The European Union is 50 - where to now?

[Banquo's Ghost]

The linked article (http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2371594.ece) is a thought-provoking opinion piece that seeks to address what we mean by Europe, and what it might look like in the next fifty years. The writer also acknowledges the incredible contribution the EU has made to our lives in its last half century.

There's plenty for all to dispute and debate. But I hope it will turn out to be a fascinating discussion.

Johann Hari: Fifty years of peace is great, but it's not enough. Europe needs a new mission now

While the US bludgeons the world, Europe takes a smarter, post-nationalist approach
Published: 19 March 2007

This week, a summit will take place in Berlin that not so long ago would have looked like a piece of utopian sci fi. The leaders of a unified Europe, free, democratic and at peace, from the shores of the Atlantic to the Ural mountains will gather to celebrate the 50th birthday of the European Union. They will truck and barter over a hundred issues, but it would not occur to them to pick up arms against each other, and it never will again.

There's so much poison pumped into the British psyche about the EU that it's worth stopping for a second to realise how incredible this is. When my grandparents were born, the face of Europe was scarred with mud trenches where one group of gangreous young European men massacred and gassed another group of gangreous young European men in a meaningless parade of nationalism. When my parents were born, Europe was a rubble-strewn wreck recovering from a genocide and the death of more than 40 million fighters. The historian Mark Mazower wrote a book called The Dark Continent - and he meant us.

So wipe the angry flecks of Euroscepticism off the pictures you'll see from Berlin and celebrate. Whatever happens in Europe in the next 50 years, it will not be war - and that is, to a significant degree, thanks to the EU. But it is not enough to build the Union on a negative. We have to ask: what is the EU for now?

Some honourable supporters of the Union believe there is no need to offer a new agenda. They argue that - to borrow a phrase form the Northern Ireland peace process - there should be "strategic ambiguity" about the EU's role, so each member can project on to the Union whatever they want to see. I don't agree. The rejection of the European Constitution by a string of European electorates in 2005, and the ongoing dire poll ratings of the EU, shows that if the Union doesn't have a clear purpose, it will sag and sunder. If it is going to last, the EU has to be able to say to its citizens: this is what we do for you.

Flourishing across Europe, it's possible to glimpse three missions on which the Europe's next 50 years - and a shared sense of purpose - can be built.

Mission One: Beating global warming. Only Europe is taking this, the greatest threat to the future of the human species, seriously. The commitment last week to ensure that the EU derives 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 is on this issue the boldest move by any government, anywhere. It will have a marked physical effect on the planet, but more importantly, it will strip other CO2-pumpers of excuses. We know we will only deal with this catastrophe if we all act together. Europe is showing the world how.

Mission Two: Saving social democracy. Since the 1980s, the US government has been promoting an economic model that funds and fosters corporations and the rich, but largely leaves the middle class and the poor to fend for themselves. Europe believes in a very different model. We know that markets are an essential tool for generating wealth, but we also know that the state must act to compensate for the failings and toxic side-effects of the market.

Although there are certainly examples - like France - where this can go wrong, it can also work brilliantly.

The Swedes do everything the Americans say you shouldn't: they have a 55 per cent top rate of tax, more than a year of paid parental leave, a very high minimum wage, and more. The result? They have 6 per cent unemployment, negligible crime rates, and the highest quality of life and the best social mobility in the world. Europe should stand for preserving and spreading this model.

Mission Three: A different kind of foreign policy. If you compare how the US and Europe have dealt with their immediate neighbours, you discover two different ways of approaching the world.

The US has attacked Colombia, sprayed it from the air with poisons, and funded one side in a civil war - and the country is a mess. By contrast, Europe has coaxed and cajoled Turkey, holding out the prospect of EU membership on the condition that Turkey becomes more democratic and free. The result is that Turkey is now the most liberal majority-Muslim country in the world.

The Europhile writer Mark Leonard calls this "the power of passive aggression". Where the US too often impatiently bludgeons the world while waving the flag, Europe should stand for a softer, smarter post-nationalist approach. Yes, there are instances in which Europe should have been tougher - like the disgraceful failure to act in the Balkans - but Europe's Venusian disposition is something to be proud of.

