Europe?

[Legolam]

Since the Euro thread seems to have been deleted, I thought I'd start up a thread about the European Union since other folk were arguing about it in Stuff and Bother.

What are your thoughts on the European Union? Should your country (assuming it's eligible!) be part of it? Part of the Euro? Should the EU be expanded?

[DGoeij]

Considering the amount of money being wasted on farming subsidies and bonusses for members of the European Parliament, my idea would be to wait a little before the Union is being enlarged.
I can see some of the benefits, but right now, the current members have enough trouble amongst eachother. Imagine that with another six, coming from Eastern-Europe.
:rolleyes:

[gate7ole]

This European Union is a trench knife. Ok, there is an economical convergence, meaning same currency, same bonuses to every member of this united “country” and free transport of goods and people. But does this mean a better life? Not as much as many politicians argue. What is the profit of most developed countries (e.g. Germany)? They strengthen their currency against the dollar, and manage to compete USA and Japan. But what is the cost? That they have to carry along the weaker economies (e.g. my country Greece). On the other hand, the less developed countries have an undisputable profit of raising the level of their status in the world. They have their bonuses from the EC and have the bigger countries to support their economy. What is their cost? That in order to fulfill the conditions of the convergence, people must make sacrifices. Both parts gain something in a cost of sacrifices by the public. And in the end, again only the industries and banks will gain the lion’s share. We know it, our lives won’t improve much. Other pockets will be stuffed with money.
So, rejecting the economical convergence, the only other true effects will be: free traveling, no customs for the goods and probably open universities. Not much considering all the uproar of the last 5 years.
As for any other kind of convergence (e.g. cultural) is only a chimera.

Any possible expansion is for the reasons already told undesirable but I don’t think we will be asked;)

[Legolam]

To be honest, I don't really know what I think about enlargement of the EU. Apparently, Scotland is going to be one of the big losers of money (don't ask me why), but I personally don't have a problem with it.

As for the Euro, I'm all for it. I've been to France twice since it came into effect, and I find it really easy to use. Prices haven't gone up that I can see, and the conversion is pretty easy (£1 = E1.5). By the end of the last holiday, I actually found myself not having to convert back into pounds, I can figure out if something is cheap or not by using the Euro currency. I don't have a problem with losing the pound. It's just money and the benefits far outweigh the "loss of sovereignty" thing.

I think Britain is just peeved because we don't have much of a voice in Europe because we joined late. Everything is so much better on the continent anyway!

[Gloer]

Euro is great.
Becasue of Euro the nationalistic bias is not effecting our interest rates anymore. Finland has always paid all it's debts. We are the only country in Europe to do it after the 30's depression and after the IIWW and now we are back from the 90's bank crisis. but because we have been a very small and obscure economy to most others with few dominant industries our currency has been weak and interest rates high.
The consequence has been that finns have not had the ability to lend money as cheaply as the germans for example.
Now we are in the same line with people in Stuttgart for example. Stuttgart has always been dependent on autoindustry as we ahve been on paper industry, but the people have benefitted from strong Deutch Mark. Periphery cheers euro!

[gate7ole]

Originally posted by Gloer
but the people have benefitted from strong Deutch Mark. Periphery cheers euro!
Benefitied? Who? Not me.
Prices are up, stock market is falling down, oil is not affected, as it is not imported from any part of Europe. Also to enter Euro, we all had to sacrifice.
So, who is really benefitied by euro? Banks. thanks a lot

[Legolam]

Prices are up
Apparently inflation is lower in the Euro zone now than it was before the Euro came in, so that isn't entirely true

stock market is falling down
And that's probably not the Euro's fault

Which country are you from, gate7ole? I honestly think that the Euro would really benefit Britain, but a whole bunch of people are too short-sighted to see this.

[Legolam]

So, this weekend the Irish are going to the polls to vote, for the second time, on the Nice Treaty. This treaty will allow the expansion of the EU to include several Eastern European countries.

