European Referendum: Uniting Europe?

[Chronos]

I have enormous respect for the people of Spain and Belgium. They have integrity and moral fiber. When push comes to shove, they stand up and show courage. I would stand back to back with them in any cause.

 

[Andy]

But what about the french and germans?

 

[Clausius2]

But what about the french and germans?

We know countries like UK and Germany surely have monetary losses due to this stuff. They have to finance poorer countries (nowadays Spain takes money of the german wallet) but it is also true that there is a shared benefit in all this: global commerce, exportations, importations, technology exchange...). I am not going to deny that there are few nations which drive economically the EU and supports everybody, and I am not going to deny that Spain is not one of these. If you decide to vote NO for economic issues, no problem at all. I understand it. Anyway, UK have not seem interested to be european never, because you always have an eye on the other edge of the Atlantic.

About what happen with french and germans, they seem a bit frustrated for being on the background of the world scene, being hidden by USA. That frustration leads to unbelievable, stupid and false behaviors against USA. They seem friends sometimes, but enemies another times. It has enhanced a lack of credibility on them in Europe. You could say: hey! Spain is doing the same!. And I'd say: not quite. The government of Spain has changed, and with it the politics. The main point with france and germany governments is that they are the same who some months ago where fighting against Bush, and that shows an extraordinary hypocrisy.

 

[Andy]

I would vote yes, but every article i see about the EU constitution says that the UK will loose its right to decide what it wants to do. And the people that will get to decide what each country does are the european parliment, which is pretty much controlled by the french and germans. If they wheren't running the show i would probably be for it.

 

[Chronos]

But what about the french and germans?

Germany has serious economical and political issues. Reintegrating east germany is their priority, and that is entirely understandable. France, on the other hand, likes to play politics. They are an economic power and keep reminding everyone in the EU of that fact. I find that annoying. Just about every other nation in europe, not to mention the USA, has bent over backwards to help them - they seem to take that for granted.

 

[Gokul43201]

Hey, you could all speak Esperanto !

I'd pick YES if it were fair for me to vote here (seeing as how I'm not European).

 

[russ_watters]

The main difference with USA is that here everybody search for his proper profit. Here it doesn't exist such a feeling of union as you have in America. Europe is formed by so many different cultures and countries, and it has been a long tradition and historics of rivality between the main countries (Spain vs UK vs France vs Germany...). Also, there are different religions (although the majority of us are christians). The union you talked about is more difficult here than anywhere. If we are setting up this constitution is not for the desire to live one aside another, but for economic purposes against the dollar.

Nevertheless, if nationalism hadn't died after WWII (yes, I know it is still twitching in a few places), such things as we are seeing today wouldn't be possible. And one of the keys to the US is the idea that national identity and cultural or ethnic identity do not necessarily have to be the same thing. Europe is moving in that direction and I forsee that within my lifetime (I'm 29), there will be a "United States of Europe." You're already almost halfway there: near the level of the US's first attempt at a government, a confederation of independent states.

As for the question, I don't know enough of the specifics to vote, though I will say that in general I think the consolidation of Europe is a good thing (is that surprising to hear from an American - and a republican at that?).

 

[Andy]

If it does happen i will move to australia.

 

[brewnog]

I forsee that within my lifetime (I'm 29), there will be a "United States of Europe."

No there bloody well won't! The EEC and common currency are one thing (well obviously they're two things) but as for becoming a single nation, there's so much opposition in the public domain for such a precedent that it would just not work.

You're already almost halfway there: near the level of the US's first attempt at a government, a confederation of independent states.

Not nearly halfway there. For 90% of people, cultural identity is far more important a consideration than any economic or political issue, it's these cultural differences which would need to be bridged for European countries to exist as one nation. I know it might sound like a trivial issue since there is a high degree of cooperation between the separate countries already, but I really think it's a move which would not be welcomed by many people.

If it does happen i will move to australia

And I'll be sat next to you on the plane (although I may be moaning about Southerners!).

