But seriously folks

[Francis]

So what's the future for the EU?

[Dark]

There is no future for the EU.

Discussion over.

[rian]

I voted "no" a couple of years ago. And I was right.

[lazarus corporation]

there's a future for it (since national isolationism is never a good path to follow) but what form it will take is what's currently up for debate.

it's fairly clear that the recent 'No' votes in the referenda in the Netherlands and France have showed that there will be no headlong rushes into any complete integration or federalism (or consitutions or whatever)

This hopefully means that people in the UK can have a sensible debate about it without the column-writers of the Daily Mail and the Sun screaming rabidly about it being a plot by the insidious Germans/French/[insert country of choice] to revive the plans of Hitler/Napoleon/[insert leader of choice] to take over Europe.

[aims]

There is no future for the EU.

Discussion over.

That settles it. You are so my long lost twin

However, more diplomatically speaking, it would be insulting to the French and Dutch to go any further with the constitution - "Yeah, we said that it was a one country veto. We lied. Have a nice life".

[boudicca]

This hopefully means that people in the UK can have a sensible debate about it without the column-writers of the Daily Mail and the Sun screaming rabidly about it being a plot by the insidious Germans/French/[insert country of choice] to revive the plans of Hitler/Napoleon/[insert leader of choice] to take over Europe.

Yeah. I wouldn't bet on it.

[Obviousman]

Personally I am a strongly convinced european, my nationality is the Dutch one (because my parents are Dutch, and I was born there), I grew up (or I am growing up) in Belgium, my grandma was Austrian, etc, etc, so my opinion is slightly distorted by that...

But having said all that, I still am convinced a big future is ahead for a united Europe, even if it got slowed down by the referendums in both France and the Netherlands... Look at all the advantages the union gives us (at least for the countries in the Schengen and Eurozone), it gives us an enourmous advantage when it comes to trading with other parts of the world, it gives us a much stronger voice in global politics, etcetera, etcetera...

Of course I have to admit it was a mistake to take 10 countries in one go into the Union, and the euro is rated too high, but hey, that could have happened to individual currencies too and even before, all of the countries with the Euro had their currencies joined with the DEM anyway, so the problem with the rating has nothing to do with the euro on itself...

Also one has to keep in mind, about the Eastern countries joining, everyone complains they are too poor and they take the level of the union down. Okay, right now we have to invest, but you'll see, in a couple of years you'll get a great return. We will never have to go to their level, they'll get to ours, look at Spain and Portugal for example, when joining, they were way under the level of the rest of the Union, but right now, they share in welfare and their pices are getting very much on the same level as the rest of the Union...

So coming to the point of this rather long post: You don't have to take everything the Union wants you to do, but still, look at the long term returns, and think of the advantages you will get in 10 or 20 years. When we come at that point, you most probably will be content not to have chosen the egoistic "Lets protect the country against all others"-point of view but instead have gone for the "lets share the wealth and see what return we'll get in x years"

Well, I didn't lie when saying I'm pro Union, isn't it

[Brideoffrankenstein]

i suppose it will happen eventually but i can't see how having a "united europe" will work when you have us (the uk) at one end and a country like turkey or whoever at the other end whose cultures are very different and politically would want different things. don't have a go at me about this i don't pretend to know/care much about it

[christophe]

i suppose it will happen eventually but i can't see how having a "united europe" will work when you have us (the uk) at one end and a country like turkey or whoever at the other end whose cultures are very different and politically would want different things. don't have a go at me about this i don't pretend to know/care much about it

that is why I feel they are doing it whole wrong.
they er pushing all countries to fit into 1 hole, while this only makes it harder for the people to understand.
not a easy topic, and I ain't following it like I should....

[Obviousman]

Was planning to lurk for the next couple of days, but it is hard not to defend my beloved union

First I have to say I understand your concerns about Turkey, but that actually is a matter that will rise only in about 10 or 15 years, and I am very sure they will have evolved a great deal by then...

Secondly I have to point out, allthough again I understand your concern, culture has about next to nothing to do with the EU...
The EU is above all an economical union, and for cultural matters there is the Council of Europe (or whatever it is called like in English, don't know the exact term) which has nothing to do with the EU and of which Turkey is allready a member, and most probably it should be them being worried about their culture getting oppressed by ours, in the case it would...

So, you can be pretty sure we're not becoming an US of E, which makes no culture into pretty much less culture (like the obvious US of A) ... No instead we're becoming a Union with respect for every individual, as was made clear by the constitution...

Now the only thing you and I can hope they won't be dropping that along with the constitution ...

-back to the books-

[Brideoffrankenstein]

First I have to say I understand your concerns about Turkey

turkey was just used as an example - it could be applied to countries like poland and greece too (those are purely examples as well!)

[Obviousman]

turkey was just used as an example - it could be applied to countries like poland and greece too (those are purely examples as well!)