Argument for a Yes vote - these countries will benefit from EU money just as the Irish have
Argument for a No vote - the Irish will inevitably lose out on cash from the EU

What is your opinion on this? Should the EU be expanded? And, if you are Irish, which way are you voting this weekend?

[DGoeij]

Typically how the Irish have to vote over the same treaty again even when it was rejected the first time. I would reject it again, if it would happen to me.
I'm still not sure wether I support the expansion of the EU. 10 Eastern European states, who wish to rely heavily on EU farming subsidies (and I don't blame them) will put a serious strain on the whole Union.

[Legolam]

But if we can all enjoy the benefits of the EU, why not pass it on to others who could surely do with the help. I think the expansion of the EU is fundamentally a good thing, as long as the countries joining can meet certain conditions and do their best for Europe.

Ireland did accept the Nice Treaty at the second time of asking. However, I'm not so sure if it's morally right for a government to keep making referendums until the public finally accept whatever view they're voting on. I've got a funny feeling that's going to happen with the Euro referendum here in Britain. As much as I would love a Yes vote, repeating the referendum until there is one seems wrong.

[Húrin Thalion]

Hi everybody!

I was just reading through the posts here when I saw something about Finland's debts. Finland hadn't been able to pay any debts wihtout Swedish support, survive the Finnish winter war without Swedish guns and volunteers. Sweden has for the most of the time been excellently governed by the social democratic party, that is why we are second in the welfare league. For three years (1991-1994) the conservative parties had the power. This lead to a general stagnation of economy, that the price of a dollar increased from 4 to 10 Swedish crowns and that we had to loan 1200 billion dollars from other countries. Now the social democrats are ruling the country has done so for eigth years. In these years unemployments has sunk from 8 to 3.9 percent of the population, growth has recovered and Sweden is back to it's former welfare level, the Conservatives made cuts in all sectors to make the economy hold. Our brilliant Prime Minister, Göran Persson has also repaid much of the debts.

I think that the EU should be expanded to form a political and economical alternative to the U.S.A. Someone must do something about the rampaging American government that seem think that they can do what they like whitout opposition. WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!

Elen

[Gloer]

read carefully

I ment that because of euro we finns can lend more money.
We don't have to pay ridiculous extra interest rates because of currency risks that always were apparent with our old currency.

Finland has benefitted from the swedish support during the WWII. Thank you. But you should thank us.

We s a v e d Sweden from German occupation. Sweden is forever in debt for us delivering them the geostrategical position which did not make it neccessary for the Germans to occupy the country.

But this has hardly had any meaning what comes to our ability to pay our debts.

The myth of finns always paying their debt was created during the recession of the 30's. USA was at those times the greatest money lender in the world. USA foreign trade deficit was constantly positive. UK for example borrowed huge sums as did all other European states, so did Finland too.

But Finland payed back every penny whereas the bigger nations defaulted. USA maid Finland an example to UK, France, Germany. Our minor debt was used as propaganda to force those big powers to pay their major loans. Sweden had nothing to do with this and was her self in great economical problems.

The other time was after the war when we had to pay Soiets for war reparations 300 million old-before-inflation-finn marks (= 10 billion euros ) worth of goods. It took 6 years to deliver the Soviets ice brakers, trains, shoes, paper machines, clothes, anything - all free of charge - to fullfill the obligation.
Again Sweden had not much to do with paying these "debts".

[Húrin Thalion]

What would the Germans gain from occupying Sweden. The German government needed the Swedish geostrategical position and was allowed to send troops through sweden to fight side by side with the Finns. It is a shame that we exported iron ore to Germany during the war and that we didn't resist (resist not go to war) the German demands until after Kursk.
At least we did not cowardly attack the Soviet Uion when it was in its greatest need simply to retake a few areas. I admire general Mannerheim (President, commander in chief and so on) for his policy of not going farther than the Finnish border of 1938 and with that not blocking Leningrad's supply route over the Ladoga. Both of our countrie's were coward in different ways. We should both be thankful to the each other.

