EU in crisis.

[Osterbaum]

First France and Holland both turned down the EU constitution. Now after the meeting between all the EU leaders the crisis of the EU deepens.

The countries could not come to an agreement on the next budjet. Britain does not want to give up it's smaller than normal fee. The fee is far smaller than normal for when it was given to Britain it was a rather poor country. I think it would be fair that the fee would be risen now, since Britain is no longer poor. What do you think?

France does not want to give up it's rather large support packages to the farming etc. economy. On this I reall haven't gotten an opinion, but if you have one, please share.

Seems that the leaders of the larger countries, in this case more France and Britain than anyone else, do not want to give up anything because the EU has not been popular in their home country, so they want to keep their priviledges so that their citizens could be more happy with them. Nationalism is stepping on unity it seems. Your opinions?

Do you have any opinions on the crisis besides the things that were mentioned here? Please share them and let us discuss.

[TheSpacePope]

i'm a little light on the subject matter so I have some questions for you sir..
1. how many countries are in the EU
2. How many different languages are comprised.
3. when was the idea incepted and have their been prior constitutions?
and finally
4. is it a free trade agreement mostly or how do the mechanics of the agreement pan out?
The only real opinion is that if it is like nafta, you guys are in for a period of change where conpanies move around, that's all...
and on a personal note, what is with the French not liking anything recently?

[icythaco]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

1. how many countries are in the EU

There are currently 25 countries which comprise the EU.
[source=http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/adressen/eu.html]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

2. How many different languages are comprised.

There are 20 different languages spoken, although some are more predominant than others.
[source=http://europa.eu.int/]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

3. when was the idea incepted and have their been prior constitutions?

I'm not sure when the idea itself was first thought up, or if there have been prior constitutions, but the Union itself was formed on November 1, 1993.
[source=http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/adressen/eu.html]

[Osterbaum]

Icy here answered the questions he did correctly. Except for the last one for which he did not have an answer. The answer to the third question is no, there have not been former constitution suggestions.

As to your fourth question, I take it that you mean the constitution? If it is the constitution you mean, the points of interest in it are about free trade etc. and about a mutual defense organization. Many of the things in the constitution allready exsist, but the constitution would have enforced any former agreements and made them in to sort of laws.

Then the question about the french. I really have no idea. I suppose that in many countries people think that the euro has taken prices up and noone likes that of course. In some points the prices have gone up and in some cases they have gone down. But mind you that this might not have anything to do with the euro.

[Archbio]

Seems that the leaders of the larger countries, in this case more France and Britain than anyone else, do not want to give up anything because the EU has not been popular in their home country, so they want to keep their priviledges so that their citizens could be more happy with them.

It is my opinion that the Chirac government has allowed a referendum precisely for the inverse reason: they didn't think the 'No' would win. The Chirac government was, as far as I could tell, for the constitution; the way you framed the dynamic would be very inaccurate.

I can't figure out why you would think that putting this to the popular vote is anything else than a virtue? I see how you do it, however, and I don't like it. Democracy isn't automatically demagogy, and I think that in this case the referendum's result is anything but an act of demagogy on the part of the government.

Nationalism is stepping on unity it seems

Interesting choice of words.

Considering this "unity" is well within the bounds of the modern concept of "nationalism" and that previous nationalist processes, and France is a good example of that, could (and were) also qualified as the march toward "unity", that sentence would be redundant without the connotation given to each word: nationalism bad, unity good.

Using Marx' grossly paraphrased words: you consider the EU to be a progressive nationalism, and others to be reactionnary nationalisms. This is a view that is more than a little arbitrary, especially since you don't seem to be putting, with your use of the word unity, the "market building" aspect of the thing to the forefront (unlike Marx and many afterwards), preferring instead the rather [teleological] view (which is vital to nation building everywhere) that Europe is a whole that awaits unification, that unification is good in itself (as it is natural, perhaps?).

I disagree with the idea that supporting a process than can be tagged with the word "unity" automatically trumps all other considerations, and I am still against the EU constitution.

A constitution must be found that satisfies all of the member nations' citizenry, and not the other way around. The face that this seems so difficult to do might be a sign that this isn't viable.

[icythaco]

In my oppinion, the EU has no chance of becoming the next US equivelent; the countries which comprise it have spent far too long being independant for them to suddenly become united. The difference between the US and the EU is that the US is a single country, whereas the EU is comprised of many different countries; therefore, the EU is flawed from the outset because it can never be as unified as the US because it is divided by petty nationalism and has been for the last ten centuries.

[shiney]

Even though Britain is richer now than it was then, is it really fair for France and others to suddenly turn on them and demand they sacrifice their £3 billion rebate without offering anything in return? My understanding from reading the various articles is that basically, after suffering what could be considered a humiliating defeat at the polls, France changed tactics and began calling on England to do something knowing full well that they wouldn't, and then branding them as obstinate and stubborn.

I don't see the fairness, let alone morality, in trying to deny an agreement made 30 years ago without recompense for the country affected most directly by said agreement.

[icythaco]

I don't know the specifics of the particular rebate you speak of, but it seems to me that the issue of Britain's, and any other country's for that matter, past fees could have been resolved quite easily if they had been assigned percentages based upon said country's current economy, rather than having been given fixed numbers instead.

[shiney]

Unfortunately that wasn't the case. It was promised to Margaret Thatcher that Britain would receive a 3 billion pound rebate, and it seems that France is trying to shift focus on their failure to raitfy by trying to embarass someone else. Only problem is, it's pissing the UK off, which isn't helpful even considering past conflict.

Percentages probably would have been nice for the other countries, but it probably wouldn't have been fair to the UK that way either. As far as I can see, if something like this was promised to the UK back then, there must have been somewhat of a substantial input for it to have happened. I'll have to look into it.

[Osterbaum]

It is my opinion that the Chirac government has allowed a referendum precisely for the inverse reason: they didn't think the 'No' would win.

Exactly my point. They didn't think 'No' would win. But it did. So now they know that the most of the people don't agree and on top of that it's not like it isn't common knowledge to french people too that their goverment was hoping for and thought that they would get a majority of 'Yes' voters. So now Chirac has to please his people in order to remain in office and to avoid a major scandal (or an even larger scandal).

I can't figure out why you would think that putting this to the popular vote is anything else than a virtue?

Sure it's a virtue too. But as said, it is a virtue which is expected to go their way in the end.

Democracy isn't automatically demagogy

I am sorry, but my english skills are limited especially in cases like these, so I do not know what 'demagogy' means.

the countries which comprise it have spent far too long being independant for them to suddenly become united.

Which is why it can not be done too fast.

In my oppinion, the EU has no chance of becoming the next US equivelent;

That's not totally what is the goal. Atleast for most people.

Even though Britain is richer now than it was then, is it really fair for France and others to suddenly turn on them and demand they sacrifice their £3 billion rebate without offering anything in return? My understanding from reading the various articles is that basically, after suffering what could be considered a humiliating defeat at the polls, France changed tactics and began calling on England to do something knowing full well that they wouldn't, and then branding them as obstinate and stubborn.

I understand your point and in some cases agree. But what bothers me that if Britain doesen't pay more, then others will have to. And that isn't fair either.