Of course, we mustn't be unrealistically unbeat; I'm not opening a new branch of Europol called Europollyanna here. To achieve these missions, Europe will have to overcome a slew of serious challenges, from stopping the increasingly dictatorial Vladimir Putin from buying up all our gas supplies to finding a much better way to integrate the immigrants who are necessary to keep our social democracy afloat.

The most urgent challenge is to dismantle the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Does anyone think it is sensible that in 2007, more than half of the EU's budget is spent on agriculture, when fewer than 3 per cent of EU citizens rank it as one of their top priorities? This policy is one of the biggest factors in the starvation of Africa, smothering Africa's agricultural industries in their cot by making it impossible for poor farmers to sell competitively in the most enticing markets. For every euro we give to Africa, the EU takes away seven euros in thwarted trade.

To end this kind of dysfunction, the EU has to make an institutional shift from being a top-down, people-fearing monolith to being a more responsive, democratic body with clear purposes. Ah, sceptics might ask, but responsive to what? At the moment, the EU largely holds the ring between competing national interests. A shared European consciousness is only slender and confined to élites. Yet it is worth bearing in mind how recently other identities we now take for granted were invented. According to the historian Dennis Mack Smith, in 1871 - the year Italy was fully unified - only 5 percent of its citizens had heard the word "Italy".

The first Italian Prime Minister, Massimo d'Azeglio, said, "We have made Italy, now we must make Italians." The EU has made Europe, now it must make Europeans. We can only do this with clear missions that mark us out from the rest of the world. So when our leaders gather in the once-broken, now brilliant city of Berlin, they should not only mark the past 50 years of peace. They should launch missions that can make the next 50 years a period of real, lasting European unity this time.

For my own part, I would like to see a renaissance of the best of European thought to produce a truly outstanding and aspirational constitution, the equal to that of the United States. Without such a poetic and practical aspiration to measure against, we are doomed to fret over minutiae. This requires the introduction of deeper democratic institutions and a full embrace of the principles of subsidiarity (supposedly inbuilt, and what our American friends would recognise - if not fully - as "states' rights") away from the nation state to the local region within the European project.

Without the spiralling off into fruitless debate about the causes of global warming, the challenge the writer identifies is actually simpler and ties in with the desire to have energy security from the dictatorship in Moscow - nuclear power. The road towards renewables is a short and largely pointless one - some countries such as Ireland may benefit from wave power, but the sheer scale of wind power (aside from the debates in Brussels ~;p ) required to make even a tiny dent in the need is not feasible or desirable. Nuclear power, championed by France, is the quickest way forward, and the most reliable. At a stroke, we would cut free from most of our strategic energy worries and substantially moderate any contributions to climate change (whether man or solar or leprechaun made).

The saving of social democracy as a model is also paramount - not imposed on all regions within, but available as a model for future generations. It may be necessary, in the short term, to allow the United Kingdom to fulfil its desire to become a satellite of the United States so that the corrosive effect of the politics there does not poison the well. Perhaps even ejection should be considered to save them the eternal and very boring angst. In a similar vein, the Turkey experiment - the successes of which I suggest the author over-states - should be kept at arm's length until an appreciation of the values of Europe takes hold there, rather than the economic pay-offs. Neither country is interested in the aspirational Europe, merely the grubby market gains.

Without doubt, the CAP must be dismantled, and a more progressive series of policies evolved whch include supportive fair trade to the developing world with which many of the European states have long historical ties.

Well, I think I have got just about everyone's blood pressure to boiling point by now. :beam:

Let the games begin. :bow:

[BDC]

World domination?

Normally I'd be horrified that sort-of elected officials can overrule our elected British ones, but that's probably not a bad thing with the current British puppets rulers.

Dammit, the code on this forum annoys me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting piece.


As a fairly nationalistic yank, I have a number of points of disagreement, but the author takes a sweeping look at a broad subject. Very supportive of European liberalism (note: I'm using the U.S. definition for this term, not its "classical" definition. I am, however, using it as a label and not adding the typical U.S. conservative's normal vitriolic emphasis). Clearly taking the "our direction is the direction of the future" stance.