What I meant with that we helped Finland is that Finland was built with great help from Swedish investments and expertise which we certainly gained from as much as Finland.

[Gloer]

ah...
Finland used to be a part of Sweden.

We were at Mora electing our king since 1326.
Stockholms population was 20 % finnish already during the 15th century.
fFirst Swedish population in here is dates 1000 years back and we still have a few hundred thousand swedish speakers. The only uniersity taht has swedish as language outside Sweden is in Åbo.

If Finland had been occupied by the Russians, the Germans would have had to secure the ore in Sweden. You had no choice in their plans and be glad that it never came to deciding wheather to go the danish way or our way.

On the otherhand I give you credit for smart entrepreneur spirited westerners have always inveted in here. Not only Swedes but Germans, Scotts, Russians. Many of our major companies were started by foreigners and most of richest finnish families have some of their roots somewere else.

Really, it is a pity that modern bernadotte Sweden knows so little of it's eastern half that took the csar as a head of state 1809.

[Húrin Thalion]

Tell me something I don't know! Me know little of Swedish-Finnish history? The first wars against the barbarian Fenns (as they were named)
were fought in the 12th century, these were "crusades" to baptize and loot. From 1326 (as you correctly said) Finland was a part of Sweden and served us with loyalty, however vague. Which people was the first to cross over to the Danes in 1520? Over half of the Finns recruited during the great mobilization before the thirty years war "disappeared in the forests! The people from Estonia were more loyal even though they were captured as late as 1562. Whatever lies that have been told to you by the liar Zacharias Topelius don't come tell me that Sweden has forgotten!!

By the way, was there a faint chance that Finland would be occupied at any time when Germany and Soviet Russia were at war? During the war of 1944 Stalin expressed that he did not wish to conquer the Finns, only punish them sufficiently.

Personally I think that the war of 1809 was a catastrophy from which Finland has suffered more than Sweden, we replaced you with the Norwegians even though they were separated from us in 1905!

Do not call Sweden Bernadottian again, our king is an alcoholic and a weakling. His children are the sam and we should definetly change this system were you are the heir of the crown to one were the king is elected.

Elen

[aragil]

Elen and Gloer-
While your posts provide very interesting history about Scandinavia, and even provide a sort of case study as to why the Unionization of Europe is problematic, they don't really address the topic of the thread. Perhaps you two could start a different thread for which Scandinavian country said what about whom, thus leaving this thread to discussions of whether or not a given country should join the Union.

Legolam- I don't think the US should join the Union, but then I hardly think we'd be invited (although the prospect of not going through customs anytime I go to Europe does sound inticing ...).

[Húrin Thalion]

Got your point. Sorry if I got a little carried away by meeting someone that knows anything of our history!

Elen;)

[aragil]

I never said it wasn't interesting- especially for those of us with Scandinavian ancestry here in the US. Our history classes usually 'Finnish' with Scandinavia at the time of the Vikings. However, I think that this information deserves it's own thread as this one doesn't seem particularly appropriate.

[Gloer]

It appears that we are hosting the Nordic council meeting at the moment.
Interesting.
It seems that all the prime ministers are giving Gircard d´Estaing's draft for European constitution heavy critique.

I like to see a united front from the north for a change.

d'Estaign proposes a federation with a president and common defencce and foreign policy. He is over reaching I think. But then I think his tactic is to propose as federal constitution as possible because the federalism of it will be cut down anyhow.

I think all the candidates should join the Union. Europe needs a boost. We need the growth and hunger for better life that is so apparent in all those countries that were surpressed by the communist Russian hegemony. It will cost a lot not to take these new candidates. Europe must face the music and the challenge.