 

[spender]

About what happen with french and germans, they seem a bit frustrated for being on the background of the world scene, being hidden by USA. That frustration leads to unbelievable, stupid and false behaviors against USA. They seem friends sometimes, but enemies another times. It has enhanced a lack of credibility on them in .

I would not call stupid refusing to go to war against defensless nation ! it is wise and shows maturity !

 

[Clausius2]

I would vote yes, but every article i see about the EU constitution says that the UK will loose its right to decide what it wants to do.

Man, the union of Europe must be consolidated upon the fact that nobody could do what he want. That's the democracy.

As for the question, I don't know enough of the specifics to vote, though I will say that in general I think the consolidation of Europe is a good thing (is that surprising to hear from an American - and a republican at that?).

Nice comment, taking into account it comes from an american as you said.

And I'll be sat next to you on the plane (although I may be moaning about Southerners!).

Right, go there both. For this project it is necessary ideas of sharing powers and skills, and not trying to maintain your fences as you had a castle into it. That behavior is negative because it enhances that everybody is reactive to the union, thinking they are going to loose some cultural property. Keep it cool, because nobody is going to enter in England to change your way of life. You should see it as an strategic union.

I would not call stupid refusing to go to war against defensless nation ! it is wise and shows maturity !

The fairness or not of Iraq's war is not going to be discussed by me here. There have been a lot of threads about it. Anyway, I call it again an act of hypocrisy. If France and Germany were swearing against Bush some time ago, how it is possible that now (AFTER Bush has been elected again!) Chirac and Schröeder simile Bush like they are picking up with him?, approving now the democratization of Iraq when they were criticizing it some weeks ago?. I would be ashamed if I live in these countries.

At least Spain voted for Zapatero knowing that withdrawing the troops was in his electoral program. So that, although I am not agree with that, Zapatero and Spain acted with coherency.

 

[brewnog]

Keep it cool, because nobody is going to enter in England to change your way of life. You should see it as an strategic union.

Absolutely. I do see it this way, (I voted 'yes'), but many won't, and it's the very real threat of having to compromise on cultural issues which will detract many people from such a move. Also, I think we would be invaded by beurocrats forcing us to sell our beer in litres, our land in hectares and to measure our roads in miles. Small things, but these are the things that the majority of people value.

As someone (possibly yourself) was saying at the beginning of this thread, there's an awful lot of rivalry between our nations. The Spanish fishing in our waters, the French not buying our beef, the Belgians telling us our cucumbers are too bendy, these are just examples of the friction which can occur between our nations on a macro scale. No matter how well we can get on with our neighbours as individuals (and for most of the time, we do) we, as 'Europeans' tend to resent various aspects about other nations.

It's not a case of disliking foriegn individuals (and let's face it, as individuals we europeans usually get on just fine), but I am certain that there would be so much resistance just from the suggestion of a European State that it just wouldn't happen.

 

[russ_watters]

Nice comment, taking into account it comes from an american as you said.

I highlighted the fact that I'm an American because of the perspective: a unified Europe is, at face value, bad for America, which is why it may be surprising that I consider it a positive thing (for Europeans, that is).

And please, guys - don't pretend that Americans wouldn't understand the primary issue here (fear of loss of sovereignty). We absolutely do: our first government failed due to sovereignty issues. Or the secondary issue (cultural differences): our country continues to struggle over its cultural identity.

Not nearly halfway there. For 90% of people, cultural identity is far more important a consideration than any economic or political issue, it's these cultural differences which would need to be bridged for European countries to exist as one nation.

Closer than you think (structurally): Article 2, The Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

description: http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/documents/articles/

-Congress (the central government) was made up of delegates chosen by the states and could conduct foreign affairs, make treaties, declare war, maintain an army and a navy, coin money, and establish post offices. However, measures passed by Congress had to be approved by 9 of the 13 states.
-Congress was severely limited in its powers. It could not raise money by collecting taxes; it had no control over foreign commerce; it could pass laws but could not force the states to comply with them. Thus, the government was dependent on the willingness of the various states to carry out its measures, and often the states refused to cooperate.
-The articles were virtually impossible to amend, so problems could not be corrected.