I have a question for my euro-pals on the "desired future" this author lays out. Is Europe anywhere near as "post-national" as suggested? Do many (most) of you consider yourselves to be "citizens of the world" or European more so than you do the country of your birth/citizenship? For example, I may label myself an Irish-American from time to time, but how I feel is: I'm an American with a fondness for my Irish ancestry (and a good pint of Guinness). Do most Europeans feel about their ancestry the same way?


BG:

Exploiting fission power is painfully obvious as the best short term solution to the West's dependency on fossil fuels and the middle east that supplies far too much of what's needed. I would far rather work on the problems of safe waste storage than the problems of Middle East politics.

The opposition of many "greens" to this approach has always puzzled me, I can think of nothing else that is feasible under current technology that could provide the requisite power with a smaller "environmental footprint." Wind, Wave and Solar options, though useful in certain specifically favorable areas, are not enough for a broad solution.

Long term, of course, we need someone to come up with a way to harness fusion power in a fashion that is truly stable and that generates more energy than it comsumes.

[Vladimir]

Let me briefly take issue with the author’s characterization of the US bludgeoning the world. Does anyone understand the irony of the whole article? It was the bludgeoning of Europe by the US that allowed for the creation of the EU. The US was also instrumental in it’s creation as well. I also love how he compares the interventions in Colombia to that in Turkey. How the hell can you compare the two? What a dizzying leap of logic. :dizzy2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have a question for my euro-pals on the "desired future" this author lays out. Is Europe anywhere near as "post-national" as suggested? Do many (most) of you consider yourselves to be "citizens of the world" or European more so than you do the country of your birth/citizenship? For example, I may label myself an Irish-American from time to time, but how I feel is: I'm an American with a fondness for my Irish ancestry (and a good pint of Guinness). Do most Europeans feel about their ancestry the same way?

Sadly, I don't think Europe is anywhere near the post-national frame. Indeed, nationalism is very much on the rise as people feel threatened by immigration and globalisation. This is pandered to by many political parties, to the detriment of the European project. In my darker hours, I think the author is too optimistic - unless we learn to think post-nationally and in the spirit of our heritage, Europe may well fall back into conflict - probably over resources such as gas controlled by Russia.

I imagine I am unusual in thinking of myself as an "Irish-European". More specifically, I think of myself as a Munsterman within Europe - I have lived and worked in many parts of Europe, and feel myself almost as much at home in Paris or Minori or Devon, as I do in my "home" county. I find a lot of people within the EU fear this diversity, for very complex but understandable reasons. It may well be easier for me to think this way, as I am not disenfranchised because of my relative wealth, mobility and education.


Exploiting fission power is painfully obvious as the best short term solution to the West's dependency on fossil fuels and the middle east that supplies far too much of what's needed. I would far rather work on the problems of safe waste storage than the problems of Middle East politics.

The opposition of many "greens" to this approach has always puzzled me, I can think of nothing else that is feasible under current technology that could provide the requisite power with a smaller "environmental footprint." Wind, Wave and Solar options, though useful in certain specifically favorable areas, are not enough for a broad solution.

Long term, of course, we need someone to come up with a way to harness fusion power in a fashion that is truly stable and that generates more energy than it comsumes.

Actually compared to the toxic waste that is carbon dioxide, nuclear waste is a doddle to store and keep safe. Not least because there's so little of it compared to carbon wastes. In a conversation with Dr James Lovelock some years ago, I was convinced by both the data and his own assertion that he would be happy to have nuclear waste in his own back garden - made safe through concrete protection, he would be keen to make use of the decay to heat his house. He has made this offer public, and I'd be happy to follow his lead. Of course, the developer of the Gaia Theory is not the greens' favourite anymore.

And I suspect fusion is closer than we think. Research at the Culham Science Centre is progressing apace - another potential lead for Europe.