PS. 1809 was a tragedy for Sweden. Without ceding of Finland to Russia I would be swedish. The point is that there was never much difference between Finland and Smolland before 1809. Both parts of sweden. Both were given to younger sons of Gustav Wasa as duchies.
The Idea of separate Finland is a novelty brought about after Sweden failed to resist Russian threat. It was to be a buffer zone for the Russian capitol St. Petersbourgh. The father of the idea was Sprengtporten and the one who brought it to life was Gustav Mauritz Armfelt - both swedish noblemen and soldiers with assets in Finland. Armfelt was first the faourite of king Gustav III and later fell out of favour with Gustav IV. He arraged so that the csar Alexander made Finland a separate grand-duchy with separate government and laws. That was very very fortunate for us, but Sweden got sliced in two forever.

You see - when comparing to getting Norway as compensation we can see that this alliance was never as tight as with the ceded area. Norway was a separate kingdom already during the viking times. Finland was only created after 1809.

[tom_bombadil]

The UK should not be an eu member we are british we are not europeans we are british the brits in mjy opinon fit into no socitey or culture we are who we are and we are the nation of the world who never fits in we are the world outcasts. The british are proub to be british we want to be ourselves no one else the euro would take away our natinal pride and would destroy our culture Britian is its own country no one elses

[Proudfoots]

WOW, that debate on Finland was excellent, Elen, sorry, i think you lost that one:D

The EU is an economic miracle. The irish are the proof of this. Ireland has always been a third world country kicking along next to the empire. Irish are known for migrating to find work and better lives. Now everyont is flocking there, the economy is strong for the first time since Strongbow stepped in Wexford. The country is doing exceptionally well, why?

The EU, there is no other reason.

The only reason that Ireland is holding up other countries from joining is because of jealous. Ireland used to be the poorest country, but now they are not, they are not even close. Anybody in eastern europe is about 5 times poorer than the Irish. BUT Ireland is still getting the grants for the poor countries. If the communist block joins, Ireland is out on its comfortable bum as the poorest country.

'foots

[Legolam]

True, but I think they've done pretty well out of it, as you've pointed out. I think that's why Scotland is probably better off going it alone in Europe, and leave these English europhobes behind :)

The british are proub to be british we want to be ourselves no one else the euro would take away our natinal pride and would destroy our culture Britian is its own country no one elses Despite the horrible punctuation in this ;) there are a few other major problems with your view. What national pride? What British culture? Its own country? Britain is an amalgam of at least 3 different nations, each with its own culture and pride. In my opinion, there is no British culture. And even if there is, are the French less French because they're European? Are the Irish less Irish? No, if anything they are more proud of their nationhood.

[Húrin Thalion]

The EU is an economic miracle. The irish are the proof of this. Ireland has always been a third world country kicking along next to the empire.

I would say that the Irish economy is not so good anymore. Great cuts in the welfare system due to decreasing gain doesn't sound good to me. Ireland has had it's few years of glory now and will now at best keep the same pace as other European nations.

And ah! At last eastern Europe is allowed to join the EU! I would say that this is the best thing happened in Europe for the last 50 years. Though I do not like that Turkey is given an earliest date to negotiate, if you are not respecting human rights you shouldn't even be allowed to talk about membership. And now Bush thinks he can say which nations that should be in the EU. Not a chance.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

I havent been back over to my home country of France since the Euro was made the currency, but I will be going this summer. However, my grand-mere and grand-pere told me the Euro was a big change, but is much better than francs. France's economy is going through a few tosses and turns similar to the US, but not as extreme. France is working its way to becoming more stabilized since the Euro was instated.

[FREEDOM!]

The Euro is extremely bad!!!!!!! But don't take my word for it....which i'm sure u won't.:rolleyes:

[Ciryaher]

Instead of throwing in random sentances, why not back your words up with evidence, FREEDOM ?

[FREEDOM!]

I'm working on it but it's not easy cause i don't know where to go to find any.??

[TheFool]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
The Euro is extremely bad!!!!!!! But don't take my word for it....which i'm sure u won't.:rolleyes:
1 Euro is worth exactly the same as 1 US Dollar ;)

[Lhunithiliel]

Well, my dearest West European friends, I come from one of those East European countries that bother the EU so much with their desire to join !