Allright, but you have to understand I wanted to explain that, because everyone uses that one (Turkey), and it's the worst example you can thing of And the ten newbies aren't much of a good example too, because they didn't show what they are worth yet, but they've advanced a great deal too the last ten or so years

The best example is greece though, they've advanced very little and have done nothing except the Olympics and Eurosong

Now there was this other thing I wanted to mention, but I've completely forgotten about it

- studying, it sure does eat your brains -

[boudicca]

I dig Europe against my better judgement.

I'm usually very much against any kind of over-centralised power, the idea of some great homogenous super-state really bothers me, as do the various holes in the democratic fabric of the EU at present.

So perhaps I should be a Euro-skeptic.

However, I find myself repelled from that camp because of the xenophobic attitude that seems to at least underlie almost all of their argument. I don't hate the French. I don't hate the Germans. And, much as I dislike the idea of one country imposing its way of life on another, I would take French and German customs over British ones anyday.

So it's a bit difficult for me. Maybe I should just leave the country.

[Delilah]

good point there, Obviousman, my Brother! I've been in the UK nearly 6 years now and every time I go to my native Poland now I notice loads of changes (for example there are some "normal" roads and motorways being built, which would not be possible without EU money). But Poles do work hard to get to EU level and I'm sure the rest of those 10 countries are the same... It is difficult over there now, coz you've got EU prices and former Eastern block salaries, but I hope it will stabilize soon... I am pro-EU, I think majority of young Polish people are...

[andymackem]

But aren't the majority of young Poles pro-EU because they see large amounts of Eurocash coming from countries like UK, France, Germany to improve Poland?

That's a bit of a no-brainer. Would young Poles still be in favour if it was their zlotys (instead of the English ones ) going to rebuild Belarus (for argument's sake)?

That's why Western Europe is increasingly questioning the rights and wrongs of the EU - it's a net drain on our taxes in effect and when you ask people to give their money they do tend to ask questions.

[Black Alice]

It works as a common market ....the rest is just a gravy train for the politicians. Thats why France and the Netherlands have voted no - the politicians are charging on with policies which will bring them personal wealth and kudos without actually listening to the people. It may very well be that the ordinary people also believe in a unified Europe but many have said in interviews on the tv and radio that it is going too fast (yep - pushed along by the politicians) and they have voted no to slow everything down.

Europe no longer has anything to do with stopping nations going to war - its about working together (which happens in quite a substantial way now) but without losing individual sovereignty - thats why two countries have voted no.

Plus - I for one cannot be arsed to learn a new legal sysytem (I'm confused enough as it is )

*sits down and takes a deep breath*

[lazarus corporation]

I'm generally pro-EU, but I that can be too broad a statement because different people have different ideas of what the EU is.

Having worked in a number of internationally trading companies, I can't even begin to explain how bloody useful and sensible the Euro is in that regard.

@Obviousman - I don't think you can separate the economical and social/cultural aspects of the EU (or indeed any country or group of countries) - they're deeply interdependent. And that's why I'm uncertain about increasing the number of countries in the EU to include those who don't share the same values - there are a number of liberal, 'social justice' style policies I'd like to see pushed across the EU, and I think countries like Turkey (to use the much maligned obvious example) would try to stop them.

[Dan]

I normally try to stay away from political discussion, but oh well...

We joined the Common Market (as it was originally called) for TRADE, not to be ruled by some buffoons many miles away from us who have no clue about this country. Now all we need to do is to tell the European Court of Human Rights to get stuffed (as it only cares about the rights of the lawless, not the law abiding) and get our country back in control. A complete reform of the crime laws and education should put us on the right track.

[Obviousman]

Well, I know you cannot really separate those two, Laz, but still, it's what they have done, the council of Europe (or whatevers) is a completely different institution etcetera....
About the social thing, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I get to hear one of the countries in (old) Europe with least social securities is the UK, plus, in the constitution there was some part fixing social securities... Also, if you're affraid something will disappear, is a sign you know there are better systems, and it would have disappeared anyway in X years, so you'd better get a new good system now instead of holding on to it for years and being dragged into a crisis later on (but that's more of a personal opinion, well, very economical isn't it )

And again I have to correct someone,
@Dan: the European Court of Human in Strasbourg rights as nothing to do with the EU, it is connected to the Declaration of Human Rights (or whatever), for the EU, there's Luxemburg, which specialises in economical stuff mostly (IIRC) and that one's called the European Court of Justice (again correct terms in English can slightly differ, but you get my point ), so if you want the EU to get stuffed, it's that one you want to be telling to get outta there

@Black Alice: Well, normally EU laws should very much be implied already, and new laws come about every now and then anyway, with or without EU, so I don't get that point really

@andymackem: Well, that's pretty much got to do with the 'invest-return'-thing I mentioned before, but anyway, you want to be better and more social, don't you

@Delilah: Glad to have you on my side, and glad to hear someone speaking from personal experience

Anyway, I am nagging, am I

[Delilah]

But aren't the majority of young Poles pro-EU because they see large amounts of Eurocash coming from countries like UK, France, Germany to improve Poland?

