Eva: You could be right. I was fascinated to read about the Baltic states when they were newly independent, but you don’t hear a lot about them these days. I’m going from memory of events over 10 yrs ago, so I could very well have gotten things a bit confused.
True. However, we have to bear in mind that the EU is an entirely new thing in European history, and in world history. It is a voluntary international federation.
It is not an empire with a dominant nationality plowing under local languages and customs. France and Germany are no more than first among equals – and the more countries join the Union, the less relative power its richest and most populous members will have over the whole. When the United States was formed, some New Englanders feared it would be dominated by its largest state, Virginia. And it is true that of the first five presidents, four were Virginians. But as new states west of the Appalachians were settled and joined the Union, Virginia gradually became less politically important.
How is that different from the early United States of America under the Articles of Confederation? Yes, I know that the Thirteen Colonies were formerly all under the same rule, but after the American Revolution they were all defacto independent states, correct?
IMO, there will be a noticeable difference in the European workforce, especially but not restricted to, in the kinds of jobs that are considered to be too menial or too manual by most western europeans.
By menial, I mean garbage collection, street cleaning, and the like. By manual, I mean assembly line work. I lived for a while in Germany and did travel quite a bit through western europe, and noticed that most of these jobs were being done by central europeans or turks.
What this could lead to is a lowering of labour rates in western europe. It could also lead to an increase in labour rates in these new EU countries, especially in the areas of BPO.
Independent states, yes, but not separate nations. Nearly all the (white) people in the 13 colonies spoke the same language and shared a common cultural heritage; this greatly simplified putting across the idea that they all shared a common national destiny. The states of modern Europe, on the other hand, are true nation-states; and there are very, very few other instances, and none on this scale, of separate nation-states forming effective international federations.
By the way, if anybody knows: Why hasn’t Norway joined the EU yet? Switzerland I can understand, the Swiss are obsessivly neutral; they only joined the UN last year. But why do the Norwegians have a problem with it?
To simplify a bit, Norway is too rich. It is one of the richest countries in the world. So they are afraid that they would have to pay more than they get out of it. Norway is already a member of the European Economic Area - basically they join the free trade zone without ceding any sovereignty (or getting influence on EU politics.) At least as long as the Norwegian oil lasts they are probably better off that way.
You have a lot of questions BrainGlutton 
-
Historically, every time EU has made a significant move economic growth increases, especially for new member states.
-
“…will the EU evolve further in the direction of unification, or towards greater dispersal of power and independence of member states, or maintain more or less its present political form?..”
Definitely further unification. Currently the debate is about an EU Constitution, which would supersede state constitutions. The next big step is a EU government and, further, a mutual tax system and possibly a common defence policy.
-
I don’t believe “semi-communist” governments in Eastern Europe will affect old EU very much. First, those nations are much poorer than old Europe. Second, EU is based upon the principle of free flow of people, merchandise, services and capital (a trade union), and new members, whether socialist or capitalist, has to accept this upfront. In the future however, discussions about taxing, welfare, etc, could be affected.
By the way, none of the old western states has a powerful communist party, AFAIK, prove me wrong. -
Huntington’s famous “The Clash of Civilizations” was, IMO, some piece of rubbish, populist thinking that fit right into the doomsday us-versus-them theme.
As for Russia, who knows where they will go. The Parliament in Russia is very weak compared to the rest of Europe so it’s really up to their president to pave the way in this regard. Personally I don’t see Russia as a member of EU in the foreseeable future, but they could sign a trade agreement with EU. -
Yes, Turkey will be admitted, my guess is before 2010. The problem with Turkey is first and foremost it’s shady human rights record, citing amongst other things prison torture, outlawing Kurdish culture and the death penalty. There is also the question about the bad state the economy is in. Religion has nothing to do with it, that is, I have never heard anyone, left or right, mention it. Lately there has been significant changes taking place, leaving fewer obstacles left. Turkey is scheduled to have talks with EU late this year, upon which it would be deciede if negotiations will be initiated.