You here are discussing the price of this process, whether it will be bad or good for.......YOU! HAVE YOU TRIED TO FIGURE IT OUT FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW? (Oohps! Sorry for the capitals!... though it resulted right ;) )
Look at Spain, for example. It was not long ago when Spaniards fled from their country to seek a better life for them and their families abroad...Then the EU decided Spain is too a large and delicious "bite" to be lost and they "adopted" it. And now Spain has become quite a nice place to live in and quite secure, and providing jobs, and ...

But I'm not going to comment on Spain. The word is about my country and those alike. OK, we pulled the Berlin Wall down, we applaused the "perestroika"... Perfect! What came next? Total destruction of national economy, economical and political crises following one after the other, leading to social ones, too... It has taken my country about 15 years to learn how to keep one government for a whole mandate... Yet unemployment is high, people emigrate, national culture and social welfare - in a state of "koma"...
And I am just a simple ordinary person, who has only one life to live and believe me, it's hard to survive...

Why is it then so surprising that we want in?!

I know, you'll say that every citizen of the EU shall have to pay for the process of the admission of several East-European countries.
PLEASE! The amount (if I'm not mistaken, although I cannot be exact) is about a hundred and something Euros. THIS, gentlemen is NOTHING compared to the price my country shall have to pay - close the most productive industries (mainly in electricity supply), reduce the National Army to some ridiculously small military division, sell some of the largest plants of the heavy industry for half a Euro (YES! What a bargain! A whole plant for half a Euro!)...
Well?

Now tell me - WHO'S the lucky beneficiary - YOU or US?
*****
P.S. I TRULY HOPE our Secret Service are not reading this! ;)

[Húrin Thalion]

French farmers... No it is our attitude. The situation within the EU is like this, a few richer countries are (as they should) paying for the poorer ones, for example my beloved Sweden (positive to expanding the EU) have lost many billions per year since joining the EU. And when this money much goes to farmers in France, Spain and Greece that are actually a little hindered in their development by all this money you can understand that people are negative to it, and then many see it as: "More people and farmers to pay for to destroy crops." This is sad because we now have a feeling that the EU just is bureaucratic (which it is) and gives support to ungrateful French farmers that complain and want more. Support for the EU has diminished in those rich countries like Austria, Sweden and Finland that gives most support to farming. Also many seem to think that the times are bad as they are and we don't need more "adoptive children". I think that it would be good for all the parts involved but I don't blame the people who doesn't, it is hard when you already pay the highest taxes in the world to start paying more that we will certainly have to do in Sweden. Even if it is good for both and especially for the east we must face the facts and see that it is we in the west that will have to pay the bill for all this and all are not willing to do this.

Also I think that that the closing of your heavy industries may be a direct cause from joining the EU but still they had to be closed sometime for the sake of the environment. And why do you miss your army? Do I sense a national, military pride Lhun? Your army will not do anything but cost you money at the moment so it is just as good to put it down (BTW how much is a division of yours? I thought that size of an operationary force was abandoned? Or is it organizatoric?)

I am rambling now and my language hasn't been too good in this post, it all kept returning and mixing up, sorry for that, I don't think too well when I am tired.

Húrin Thalion

P.S: I sincerely hope that our secret service reads my posts in the thread Communism, all they were doing in the 60's and 70's was registering communist and making sure they didn't get any influence in society like works on Government departments. ;) But it's okay, Jan Guillou, the nosiest (and most arrogant) journalist discovered that and went to prison for revealing secretgs of the state.

[Gloer]

(I think this is a good thread. I feel foreign debating over american presidency and Iraq and war. I have no rights to vote in USA so I should just shut up I guess. I do hope they, USA, follow the UN charter though.)