Let me briefly take issue with the author’s characterization of the US bludgeoning the world. Does anyone understand the irony of the whole article? It was the bludgeoning of Europe by the US that allowed for the creation of the EU. The US was also instrumental in it’s creation as well. I also love how he compares the interventions in Colombia to that in Turkey. How the hell can you compare the two? What a dizzying leap of logic

The "bludgeoning" interpretation is one of the author's per hobby horses as you guessed. Nonetheless, the view is widespread in Europe, and since America has long urged us to stand on our own feet instead of relying on US protections (and thus saving ourselves a great deal of money :beam: ) I suppose there is a further irony in such misconceptions being the driver for a more confident and self-reliant Europe.

Of course that means we will tend to be uppity and ungrateful. :wink:

[Odin]

Let me briefly take issue with the author’s characterization of the US bludgeoning the world. Does anyone understand the irony of the whole article? It was the bludgeoning of Europe by the US that allowed for the creation of the EU. The US was also instrumental in it’s creation as well. I also love how he compares the interventions in Colombia to that in Turkey. How the hell can you compare the two? What a dizzying leap of logic. :dizzy2:

Here here, Additionally it would be nice to take a historical perspective of the "bludgenoing" the US is doing in comparisson to the colonial past of a lot of our european friends. The U.S. pales in comparrisson to some of the shanagans of the pre WWII era european powers.

[Odin]

To the main questions "where to now?"

From my perspective in the U.S. the EU needs to fortify its economic power, and its ability to mediate the U.S. strong arm tactics in the UN.

Thats the power (as I see it) the EU can grasp immediately which will cause an evolution in nationalism as one body. Currently you still have national intrests of main EU states taking the stage in world issues. You do not see the UK, France or Germany making diplomatic moves under the hospice of the EU charter (at least it is not reported as such).

Such a shift from the nationalist adgenda would make the EU constitution process far more palatable (one would think) asking european nations to set aside historical differences and cultural boundries for the good of all is quite a task.

Unless a major new threat emerges (one similar to the USSR when churchill envisioned the EU) the body must take small steps fiscally, and diplomatically to have a EU prescence as opposed to the big 3 nationalism (UK, France, Germany).

[Vladimir]

Of course that means we will tend to be uppity and ungrateful. :wink:

I gladly welcome any war (of words) with our European cousins where we can all sit together in a pub at the end of the day. :medievalcheers:

Was that too sophomoric? Oh well, I drank too many Belgian beers last night.

:barrel:

[BDC]

I gladly welcome any war (of words) with our European cousins where we can all sit together in a pub at the end of the day. :medievalcheers:

Was that too sophomoric? Oh well, I drank too many Belgian beers last night.

:barrel:
It must be said excessive drinking and fondness of alcohol seem to be one of the few things that bind Europe. Be it Polish vodka, English ale, Irish anything.

[ShadeHonestus]

Where to now?

Well I would to see one of two things.

First, come up with better EU jokes, maybe reinvent the knock knock with the EU as its premise.

Second, boycott the U.S. until we stop pasteurizing our domestic beers.


Aside from that, wait another 100 years in limbo for nationalism to subside to a point where the E.U. can become more than a mini U.N. for Europe, only with a snazzy currency. I suppose a real threat could make this happen earlier and not just the sport of America bashing.




America has long urged us to stand on our own feet instead of relying on US protections.


Yeah, darn kids want to leave the house but still get an allowance. :beam:

[Husar]

Do many (most) of you consider yourselves to be "citizens of the world" or European more so than you do the country of your birth/citizenship? For example, I may label myself an Irish-American from time to time, but how I feel is: I'm an American with a fondness for my Irish ancestry (and a good pint of Guinness). Do most Europeans feel about their ancestry the same way?
I think I could switch within a minute.
My dad is dutch, my mom german, my nationality on paper german and I like every effort of bringing Europe together. Just look at all the nice europeans here on the .org? Why should I feel bad to share some papers or whatever with them?:2thumbsup:

[doc_bean]

Into Asia !

[Moros]

What is this Europe you're all talking about?

[Conradus]

I'd like to think we could reach the level of Europe (EU) the author describes, but as it is, Europeans are still far too nationalistic. Here in Belgium, more and more there's talk about two states in stead of our one (unless that last questioning was correct :surprised: )
I'd rather think of myself as a European citizen than a member of the 'Flemish' -whatever that may be- or Belgian nation.

