Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3126697

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/28/ixnewstop.html

Damn.. no wonder France is pissed about the larger EU, they got rolled over by Blair and New Europe.

 

[xabre]

Damn.. no wonder France is pissed about the larger EU, they got rolled over by Blair and New Europe.

I don't blame them. A bunch of ex-Soviet states with shithouse backward economies quite happy to submit to American/British bribery all too easily. France (as I think the founder of the EU) naturally see themselves (and Germany) as the EU's central power block so they would be none too pleased to be usurped by a bunch of newcomers.

New Europe? What the hell does that mean?

Ask Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[Dead]

New Europe? What the hell does that mean?

Its a term employed by the mentally challenged. Pay no mind

 

[Socreges]

Can someone explain to me what exactly the European Union is? Some questions to spur anyone along:

Would anyone using the Euro as their currency become part of the EU?

Would it be something like a federal state? Where you have a central government overseeing all of the other governments? Or would it be an entirely new system? Like, the central government would oversee the EU, but have very little power over each country?

Would the EU be considered a "state"? For instance, because they're unified, would the EU be a superpower by itself? Or would the EU be a very loose entity with each country still having ultimate sovereignty and mostly self-dependence?

 

[Socreges]

BUMP

 

[MrPing1000]

New Europe? What the hell does that mean?

We didn't like the old one so we we're building new europe on top of it, Holland is pissed through since there cannals with be 50foot deep, but at least they won't be below see level anymore

 

[The_Jack]

I don't think France was the founder of the EU. I thought it was Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. I don't know why France think it has more right to decide things than other European countries.

I think it's this sort of attitude that annoys Eric about France.

 

[Acrylamid]

Would anyone using the Euro as their currency become part of the EU?

It's the other way round. First you have to become a member of the EU and later, when you meet certain criterias, you're allowed to use the Euro as your currency.

Would it be something like a federal state? Where you have a central government overseeing all of the other governments? Or would it be an entirely new system? Like, the central government would oversee the EU, but have very little power over each country? Would the EU be considered a "state"? For instance, because they're unified, would the EU be a superpower by itself? Or would the EU be a very loose entity with each country still having ultimate sovereignty and mostly self-dependence?

Right now a Constitution was signed by the leaders of all 25 states, but it still has to be signed in the Parliaments of all member states.
I'd say the European Union is somewhere in the middle between the United Nations and the United States of America concerning power and ifluence on its states.
In the future, the EU might become a "state". At least I think this is the aim of certain countries, who like to take the EU to the next level (France, Germany). Others (like the UK) are afraid of this and try to save their sovereignty.

 

[Acrylamid]

I don't think France was the founder of the EU. I thought it was Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. I don't know why France think it has more right to decide things than other European countries..

The six founding states were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Netherlands.
UK (60 million people), France (60) and Germany (80) have so much influence in the EU because they have together more than 1/3 of the population of the whole Union.

 

[fortified_concept]

I find it disgusting that UK has become USA's pawn and trojan horse in the EU. Ripclawe might enjoy it but he's also kinda stupid.

 

[Ripclawe]

The six founding states were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Netherlands.
UK (60 million people), France (60) and Germany (80) have so much influence in the EU because they have together more than 1/3 of the population of the whole Union.

and France is losing that influence, Germany is kinda pissed but they are not as arrogant and bull-headed as France is. Thats a big reason France doesn't want Turkey in the EU and keeps making excuses.

 

[Socreges]

Thank you, Acrylamid.

I find it disgusting that UK has become USA's pawn and trojan horse in the EU. Ripclawe might enjoy it but he's also kinda stupid.

I was wondering if that at all affected the UK's stance. The EU will, in the long run, seriously injure America's hegemonic status. Which is, imo, a good thing.

 

[Ripclawe]

Thank you, Acrylamid.

