my epiphany, the EU and Bush

uberwolf

I was on the dart feeling sorry for the world last night. Irritated by the American decision. It's their perogative to that I guess, but it's hardly an internal matter because the influence and implications for the rest of the world.

There is very little we can do about the states, their election processes and bi-party system. What we do control is the EU. My main problem with America has been the self annointed watch dog of the world attitude fused with complete incapacity for honest introspection. The UN, which was to perform the task, has been blunted by American interests in Israel, ignored by America when it wishes and left in financial difficulty again to a large extent by America not paying its dues.

My solution, unlike REACTORS , is that the EU needs to take realise it's potential - not as a military force necessarily, but economically, because it is money which is talking in the states yet if it wasn't for their influence their deficit would cripple them. I believe the EU needs to deliberately reduce the influence of the States in world affairs. Have the capacity to intervene militarily in trouble spots, even impose economic sanctions...

I think we would be better for this because of the better balance/wider political scope which exists within the EU. Our cultural diversity allows better reflection, IMO, on issues. Obviuosly there's a danger in thinking like this, precisely the problem which has beset the States!! I think our system and culture prevents one interest group doing as they wish to a great extent. The USA (read-a very small proportion of their elite class) can and have acted unilaterally too often and history - if it's not written by them - will judge as overly aggressive actors in their own self interest.

How could we do the reduce their influnce without sparking armed conflict? and are we qualified to do so?? - would we be any better?

damned_junkie

Well, it's certainly an option. Perhaps we could remove the USA from a position of absolute power without Armed conflict. But is it wise to embark on that course without being sure in advance that armed conflict is not going to happen?
Obviously Europe has to integrate more, become a force that can shout as loud as the US. But maybe we should just conentrate on not trying to be saviours and not trying to influence people we have no right to influence. From Vietnam trough Nicragua to Iraq, America has tried influence others for their own gain.

popinfresh

I think the USA should be split up into smaller countries, more like the EU. It is unfair for so many cultures and states to be represented by one government. The next 4 years will be a time of action..

mike65

uberwolf wrote:

I

My solution, unlike REACTORS , is that the EU needs to take realise it's potential - not as a military force necessarily, but economically, because it is money which is talking in the states yet if it wasn't for their influence their deficit would cripple them. I believe the EU needs to deliberately reduce the influence of the States in world affairs. Have the capacity to intervene militarily in trouble spots, even impose economic sanctions...

Military intervention to what end? To beat the Yanks to the punch? "Hey be occupied by nice Euopeans, just like in the 17th-20th centuries!"

The trade deficit is (in part) our money as I point out in a different thread. When a country is buying lots of OUR stuff then we should be glad, not engaging in a trade war!

Mike.

ionapaul

The French are already working to gain clout in world affairs (hand-in-hand with those freedom loving Chinese already) and would love to see a weakened United States. Obviously the French are only out for their own interests (like the US and every other country) and would meddle in world affairs to the same extent that the US already does if they could! So the question has to be: who do we want to see as the next superpower? Or perhaps do we want another cold war, only this time between the US and Western Europe (less Italy, the UK, and of course the US bases in Germany! suppose they would be replicated in Eastern Europe). Would the world be a better place with two / three dominant and competing powers? Personally, I would doubt it.

OfflerCrocGod

Forget it, unfortunately it's not going to happen. Europe's economy is totally worthless and as time goes by it gets weaker and weaker, even our leaders acknowledge the fact. We are getting older as group and our population is shrinking while the US is increasing in numbers DAILY, by 2050 they will outstrip us. The European people don't support the EU, many believe it's a waste of money some of it's most ardent supporters are now losing faith in the project. It's looks as if a country that shouldn't join will soon; it will act as one GIANT brake on integration. One country especially has a huge fear of the EU and it threatens to mess it all up.

I'm sorry but I just don't think the EU will ever actually challenge the US, we're too far behind and deeply divided......some of that fanatical support the neo-cons get in the US would be nice here in Europe when it comes to our European Institutions. Soon China and the rest of Asia will overtake us and we will be nothing but a continent of retirees. What we need is World War III.....US vs China, that may force us into a closer union. Fat chance of that ever happening though - I'm serious we need a World War it's the only way Europe's citizens will understand what the EU is all about and how good it is for us all Please China try and grab Taiwan and Bush please react.....is that too much to ask for?

chill

uberwolf wrote:

There is very little we can do about the states, their election processes and bi-party system. What we do control is the EU.

I agree completely.

The biggest reason that the US is in the position that it is in is because of the abdication by the EU of it's obligations and destiny.

If the EU took it's rightful place in the world, the place that goes with it's emerging economic power, then the balance between the EU and the US and the rest of the world would be far more healthy.

