European Union - You're kidding, right?

Great Debates
1

OK -

Just read the BBC’s report of the re-emergence of the Austrian Fuhrer-in-waiting

So, what is the probability of a lasting union of the continent?

(for quick reference, see these Maps of Europe 1100-2000 )

Europeans:

Does this feel like a union, or just another layer of government?

Do you see national governments evaporating in the foreseeable future?

Do you trust a German-Franco axis for security? Ready to walk out of NATO?

(bonus Q: how long before Germany and France are back at it?)

Can the economies even be integrated? Fiscal and monetary squabbles gotta be expected, let alone taxation issues?

Americans -

If they do pull it off, what will it mean for US trade/defense? Could such a state be a military and/or economic threat to the US?

2

I don’t really have any comment on this topic right now; I just wanted to say that’s a really COOL web site, and will definitely be going into my favorites folder.

3

You’re asking a whole bunch of questions because of someone you characterise as a “Fuhrer-in-waiting”. All I see is the right-wing leader of a party that’s gained temporary popularity on the back of a protest vote. Same thing happened elsewhere, notably in France. Just a normal function of democracy – the mainstream takes note, amends policy, alleviates public concern or better informs public opinion and the consensus returns to mainstream normality.

Not sure how your “Fuhrer” thing fits with a discussion of the EU project itself ?

4

Well, Germany won’t be able attack France with tanks because the Danish will have a vehicle weight limit regulation and Sweden will require licensing for all tracked vehicles and Portugal will require at least 25% of the attacking vehicles be fitted with hybrid-combustion engines, but Italy will demand protection of its white-flag industry…

Who has time for war, they’ll be too busy reading regulations!

5

I don’t see any connection at all between the linked story and the question of EU development. In fact, the only thing the story says about the EU is that Georg Haider opposes EU expansion (because he thinks it’s not in Austria’s interests).

“Does this feel like a union, or another layer of government?”

Well, in political terms a union is another layer of government. People from the US will be familiar with this concept.

“Do you see national governments evaporating in the foreseeable future?”

Nope

“Do you trust a German-Franco axis for security? Ready to walk out of NATO?”

I’m Irish. We’re not in NATO.

“(bonus Q: how long before Germany and France are back at it?)”

Well, the whole purpose of the EU is to keep France and Germany from going back at it, at least with guns and suchlike. So far it’s been pretty successful in that regard.

“Can the economies even be integrated? Fiscal and monetary squabbles gotta be expected, let alone taxation issues?”

There’ll always be economic diversity within the EU (as there is within the US). Nevertheless there will be a greater degree of integration than at present, although possibly not as great as in the US. Fiscal and monetary squabbles are greatly reduced by having a single currency. Taxation doesn’t necessarily need to be harmonised in order to increase political union, althoug a greater degree of harmonisation than at present is likely.

But what has all this got to do with Georg Haider?

6

So when some racist hick wins an election in some backward state that is a threat to the entire USA? Isn’t it the other way around? That the federal government and the weight of the other states exerts a moderating influence? I think it should work pretty much the same in Europe.

And I just do not get the attitude of those who jokingly dismiss the EU as a useless bureaucratic thing. I am sure the EU is not perfect but what’s so worng with the idea? The US is a federation of states with a federal government. Some things are better decided in common like interstate commerce laws, cooperation in chasing criminals, in guarding the common borders and other common things. What’s the problem? It seems to work for the USA. Why is it so funny that the EU would do the same?

7

It’s odd this is brouht up now. The governing coalition, including the ÖVP has fallen apart, and is probably about to lose the majority in upcoming elections.

8

Yes, a federation of European states would be a great thing.

My question is that of timing, as much as mechanics.

The US had always been under a common government (not its own, but a common government). It had a single language (90+%) and common (white) history.

Europeans have no common language, a REALLY long history of warfare, and MUCH wider spectrum of political thought than exists in the US (e.g. Sweeden v. Spain).

To date, I see a whole lot of talk, posturing, and incredibly intricate compromises to get SOMETHING that can be called a Union - I have only skimmed the surface of the security agreements, but there seems to be agreement only on:

  1. we need a security apparatus
  2. nobody gets to dominate it
  3. we’ll tack on whatever else we can agree on the next time we meet.

(whatever it is/was, Kosovo was not a shining moment)

This feels more like an incredibly complex series of treaties-authorizing-regulations than a delibrate, coherent process toward a single state.

Have citizens been issued “European” identity papers, or are national papers still required when crossing borders (that would seem a simple enough way to implant the idea of European citizenship)?

and yes, everybody gets their fair share of nutcases - but the election of just one would seem to be enough to seriously dent progress - a Le Pen, for instance, would make a real mess of things - what would the Union do if one of the ‘anchors’ to leave for 5 years?

and racist hicks get elected with some regularity in the US - but they do not get their own armies - as long as national power exceeds that of the central government, there will be no union - see CSA.

9

I don’t think the EU is trying to become the United States of Europe. It’s history has been of aligning trade and levelling out economic differences across the various countries inside the Union and using that as a way to smooth out differences. The progress of Spain and Portugal economically are examples of it’s success.

The introduction of the Euro is just the latest stage of this and the next steps will be the harmonisation of the tax systems.

When crossing a border, all one needs is a valid ID paper. This can be your national ID card, where this is normal, or your passport. But as there are no checks at the borders for a substantial proportion of the Union the point is moot.