In many ways, the Europeans have already surpassed our first effort.

In any case, if the US can teach Europeans anything, its that cultural differences are utterly insignificant if the citizens have a common desire for peace, prosperity, and freedom. And again - with the near-death of nationalism, Europeans have come a long way. Its staggering, in fact - its only 60 years since the last world war.

 

[brewnog]

Europeans have come a long way.

Heh, you make us sound like naughty children or cavemen or something!

Anyway, I completely agree with you in terms of the real issues being relatively trivial. The 'primary' and 'secondary' issues you highlighted are the *real* issues which need to be considered, but it's not that simple.

In order for this to happen (and indeed to work), the people have to support it. There are so many people here who are (for example) intent on the UK having nothing at all to do with Europe, let alone having a status quo on the current situation. Convincing people that the constitution is NOT going to affect their daily lives in a negative way is nigh impossible. Admittedly, most of these people are sceptical of anything containing the E word because they got screwed over with decimalisation and the common market. Call them stubborn, call them paranoid, they'll still be the spanner in the works.

 

[russ_watters]

Heh, you make us sound like naughty children or cavemen or something!

I didn't mean to sound condescending, its just that the European political landscape has changed much more significantly in the past 60 years (or 100 years) than America's, owing to the two world wars and their offspring.

 

[brewnog]

I didn't mean to sound condescending,

I know

its just that the European political landscape has changed much more significantly in the past 60 years (or 100 years) than America's, owing to the two world wars and their offspring.

Yeah it's an interesting point, Europe today is far from the Europe of 100 years ago, and even recently things have been moving very quickly.

However, I think general acceptance of any suggestion of a common nation is much further away than you're suggesting. While on paper, the separate European nations all share roughly the same values, but in terms of people it's a different kettle of fish.

Out of interest (and here, I'm not trying to patronise you or undermine your viewpoint, honestly) which European countries have you visited, and would you support the idea that the cultural differences between, say, Spain and the Czech Republic are far more striking than the cultural differences between (and here's where I show *my* ignorance!) say, Oregon and Texas?

 

[russ_watters]

Out of interest (and here, I'm not trying to patronise you or undermine your viewpoint, honestly) which European countries have you visited, and would you support the idea that the cultural differences between, say, Spain and the Czech Republic are far more striking than the cultural differences between (and here's where I show *my* ignorance!) say, Oregon and Texas?

When I was in 4th grade, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France (on one trip), then a few years ago with the Navy, Portugal, England, Germany, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, and Lithuania.

The thing that struck me most was the language gradient - you could just about quantify how the language changed with the distance from Germany. The cultural differences did not seem very significant: the coolest thing was having people from 6 or 8 different countries (it was a little NATO task force) all sitting around a bar in any of those countries, drinking beer and talking (all in English, of course). I mean, the buildings were different, the languages sounded different, but the people acted very similarly (I, of course mostly hung out with people under 30 - older people were probably a different story...).

Regarding people in different parts of the US (sorry, never been to Oregon), there are places where the culture shock is significant: visiting Boston or New Orleans for the first time, a person from Philadelphia may need an interpreter (seriously). Visiting a poorer area for the first time, such as Southern Mississippi can be quite a shock. The US also has little pockets of extremely different cultures too: the Amish and the Pennsylvania German in general (my grandfather learned English in school, not at home). Big cities have sections utterly dominated by specific ethnicities (something you don't see in Europe). And in some states (Texas), people identify very strongly with the state - even over their national identity.

 

[Clausius2]

In order for this to happen (and indeed to work), the people have to support it. There are so many people here who are (for example) intent on the UK having nothing at all to do with Europe, let alone having a status quo on the current situation. Convincing people that the constitution is NOT going to affect their daily lives in a negative way is nigh impossible. Admittedly, most of these people are sceptical of anything containing the E word because they got screwed over with decimalisation and the common market. Call them stubborn, call them paranoid, they'll still be the spanner in the works.

