Wow, very interesting news lately! ) Btw: That's bullshit. There's no intention of forming a "national identity" and "European nation".
Wait...I believe that Italy isn't part of 'Europe' either and I long for the day we get kicked out of the EU...it wasn't meant to be a 'bad' remark. I simply meant that the UK has its own specific history, culture and traditions, strongly connected to its existance as separate and autonomous political entity.
How exactly? There were several attempts to create a European polity. Napoleon was the closest and he failed. One could argue that there was a European ideal in the High Middle Ages, but that was mostly a small intellectual pan-European and Latin speaking elite that was barely tolerated by the the political system and which had little real connection to the vast mass of the European populace. The leaders and boosters of the European "project" would disagree. Look, I am American. So I really have no dog in the fight and no vote on the matter. So I really view it with somewhat detatched interest. I know how I would feel if I were European but as I am not, it is all somewhat academic for me. I know some see the US hand behind EU project, others see the US as fearing a close EU. Frankly, I see neither as being that important. I admit that in the begining the US was very supportive of the EEC and its predecessors. The idea was that by connecting the French and German economies it would end the warfare between the two countries. It also would create a stronger economic basis for opposing the Soviets. Well, the world has changed. I cannot imagine the Germans and French going to war with each other and the USSR is no more. And while some argue a united Europe is a threat to the US, I do not see it. So for me, either way, it is simply an intellectual exercise.
Well then we agree. Don't expect Borussia to expand upon his remark. That's not how it works, apparently. Of course, the fact that it's not bullshit - is, in fact, entirely factual - doesn't help the chances of him providing further insight.
Where and how did they disagree? Can you see the alleged leaders of the EU, let's say Sarkozy, all in favour of giving up French identity and culture in favour of whatever this European identity is? Some of the strongest opponents of the EU in the EU are those countries who arguably also are the most nationalist and protectionist of their country's so-called ideals and values! I seriously despair at some of the posts on this thread. Can people not see that it is perfectly doable to a) be proud of and even protective of your own country's interests and b) be a functional member of the EU? In short, that supporting the EU is in fact supporting your own country, if anything? This isn't my opinion, this is what European countries are already practising. The EU isn't something that Europe has fallen victim to, the EU is a tool that European leaders consciously use to strengthen not Europe but their own political, economic and military agenda. I mean this isn't so hard to understand is it? That even the allegedly Mighty Britain has a less powerful position on its own than as an EU member, on all levels? Also why is everybody so vague? What examples can you actually give of the EU interfering with national identity? It's the EU who's given products like Stilton cheese and Parma ham a protected status, not England or Italy. For some reason Europhobes like to make out the EU as if it's some treehugging libertarian utopia. While in actual reality when you look at its workings it's nothing more and nothing less than a means to an end for a bunch of countries whose primary objective is to move up in the world, and they more or less together decided that the EU would be helpful in that. There are no Adenauers or Jean Monnets in this generation of EU leadership. Yet even with that lack of idealists now, Jean Monnet was right when he wrote in his memoires as far back as the 1970s there already was such a thing as a European entity. Example: there is not one country that has ever ignored a ruling by the European court in Luxembourg. In a world where countries ignore the UN left right and centre and where NATO does whatever the hell the US wants to do, that alone should make you realise what a respected and well established institution the EU is, across Europe, and yes even in Britain. I'm also very interested in this European ideal you allege was there in the Middle Ages as around that time people could barely think beyond their own backyard.
Why can't one be both French and European? You act like these are mutually exclusive. Actually, I can't even tell if you believe that.
Of course it isn't. Not a single country in Europe is homogenous culturally. I bet even the protestants in Liechtenstein feel very different from the local catholics.
My point is exactly the opposite! I obviously didn't make myself clear. You CAN be both French and European and there's nothing the EU does to stop you either. The EU might be the brainchild of idealists, it currently floats on pragmatism.
OK fair enough. What I disagree with in your views on the EU is your belief that the EU is some class of highly idealist institution. Again while it was born that way, it certainly isn't now in my view. A lot of people seem very paranoid about it.
Well exactly, I don't believe that at all! If anything the EU (and the globalisation movement) has made people more introverted. And that's fine with me as long as it doesn't interfere with their understanding of what a massive achievement the EU really is. I mean let's not play down its achievements. The only thing the EU has done wrong and still does wrong in a dramatic fashion is the top down approach but still, I personally believe that it is an experiment that is worthwhile. Imagine if Asia got organised in a similar fashion. Japan and China and Taiwan at one negotiating table. Imagine if the Africans got their act together in a similar fashion. Surely we can all agree that the world would be a better place for it.