@ Moros, you know Europe, it's capital is situated in Brussels and it makes sure a lot of foreign leaders visit us every year...

[BDC]

To be honest I just feel like a European. Being British means nothing, being English makes me a skinhead/footballer, neither of which appeal. I'd probably be more proud of being British if the inevitable next comment wasn't inevitably either relating to my country being America's lap dog, Tony Blair being an idiot, or something about invading Iraq.

[Husar]

I think people who always want their country/region to be superior and independent and develop some pride on such more or less abstract bounds(if you exclude maybe languages) are a bit backwards, didn't learn much from the past. Whenever europe was divided into many small countries/states/regions, war and conflict weren't far away. I think a united Europe can be quite strong and in the end we should all profit from that.:2thumbsup:

[Lord Winter]

It seems to me that as the author argues against nationalism he is promotign something very similer, continentalism. By bring forth the constant counter example of the U.S. in almost every policy from global warming to humen rights to econimic modouls. Dose he even stop to think that not all good comes from europe? Nethier nationalism or the belife that europe is always right will do much good for the world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Is Europe anywhere near as "post-national" as suggested? Do many (most) of you consider yourselves to be "citizens of the world" or European more so than you do the country of your birth/citizenship? No, it's nowhere near post-nationalistic. But the jingoistic, blut und boden, pro patria mori variant of nationalism is gone.

Those nasty brews of imperialism, militarism, obscure nationalistic cults, heroism, national dissatisfactions, revanchism, irredentism, myths of betrayal or daggers stabbed in the back have dissapeared from West European political discourse. There are some remnants left in certain circles, but on the whole, to meet this sort of outdated nationalism you'll have to travel a good deal eastward or southeastward in Europe. To countries I won't mention here so as to not insult certain members on this forum. ~;)

For me, it's not a matter of Europe replacing a national identity, but of Europe adding another layer of identification on top. This softens nationalism from above. From below, nationalism is also softened by the EU promoting regional identities, which are often trans-national 'Euregions' too. The EU has been important in softening national identities in this way.
But it is not the only instrument, and perhaps not even the most important one. It's role in this respect is quickly diminishing, being overtaken by other developments. The world simply has gotten smaller at an astounding rate. For example, this very thread, this little discussion of ours right here, read and written by people of a dozen or so nationalities, I think is far more important than the EU.

France and Germany pooling their steel and coal recources in the 1950's was a tremendous step forward towards a peaceful Europe. It intitutionalised peace, and the EU should win a Nobel prize for it. But in 2007, so many other factors are at work, at a gazillion levels. Trade, commerce, student exchanges, personal friendships, the internet, television, travel. If I meet a German, my first instinct is not to reach for a gun and dig a trench, but to go grab a pint together and throw insults at Bayern Munich. (= a German football team)

[Louis VI the Fat]

For my own part, I would like to see a renaissance of the best of European thought to produce a truly outstanding and aspirational constitution, the equal to that of the United States. Without such a poetic and practical aspiration to measure against, we are doomed to fret over minutiae.
But fretting endlessly over minutiae serves an important function too in a democracy. It absorbs and exhausts rashness and grand sweeping ideologies. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' and all that. Europe is a process, a work in progress, not the result of revolution. Nor should it be.

Technically, I think I'm in favour of a European confederation. The bold assertion of the freedom of man and the sheer perfection of America's founding documents moves me to tears every time I read it, but it is unique to America. The physical pursuit of a new world and the psychological pursuit of a new freedom went hand in hand.
Europe has another historical position, challenges, traditions. Here is not an open continent where man sets out to seek a new destiny for himself. This is not a call for traditionalism, but rather a repeat of your own wish for a 'renaissance of the best of European thought'. Swiss freedoms, Italian republicanism, Dutch liberties, English gradualness and parliamentalism, French revolutionary fervour and human rights - the very finest ingredients are part of our heritage.