The EU has emerged as an almost economic match for the US. And we have flexed our muscles in this regards already. But we still demand that the US protect us from the bad guys, and when we have a spot of bother inside our own region .... we still need the US to clean it up for us (Yugoslavia). How pathetic is this !!

We also allow the biggest cause of terror and conflict on the planet, Israel/Palestine, to fester and boil while the US does nothing to deal with it. Yet it is threatening our very way of life as much as that of the US.

The EU needs to wake up from it's slumber. Economic power is not enough to ensure safety and survival. We must develop a joint military capability to protect what we have and to balance the bullying behaviour of the US around the world.

We cannot influence the Israeli/Palestine crisis because no one takes us seriously. We have no military capability to back up our views. We have nothing to come to the table with. Hence the debacle where Israel is empowered to behave as it wishes.

If we in the EU start to grow up and mature, and to develop a military capability we can take a full part in solving this festering boil for our OWN benefit, and offer the rest of the world a balance against the US influence. We can offer our own experience of centuries of war against the preemtive attitude of the US.

Moriarty

Politicans are caught between the proverbial rock and non-soft spot when it comes to the EU.

Many people in the older generation (>~35 years old) are deeply suspicious about the EU project for some reason. I think (I have no facts to back it up, just a gut feeling) that the younger people in the EU swing far more in the direction of recognising that it's a fantastic opportunity.

What is often seen as the major problem of the EU in it's current form, rightly or wrongly, is how unaccountable the major institutions are. However, I believe that the EU can't yet be fully accountable to the general populace because so many still oppose the idea out of hand. For the EU to get off the ground, it needs to have the institutions running well and getting a handle for all the problems that inevitably hit such large undertakings. It simply can't be left to the 'tyranny of the majority' just yet, as the whole idea is still finding it's feat.

Governments also need to sell the EU idea far more to their electorate. They've generally been very poor at that up until now.

dangerman

Good listening on NPR related to this topic.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4139216&sourceCode=RSS

i'll just quote the speal on the guy whos talking:

Reid is Rocky Mountain bureau chief for The Washington Post. Previously he was the Post's London bureau chief, and their Tokyo bureau chief. He is also an NPR commentator. His new book is The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy.

He talks a lot and its fun to hear an educated american just lavishing praise on Europe compared to America. They talk (albeit on a superficial level) on the big differences. He over simplifies an awful lot.

Amazon link to his book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594200335/qid%3D1099622519/026-8716724-3800434

One quote I pulled out from his talk:

‘Lets look at the numbers. They [Europe] have more people. They have more money. They have vastly more trade than we do. They have more votes than the United States on every international organisation. They don’t have more military power; They don’t want it.’

uberwolf

mike65 wrote:

Military intervention to what end? To beat the Yanks to the punch? "Hey be occupied by nice Euopeans, just like in the 17th-20th centuries!"

The trade deficit is (in part) our money as I point out in a different thread. When a country is buying lots of OUR stuff then we should be glad, not engaging in a trade war!

I reckon that a significant % of US military intervention have been poorly motivated. The likes of Sudan now, Rwanda then get ignored whilst pre-emptive action ignoring the UN can occur. If your motivation can be accepted or be beyond reproach then you stand on better ground for success.

The US still engage in a greater level of public muscle flexing in economic terms - as far as I have seen. GM food one such issue recently.

As far as I'm concerned the US have lost the moral high ground in terms of being the worlds policeforce, but with no one to share/ take the burden they will continue to do as they wish. I don't want a war between the two, no one would win that ultimately. I'm talking a gentler shift in the balance.

The Corinthian

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Forget it, unfortunately it's not going to happen. Europe's economy is totally worthless and as time goes by it gets weaker and weaker

That’s not entirely true. Economically the EU is still more powerful than the US and unlike the US we have room for improvement through economic reforms (those unpopular things that are presently being pushed in particular in Italy and Germany).

I'm sorry but I just don't think the EU will ever actually challenge the US, we're too far behind and deeply divided......

Europe is still a collection of independent states, each with their own agenda. After all, you hardly think that even the most ardent supporters of the European project, such as France or Germany, would actively vote themselves out of existence? Of course, on the other hand, one must also remember that the majority of nations in Europe were also once composed of a collection of independent states, each with their own agenda, unified under some vague national banner.

It reminds me of a story I once read about Garibaldi riding through the streets of Naples after the fall of the Bourbon dynasty and the inevitable annexation of their lands by the newly formed kingdom of Italy. The crowds chanted “Long Live Italy!” to which some peasant in that crowd turned to his friend and asked, “Who’s she?” - so the concept of inventing a new nation is not really all that unique.

And shall we see a European super state? Possibly, eventually - remember that most political commentators in the 1980’s had dismissed the idea that Germany would ever reunite; so dismissing the idea of a European super state is equally presumptions.