European union enlargement has some hypothetical results:

1. Average GNP of EU is lower. This will turn the nett receivers of current EU into plus-minus-zero benefitters ie. they are on their own. It is mentally hard for these countries to adjust because they have to start thinking of EU as indirect benefit ( which might not be as automatic as one thinks). Anti EU feelings will rise up in the southern EU.

2. USA will have a larger influence on EU decision making. The new members will undoubtly perceive USA as their best ally in EU. Poland and the baltic states will seek to ballance the western EU with US influence. These countries are more pro US and NATO than pro EU.

3. European labour markets will have to get less rigid. Unemployment will rise in the west and industry will invest in the east. New members will grow fast on the expense of the west. This process is already on it's way.

4. Standard of living in the east will rise and provide growth markets. This might kick start EU economics. I hope so.

5. The new European Union will consist of people that have cultural history and roots in the Western Rome and later Frankish empire and catholic church (excluding the honorary membership of Greece that has Eastern Roman roots).

Culturally the large EU is still going to be very united.
This area has a sense of union and togetherness. This area has been divided and unable to unite for 1200 years. But there always has been a prevailing idea that this area is a single unit.

Therefore the added burdon to decision processes is exaggarated. This talk just aims to fix the already existing inefficiencies.

[Gloer]

That is hard!

Europeans are not interested in europe?

I have started to think it is a great handicap for european citizens to think on the basis of nationality. There is very little polical room to manouver on the national level. There are no options. if the ordinary citizen evalues possibileties and policies on the national basis he will have no choice. This leads to disinterest of politics and low voting rates. On the otherhand nationalistic agenda as a quickfix to give back the choice get support. But nationalistic agenda does not bring back choice.

It would be much better if national political parties would compete on European level for real options for policies that are decided in Brussels. That could lead to understanding that polical principles are decided Europe wide these days. Now the principles are not debated, at least not in smaller countries that lack the sense thqat their opinion alone will steer the union.

[Legolam]

I think the problem that Europeans, especially the British, have with the EU, is that they see it as some sort of United States of Europe, with all policies decreed from some bureaucrat in Brussels who doesn't know squat about each nation's problems.

However, I believe that the Scottish Nationalist Party have the right idea on this (although they have some spectacularly bad ones on other things!). They believe in an independent Scotland in Europe. This gives the best of both worlds. Things like law and order, health and education would be decided locally by the Scottish parliament. Things in which it's good to co-operate eg farming, currency, would be decided in Brussels. These things don't affect people from day to day, not really, but cooperation on a large scale within Europe would benefit the individuals in a small nation such as Scotland, with relatively little clout in Britain just now.

This can be extended to Britain as a whole. I think that we would be in a stronger position as a small nation if we were an integral part of Europe. Important local decisions would be made by Westminster, those affecting our relations with other countries and trade would be made in Brussels. Why can't people see this? It's not loss of sovereignty, not even loss of nationality - it's mutual benefit.

One final point. Europe has always been one of the most divisive continents in the world. The EU has all but eradicated this.

[DGoeij]

We'll, I'm a bit dissapointed in the EU at the moment..... No that's not true. I HATE the EU at the moment. Bear with me for a second.

Last year, the EU decided chocolate cigarettes have to be banned. In it's wisdome, it decided that these sweets encouraged young children to smoke the real ones later on. Outlawing the diabolic scheme of the tobacco companies, happened in less than 2 or 3 years, something the bureaucrats were very very proud of (I can imagine them driving home dead drunk after the celebration party).

Last year, an oil tanker in front of the Spanish coast, had an accident. The hull of this ship was all between the ocean and the oil. I think we all know about the consequences for the Spanish coastal environment and fishing grounds. Thiese kinds of accident have been happening quite often the last couple of years, due to increasing traffic and overworked seamen.
The EU intends to ban these old types of oil-tankers in favour of the more modern ones, with two seperate layers of steel causing less or even no oil to spill in case of collisions etc. These laws have been made and passed in the EU-parlaiment some years ago. Actual date at which there will be banishment of these ships? 2013.

I know it's more complex than I just stated it, but it still happens.