I am not trying to say that the EU is perfect and that all is swwetness and light but to try and define the EU by it’s military and scurity policiies is to misunderstand the basic motivation

BTW I don’t understand your comment about Sweden and Spain

10

The success of the European project shouldn’t be judged by reference to how closely the EUL comes to resemble the USA. The European project is not supposed to be, in happyheathen’s words, “a delibrate, coherent process toward a single state”. As he points out, Europe is considerably more diverse, linguistically, culturally and politically than the US. The European project does not necessarily seek to achieve the degree of unity which has been achieved in the US. A considerably looser, more decentralised federation may still be a valuable and beneficial policitical institution – indeed, more valuable than an overcentralised one.

A common security policy certainly remains unfinished business, and there is much disagreement about what shape it might take. This may, however, be a bigger issue from the perspective of an observer in the US than from the perspective of a European. Internally, defence policy is not a big issue. It doesn’t affect peoples lives in the way that tax, employment, trade, money, movement and so on do. Moreover since 1945 the US has defined its place in the world in part as a pre-eminent military power. Europeans do not see this as a significant aspect of their identity to the same extent. From an internal perspective, the lack of tax harmonisation is probably the biggest factor to suggest that a true Union has yet to be built, not the lack of a common security policy.

For the record, passports or identity cards are issued by the Member States, not the Union, but to a common design and common standards. Moreover as between some, but not all, countries of the Union there are no border controls or movement controls, so no papers at all are required when crossing borders. (I don’t mean that border controls are patchy, or casual, or not very strict. I mean that there are none, as a matter of law.)

11

It’s worth pointing out, with reference to the OP, that the linked story reports that Georg Haider is likely to be elected leader of one of the Austrian political parties - a post he has held before. He hasn’t been elected or appointed to any government office, and he’s not a threat to the integrity of the EU.

12

OK, if we define Union as a federation based on economics - trade, monetary and fiscal (at least some centralization), and leave things military to individual states:

How micro-managed are economies? I read that there will be ONE fighter/interceptor design, ONE tank design. OK, specialty items, not a big concern.

However, is there to be limits as to what each member state can produce? (note: there need be no draconian prohibitions to achieve this - tax code can a very good job of discouraging unwanted production).

Are tariffs still in place for inter-Union trade?

Are external imports subject to a single tariff levied by the Union, or does the Union levy one, and leave the members to levy additional fees as they see fit?

I see a progression (Common Market (from which UK was excluded by France), ECC, now EU). My concern is whether there is/will come a time when (at least western) European countries will consider war unthinkable (remember 1933 - some French were convinced that Germany would never again THINK of starting a war).

Which countries still check papers at the border?

13

It is already unthinkable (except for some people outside the EU who, for some reason, do not miss a chance to rant about Europe).

And yes, of course, in 1933 nobody would have tought that there could be a war. :rolleyes:

The countries which aren’t part of the Schegen treaty. Noticeably the UK.

14

No comment except:

No we’re not kidding. Are you?

Carry on.

15

So, y’all wouldn’t mind if NATO was disbanded, the US took all its toys and went home?

Clair - IIRC it was 1933 when some high-ranking French official gave a speech calling for the country to “embrace” or “welcome” the Germans, that they were not the “goose-stepping, jack-booted…” thugs of the previous war.

(it was quoted by a local columnist on the event of the re-unification of Germany - the columnist’s name was Art Hoppe, if anywant want to try to search the SF Chronicle’s archives).

anyway, my intent is not to rant (I do know how to do that - and where); it is to try to reconcile 1500 years of near-constant warfare, widely differing cultures and economies with “that’s all behind us now, we got better - now we are all going to be one united (something)”

and just what kind of ‘something’ is intended - not full sovereignty, apparently, but more unity than the Commonwealth - so what’s it going to be?

16

Why should they? We’d still be trading with them.

Or do you suggest that the poor backwards Europeans would collapse without their kindly Uncle Sam to lean on? Feh.

17

So, you figure things military are obsolete and useless in your brave new world?

call me cynical…

so europeans - how long before citizens think of themselves as European first, then (nationality)?

or is this going to be economic, with some human rights added (until somebody decides to break the rules, then what?)

18

Ditto. And that CD-ROM they’re hawking sounds even cooler (I have an unhealthy affection for maps, I think). Now, gotta come up with a reason why I “need” that CD…

19

That’s not what was said. The EU states have plenty of military power - probably not enough to challenge the US, and certainly not yet in a coherent single organisation - but you seem to think Europe would be incapable of self-defence.

20

The NATO doesn’t need to be disbanded. Keeping the military interoperability between western countries is a good idea. But like my governement, I favor an european defense able to operate outside the NATO (something the USA are very opposed to, obviously. It wants an stronger european defense but under the US-controled NATO umbrella). As for took all the toys, it wouldn’t be a very good idea since there need to be common training and exercise, headquarters, etc…if you want to keep the NATO. But I would have no issue with the US taking most of its toys.

I don’t doubt it’s true. You could probably even find someone who would have said that there shouldn’t be wars in Europe anymore one century ago, too. And of course, after the WWI, there were serious expectations it would be the last war in Europe. What I meant is that in 1933, the usual assumption wasn’t that there was no risk of war. Of course, you’ll always be able to find someone stating the contrary.

Well…the wars following the fall of the roman empire 1500 years ago are a little outdated. All the members of the EU are democracies, which certainly reduce drastically the risk of a conflict. And anyway, concerning the cultures, they are actually very similar.

Nobody knows how the EU will evolve. Of course, there is an obvious tendancy toward more and more unification, and less and less sovereignety for the members states. But everybody has his own view about the future of the EU. Personnally, I favor a federal Europe, and every step toward this goal is fine with me.