Everything you ever wanted to know about Europe or Members manifestos.

[stickandrudderman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg&feature=share

 

[Flyair]

Great video, but there is one mistake I spotted: Poland is not part of the Eurozone....

[stickandrudderman]

Like I said, "almost"!

[GGR]

Yes, it's a great video. the European Union may seem complicated, cumbersome and frustrating, but we'd better make it work. Its most important achievement is 70 years of uninterrupted peace among its members (if we take the Marshall Plan as its starting point) which is unprecedented. Over the long History (Histoire longue) peace in Europe is the exception, not the norm. Problem is that 70 years is more than common memory so people take it for granted. Some people say that war is not possible anymore in Europe and that the European Union has nothing to do with it. I don't agree with them. The founding principle of the Union is to put our resources in common and manage them together. The current rise of nationalism everywhere in Europe is very worrying because it goes against this founding principle. And when we don't work together we fight each-other. Just read an History book if you're not convinced. After WWI everybody was already saying that another war in Europe was impossible. How wrong.

[Ulf]

I agree with GGR - the EU is a complex, bureaucratic structure that seems horrendously bizarre, but it has kept peace and prosperity in Europe for longer than ever...

[mdsalemi]

There's another error (at least one I noticed); they don't mention Collectivité territoriale de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, French islands off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada. How do they fit in this complexity?

And Ulf, GGR and others--a good deal of the peace over the past 70 years has to do first with the collective "enemy" of the cold-war, the Russian-Bloc nations behind the once "Iron-Curtain" which of course engendered United States military troop commands numbering in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the armament, air forces and related. Kind of hard to start a war when this kind of enforcement is around!

But, all of Europe has not seen 70 years of peace. Don't forget the war in Kosovo; "armed insurgency" in Macedonia; the Russion invasion of Hungary in 1956; of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Bosnian war, Croatian War of Independence, Romanian revolution…while not world wars, or even wars engaging all of Europe, they did make travel dangerous in certain areas, and resulted in loss of life. We here in the USA don't always get all the stories, but one we will certainly hear and see again is the remnants of the destruction of Sarajevo--which hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics (that's why we'll hear about it) but was torn apart with the breakup of Yugoslavia…not precisely 70 years of peace.

The complexity of the EU is almost matched by two things: first, the United States Forces in Europe. Look THAT up and you'll find a variety of interesting acronyms such as USAREUR, AFCENT, USEUCOM, SHAPE, AFNORTH, AFSOUTH, and more--an ever-changing alphabet soup typical of a changing military command structure starting with the end of WWII, incorporating NATO and the UN, too.

Second is our own United States; the EU has a small number of countries, we have 50 states plus the District of Columbia, some overseas territories (such as Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.) and the same kind of humorous complexity offered by the EU video could be made about our own USA!  Maybe it has and we just have not found it yet.  

[GGR]

And Ulf, GGR and others--a good deal of the peace over the past 70 years has to do first with the collective "enemy" of the cold-war, the Russian-Bloc nations behind the once "Iron-Curtain" which of course engendered United States military troop commands numbering in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the armament, air forces and related. Kind of hard to start a war when this kind of enforcement is around!

This is true. I consider the USA to be one of the founding fathers of nowadays European Union with the Marshall Plan, which guiding principle was to put yesterday's enemies around the table and manage the Plan together to meet their common interests. On an institutional point of view the Marshall Plan transformed into the OECD. But its spirit went on living through the EU. The 1957 Treaty of Rome may be EUs founding treaty, but it is the result of a process which started with the Marshall Plan. The cold war indeed helped keeping Western Europe together under American overall military protection.

The fall of the Iron Curtain offered opportunities but also brought some challenges. EU enlarged to former Eastern Block European countries, which I guess is a good thing, certainly for the ones who see Europe only as an economic cooperation zone. But for the proponents of a political Europe, that enlargement happened too fast, before the Union could be consolidated politically. I guess geopolitics played a role, as this enlargement had to be done before Russia was able to reinstate its influence over these countries (see what happened later with Georgia for ex.), the stake being that it was better having these countries on the EU side, even if in a hasted manner, rather than potentially against the EU at a later stage. Political Europe was further damaged through positions taken over the second War in Iraq, and the Bush administration splitting Europe into three (in G. W. Bush's own words). Quite sad, if one thinks of the US as one of EUs founding fathers and the reasons for which it did it. In any case, this was the demonstration that the EU members were not yet able to stand united over an important matter. The fall of USSR also lowered the stakes on a military point of view, with the US shifting its focus on other parts of the world, like Asia.