This requires the introduction of deeper democratic institutions and a full embrace of the principles of subsidiarity (supposedly inbuilt, and what our American friends would recognise - if not fully - as "states' rights") away from the nation state to the local region within the European project.Yes, but deeper democratic institutions also imply giving up more national sovereignity. Without responsabilities that empower those institutions, they won't ever function like mature democratic institutions with all the accountabilities, close scrutiny and public interest in their functioning they need. This dilemma is often overlooked. Nobody is willing to delegate sovereignity to undemocratic institutions, but without the EU aquiring more responsability it can't function as a mature democratic institution either.


Assorted thoughts:


global warming, the dictatorship in Moscow Nuclear power, France, free from most of our strategic energy worries :yes:


the United Kingdom The UK is European whether they admit it or not, and there is no Europe without the UK whether anybody likes it or not.

I was not overly impressed by the interpretations of the quoted article by Johann Hari.

The CAP needs to be reformed drastically, not abolished.

I don't want Turkey in, but we should make up our mind either way and stop humiliating them.

The saving of social democracy as a model is paramount, and one of the greatest challenges of Europe and largest contributions Europe can make to mankind.

:sweatdrop:

[Scurvy]

despite the fact that the article is written by a certain Johann Hari, who i despise, it is interesting...



The UK is European whether they admit it or not, and there is no Europe without the UK whether anybody likes it or not.

:no:

[BDC]

despite the fact that the article is written by a certain Johann Hari, who i despise, it is interesting...



:no:
It's either that or an American puppet state.

At least there is more alcohol the EU way.

[Kralizec]

We should use the Dutch method of making dry land out of areas of water ("poldering") to turn the UK into a peninsula, thus ending the argument forever.
:thinking2:

[Pannonian]

We should use the Dutch method of making dry land out of areas of water ("poldering") to turn the UK into a peninsula, thus ending the argument forever.
:thinking2:
You're looking at it the wrong way. If we dry out the English Channel, it will turn the continent into a peninsula of the UK, allowing us to bring civilisation to their benighted souls.

[cegorach]

Those nasty brews of imperialism, militarism, obscure nationalistic cults, heroism, national dissatisfactions, revanchism, irredentism, myths of betrayal or daggers stabbed in the back have dissapeared from West European political discourse. There are some remnants left in certain circles, but on the whole, to meet this sort of outdated nationalism you'll have to travel a good deal eastward or southeastward in Europe. To countries I won't mention here so as to not insult certain members on this forum. ~;)

I disagree. You have plenty of nationalism in the UK ( Northern Ireland, and Scotland to lesser extent), Spain ( Basques, Catalonia), France (Corsica) etc.
Pair this together with french arrogance and resurgent of nationalisic ideas in Germany and you have enough.
As Norman Davies once wrote - according to some people nationalism is limited to areas to the east of Elbe, but when they describe it it becomes easy to see that the best examples of such 'eastern' nationalism are to be found in the most western areas of Europe.



For me, it's not a matter of Europe replacing a national identity, but of Europe adding another layer of identification on top. This softens nationalism from above.

I agree, but there is also the peculiar danger of pan-european natioalism. Some petty nationalists 'get hyped' by the possibilities presented by the very fact they are in the EU now.
It reminds me a Finn who was claiming that everyone who doesn't absolutely agree with something he claimed was european 'point of view' should be either isolated or put under sanctions of some sort.
I mean when radicals band together they pose greater danger.
They are noisy, arrogant and even claim that they are supported 'everywhere' because similar people are to be found in every EU state.



From below, nationalism is also softened by the EU promoting regional identities, which are often trans-national 'Euregions' too. The EU has been important in softening national identities in this way.


Another 'pole of the problem' - petty, local nationalisms which can grow/be activated this way.
In fact instead of removing 'larger' nationalims these can cause even more problems for the whole EU because such nationalism works on more 'personal' level (neigbour vs neighbour) so animosities between countries might be replaced with conflicts between regions and such cannot be dealt with using present structures.