Well, maybe UK does not fit in the idea of an united Europe, and the rest should accept it. In Spain, we know that british are "singular" people, very nationalists, and with deep traditions and a large History. You always are viewed like someone in the border of Europe, it could be due to your strong friendship with USA. Anyway, I think it will be a pity that UK won't be a part of this Europe, because I think Europe was truly set up because of the end and victory in the Second World War. And Great Britain played an essential role in this victory (where was Spain in the WWII? Who knows?), and for that reason an united Europe without GB would loose some of the real sense. I would be proud of sharing, as european citizen, a common project with GB, because I know you represent the true meaning of Europe, as it was formed.

The thing that struck me most was the language gradient - you could just about quantify how the language changed with the distance from Germany. The cultural differences did not seem very significant: the coolest thing was having people from 6 or 8 different countries (it was a little NATO task force) all sitting around a bar in any of those countries, drinking beer and talking (all in English, of course). I mean, the buildings were different, the languages sounded different, but the people acted very similarly (I, of course mostly hung out with people under 30 - older people were probably a different story...).

Perhaps I am going to be a bit impolite, but do not take it seriously russ. USA has a short historic background compared with european countries. I suppose you have been told something about the Catholic Kings of Spain, the Tudor dinasty, the former triangle Spain-United Kingdom-France and their continuous fights, the Orange dinasty... Europe has been inmersed in continuous fights during the last 500 years. Our principal differences are not in the language or culture, BUT in the proper character of the inhabbitants and in the way of life of each country. There are radical differences in how a german lives and how a spanish lives. There is a problem in how we affront the life, in the philosophy of life. It is much deeper than language differences. It is for that reason, that a german sat with a spanish can roughly come to an agreement with him. They are like the oil and the water, they never get mixed. Although you have justified that in USA there are similar differences, I do not think the same. The borders here are much accurately drawn than in USA, because the borders here represent a territorial limit between two very different civilizations.

 

[brewnog]

Well, maybe UK does not fit in the idea of an united Europe, and the rest should accept it. In Spain, we know that british are "singular" people, very nationalists, and with deep traditions and a large History. You always are viewed like someone in the border of Europe, it could be due to your strong friendship with USA. Anyway, I think it will be a pity that UK won't be a part of this Europe, because I think Europe was truly set up because of the end and victory in the Second World War. And Great Britain played an essential role in this victory (where was Spain in the WWII? Who knows?), and for that reason an united Europe without GB would loose some of the real sense. I would be proud of sharing, as european citizen, a common project with GB, because I know you represent the true meaning of Europe, as it was formed.

I know that most Brits, given the choice, would much prefer to be part of Europe than part of America. And I agree with you that it would be a great pity if the UK didn't join in, especially if all the other European nations did. You hit the nail on the head by saying 'the rest should just accept it', it's this which is the crux of the problem. Most Brits will just not accept it, which is a pity, and which is the reason our current government will not promise to give us a referrendum.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps I am going to be a bit impolite, but do not take it seriously russ. USA has a short historic background compared with european countries. I suppose you have been told something about the Catholic Kings of Spain, the Tudor dinasty, the former triangle Spain-United Kingdom-France and their continuous fights, the Orange dinasty...

So what? I don't mean to trivialize the history, but what's the difference between a full-blooded German living in Pennsylvania and one living in Munich? The one living in Pennsylvania doesn't care about that 500 years of history. History is history: time to move on and accept that there are better ways to define yourself. Yes, its true that with the US its easier: having an easy starting point 225 years ago means its easier to let go of the previous 500 years of history (in fact, many Americans came here for just that reason: it was the easiest way to wipe the slate clean). But:

Europe has been inmersed in continuous fights during the last 500 years.

Continuous fights until 60 years ago. My personal feeling is that it will be possible to unite Europe more completely not long after the last of the WWII vets die. There are French people and German people who can remember the day when they pointed guns at each other. When those people are gone, it'll be much easier to move on. And that's not a shot at WWII vets - its perfectly reasonable for them to feel uncomfortable with each other.

