The European Union

Well, I know most tropers are Americans, but I'm still interested in how the European Union is perceived not only by Europeans but also by people from other continents. I haven't seen a general thread yet, so here we go.

Especially now with the budget crisis of the PIIG states (and possibly other states in the future), I've heard lots of criticism about the EU and also the Euro. As far as I know, every member state (except Germany?) has a major party that is either critical of the EU or outright advocates parting from it.

So what's the European Union to you?

Bloated, non-democratic, overly bureaucratic mess with a non-elected president and inefficient and useless policies that doesn't get anything done and tries to abolish the sovereignty of the nations?

or

Important step towards a peaceful, prosperous and unified Europe that is essential for European countries to compete in a globalised world and promotes a European identity that puts the divisions of the past aside?

Aspects of both.

Aspects of both. It's not perfect, but it is the best bet for Europe not to become entirely irrelevant on the international scene.

Also, the financial regulations of the EU are the only reason why the glorious leaders of my homeland did not manage to drive us to utter misery yet - I shudder to think of the mess they would make if, for example, they could manage their own currency...

I would love for it to be more centralized, and more proactive in internal and external affairs, but we will get there eventually.

An attempt at the latter but realistically is nothing but the former.

Fundamentally, the EU is a good thing. Sure, it has its shortcomings, but I think it's 70% good. I'm especially fond of its work on human rights and culture; in both fields, it's done great work though obviously there's still a lot to do, especially about percecution against the Romani people of Europe.

Also, one of my history teachers used to say that since WWII, there hasn't been a major conflict in Europe since the end of WWII, and the most likely explanation is that there's been a body in which European countries can discuss things with other European nations (including ones that are not on either side) present and a European court in which international disputes can be solved peacefully.

I'm afraid I lean more towards Major Toms view on this. The EU is hopelessly incompetent when it comes to political matters, though at least they were wise enough to put aside a nest egg for this whole mess. The EU should never have been; we were fine with the purely economic EEC. Or perhaps the EU was a good idea, but it was extraordinarily poorly executed. The EU is great for Europes economy, and absolutely useless for anything else. It needs to have the political set up stripped out and reset if we're ever to be a proper union, and not just a massive bureaucracy of dubious democratic credence.

EDIT: Bureaucracy, I meant Bureaucracy!

edited 7th Apr '11 2:10:35 PM by GameChainsaw

Europeans have the freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU. That's something EXTREMELY important.

Like all truly society-changing events, pretty much everyone takes it for granted.

Aside from that, the EU ain't particularly good, and the central authority screws up more often than not. But, I'll repeat, EUROPEANS HAVE THE FREEDOM TO LIVE AND WORK ANYWHERE IN THE EU, JUST LIKE THAT. No visas, no work permits, no red tape at all.

edited 7th Apr '11 2:14:16 PM by SavageHeathen

^^^I wouldn't credit the European Union too much for the period of peace we're experiencing here. I think that's mainly due to the incredibly devastating effects that the two world wars had. WWII essentially neutralised Germany and made everyone very tired of war, which continues to this day. The EU might have attributed to it, but I don't think there would've been a major war in Europe without it. I mean, there was the conflict in Bosnia and Serbia, but obviously that was nothing compared to the world wars.

^That is true, however this would also be possible with a Union that is way smaller in power and influence.

I myself agree with the most of you here. It does have good aspects, but it reminds me of the Soviet Union in too many ways for me to support it outright. There's a reason that some people call it the EUSSR.

I am not sure that "it's a bit like the USSR" is a good reason not to trust the EU.

On-topic: basically, what Best Of said before me.

In 13 consecutive years, the auditors have refused to sign off the EU's accounts. Bloated, corrupt bastards with a known habit of bestowing Guantanamo Bay like treatment upon those who dare to try and blow the whistle.

Utterly loathe and despise them.

I like the EU, but it's overstretched in every way and now it will have to wait another decade or two before it can realize its full potential with the current number of states and with the current level of strength in its institutions.

The EU tried to expand too fast and now we're paying the prise. But it only means that we'll have to be more patient and think more in long term from now on.

I still believe that Turkey can fulfill the requirements and become a member some decades from now. They need more democracy, more equality and less poverty, but if they maintain / expand an open society and continue to enjoy a growing economy and better standard of living, they'll get there eventually.

I think y'all have lost Turkey. The Turks are starting to be more independant in their Foreign Policy for the last year or two. I also think the Russians won't allow any further expansion. Georgia merely tried to get on the waiting list and Russia made sure they paid very dearly for that. Which, to be honest, is totally fair from a realpolitik point of view. Do not encroach in the wrong sphere of influence...

It hasn't quite reached its full potential at the moment, and from an outsiders perspective, it has a lot of issues.

edited 7th Apr '11 7:12:29 PM by rmctagg09

Turkey is not in Russia's sphere of influence, and besides, wasn't the conflict in Georgia more about protecting Russian nationals in the country, as well as assisting the secession of certain parts of the country?

Anyway, Russia can do nothing to prevent Turkey from joining the EU if both Turkey and the EU want if to happen. If Russia really was all about protecting its spheres of influence with conflicts, why did they allow Finland, the Baltic countries, Bulgaria and Romania to join?

Economics and human rights, it has been quite a leap forward. One of the things I find admirable about Europe is their ability to deal with economic issues and multi-national corporations.

One of the problems I've had with the US regulators is that they're basically a joke. CE Os will, on screen and live, crack a joke about obviously bad mergers (as in, it would form a monopoly) and laugh when anybody talks about US regulators. The only problem is euro regulators in any issue. They're the only ones willing to tackle serious issues.