That's a bit of a no-brainer. Would young Poles still be in favour if it was their zlotys (instead of the English ones ) going to rebuild Belarus (for argument's sake)?

That's why Western Europe is increasingly questioning the rights and wrongs of the EU - it's a net drain on our taxes in effect and when you ask people to give their money they do tend to ask questions.

Yes, I can see your point! I'm one of these naively good-hearted people who wouldn't mind if Poland helped rebuilt Belarus or the others. But lets not forget that in 1946-89 lots of Polish zlotys ended up in the Soviet Union anyway...

[boudicca]

I frequently stay in a Novotel just opposite the European Court of Human Rights on my way back from Oesterreich und Deutschland.

They have pretend birds stuck on the windows. The court I mean, not the hotel.

Just an irrelevant factoid.

Do carry on.

[andymackem]

@andymackem: Well, that's pretty much got to do with the 'invest-return'-thing I mentioned before, but anyway, you want to be better and more social, don't you

A genuine, non-rhetorical question: what return do I, as a British taxpayer, get out of Europe? I live in a strong Western economy and enjoy a higher than average standard of living by European and global standards. So a chunk of my taxes is diverted to other countries to enable them to strengthen their economies, compete for trade and jobs with my country etc, etc. Why does this help me?

In the short term it costs me money. In the long term it encourages people to compete with me to cost me money.

If I want to help disadvantaged nations, why would I start with Poland as opposed to Somalia? If it's a choice between building a ring-road for Krakow or sanitation for Mogadishu I'd probably rather go for a project that might save people's lives rather than enable them to drive home five minutes faster.

If the EU is a charity it is aimed at the wrong places: there are places in the world with far greater problems than Eastern Europe.

If it is a business proposition it is clearly disadvantageous to any large Western European economy.

If it is a political alliance, it disproportionately favours the smaller Euro nations who get to play at major world nations despite their (relatively) small populations and economies.

The concept of European nations working together and creating a counter-balance to the strength of the USA is attractive. Even as a Brit I'd rather be an active member of a Euro-partnership than become the 51st state (though my government seems to feel differently ). But in its present form it is far too easy to snipe at and offers few tangible benefits.

The solution? Since I don't believe in destructive criticism, here's some ideas.

1. ditch the shared parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg. Quit rumbling across France at other people's expense and establish a Euro-capital. If necessary use a converted oil-rig somewhere so as not to upset anyone's national pride.

2. stop sending failed politicians to line their pockets on the continent. Leon Britton, Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson? Do other nations do this?

3. present proper information to the public about what the EU actually is and does. Don't offer us referenda on treaties which nobody has read (or would understand). Get out into the PR battle before you get sunk by the parochial national media of your member states. As I said at the top, what's in it for me?

4. expansion. Encourage it - diversity = strength. But don't create a two-tier Europe where the old guard can veto the newcomers just because they happen to be French. With (and ideally before) expansion has to come an over-arching reform of subsidy patterns etc to enable a swifter convergence of member states.

5. Europe of Regions. Britain is a wealthy country, but parts of Britain are extremely poor. I'm sure this is true in France, Germany etc as well. It is unfair to divert funds away from the County Durham coalfield (for sake of argument) simply because the South-East is booming. It's even harder to take when that money ends up in Poland, whose cheap communist-subsidised coal contributed to the decline of our mining industry in the 1980s. Evaluate areas by their needs, not their geography. Alternatively reward national governments for investing in the provinces themselves instead of overheating the M25. (possibly that's too UK-specific, but do tell me more).

Discuss, using diagrams where appropriate

[Gottdammerung]

I live in a strong Western economy and enjoy a higher than average standard of living by European and global standards.

Do you really?? Did you not come across the recent study of living standards in 10 countries comprising 8 European countries, the UK and the US. Surprise, surprise, the UK was second bottom and the US last.

In terms of living standards in Western Europe the UK really is lagging behind and there is a definite gap appearing between the haves and have nots...

[andymackem]

I live in a strong Western economy and enjoy a higher than average standard of living by European and global standards.

Do you really?? Did you not come across the recent study of living standards in 10 countries comprising 8 European countries, the UK and the US. Surprise, surprise, the UK was second bottom and the US last.

In terms of living standards in Western Europe the UK really is lagging behind and there is a definite gap appearing between the haves and have nots...

The eight European countries were probably not Albania, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia etc, etc were they?

And I'd guess that most (if not all) of Africa, South America and Asia would come well below that group of 10 - which represents almost the entire population of the world. However you slice it, globally speaking the UK, the US and the Western European nations will be in the upper percentiles in terms of things like life expectancy, average earnings, civil liberties and so on.

[boudicca]

the Western European nations will be in the upper percentiles in terms of things like life expectancy, average earnings, civil liberties and so on.

Not Glasgow.

And no civil liberties for anyone, even in the sarf-east, if Mr. Blair has his wicked "anti-terror" way.