What we need is World War III.....US vs China, that may force us into a closer union.

Actually this level of discussion - aggressively calling for such integration as a counterbalance to the US - would have been unheard of a decade ago. While not quite WWIII, the Iraq war and the threat of Pax Americana has done more to promote the idea of the European super state than decades of bribes / subsidies from the EEC / EC / EU. So, it is to GWB that the pro-Federalists realistically owe a vote of thanks.

uberwolf

The Corinthian wrote:

Europe is still a collection of independent states, each with their own agenda. After all, you hardly think that even the most ardent supporters of the European project, such as France or Germany, would actively vote themselves out of existence?

I think it is this factor which would prevent, or at least limit, the poorly/selfishly motivated acts that the states have been involved in.

RE*AC*TOR

uberwolf wrote:

My solution, unlike REACTORS , ..... bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

Small-scale man, small-scale. You need to see the BIGGER picture.

doh.ie

From my reading of various US boards from time to time, it seems that the EU is despised among conservatives and neo-cons alike.

Whether this is down to the assumption that it may one day become a superpower, or the fear that it already is, is unclear, but given that the Cold War is over, and the US perception that it has its Axes of Evil under control, they seem over-keen to ensure there is no domination global power but themselves.

Clearly, no respect is given to the UN, to international affairs (Kyoto, the ICC) or the opinion of the world at large (the surveyed population of 30 out of 35 countries recently expressed a desire for Kerry's victory). It *is* up to the UN and other countries to keep the US in check, but it is also vital for the US to accept that it itself is just a country and needs to be part of a global union, not just a xenophobic self-interested nation.

por

chill wrote:

The EU needs to wake up from it's slumber. Economic power is not enough to ensure safety and survival. We must develop a joint military capability to protect what we have and to balance the bullying behaviour of the US around the world.

Well if this is to happen we in Ireland have to take the first step and loose the outdated 'neutral' status. If Europe is serious about milatary strenght then this country should quit being the coward and join in.

BTW NPR is a great media\news outfit.

ionapaul

chill wrote:

If the EU took it's rightful place in the world...

The last few times a certain European country sought it's rightful 'place in the sun' the US was required to come in and help sort the problem out! Sorry, but your wording reminds me of that handlebar-'tashed fellow a bit

My problem with the EU taking it's place (rightful or not) on the world stage, politically and militarily, is that I have much less trust and respect in the French than the Americans when it comes to world affairs. Let's not kid ourselves - should the EU become a powerhouse (and the UK backs out or does not integrate with the others) it will be the French and Germans running the show, we'd just be along for the ride.... Would anyone be happy to fight a war for French economic interests, if it came to that?

Should I take off the tin-foil hat?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

I read recently that a large amount of foreign investment comes into America (ok it's probably not a revelation to most here, but it just never occured to me).
Now I don't have a breakdown...but I would assume the EU has at least enough of that share to make a difference.
If this is true then the EU could well effect decisions on the child president.
Of course this would assume that the EU is led by some balls as well.

OfflerCrocGod

A lot of the investment that comes into the US comes from Asia ~ China pumps a billion a day so that Americans keep buying their cheap produce. It's the same with Japan, Asia is the one keeping the US from collapse; they are terrified of another Asian market collapse. As long as the US keeps importing their products by the cartload then they will keep giving them money by the bankload. The EU on the other hand is different, read this for an idea of how much we give them and who gives to them.......

The UK invests more in the US than the rest of the European Union combined.

.....Pretty much sums it all up. It will be a cold day in hell before the lickasses - errr I mean - before the UK decides to pull the plug on the US. China is the only country that will threaten the US, that could take 15 - 20 years so don't hold your breath. It will take 50 years before the EU will be integrated enough so that it can become a United States Of Europe. The older generation needs to die off and be replaced with a voting population that does not have an irrational fear of the EU. So basically the US will continue unchallenged for another 20 years or so

chill

por wrote:

Well if this is to happen we in Ireland have to take the first step and loose the outdated 'neutral' status. If Europe is serious about milatary strenght then this country should quit being the coward and join in.

Absolutely.

This so-called 'neutrality' is a cloak for moral cowardice and convenient exploitation of issues for financial gain.
Neutrality is ok between two comparable positions, or two comparable arguments. It is IMMoral when we stand neutral between good and evil, between right and wrong, between victims and mass murderers, between democracy and terrorism.

chill

ionapaul wrote:

My problem with the EU taking it's place (rightful or not) on the world stage, politically and militarily, is that I have much less trust and respect in the French than the Americans when it comes to world affairs. Let's not kid ourselves - should the EU become a powerhouse (and the UK backs out or does not integrate with the others) it will be the French and Germans running the show, we'd just be along for the ride.... Would anyone be happy to fight a war for French economic interests, if it came to that?