As for the bureaucracy my stance is something like this. The EU bureaucracy is on the whole, very effective and people who judge it based on size alone (such as Tom) are missing the point. I know libertarians gag at the sight of expensive government agencies but would you rather spend the cheaper 50 million a year on an agency in the US that doesn't do it's job properly and is thoroughly corrupt, or 100 million a year in the EU and does it's job competently and well staffed with skilled individuals? I'd rather a government that does its god damned job. Could it be more efficient? Sure. Most things can.

My larger issue with the bureaucracy is how ME Ps are trying to sideline the bureaucrats in favour of autocratic processes (in the name of "efficiency"). That trend is troubling to me. The worst are the radicals, the anti-immigrant parties and the neo-fascists taking up those MEP seats. I don't get why national governments, like Sarkozy's party, needs to pander to that Le Pen garbage, or Swedish party pandering to the SDP and so on.

edited 7th Apr '11 9:16:34 PM by breadloaf

@ Best Of

I'm afraid I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying Turkey was in Russia's sphere of influence. They're just becoming less inclined toward the EU due to the foot dragging (I mean, how the hell does Cyprus join but not Turkey when it doesn't even control all the territory it claims...). The Russian example was with regards to Belarus and Ukraine and in Georgia, which had tried to make a move (though in that scenario I find Saakashvili at fault for trying to be a big dog with a little body...).

Well, if Belarus wanted to join us and could meet the conditions, and provided that we would want them, Russia would be unable to prevent it. All that Russia can do is stop exporting gas, and that IS a huge problem for Ukraine and Belarus, but both countries are becoming more prosperous - it's just taking a while, and we're not in a hurry to expand and the moment.

Of course, if Russia doesn't want the EU to get Belarus or Ukraine, it can fuck up those countries' economy so that they won't meet the conditions, but I bet we could come up with something. Especially if we had Turkey.

I haven't read up on how Cyprus got into the EU, but probably it was pushed through by the UK and Greece, both of which are very closely tied to Cyprus.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined the EU in 2004, when nationalism and modernisation of the armed forces was already underway in Russia, though it hadn't been for a while. Bur Romania and Bulgaria, which are historically considered to be in Russia's sphere of influence, joined in 2007, so if Russia was concerned about EU expansion they would've tried to prevent that.

The point I'm making is that Russia is not an obstacle to EU expansion except maybe in the sense that it controls Ukraine's nad Belarus's economy to a great degree and can thus prevent them from meeting our criteria.

I object to the notion that the EU has been dragging its feet in Turkey. We have criteria for membership, and as it is, Turkey does not meet them. Some political parties in Turkey promised their people that they'd be in the EU by 2015 (or something like that), which was obviously not going to happen 'cause it takes longer for a country that size to change to meet our qualifications. Mainly talking about human rights and gender equality issues here.

I saw in BBC's HardTalk a minister (I think it was the Foreign Minister, but I'm not sure) from Turkey saying that they're in no hurry to join and that they're not currently actively trying to shift the country towards membership because the social and economic development that the country has enjoyed for a while is naturally dragging it toward us without the need to push hard. IIRC he ended the interview by hinting at the possibility that when organic developments from within Turkey have progressed far enough, they won't need a huge campaign to actively shift to meet our requirements - they'll just fill them naturally, with only minor and medium adjustments necessary. So they'll probably join eventually if they still want to do it when they're ready (which they probably will).

edited 8th Apr '11 4:18:34 AM by BestOf

Let be another one to jump on here and say that I LOVE the EU. It's done a hell of a lot of good for Europe, particularly when it comes to human rights. The European Court of Human Rights is a marvelous thing that should be celebrated by everyone living under it's jurisdiction.

I do however, as a European Federalist, don't think the European Union is nearly strong or far reaching enough. Ideally what I would like to see is a model similar to the one used in America. A central federal government with smaller local parliaments for each country in the EU. Local parliaments would have a certain degree of autonomy but would be subject to the authority of, and ruling by, the federal government.

Basically I want Europe to be one country. A bit daft perhaps but I honestly think it would be the best for all the countries involved, and give Europe a lot more clout on the international stage.

I think many people tend to look the many small things the EU has done for their citizen and focus more on the negative aspects. Travelling without visa is incredible useful, last year while I was going to an international language school, I heard storys of south Koreans who were in trouble when the ash cloud of the volcano permitted air travel and had problems with their visas.

Many fathers in Germany owe a lot to the European Court for giving them a better standing in custody battles. However, the greatest contribution of the EU is establishing peace in Europe, sure there are also other reasons to consider, but the EU gives countries the possibility to solve their issues peacefully and cooperate with each other and maybe, more importantly people are able to learn more about their fellow Europeans and they can understand each other. But we have still a long way to go. We need a single European Army and politicians with imagination like De Gaulle, Adenauer, Mitterand and Kohl and not the spineless opportunists we have today.

PS: I do apologize for my horrible English, I hope it is somewhat understandable.

If anything, its the fact that the EU hasn't gone far enough. We're too integrated to be truly different countries, and too close together to call ourselves a federalised state. Not to mention too disorganised, and still looking inwards to our individual countries, rather than paying attention to the EU side of things. Lets face it, we take our own national elections here far more seriously than we would the EU elections.

^^ Your English isn't "horrible". It's good enough that I didn't even notice any mistakes until you pointed it out. It's certainly a lot better than my German.

edited 10th Apr '11 3:46:35 PM by storyyeller

^^ Possibly because the EU are to civilised, organised, sensible, non-corrupt utter fucking morons as the Tea Party are to extreme-left wing hippies?

I'll start taking them seriously when they act in a way that warrants it.

edited 10th Apr '11 3:48:56 PM by CaissasDeathAngel