-
It may be that the US will lessen its military presence in Nato. Today, united Europe is at peace. Russia is a “friend”. If that happens Europe would undoubtly consolidate their current Nato forces into a Europe Defence Army. Aside from that, some member nations are already having discussions about a future European army, to exist alongside Nato. To this Britain is opposed and it could lead to conflict within the union.
4 & 8. I’m going to lump the “lasting peace in Europe” and “a future superpower” questions together.
As I see it, there are 3 paths Europe could take:
- status quo, meaning still strong nation-states, slowly unification
- a strong federation unified on both economy and foreign policy
- a union divided in two or three factions, with the possibility of a future war.
The second alternative, tied with less US presence in Europe, could lead Europe in a direction towards military superpower status, rivaling the US. The EU is already an economic superpower (there you go).
A couple of notes about the OP:
- Iceland is a nation, though admittedly a small one
- Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine is not regarded as a part of Europe, though often seen as a part of the 40-nation Greater Europe, which includes Russia as well as other former Soviet states.
- Andorra, Monaco, San Marino are not regarded as “nations” per se, they could probably more accurately be defined as principalities. And Vatican City is the seat of the catholic church, located in Rome (but you all knew that of course)
- Switzerland has a comprehensive bilateral agreement with the EU, and will not join the union.
Actually, richness is not the reason Norway isn’t a member of the EU. Norway is very nationalistic, in a patriotic way. EU is currently debated heavily in Norway, the debate is about ceding sovereignty versus acquiring influence. It’s possible that the nation will join the union around 2010. The Norwegians said no when they voted on joining in 1994.
I was not questioning whether Iceland is a “nation” but whether it is “European.” It’s so far away from the continent, you know. We generally think of Britain and Ireland as European (though some Brits disagree loudly), but they are so close to the continent that whatever happens there has always affected them. I referred to Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City as states, not nations. A “state” is a political entity; a “nation” is an ethnocultural entity (e.g., the Apache Nation); a “nation-state” is a state which rules all or most of a given nation and stands as its political embodiment. A “principality” is, I believe, a name typically applied to a very small state or microstate, which might or might not be independent – e.g., the principalities (duchies, landgraviates, bishoprics, free cities) of medieval and early-modern Germany were nominally part of the Holy Roman Empire, which for most of its existence had no really effective central government. A “principality” can also mean a monarchical state whose ruler is styled a “prince,” as with Monaco and Leichtenstein. Am I right?
Iceland is definitely European. She is s a member of the EEC, so Iceland along with Norway and Leichtenstein are all “EU light” members.
For the rest, fair enough. The only reason I mentioned it was because you listed as many as 17 “states” as non EU members, while in reality only a few of former Yugoslavia is truly on the outside. These “microstates” (duchies etc) are not seen as nations though they probably should be (for instance, San Marino is a small island in the Mediterranean Sea, it’s about 0.3 times the size of Washington DC with a population of about 30.000).
Nope. A principality is ruled by a prince. Andorra and Monaco are principalities. San Marino, not having a prince as head of state, isn’t.
Apart from that, I’ve a very unclear view of the status of Monaco, San-Marino and Andorra within the EU. They aren’t member states, but they aren’t fully independant, either, so maybe they’re still considered part of the EU. They use the Euro as currency. I don’t know to which extend EU regulations apply (or don’t apply) to these states. I often wondered about that.
Nope. San Marino is a town planted on a hill in the middle of Italy.
Self-correction:
…while in reality only a few of former Yugoslavia is truly on the outside along with Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey
Hmf, I god damn know there is some kind of island in that sea [grumble]
San Marino is an independent republic of a sort. It participates fully in the EU through Italy as Monaco does through France. Andorra is (or was a year ago) tricky. Market participation varies according to the product type. I found it incredibly complex and confusing although the locals seemed to deal with it OK.
When my Dad asked my sister’s Norwegian friend this very question her reply (accompanied by an evil smirk I might add) was:
‘We have oil. We don’t want to share it.’