I was wondering if that at all affected the UK's stance. The EU will, in the long run, seriously injure America's hegemonic status. Which is, imo, a good thing.

of course not, EU is not built to be an equal to America even though they would love it to be, China will surpass Eu in about 20 years.

 

[Socreges]

Of course not? What are you so simply dismissing?

The EU will, in the long run, seriously injure America's hegemonic status.

That?

And explain why.

I was wondering if that at all affected the UK's stance

Or that?

And explain why.

 

[Shompola]

Ripclawe is just talking out of his ass like allways. Pay no attention to him.

 

[Ripclawe]

Of course not? What are you so simply dismissing?

EU has to change its economic and social order to compete with the US and China.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aqCYhMI8v5ec&refer=europe

EU presidentProdi has said radical changes are needed as well

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=19&aid=16257


but the changes necessary for example, France's 35 hour work week is not going to be given up without a fight, but in a global economy that puts France at a huge disadvantage. Thats why the EU won't be able to compete with America or a growing China.

I was wondering if that at all affected the UK's stance.

No, this is more of the UK not wanting the Franco/German alliance to dominate the EU and since Chirac pretty much insulted the newer members of the EU, they are going to side when needed with the UK on certain issues to blunt France and Germany. This is also why France is not too keen on having Turkey in the EU because then it really weakens their power.

 

[Socreges]

EU has to change its economic and social order to compete with the US and China.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/new...ec&refer=europe

EU presidentProdi has said radical changes are needed as well

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=19&aid=16257


but the changes necessary for example, France's 35 hour work week is not going to be given up without a fight, but in a global economy that puts France at a huge disadvantage. Thats why the EU won't be able to compete with America or a growing China.

You don't think a lot of that can be resolved? Or at least to the point where they're unified enough to be something to the effect of a functioning state? Keep in mind that I said "in the long run". The long run will be many years. But I feel it's inevitable that such a unity will entail an enormous amount of power, regardless of certain conflicts within.

No, this is more of the UK not wanting the Franco/German alliance to dominate the EU and since Chirac pretty much insulted the newer members of the EU, they are going to side when needed with the UK on certain issues to blunt France and Germany. This is also why France is not too keen on having Turkey in the EU because then it really weakens their power.

I understand that. That's why I merely said "I wonder if this has affected the UK's stance", rather than decided.

This is ultimately what you are disputing:

The EU will, in the long run, seriously injure America's hegemonic status.

I have not said "destroy" or that China would not play a [larger] role. I think it might as well be fact that the creation of the EU will make America's influence less dominating.

At least you don't seem convinced that the US will forever remain the lone superpower.

 

[Ripclawe]

You don't think a lot of that can be resolved? Or at least to the point where they're unified enough to be something to the effect of a functioning state? Keep in mind that I said "in the long run". The long run will be many years. But I feel it's inevitable that such a unity will entail an enormous amount of power, regardless of certain conflicts within.

No, I will use Germany as an example, I don't like gerald schroder, BUT he realizes that spending cuts and reforming the cradle to the grave welfare system are needed to bring germany's economy around, that has made his popularity drop to the low 20% and his party got pummelled in recent elections because he wants to drive these reforms thru. The same goes for France, I hate Chirac, but his party wants to do the same thing and is getting pummelled. When you have citizens depending on the government and expecting this cradle to the grave taking care of mentality, it affects your competitiveness in this global economy.(This includes jobs and how businesses are run)

its sucking both of their economies down the tubes unless drastic measures are taken, but they only way out is to indulge the masses and when it collapses, you fix it.

you can't change someone who is accustomed to getting things for "free".

I have not said "destroy" or that China would not play a [larger] role. I think it might as well be fact that the creation of the EU will make America's influence less dominating.

Not really, China is going to dominate the Asia, thats a forgone conclusion, they will not allow any influence to be too strong from anyone else. Latin America/South America the EU is trying there to be a force but Brazil wants to be #1 so thats blunted, the only other section is Africa and that seems to be an impossibility for anyone.

