France says NON to EU constitution

[Wranglers110]

The members of the EU have little in common for such a federation to work to the end its supporters would like to envision. The French desire to entrench self-identity being an obvious example of this. People tend to desire secession to protect their interests, not unite with different people who have different interests themselves.

The EU's webpage says here:

http://europa.eu.int/abc/index_en.htm

The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended to replace existing states, but it is more than any other international organisation. The EU is, in fact, unique. Its Member States have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.This pooling of sovereignty is also called "European integration".

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. The idea of European integration was conceived to prevent such killing and destruction from ever happening again. It was first proposed by the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman in a speech on 9 May 1950. This date, the "birthday" of what is now the EU, is celebrated annually as Europe Day.

So really, the point of the EU is to make sure Europeans stop killing each other. Given Europe's history, a worthwhile cause. But I think the fact that it goes out of its way to say "it is not a state intended to replace existing states" is quite telling, and it's evidence that this sort of concern exists throughout Europe. It cannot become a "superstate". It's virtually impossible. And I'm not sure the EU is being fully honest when it expects its members to have a shared currency, despite the fact that the economic interests of each nation could be different.

And I'm skeptical that it can even achieve its original goal. I mean, if and when Turkey enters, do they become an advocate for the massive influx of Muslim immigrants across Europe? Immigration is a touchy subject there, far more than it is in North America. What about the millions of Turks in Germany? Does Turkey become an advocate for them specifically? I mean, NAFTA is hardly the EU, and some think that Mexico extends too much influence in the United States over the issue. What happens when such a nation is given LEGAL CLOUT over OTHER nations, or at least a standing of opinion elevated over the status quo?

The benefits and responsibilities of various issues is uneven across Europe. How can the EU expect to meet these challenges?

I couldn't be more skeptical.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Wranglers110@Jun 1 2005, 09:36 PM
The members of the EU have little in common for such a federation to work to the end its supporters would like to envision. The French desire to entrench self-identity being an obvious example of this. People tend to desire secession to protect their interests, not unite with different people who have different interests themselves.

The EU's webpage says here:

http://europa.eu.int/abc/index_en.htm

So really, the point of the EU is to make sure Europeans stop killing each other. Given Europe's history, a worthwhile cause. But I think the fact that it goes out of its way to say "it is not a state intended to replace existing states" is quite telling, and it's evidence that this sort of concern exists throughout Europe. It cannot become a "superstate". It's virtually impossible. And I'm not sure the EU is being fully honest when it expects its members to have a shared currency, despite the fact that the economic interests of each nation could be different.

And I'm skeptical that it can even achieve its original goal. I mean, if and when Turkey enters, do they become an advocate for the massive influx of Muslim immigrants across Europe? Immigration is a touchy subject there, far more than it is in North America. What about the millions of Turks in Germany? Does Turkey become an advocate for them specifically? I mean, NAFTA is hardly the EU, and some think that Mexico extends too much influence in the United States over the issue. What happens when such a nation is given LEGAL CLOUT over OTHER nations, or at least a standing of opinion elevated over the status quo?

The benefits and responsibilities of various issues is uneven across Europe. How can the EU expect to meet these challenges?

I couldn't be more skeptical.

I don't think anyone said it would be easy-as-pie.

I do think that greed will trump the need for full control over national-identity though. Economics beats every other discipline, 99% of the time. The 1% we just experienced, w/ the French no vote, does occur from time to time, but I'd suggest its an anomoly as opposed to the norm. The current political climate in France certainly helped the 'no' side. Holland is a bit of a different case...

This is a stumbling block to the inevitible, not a re-direction. Though only time will tell how it really works out.

edit: Also, the EU won't be a 'super-state', it will be a 'supra-state'.

[Tron_fdc]

On a related note, by voting no to the Euro, it caused a major reduction in the Euoropean currency, possibly pushing China into a minor recession. How you ask?

Most steel exporters in Europe are currently working off the Euro, and when the currency drops so does their export cost. Because China is one of (if not THE) biggest steel manufacturers in the world, it forced Chinese manufacturers to drop their pricing in order to compeste with the EU. Korea has followed, and so has Japan.

Because of the rapid expansion of the Chinese market in the past year (housing boom, vehicle demand, etc) it caused a rapid increase in steel demand. Manufacturers spent millions upon millions of dollars on expansion to keep upwith this demand. Because the economy was growing so fast, the Chinese government started putting restrictions on the amount of money that companies were able to access (controlling debt load), to avoid another "Asian flu" like what happened to Japan and Korea in the early to mid 90's, when a massive economic boom was followed by a massive economic collapse. Add these growth restrictions to a sudden drop in steel pricing, the manufacturers that spent millions expanding capacities are now forced to either supply steel at a loss, or declare bankruptcy. If the latter happens, expect a major problem in Asia.

Kind of interesting how these things tie into the bigger picture.