Should I take off the tin-foil hat?

Very amusing, but an astonishingly bizarre opinion.

How anyone can possible imagine or suggest the EU being run by Germany or France is living in an Alice in Wonderland comatose state. France and Germany have never had less power in Europe than now. Germany's economy is in the sh1thouse, the balance of power has shifted decisively away from the big countries toward the small countries since Nice, and the sheer size of the EU, now 25 countries, means that these countries no longer drive or steer the EU.

Moriarty

Care to back that up, chill?

mike65

Chills right enough. In 25 state EU the ability of the German/France axis to either block or instigate policy is greatly weakened. Ppl still tend to think that the two along with say Belgium have the firepower can steer Europe in a particlular direction. They dont. The new states are laregly hostile to the ahem "Olde Europe" view of geo-politics and economics. I'm sure there are lots of articles to be googled on this but I can't be bothered right now.

well here's a few www.eubusiness.com/afp/041107030801.1g3imjte
www.interfax.com/com?item=Slov&pg=0&id=5763214&req=
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1245382004

Wait maybe the French are changing thier tack www.die-bank.de/index.asp?issue=112004&channel=121010&art=362

Mike.

bonkey

mike65 wrote:

Chills right enough. In 25 state EU the ability of the German/France axis to either block or instigate policy is greatly weakened.

But...

But...

But what about all those people who told us that Nice was structured in such a way as to ensure that Germany/France would keep control of the EU, and that it was all a big plan for the big 4 to rule the rest of us????

Don't tell me they made it all up???

jc

chill

Moriarty wrote:

Care to back that up, chill?

Do your own research.. if you looked into the Nice Treaty properly and followed the changes in the EU over the last ten years you would know already.
The 'back up' should be demanded for the silly suggestion that France and germany can still somehow 'run' an EU of 25 states post Nice.

ionapaul

If France / Germany is not guaranteed a firm grip on the reins of power in an integrated, 'fast-track' group of EU countries (minus the UK, the Eastern European countries and the rest that were rapped on the knuckles about going against Chirac on Iraq) , do you think they'll go along with posters' fantasies of a European powerhouse to counter the US?
Weren't we always discussing this hypothetical European superpower and not the current situation of an EU of 25 states post Nice? If we were talking an immediate political shifting than I apologise for misreading the thread.

Moriarty

chill wrote:

Do your own research..

You made the claim, I'm just asking for you to show me that you're right. I googled and searched through the bbc news site quickly and couldn't find figures.

chill

Moriarty wrote:

You made the claim, I'm just asking for you to show me that you're right. I googled and searched through the bbc news site quickly and couldn't find figures.

Wrong. ionapaul made the claim. I simply pointed out the accurate status of the EU structure. If you visit the EU's many web sites you will see many places where the number of members (25) is set out and if you search for the Nice Treaty you can enjoy your evening reading that too

Moriarty

So you don't actually know then, after all? I see.

chill

ionapaul wrote:

If France / Germany is not guaranteed a firm grip on the reins of power in an integrated, 'fast-track' group of EU countries (minus the UK, the Eastern European countries and the rest that were rapped on the knuckles about going against Chirac on Iraq) , do you think they'll go along with posters' fantasies of a European powerhouse to counter the US?

Perhaps you could refer us to information about this fast-track group that is being formed ? And the EU is already an economic powerhouse that is countering US economic power. It is seriously doubtful if a such a small group of EU countries as suggested by you could have any influence on the US or world affairs.
Firstly they would not have the backing of the EU, secondly they wouldn't include the UK forces. So much for that idea.

Weren't we always discussing this hypothetical European superpower and not the current situation of an EU of 25 states post Nice? If we were talking an immediate political shifting than I apologise for misreading the thread.

The EU is already an economic superpower. All it needs to do is bite the bullet and establish a joint foreign affairs policy, modernise the enormous waste being poured into most of the country's bureocratically dominated military, and form a decent sized EU Military forces Group that can be deployed quickly and effectively in trouble spots that threaten our security and way of life.
It is unlikely it would even be used much, but the capability and unified position of the EU would balance the rampant insanity of the Bush and even the non-Bush US foreign policies.

ionapaul

You know as well as I do of the talk over the past year of a 'fast-tracked' group of EU countries more intent on integration than most of the others - I believe these rumours / threats were first reported last Christmas during the impasse with the EU constitution. As we have been talking hypotechically from the very first post of this thread, no, I won't be supplying any interweb links to information to back up my particular hypothesis. Imagining the EU as it stands today will ever have more than economic influence on the world is also merely hypotechical - unless you can supply some information 'proving' political and military power can be realised by a European superstate