The European Dream

[Nono]

Originally posted by tusaki The fun about the EU is that it's new. Supposidly, in the future, there are huge benefits of becoming one entity. However, the main benefit of the EU, and the only one in mind when it was formed, was to change the mode of thinking.

The British writer Tim Parks thinks that the greatest benefit is being in that psychological groove and building for the future. Whether Europe ever actually gets built is secondary, as long as the building process keeps us from trying to castrate each other.

You might now see yourself as british, while just a while ago, you might have seen yourself as a "south-wales-er" or "londoner".

Another of Rifkin's points in the interview is that young people today -- well, maybe not braying young British Tories, but most young people -- already think of themselves as European, just as many more Swiss young people think of themselves first and foremost as Swiss (rather than Graubündner or Vaudois, say) than a generation ago.

The test of the pudding is in the eating.

[Suburbanite]

It is amazing to me that Europe still has not saught out to institute any kind of American styled federal government. Minus the Sen. everything else would be of huge benefit to the average European. In terms of trade and such I think they are on the right track and have come to realize the importance of unity, but still seem to underestimate the United States, a country with citizens who would kill a man for their shoes is bound to have leaders who would take over a country for power and money. The struggle is something I look forward to though, it should be a tough battle.

[Scribbler1]

Sub,
I agree. On paper, it would seem an easy transition to a United Europe as there is a United States.
What I am getting a sense of here is a fear of losing one's national identity. I don't see that s an issue as time goes on, as you see the same thing here in the U.S..
Many states have their own identity. "Don't mess with Texas" is a nice slogan but it doesn't mean they are afraid they'll be invaded by New Mexico. We all speak english but there are identifiable regional dialects. We have states governments and we can freely travel interstate. European nations could just as easily become states in a U.E. and , as you said, enjoy the benefits of a single entity without sacrifying too much.

As far as it actually happening, I feel this is inevitable, but it won't happen overnight. I think the strongest and most time-tested analogy I can think of is the "camel's nose under the tent" example of inevitability. It starts small but, once begun it usually does NOT stop.
If the prevailing attitude is "the E.U. is fine, but that's as far as we will allow it to go", just give it a generation or so and then talk to an 80 year-old and ask how it was back in the early 2000's.

[Nono]

Right, a loose loose federation is all that's necessary. (Something like Switzerland as a matter of fact.) Then let people identify with it at their own speed.

The really tought part is foreign policy. Nobody's going to take you seriously as a United States of Anything until you have a joint foreign policy. But imagine asking the French or the British -- to name but two -- to give that up.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Nono,     The really tought part is foreign policy. Nobody's going to take you seriously as a United States of Anything until you have a joint foreign policy. But imagine asking the French or the British -- to name but two -- to give that up.

That's why I always stress these things will take time. The French and British is a good example. They were enemies, then they were friends, then they were enemies, etc.. and without some kind of joint, unifying power they could go that route again.

Interesting side note: There could have been a Channel Tunnel a bit less than 100 years ago. They had a workable design and felt it could be accomplished. It was proposed and approved by England and France, but the idea was killed by the British military who, although they were friends at the time saw the possibility of that changing and didn't want a tunnel built that would allow the French army to just walk over to England.

[Lava]

Actually they did start building it. The descent shafts are still in place.

Lava

[Lava]

Well, I'll duck out of the euro question because I dont think you guys are really applying yourselves on this. Have fun,

Lava

[Nono]

Lava, one thing that has made this difficult is the sheer difficulty of deciphering your replies. I don't know what sort of web program you have, but it apparently denies you use of the clarity afforded by the vaious tools on Volconvo.

And what seemed to me wilful refusal to see the point about railway gauges.

Also your tenacious claim that words like "sclerotic" rendered debate impossible. Jeez, no debate then.

[Lava]

[QUOTE Nono

> Lava, one thing that has made this difficult is the sheer difficulty of deciphering your replies. I don't know what sort of web program you have, but it apparently denies you use of the clarity afforded by the vaious tools on Volconvo.

I dont follow you there. The V quote system is a total pain ime.


> And what seemed to me wilful refusal to see the point about railway gauges.

I dont recall you making one. Remind me?


> Also your tenacious claim that words like "sclerotic" rendered debate impossible. Jeez, no debate then.

my claim there was rather that your inability to tell us what it meant made the use of that word meaningless. It is by definition only meaningful if you can give us a meaning for it, since the dictionaries I looked in all failed to deliver any definition relevant to our discussion

But I dont think any of this is the problem with this thread,


Lava

[rmnunez]

Sclerotic as in anorexically thin, weakened, lacking in any substance whatsoever?

[Lava]

OK, so far Ive had think skinned, stiff, thin, weakened, lacking any substance... these are all precise descriptions of SKIN but not of an economy. Apply those words to an economy and they could be interpreted to mean almost anything.

No-one has yet been willing or able to tell us exactly what aspects of the euro economy 'sclerotic' means are amiss in what way. With no such definition, I say it remains meaningless.


Lava

[Nono]

Man, I've been trying to tell you: means rigid and refers to perceived lack of the much-ballyhooed "flexibility" of neo-liberal/utopian markets: hired today, fired tomorrow (cause labour is suddenly cheaper in Ruritania, whatever).

[Texans 4 Furors]

The European Dream is the American Nightmare. Europe is the problem, not the solution.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Texans 4 Furors Europe is the problem, not the solution.

Another one-liner. How about backing it up with a little something resembling argument?

[Lava]

[quote=Nono,]

> Man, I've been trying to tell you: means rigid

I know you have. Not stoopid ya know :)


> and refers to perceived lack of the much-ballyhooed "flexibility" of neo-liberal/utopian markets: hired today, fired tomorrow (cause labour is suddenly cheaper in Ruritania, whatever).

ah, finally, a relevant meaning: the inability to hire and fire at whim.


Lava

[Sonart]

Google -- "united Europe" superpower

Read anything. Europeans are increasingly disenchanted with America's belligerent hegemony and are talking more and more, especially with the success of the Euro and Union, about a united Europe as a new economic and political superpower to oppose U.S. dominance.

[Nono]

Yes, ideally I would not want to see more than a very loose European federation. But when I look at the US these days and see how free it feels to do whatever it pleases, tighter somehow starts looking more attractive.

[Texans 4 Furors]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Texans 4 Furors Europe is the problem, not the solution.

Another one-liner. How about backing it up with a little something resembling argument?[/b][/quote]
What's to argue?

[Sonart]

What's to argue?

Well first, who are the Europeans a problem for? Europe? Nah. Uncontested American global hegemony. There ya go.

[castille]

What's the difference between a united Europe and an aggressive American superpower?

Nothing.

They're both a threat to world harmony and peace. Europe is not a lovey dovey peacelover (just as the French why they sold weapons to the Hutu Power government in their extermination of 1 million Rwandans), and neither is the US.

Just because Europeans love each other won't mean they'll love any non-European races.