The EU influence so far has been an annoyance more than anything else, just getting in the way of stuff.

 

[Socreges]

No, I will use Germany as an example, I don't like gerald schroder, BUT he realizes that spending cuts and reforming the cradle to the grave welfare system are needed to bring germany's economy around, that has made his popularity drop to the low 20% and his party got pummelled in recent elections because he wants to drive these reforms thru. The same goes for France, I hate Chirac, but his party wants to do the same thing and is getting pummelled. When you have citizens depending on the government and expecting this cradle to the grave taking care of mentality, it affects your competitiveness in this global economy.(This includes jobs and how businesses are run)

its sucking both of their economies down the tubes unless drastic measures are taken, but they only way out is to indulge the masses and when it collapses, you fix it.

you can't change someone who is accustomed to getting things for "free".

You are thinking short-term and are convinced that these problems are irreparable. I disagree. The EU is taking small steps. I think with properties such as the Euro, the EU will continue to unify and assimilate more and more. Not culturally, mind you, but economically. It may take years, but I think they will invariably affect one another to the point where it's in their best interest to strengthen bonds further and further.

Not really, China is going to dominate the Asia, thats a forgone conclusion, they will not allow any influence to be too strong from anyone else. Latin America/South America the EU is trying there to be a force but Brazil wants to be #1 so thats blunted, the only other section is Africa and that seems to be an impossibility for anyone.

The EU influence so far has been an annoyance more than anything else, just getting in the way of stuff.

We seem to disagree on where the EU will likely end up, so of course we'll disagree on potential influence in the future.

 

[fortified_concept]

No, this is more of the UK not wanting the Franco/German alliance to dominate the EU and since Chirac pretty much insulted the newer members of the EU, they are going to side when needed with the UK on certain issues to blunt France and Germany. This is also why France is not too keen on having Turkey in the EU because then it really weakens their power.

Oh for god's sake man get in touch with reality. No wonder everyone is making fun of you. It's not like UK doesn't like the France/German alliance they could easily join them to control Europe it's just that UK was is and if British keep voting conservatives and "socialists" will be USA's little willing puppy.

 

[Ripclawe]

Oh for god's sake man get in touch with reality. No wonder everyone is making fun of you. It's not like UK doesn't like the France/German alliance they could easily join them to control Europe it's just that UK was is and if British keep voting conservatives and "socialists" will be USA's little willing puppy.

Not really, since there is a reason why its been called the Franco/German alliance for years now and not the UK/Franco/German alliance. its not as simple as you think it is, France and Germany want power consolidated between themselves, if the UK wants to follow thats fine, but as an equal partner? no way.

 

[Ripclawe]

You are thinking short-term and are convinced that these problems are irreparable. I disagree. The EU is taking small steps. I think with properties such as the Euro, the EU will continue to unify and assimilate more and more. Not culturally, mind you, but economically. It may take years, but I think they will invariably affect one another to the point where it's in their best interest to strengthen bonds further and further.

The Euro has nothing to do with it, its the social culture and economic restrictions as Straw and someone as even Anti_American as prodi admitted. You can't compete when you have barriers in the way that need to be broken down. example, if Germany's welfare system keeps getting bigger and out of control, and business practices like forcing companies to take trainees is not stopped, you can't have an effective economy to keep up with America. The interesting thing is now France and Germany has to compete with New Europe who have much lower corporate taxes and luring companies away from West Europe so they can do business HQ'ng from East European countries. Any sort of uniform EU tax code is nowhere near in sight.

 

[fortified_concept]

Not really, since there is a reason why its been called the Franco/German alliance for years now and not the UK/Franco/German alliance. its not as simple as you think it is, France and Germany want power consolidated between themselves, if the UK wants to follow thats fine, but as an equal partner? no way.