To-date, the EU has not been able to take its full responsibilities in taking over its defense in a united manner. This has a lot to do with the difficulty European countries have to relinquish part of their sovereignty to a higher European authority that remains to be created/enforced. This is further reinforced by the behavior of national politicians: “all the good is thanks to us, all the bad is because of Brussels”, making the European institutions appear as an uncontrolled body disconnected from the European citizens. They just forget to mention that whatever Brussels is doing is being decided through the Council and the Parliament, both manned by Ministers of Member States or directly elected by European citizens. Add to that a disastrous communication capability of the EU institutions, and we end up with European citizens being less and less motivated or interested in the European construction project. In difficult times, like the current economic hardship, Europe can even be used as a scapegoat. But the price to pay is an increasing nationalism. We often say Europe has made progress when facing challenges. Well, I think European countries, starting with their own citizens, have to take their responsibilities and make it happen, one way or the other, before it is too late. I think a good starting point would be to have the European budget financed by European taxes paid directly by the citizens (rather than paid to each government and then reallocated to the European budget). This would surely have the citizens more aware and more interested in the use which is made of that money, raising the stakes of European Parliament elections at the same time, and having the citizens more interested and involved in the decisions that are being made at that level. That would also reinforce European parties with citizens of various countries uniting behind shared political views and values.   

[Flyair]

Mike,

as a comment to your sentence: "a good deal of the peace over the past 70 years has to do first with the collective "enemy" of the cold-war, the Russian-Bloc nations behind the once "Iron-Curtain" which of course engendered United States military troop commands numbering in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the armament, air forces and related".

During the "rightly past times" (i.e. communist rule times), we were saying here in Poland that we look like a horseradish: red to the outside world, and white inside...

Moreover, in the 60's we worked out the procedure about what would be the fastest way of setting Poland free of communism and rejoining the Western world?
Answer: Poland should declare war unilaterally to the United States and surrender five minutes later...
 

[mdsalemi]

Yes Stan--that would be a good idea! Something similar was the plot of a play, "The Mouse that Roared". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared So the idea you have was not a Polish idea, but one from an Irish-American writer named Leonard Wibberley; it was at one time, a staple of High School plays in the USA. It's pretty funny if you can find the movie to watch!

Most Americans (at least this one!) surely know that many of the Eastern-Bloc nations were not behind the iron curtain by choice…hence those Hungarian and Czech issues. We have a large Polish community in the USA so we were always reminded.

[Flyair]

GGR,

Your analysis is correct that Brussels is perceived by EU citizens as "them", in other words as an hardly necessary implant. Moreover, many European political leaders build their credibility based on Euro-scepticism or even on rejecting the EU construction. You cannot achieve cohesion by leaving most of the sovereignty to nearly 30 governments that have separate agendas and often-conflicting points of view.

At the same time, the EU project cannot be complete with vast parts of Europe such as Ukraine that tangles between Russia and the EU. At this level of civilisation, cross-interests and historical animosities it is -at least for me- quite difficult to imagine a smooth, negotiated route towards the United States of Europe.

Let's not forget that the USA did start with a war, and a nasty one, and then it was followed by wars with Mexico, which if you really think about it, wasn't a just war at all. And I pass on the fate of native inhabitants. My point is that if you use force in a questionable spirit of justice, things happen much easier, although at huge cost, especially the human one. But... the result is there.

Anyway, those things are complex and complicated, and quite frankly there is no single and just solution...
        

[garymand]

I sounds like I might get a reasonable answer to why the euro and pound are valued higher than the $.  It has never been logical to me.  There must be reasons from a different perspective as to why the $ would be valued 30 to 35% lower.

[66andBlue]

The logic is easy to grasp, just visit the countries and eat a hamburger!  
Seriously here is a not too serious primer on why the exchange rates of the major currencies are not that far off: http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index

[GGR]

You cannot achieve cohesion by leaving most of the sovereignty to nearly 30 governments that have separate agendas and often-conflicting points of view.        

This is true. This is why some sovereignty should be transferred to a higher level. It was easier done when the number of states was smaller. We are now left with the option of "reinforced cooperation" where within the Union a smaller group of States goes towards greater political integration. Other States would then choose to join later or not. Basically, the Union would have several levels of integration, with the nucleus being the most integrated. It's already more or less the case with Shengen and the Euro. Some countries need to go further.

At the same time, the EU project cannot be complete with vast parts of Europe such as Ukraine that tangles between Russia and the EU. At this level of civilisation, cross-interests and historical animosities it is -at least for me- quite difficult to imagine a smooth, negotiated route towards the United States of Europe.

The Union does not necessarily need to follow the boundaries of geographical Europe. If the Oural is the boundary, then what happens with Russia? The reinforced cooperation schemes offer the possibility to progress among willing countries, while leaving the possibility to others to join later, at whatever level of integration.

Let's not forget that the USA did start with a war, and a nasty one, and then it was followed by wars with Mexico, which if you really think about it, wasn't a just war at all. And I pass on the fate of native inhabitants. My point is that if you use force in a questionable spirit of justice, things happen much easier, although at huge cost, especially the human one. But... the result is there.

Well, we had the Roman Empire, the Napoleonian Empire, and the 3rd Reich. They all collapsed. But the aftermath of WW2 gave way to a peaceful European construction. USA has a specific history, and opportunities cannot be directly compared. That's not to say there won't be another war in Europe. Sadly, people may have to be reminded why the EU, despite all its shortcomings, is still the best option.