Partnering with other countries apparently is a leftie concept! Besides doesn't the right-wing libertarian faction have the most top jobs in Europe right now. On that note, the major recent EU decision of no longer submitting the details on international financial transactions to the US at random was instigated by said libertarian right wing. The same right wing who in my country are all for giving up privacy in favour of 'fighting terrorism'. Oh the irony of it all.
I might be wrong, but I don't think that's what happened. the bill was supposed to be signed off by the European parliament, and they rejected it in it's current form. normal democratic process so to say. if there's anyone claiming to have instigated anything, it was pretty pointless since the vote would have happened in any case.
Yes. Although it's my belief that the U.S. is an amalgamation of about 8 to 9 different "cultural countries" that then come to form one political country that has a certain abstract viewpoint on things distinct from other countries in the world. And yet you stated earlier in the thread you didn't want to bail out your "common brothers", the Greeks, which is you declaring that you're not united with them and would rather fight them on the idea that you (either as a member of the EU or as a member of the eurozone) should bail them out without imposing austerity. Fighting comes in more forms than just guns. The U.S. and Europe fight diplomatically fairly often. Why? Because we have different views based on politics, history, and culture. In other words, their different nations or group of nations. Your quote below is more of a stance of nationalism or "fighting" intra-Europe than anything Matt has stated. If the nation-state is dead or never existed, why do you harbor bad feelings to a fellow EU member? As far as the nation being a "new" invention, this comes from a guy some of you may have heard of named Robespierre, circa 1780s, describing his vision of the future order.
I don't really follow your comments. The Greeks lied to the EU to be accepted into the Eurozone. To get into the Eurozone you need to have at most a six percent budget deficit. They had a budget deficit twice that and lied about it. They're lucky that the EU doesn't kick out member states. Truth of the matter is they're endangering the Euro. Not because of the economic downturn or the banks but because of their own lying and cheating. The fact that they're allowed to still stay in the EU is accommodating enough. THis is nothing to do with European identity or culture. Greece is wholly accepted as a European nation. This is to do with a nation being held accountable for its actions. If Florida goes bankrupt and lied about it to the US government what would the people of California say? Don't fret Florida here's our tax money, no need to sort yourself out even though you lied to us? The Eu doesn't control the financial government of its member states. The member states themselves are responsible for that. If they are honest about not being able to hold up to their obligations they get help. If they lie about it they're held accountable. If the EU lets them get away with it it's a free pass to all EU member states to screw up - hey what does it matter anyway, the tax payers in the other member states will make everything riight.
Because you can't create an European polity by force & repression! Capito? I don't think so. Btw: I can't believe to suddenly notice so much interest for this thread!
Are you sure? The parliamentary majority of Centre-Leftists, Far-Leftists and Liberals rejected it by overruling the Conservatives (which make up the largest faction). Bingo. Solidarity is one of the EU's principles ... but Greece can only count on the community's solidarity if it finally starts sorting out its serious problems (as much as it surely hurts the population).
I don't believe the EU is an idealist institution. I believe some of it's political sponsors use idealist language and imagery to deflect entirely healthy criticism away from the EU, but the institution itself is just another bureaucracy. I'm right in the belly of the beast right now, remember? I have offices on the Rue Luxembourg in Brussels. I see the EU, every cog, wheel and whistle, in macro-lens close-up these days. It's not idealist. Wasteful, silly, ponderous ... yes. And just as frequently capable of very slick and efficient legislation and action (albeit only on the lesser issues of life, those that politicians are content to leave to the technocrats). But not idealist. Career diplomats and bureaucrats can't afford such luxury. At the EU they can afford all sorts of other luxuries, but not that one. The idealism is left to Euro-enthusiasts such as yourself, with your wistful visions of an EU model spread across the world and your idealised notions of what the EU is and does, on a real, daily basis. On which point, by the way: the 47 states of Africa couldn't afford an EU - and the world could not permit one. Can you imagine what an African CAP would do to world trade?
Well, all the major industrialised regions of the world are guilty of that. But if the African continent somehow managed to implement the sort of 19th Century "innovation" that the EU still operates for agriculture, then we really would all be screwed.
That's not what he said. He said those people had come closest to it. Not that they had actually suceeded. Although a strong case can be made for Napoleon being at least fleetingly successful.
even the Greeks themselves say that a bailout would be the wrong thing to do, it would only delay much needed reforms. reforms which other euro-countries already went through. it would be a waste of money. I don't think so. the EU and US mainly fight over trade, which has nothing to do with politics, history or culture. it has everything to do with interests. the few political disagreements there are are between the US and individual EU member states, not the EU as a whole. and even those boil down to interests.