Overall I am for reconciliation between nations but without burying/hiding the problems some people claim is the best way to deal with a problem.
The EU helps in that by opening borders between states so people get to know each other more easily, but there are far too many other areas which will not be covered by the EU or even shouldn't be.
Conflicts cannot be dealt with by amnesia, but rather better education and discussion, but that is simply far easier if it is done by nations, not some artificial structures which can cause even more problems sooner or later.:no:

[InsaneApache]

It won't last another 50 years. If the elites keep pushing their agendas, ie: the EU constitution, in the face of democratic resistance, (because the voters 'got it wrong'), the whole project will implode.

The 'top down' dogma currently practised by the EU, is one (of many) of the reasons that the UK and others dislike the way the EU operates.

The auditors must be able to sign of the accounts. Financial mismanagement is rife. Politicos on the gravy train must be kicked off. No more appointments from member governments and all posts must be electable, with a two term limit. All expenses must be backed up with a receipt, like I have to do when I put my claim in.

If no notice is taken of democratic decisions and there continues to be a lack of transparency and accountability, I'd give it ten years. If they decide to open up and try listening to the people, instead of the chattering elite, then maybe another 50 years is on the cards.

Just to prick some propaganda bubbles here. The EU is not responsible for 60 years of peace in (western) Europe. The fact that most of the British army and a very large presence of US troops were/are stationed in Germany was more than enough to keep that particular lid tightly shut.

[Cronos Impera]

The EU is a political entity that shouldn't even exist as it's just another excuse for continental companies to exert more influience over the whole region.

Why the EU stinks?
1) Bullcrap Regulations (to give you some examples)
- Romanian shepards had a long-time tradition called "transhumanta". This basiclly meant that shepards would move their flocks from the plains to their mountain pastures.Now Romanian shepards have become extinct because EU standards require them to transport the sheep in trucks instead of well...walking beside their sheep like usual.And if the EU demands obedience than unemployment will rise at alarming levels.
- Citizens below 18 are banned from clubs after 21:00 completely so farewell concerts in college.
- Peasants are banned from producing alcohoolic drinks in their homes for personal usage.
.
2) Useless costs and tax bourden on the avarage citizen, that includes protocol, upkeep of Bruxelles and Haga, wages of the EU personnel.

3)A blue falg that has a really big hole in it surrounded by stars....a lame copy of the US Union flag.
.

The EU is just a clone of the Bush administration in America.....an idiotic excuse for political unity and corporate domination.

[Cronos Impera]

And regarding nationalism.
Can you tell me BG? Is there any common cultural heritage found in EU other than the Backroom and beer? NO.

[KukriKhan]

So, if I read correctly, the arguments against a European political union (at least by our members, here) are the usual suspects: corruption, unaccountability, career bureaucrats... but not the concept itself.

That's interesting just by itself. It tells me that Europe (however it is defined; including whomever) doesn't dispute the workability or the desireability of unifed effort on a sustained basis. The question/problem is in the details. Reform, if you will.

Which leads me to thinking that what you fellas maybe want, rather than a US-style federal constitution, are some Articles of Confederation. And yeah - a better flag. :) (Maybe modelled after the inter-locking rings of the Olympics banner).

[doc_bean]

The EU is a political entity that shouldn't even exist as it's just another excuse for continental companies to exert more influience over the whole region.

Why the EU stinks?
1) Bullcrap Regulations (to give you some examples)
- Romanian shepards had a long-time tradition called "transhumanta". This basiclly meant that shepards would move their flocks from the plains to their mountain pastures.Now Romanian shepards have become extinct because EU standards require them to transport the sheep in trucks instead of well...walking beside their sheep like usual.And if the EU demands obedience than unemployment will rise at alarming levels.
- Citizens below 18 are banned from clubs after 21:00 completely so farewell concerts in college.
- Peasants are banned from producing alcohoolic drinks in their homes for personal usage.
.

Those things sound weird, I believe the French still transport their sheep on foot too, at least in the mountainous areas, we can go to (some) clubs when we're 16 and concerts are something totally different, no age limits there afaik, and we can brew beer in our own home.

Sounds to me like your government is blaming the EU for its own agenda.

[BDC]

Sounds to me like your government is blaming the EU for its own agenda.

I agree. It's so so easy to blame someone else.