[Flyair]

I wish success to EU, but what can you expect when even Mr. President (of this Group) says elsewhere on this very forum :

Heaven Is Where:
The French are the chefs
The Italians are the lovers
The British are the police
The Germans are the mechanics
And the Swiss make everything run on time

Hell is Where:
The British are the chefs
The Swiss are the lovers
The French are the mechanics
The Italians make everything run on time
And the Germans are the police

[mbzse]

.../... This is why some sovereignty should be transferred to a higher level../...

Hmm, nice idea... Just... who would then decide on and enforce such a transfer...?

[GGR]

I wish success to EU, but what can you expect when even Mr. President (of this Group) says elsewhere on this very forum :


Heaven Is Where:
The French are the chefs
The Italians are the lovers
The British are the police
The Germans are the mechanics
And the Swiss make everything run on time

Hell is Where:
The British are the chefs
The Swiss are the lovers
The French are the mechanics
The Italians make everything run on time
And the Germans are the police

Indeed, United in Diversity, for better or for worse!

[GGR]

Hmm, nice idea... Just... who should decide on and enforce such a transfer...?

Well, there are many possibilities regarding higher levels of democratic governance, starting from a loose confederation up to the most integrated versions of a federation. There has already been a lot of work in this regard, with many draft versions of a European Constitution. Adhesion to it by the Nations should go through their national democratic system. We already tried it, and it failed. That is not to say we should not try again! Most importantly, countries that are not in favor should not prevent countries that are in favor from going ahead as a smaller group.

[Flyair]

GGR
Remember, when the EU was still EEU with six countries, the recollection of war atrocities very fresh and NATO had a very strong meaning for every European member? Guess which country started to play the lone rider?

So the fact that today there are many countries forming the EU make any closer construction very difficult, off course, but even among the founding fathers they started disagreements and live as "menage à part" quite soon.

[GGR]

This is true. That shouldn't refrain a group of the willing to go ahead (even if some of the original 6 are not among them). Others will end up joining when they see them progressing.

Regarding NATO, in 1966 France got out of the integrated command, but not of the Alliance. In other terms, France remained an allied, but without having its military forces commanded by a foreign power (likewise, the USA does not allow any of its troops to be under foreign command).

[Flyair]

GGR

this is what I tried to point out without naming the culprit. This is what they call the French exception. Eat the cake and still have it

BTW do you know how many soldiers of the valiant French army participated in the D-day operations that aimed at liberating their country?

[GGR]

Flyair

I think you are mixing several things. Not being part of the  integrated command does not mean there is no military contribution, as Afghanistan has shown recently. The command chain is simply different.

As per the D-day operations, they indeed liberated France, as a side effect I would say. The objective was to open a second front to the West as demanded by Staline, not specifically to liberate France. This could have taken place in Belgium or Holland, if the geography had been more favorable. Not many French combatants took part: 500 parachutists integrated into the British SAS, and a handful of infantry men. You have to keep in mind that France by then had been defeated by the German army and was occupied by it. The Vichy regime had signed an armistice. The French combatants who participated to the D-Day operations were considered as deserters by the French authorities. Further, allied leaders had a hard time recognizing De Gaulle as a legitimate leader (indeed, apart from a radio speech on the 18th of June 1940 out of the UK, he had little legitimacy). For example, Roosevelt went on dealing with Petain for quite a while. De Gaulle was informed on the date of the invasion on the 5th of June, or the day before! This lack of recognition certainly reduced the number of fighters who joined De Gaulle. The French military forces in Northern Africa for example, who were not under German occupation, but reporting to Vichy, would have shifted earlier.

By contrast, the French represented 2/3 of the forces during the second invasion that took place in Provence. And the French resistance played quite a role in the preparation of the D-Day operations through intelligence on the "Atlantic Wall" they managed to gather, and by slowing down, up to some extent, the advance of German reinforcements towards Normandy after the invasion took place. in his Memoires, Eisenhower writes: "Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."     



In any case, we are now quite far away from the original topic. These were difficult times, and that's right what should be prevented from happening again. Poland also paid quite a price!

[JamesL]

"F*** the EU"

(ooh, topical!)

[Flyair]

GGR
I feel that I touched a sensitive cord of yours. No need to be defensive by saying that I am mixing things. I am not seeking objectivity, but having both the French and Polish backgrounds puts me sometimes in front on difficult choices (such as vodka or wine )

As JamesL, in an unexpected but very efficient way moved the conversation back on track, so there is no choice but to stick to it.

Let's not forget that regardless of the perspective, French, American, Polish or any other, we are here on this forum thanks to.... German cars

[Peter van Es]

I wish success to EU, but what can you expect when even Mr. President (of this Group) says elsewhere on this very forum :

That is a joke, not a political statement....

[GGR]

"F*** the EU"

(ooh, topical!)

Ha! Ha! In DC they say the taping and its posting on Youtube is courtesy of the Russians, as a payback for all the Sotchi bashing which is currently going on. Good way of torpedoing US efforts in Ukraine, if that was the objective.