Our principal differences are not in the language or culture, BUT in the proper character of the inhabbitants and in the way of life of each country. There are radical differences in how a german lives and how a spanish lives. There is a problem in how we affront the life, in the philosophy of life. It is much deeper than language differences. It is for that reason, that a german sat with a spanish can roughly come to an agreement with him. They are like the oil and the water, they never get mixed. Although you have justified that in USA there are similar differences, I do not think the same. The borders here are much accurately drawn than in USA, because the borders here represent a territorial limit between two very different civilizations.

We have a tv show here called "Wife Swap" (not what you think) where two women of vastly different backgrounds switch families for a week or two. Most are selected specifically because they are opposites (a California vegan family and a Louisiana crawfishing family, for example). Some can stand to live together some can't. Again, I say: so what? Why does the fact that I couldn't stand to live under the same roof as someone else preclude us from sharing a government?

 

[brewnog]

Again, I say: so what? Why does the fact that I couldn't stand to live under the same roof as someone else preclude us from sharing a government?

As I said, this isn't about individuals. In person, I would almost certainly get on well with (say) Clausius. But we're talking about vast groups of people from different backgrounds who traditionally have very different cultural values. One example: Compare the Swedish policy on drugs with, say, that of the Dutch. Cultural differences like these are extremely difficult to compromise on.


Within 3 miles of where I'm sitting, there is a vast, concentrated Chinese community, a vast, concentrated Indian community, and a vast, concentrated Pakistani community, all interspersed by areas which are predominately white British nationals. The borders are extremely well defined. For most of this time, this is great. Food diversity is paradise, there's places of worship for every creed under the sun, there are no problems. But this works because all these individuals have chosen to live this way. Try and enforce such groups of different people to cohabit (even if this does not necessarily mean physical relocation of people) a nation and there will be problems.

 

[Joel]

So what? I don't mean to trivialize the history, but what's the difference between a full-blooded German living in Pennsylvania and one living in Munich? The one living in Pennsylvania doesn't care about that 500 years of history. History is history: time to move on and accept that there are better ways to define yourself. Yes, its true that with the US its easier: having an easy starting point 225 years ago means its easier to let go of the previous 500 years of history (in fact, many Americans came here for just that reason: it was the easiest way to wipe the slate clean).

Exactly, America was founded as a new start, an opposite to old European traditions. And while I agree with you wholeheartly that history is history and I much rather identify myself through other groups than my nation and its history, I think the overall sentiment still values history highly. I think it can be seen in political rethorics, where current questions are frequently compared to historically similar occasions and in some kind of reluctance towards too rapid change, for example with the gene-manipulated livestock. Even many who advocate a united europe and see the need to build a "European identity" tries to do it by looking at similarities in our nations' histories, not by whiping the slate clean. And one more, my (former) major, political science got its first chairs in america, partly because it did not face the resistance of established disciplines, like philosophy, law and economics - it was not bound by academic traditions.

Why does the fact that I couldn't stand to live under the same roof as someone else preclude us from sharing a government?

Because you could chose not to live under the same roof with another individual, but you would have to submit to democratic decisions affecting your life?

Another point that I came to think about from your comparison with the individuals sharing a roof and clausius and brewnogs talk about different cultures, was that regardless of what group one would identify with, the difference between americas fairly individual and many european countries' not-quite-that-individual societies is apparently still notable.

This discussion in turn, would maybe illustrate much of the work done to unite Europe; comparing values and habits between member states and making them explicit through chit chat and studies. Positive interaction tends to increase liking and highlight our similarities as well as differencies, which in turn may give us second thoughts about revolting against our (maybe one day united europe's) government's descisions.

Finally, your comparison of the Article of Confederations and the proposed EU constitution was very interesting. And I would also very much hope that European leaders would realize that cultural differences are not that important.

 

[brewnog]

I would also very much hope that European leaders would realize that cultural differences are not that important.

They do realize this, and recognise that bringing whatever cultural differences we all have together could be an incredibly positive thing.

