters, and translators for written documents. I love languages myself and speak five.
(oh and really? "they'll take my gun" sounds a bit infantile if you think about it. it's exactly like a baby crying when someone takes away its blanket.)

 

[Zykon TheLich]

er from na

 

[Brian Barker]

I find no hostility to Esperanto in the United Kingdom. I live in London and if anyone says to me "everyone speaks English" my answer is "Listen and look around you". If people in London do not speak English then the whole question of a global language is completely open.

The British are not averse to supporting Esperanto either see http://www.esperanto-gb.org/eab/eab_news/2008-01-05_nobel.htm

An interesting video can be seen at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8837438938991452670 as well as http://www.lernu.net

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Well, I'm still a little bitter about the EU saying that they would hold another vote when Ireland voted 'No' on the referendum, and how Gordon Brown went back on his word about allowing us in the UK to even have a vote on the new EU Treaty.

 

[orifice]

It's a useless and unnecessary organization that imposes an unrealistic set of rules and regulations. These rules and regulations do not work, at least not in the UK.
Many of them are too Liberal and seem to be all about empowering criminals with human rights and opportunities to further abuse innocent members of society. Many others completely fail to take into account the various cultural differences of europe, resulting in legislation that runs counter to the public opinion of various member states.
And to top the whole thing off, MEP's who are supposed to represent the interests of other people, seem intent on serving their own interests. In short it's an expensive and unproductive gravy train, that exists mainly to consume money but also to erode the sovereign independance of it's member states.

 

[Ken Korda]

Personally I believe the is EU fine. I only have one problem with them and that's their view on the death penalty. From what I gather they are ardently against it and members of it constantly push to have it banned at the United Nations (well them and Australia...but Australia is just following their lead). I personally disagree with it but I also very much disagree with them trying to push their beliefs onto other nations.

A question...how are relationships between the EU and European nations not part of the EU?

With regards to the death penalty you are quite correct. No member state is allowed to have the deathpenalty and perhaps most interestingly, the EU would not begin accession negotiations with Turkey until the had removed the death penalty as a form of punishment. Hence Turkey has been death penalty free since 1999.
I am not familaira with the deisire of EU states to force the UN to outlaw the death penalty but it would be interesting to hear more about it. However, as am sure you are aware two permanent members of the security council are Eu members states and these two states are obliged to share all information they get form this position with the rest of the EU. Needless to say this gives the EU noticable influence within the UN.
Regarding your second question, the realtionship between the EU and other states very much varies depending on which state you mean. Like any country the EU has different relations with different states. Perhaps most significantly, the EU/US relationship is somewhat patchy. Originally, the US has supported the reconstruction of Europe post WWII but today they appear rather threatened by it. The combined bargaining power of 27 states containing three of the world's top five economies is a considerable headache for US trade negotiations. Perhaps most surprisingly, the combined GDP of all EU states is actually higher than that of the US; if the single market is ever complete the EU will be the world's largest economy. To address this in recent years the US has been refusing to negotiate defence with the EU and will only talk to individual states. This tactic is based on the US fear that a united European defence force would be the a significant rival to US military (in relative terms i.e. compared to other militaries around the world) Hopefully, the new
adminsitration in the US will relaise that its efforts are better spent negotiating with the EU rather than trying to split it up.
Of course the US is just one state but I'm not going to work my way through all 190 or so other countries but if you have one particular country in mind let me know.

Does anyone read these massive posts?

 

[bluemarsman]

The issues that the EU faces now seem to be the same issues that the US faced back when it first gained independance.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

Does anyone read these massive posts?

I do

Thanks for answering my question. I had no idea that there was stress between the EU and the US. Now that I think about it, it makes sense. But while it does have significant reach in the Security Council the debates of Death Penalty aren't on the Security Council agenda. They are more in the fourth council (I think) the Health and Social Council. This means their reach is only in terms of reputation.

 

[Ken Korda]

Just when you thought this thread had gone! Ha ha ha!
I relised there are still some questions I haven't answered so I'll endeavor to get through them. It would be rude not to.

Austrias right wing populist party has used the anti EU sentiment and claimed that the Lisbon Treaty would take away our neutrality and allow the Council to force us to take part in military ininiatives. I do strongly believe that the EU would not force us to do something that contradicts our constitution, but I couldn't actually prove him wrong. So what's your oppinion on that.

You are quite the Lisbon treaty in no way compels states to take part in military action. This was one of the falshoods propagated by the Irish no campaign. The only thing the Lisbon Treaty says about foreign policy s to promote the High Commissioner of Foreign affairs to a position equivalent to Foreign Minister for the entire organisation. This indivisual (Javier Solana) will represent the EU in nedotiations with thrid states and will be Vice-President of the European Council. That is all. I beleive your friend is incorrest but I would be interested to hear where he got the idea

Well, I'm still a little bitter about the EU saying that they would hold another vote when Ireland voted 'No' on the referendum, and how Gordon Brown went back on his word about allowing us in the UK to even have a vote on the new EU Treaty.

I'm from the UK, and I'm totally against the EU. I don't like the way that law making has been moved from London to Brussels, with legislation forced to fit all twenty-seven member states even when the internal situations are not compatible with the law in the question. (A prime example is a recent agricultural payment law, can't remember the exact name of it).
Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is a good one, but the centralisation of power has been done insidiouslyand without the prior consent of the British people; no referendum on the Lisbon treaty, Mr Brown? But won't this affect the everyday lives of every person in Britain?

The issue of Gordon Brown not allowing the Uk to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is an interesting one. First of all it was Tony Blair, not gordon Brown who promised the Constitutional Treaty vote. Secondly, the treaty alters EU institutions more than it will change anything about day to day like in the UK. Thirdly, why do you want a refurendum anyway? Fourthly, I beleive the majority of calls for a referedum came form the Conservetive party who were, as always, just trying to score cheap popularity points by critcisng the government on a non-issue. Ireland was the only state to have a referendum and that was only because the treaty altered some minor area of their Consitution. Ireally don't see that there is any reason to expect a referendum and nor do I see the need for it.
With regards to the laws the majority of EU law is concerned with business practices and regulations. I admit in certain small cases there have been culltural clashes (such as the Portugese cheese makers who had to switch for wood to coal ovens. The HORROR!!!) but largely I think the problems have been minor. In general EU laws are designed to cover broad areas and so are fairly generalrather than specific. And if individuals do have a problem there are legal frameworks in place for them to challenge any decsions.

And finally....

It's a useless and unnecessary organization that imposes an unrealistic set of rules and regulations. These rules and regulations do not work, at least not in the UK.
Many of them are too Liberal and seem to be all about empowering criminals with human rights and opportunities to further abuse innocent members of society. Many others completely fail to take into account the various cultural differences of europe, resulting in legislation that runs counter to the public opinion of various member states.
And to top the whole thing off, MEP's who are supposed to represent the interests of other people, seem intent on serving their own interests. In short it's an expensive and unproductive gravy train, that exists mainly to consume money but also to erode the sovereign independance of it's member states.

It's nice to see someone still reads the 'Sun', I find the boobs really improve my understanding of urrent affairs. Go UKIP!!