It is simple. It's called the Franco/German alliance and not the UK/Franco/German alliance cos the UK since the birth of the EU was always trying to sabotage them. I mean other countries' govs have been bribed by the US but UK is the everlasting US's little errant boy. And British know that and that's why Blair's party was third in the Euroelections. I mean we're not even talking about the UK as a country here taking these decisions, we're talking about UK's corrupt gov which most of the British hate now.

 

[Socreges]

The Euro has nothing to do with it, its the social culture and economic restrictions as Straw and someone as even Anti_American as prodi admitted. You can't compete when you have barriers in the way that need to be broken down. example, if Germany's welfare system keeps getting bigger and out of control, and business practices like forcing companies to take trainees is not stopped, you can't have an effective economy to keep up with America. The interesting thing is now France and Germany has to compete with New Europe who have much lower corporate taxes and luring companies away from West Europe so they can do business HQ'ng from East European countries. Any sort of uniform EU tax code is nowhere near in sight.

I never said the Euro would be the one link:

I think with properties such as the Euro, the EU will continue to unify and assimilate more and more

However, you're convinced that there are insurmountable barriers and that potentialities are what will prevent the EU from being a success. You're citing people in order to support your argument, which is good, but you are far, far more contentious [wonder why]. The formation and progress of the EU has been difficult and inconsistent, but there remains a common goal. Despite obstacles, they move towards that. I am not at all convinced that certain inconsistencies amongst nations cannot be rectified over time. And once they ultimately achieve this goal, they will compete.

 

[Deg]

Another EU threads. More crap. They really need to get people knowing about the EU and what it means.

 

[Ripclawe]

However, you're convinced that there are insurmountable barriers and that potentialities are what will prevent the EU from being a success.

I never said it won't be a success, it just won't be able to compete with America. big difference.

You're citing people in order to support your argument, which is good, but you are far, far more contentious [wonder why].

I citied Jack Straw and Prodi, the 2 people in the know about where the EU is at and its not where they want it to be unless changes occur.

 

[Socreges]

I never said it won't be a success, it just won't be able to compete with America. big difference.

It you're to get semantic in order to dismiss what I said then here:

"You're convinced that there are insurmountable barriers and that potentialities are what will prevent the EU from damaging America's hegemony."

I citied Jack Straw and Prodi, the 2 people in the know about where the EU is at and its not where they want it to be unless changes occur.

...what's your point? Mine was that they suppose problems. However, you take those problems and then apply them to a *certain future*.

 

[Ripclawe]

It you're to get semantic in order to dismiss what I said then here:

"You're convinced that there are insurmountable barriers and that potentialities are what will prevent the EU from damaging America's hegemony."

to damage it, you have to be seen as an equal, they won't. There are barriers that have to be broken down, but the economic/social reality is that to compete with us, certain things as I have said above have to be cut or reined in plus a mindset change. That won't happen until the current system collapses on itself since the citizens do not want change.

This is not disputable, check around various business journals and I even gave you quotes from people who would know.

what's your point? Mine was that they suppose problems. However, you take those problems and then apply them to a *certain future*.

These problems will remain problems in the future. Thats why they are calling for change.

 

[Socreges]

to damage it, you have to be seen as an equal, they won't. There are barriers that have to be broken down, but the economic/social reality is that to compete with us, certain things as I have said above have to be cut or reined in plus a mindset change. That won't happen until the current system collapses on itself since the citizens do not want change.

This is not disputable, check around various business journals and I even gave you quotes from people who would know.



These problems will remain problems in the future. Thats why they are calling for change.

This is inconsistent. You make strong statements such as "they won't be seen as an equal" which assumes permanence, but then acknowledge that [drastic] change can fix this. Again, you are being more contentious than the people you are quoting.

My stress has been that the EU, over many years if necessary, will overcome these challenges, as it is in their best interests. Push and shove.

Straw, in fact, agrees with me:

"I accept that the reform process will be marathon not a sprint."