However, I'm certain that the majority (a guess at 75%) of Brits would be against any 'U.S.E', and I would ask what any Scandinavian and Swiss board members thought that their country as a whole would think (I'm vaguely certain that most of the other European nations would embrace it). I definitely share Clausius' view that the rest of Europe might just go on without us, but as he said this would be a shame.

 

[Joel]

They do realize this, and recognise that bringing whatever cultural differences we all have together could be an incredibly positive thing.

However, I'm certain that the majority (a guess at 75%) of Brits would be against any 'U.S.E', and I would ask what any Scandinavian and Swiss board members thought that their country as a whole would think (I'm vaguely certain that most of the other European nations would embrace it). I definitely share Clausius' view that the rest of Europe might just go on without us, but as he said this would be a shame.

Googling quickly I couldn't find exact statistics, but according to last spring's Eurobarometer 52% of the Finns supported some kind of constitution and 35% where against it. Only the the UK (42%) and Denmark (37%) supported it less. Generally I think the scandinavian countries, being rather small, are afraid of not being heard in European wide discission making.

But check out the Eurobarometers (European public opinion statistics) yourself: http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/standard_en.htm - With more time one could surely make very interesting comparisons and conclusions from them.

 

[PerennialII]

Googling quickly I couldn't find exact statistics, but according to last spring's Eurobarometer 52% of the Finns supported some kind of constitution and 35% where against it. Only the the UK (42%) and Denmark (37%) supported it less. Generally I think the scandinavian countries, being rather small, are afraid of not being heard in European wide discission making.

But check out the Eurobarometers (European public opinion statistics) yourself: http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/standard_en.htm - With more time one could surely make very interesting comparisons and conclusions from them.

Considering how "international" the atmosphere in nordic countries is overall the poll results have been surprising. But I think as Finns we still have some remnants of our "neutrality" policies hanging over the heads of many, if not most, people. Luckily our government has at crucial times had the opposite view.

 

[Andy]

Origionally posted by Clausius 2
Man, the union of Europe must be consolidated upon the fact that nobody could do what he want. That's the democracy.

Sounds more like communism than democracy to me.

 

[Andy]

I have just read in the Sun newspaper, a leading tabloid newspaper in britain, that as part of the EU constitution all member states will give up there foreign embassies and europe will just have one embassy with an ambassador that will report directly to the EU in brussels. Also they point out that Britain will its voice in NATO and will no longer have a seat on the UN security council. Please tell me again why this is a good thing?

 

[Clausius2]

Sounds more like communism than democracy to me.

Be sure I am too far of communism. Could you kill a boy in your country only because you want to do it? Sure not. That kind of common rules is what I am referring to, and the respect to them is one of the pillars of the democracy.

Please tell me again why this is a good thing?

I have not read the constitution, and I don't feel like to do it. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it is the most common way to go to vote. Perhaps that thing could be attenuated by another positive three ones.

 

[brewnog]

I have just read in the Sun newspaper...

So it must be true then!

 

[Andy]

lol yea, they where referring to a radio interview the spanish prime minister gave.

Origionally posted by Clausius
I have not read the constitution, and I don't feel like to do it. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it is the most common way to go to vote. Perhaps that thing could be attenuated by another positive three ones.

So your going to vote yes on something without actually knowing what that is? Always read the smallprint before you sign for anything.

 

[brewnog]

I think his point was that most people don't care enough about the ins and outs of the issue to research it properly, but these people will still go to the polling station just to make their voice heard.

 

[meteor]

Spain voted yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4280841.stm
Though I didn't vote (when will be possible to vote through Internet?)

 

[Clausius2]

Spain voted yes (77%). But pay attention to the low percentage which turned out: 42%.

In fact nobody has read the Constitution, Andy. Who has time to do it?

Although we went to vote as blinds, we voted according to <how> the idea sounds.

To those who have a referendum in his countries, I invite them to post here what happens after it. Here, the two main parties are fighting between them trying to clear up who has the blame for the low turnout percentage. So that, now we have an added problem.

 

[Andy]

Alot of ideas sound good at the time.