Kind of reminds me of some new car engine noise regulations. Some radio programme tried to make a big thing of it, but it turned out it was actually not the EU at all but the UN... Was quite funny how no one knew where they came from though.

[Husar]

It's funny how people think it will never happen, and some even think it's just about unity, but the Eurasian Union isn't even complete yet...~;)

[Kralizec]

...but the Eurasian Union isn't even complete yet...

Following Kukri's advice, I propose a new flag/symbol:
https://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8199/edum7.gif (https://imageshack.us)

If anyone can place this reference, I'll eat my hat.

[KukriKhan]

How many clues do we get? You own a hat? How big? Straw, felt, or cotton?

I like the symbol. Looking at it as a clock, one can make out the Spain-France-Belgium-Netherlands-Germany landmass from 7 to 10 o'clock; UK & Scadinavia from 10 to 12. The fracture down the general center dividing "old" Europe from "new", and then other nations eastward, all included within the circle, fracture notwithstanding ( and not breaking - kinda like our cracked Liberty Bell).

Actually a pretty accurate depiction of how a union of europe seems from the outside, looking in.

A game mon of some kind?

[AntiochusIII]

Gee.

Earth 2150. Or was it 2140? Damn the games, they should've just named it Earth I and Earth II or something. Oh, and the Khans are way better than the American (continental) Harkonnen copycats that are their enemies and the quasi-feminist moonhuggers that are also their enemies.

In any case, you guys suck. Fifty years and not conquering the world yet? Lame.

[KukriKhan]

Ahhh, good detecive work AntiochusIII. 2160, it turns out.

https://jimcee.homestead.com/ED_1024_op_800x600.jpg

Want fries wit that hat? Ketchup?

Given the pace of medical and genetic advances, many of you 20 year olds might be alive then. Let's hope that the dream of the CSE (Confederated States of Europe) doesn't take quite as long to achieve.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The EU is just a clone of the Bush administration in America.....an idiotic excuse for political unity and corporate domination.

Oh come on, be fair! We in the USA had idiotic excuses for political unity and issues with corporate domination LONG before either Bush got voted in. These are hallowed political traditions with us! :cheesy:

[AntiochusIII]

Ahhh, good detecive work AntiochusIII. 2160, it turns out.Memories :) And I think 2160 is just a sequel to 2150, which was, naturally enough, a sequel to 2140.

I remembered them to have a common premise along the lines of, "The Earth is sucked dry, unbelievably polluted, in political chaos, half-empty and won't survive for very long. What have you got to bring your factions (something about continental empires and a bunch of human refugees on the moon) to victory over this raw, ultimate war of resources!" Which is kind of ironically fitting for the Backroom.

Hat, hmm? Well...this one will do: :bow:

[Kralizec]

*takes off hat to Antiochus*

*proceeds to smear mustard over it*

Earth 2150 rocked! Sadly it was almost unnoticed. The ED were my favourite faction as well. "For the Khan, comrades!" :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

*takes off hat to Antiochus*

*proceeds to smear mustard over it*

Earth 2150 rocked! Sadly it was almost unnoticed. The ED were my favourite faction as well. "For the Khan, comrades!" :laugh4:

er..hum; It's not that easy Fenring, we must have photos to prove it. :whip: :laugh4:

[Husar]

Following Kukri's advice, I propose a new flag/symbol:
https://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8199/edum7.gif (https://imageshack.us)

If anyone can place this reference, I'll eat my hat.
Haha, that was actually what got me the idea of an Eurasian Union.:2thumbsup:

Please don't remind me of 2160, if I want to register it again, they want me to call a hotline that costs >60 Cent/min and that just because I used up those three registrations you get at the start by switching hardware. And now they want more money if I want to install it again.~:mecry:

[Kralizec]

Please don't remind me of 2160, if I want to register it again, they want me to call a hotline that costs >60 Cent/min and that just because I used up those three registrations you get at the start by switching hardware. And now they want more money if I want to install it again.~:mecry:

You're saying registration mandatory, and costs you money besides what you spent on the copy? The only reason I didn't buy Earth 2160 is because my PC can't run it, but this :no: