Entropa, a sculpture made by the Czech artist David Cerny has recently sparked some controversy within the European Union. The sculpture shows various countries of the EU represented by their national stereotypes put together as an unfinished model kit. Due to the satirical nature of the sculpture, certain countries such as Bulgaria - which is shown as a toilet - took offence from the depiction.
The EU is probably one of the more controversial subjects of political debate these days: Those who support it say that it offers a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the people of Europe to form a stable and solidary community which acts as a unified entity on the global political stage. Those who dislike the EU fear that it might end up as a huge waste of money or even a danger to each country's individual characteristics.
Now, I want to ask: What do YOU think of the European Union? Is it a burden or a blessing? If you do not agree with the current state of the Union, what do you think of the basic IDEA of a united European state? What are your hopes and fears and how do outsiders see Europe?
Here's what I think: The idea of a European alliance is promising although at the moment, I feel that the politicians are handling the subject inadequately which is why I consider the 'current' EU a potential failure because I don't see any effort to change something about the following issues:
1. I don't get why countries like Georgia or Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. After all, Europe is primarily a geographical term. Adding more and more countries which, like Georgia, do not even share a border with an EU nation only serves to undermine the very meaning of the word 'Europe'.
2. The integration of the eastern countries in the last few years was rushed. Whilst the idea of including them as well is, in a way, noble, it seems as if no-one actually considered that these countries could end up lagging behind 'the West' which only causes a separation within the EU itself.
3. I perceive the EU as an overly bureaucratic organisation which spends too much time and money dealing with very petty issues and when they do come up with a new resolution, the people can rarely even relate to it.
4. It seems like the European parliament is often abused as an 'honourable discharge' for politicians who, in some way, failed on a national level which makes the whole thing seem half-hearted.
5. The sheer number of states involved makes it almost impossible to find any common ground by now.
6. Something as basic and fundamental as a constitution should have been introduced at the very beginning.
These are my primary complaints. I do like the basic idea of the EU but right now, I feel that the concept is badly executed and that the whole 'European identity' often just works on paper which is why I can understand why the British often say 'no' to the EU.
What does everyone else think of the European Union? How do you Non-European members perceive the Union and what is your opinion? Is the EU a well-realised chance or a failure? Are the errors redeemable or would it be better to start again from scratch?
In closing please describe how you feel about the EU, selecting one of these terms.
O successful
O flawed but functional
O a good concept badly executed
O a bad idea in the first place
O a failure
O a threat
O other (please specify)
0
The European Union
Started By Dauth, Jan 19 2009 10:45
8 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Gold Member
-
- 11193 posts
<Custom title available>
Posted 20 January 2009 - 13:44
The original concept of 25 artists making their own country for the sculpture sounds like a good idea but it is fundamentally impractical, so making it with only two was a good idea. We also all have places that we'd refer to as a toilet, I would make a comment but there are rules against what I'd like to say. That being said if someone described the UK as a toilet I could provide a dozen examples to prove them right, but could probably do the same in their country too.
I see the EU as a hulking monstrosity, with the reaction time of a large planet high on pot. The fact we are still plunging billions into Spain is ludicrous since frankly it is now one of the richest countries in the EU. The EU should be a free trade zone, tbh I can also see the use of the Euro since the Pound has now plummeted, that being said if the UK joined now we'd be far poorer than we would have been this time last year, and I really don't want to see the UK go begging to Brussels.
Now onto Rayburn's points.
1) Don't worry about Turkey entering, the French have the right idea saying no, perhaps when the country doesn't need the military to force it to remain secular there might be a case for joining. I'd also possibly say that any joining country must be in better economic condition than the average in the EU, to stop the EU being drained.
2) They have broken the EU in two, Mastrict cannot keep up with whats happened and is now 15 years old, we needed new treaties. I actually read some of the EU treaty, most of it was faffing about with wordings, though the idea of a EU foreign minister is repulsive. We are not a Federal superstate, there already are 2 quite large ones and frankly I'm a fan of neither.
3) This is very much the case, can someone explain why the EU/EEC/European Parliament/Commission (or whichever one it is) moves form Brussels to Strasbourg and back every 6 months? Anyone?
4) Yes, but it felt good to get rid of Mandy for two years. The EU is also used as a scape goat for unpopular laws by the UK (naughty I know) but the fishing laws, none from the EU all from the UK.
5) Almost certainly the case, perhaps that we've all been butchering each other for the last 2000 years? Might have some common ground, lets face it Europe isn't countries, its a War.
6) While a valid idea, can you imagine how the USSR would have reacted to a Federal Superstate being generated on their front door, especially since I bet the 'EU' was richer too.
The EU was a good idea, but very badly executed, and now there are such serious flaws that it all needs to be ripped down and restarted.
One of the biggest problems might be that no one identifies themselves as European, I still say English not British and that treaty is over 200 years old (500 if you believe England and Wales is Britain).
I see the EU as a hulking monstrosity, with the reaction time of a large planet high on pot. The fact we are still plunging billions into Spain is ludicrous since frankly it is now one of the richest countries in the EU. The EU should be a free trade zone, tbh I can also see the use of the Euro since the Pound has now plummeted, that being said if the UK joined now we'd be far poorer than we would have been this time last year, and I really don't want to see the UK go begging to Brussels.
Now onto Rayburn's points.
1) Don't worry about Turkey entering, the French have the right idea saying no, perhaps when the country doesn't need the military to force it to remain secular there might be a case for joining. I'd also possibly say that any joining country must be in better economic condition than the average in the EU, to stop the EU being drained.
2) They have broken the EU in two, Mastrict cannot keep up with whats happened and is now 15 years old, we needed new treaties. I actually read some of the EU treaty, most of it was faffing about with wordings, though the idea of a EU foreign minister is repulsive. We are not a Federal superstate, there already are 2 quite large ones and frankly I'm a fan of neither.
3) This is very much the case, can someone explain why the EU/EEC/European Parliament/Commission (or whichever one it is) moves form Brussels to Strasbourg and back every 6 months? Anyone?
4) Yes, but it felt good to get rid of Mandy for two years. The EU is also used as a scape goat for unpopular laws by the UK (naughty I know) but the fishing laws, none from the EU all from the UK.
5) Almost certainly the case, perhaps that we've all been butchering each other for the last 2000 years? Might have some common ground, lets face it Europe isn't countries, its a War.
6) While a valid idea, can you imagine how the USSR would have reacted to a Federal Superstate being generated on their front door, especially since I bet the 'EU' was richer too.
The EU was a good idea, but very badly executed, and now there are such serious flaws that it all needs to be ripped down and restarted.
One of the biggest problems might be that no one identifies themselves as European, I still say English not British and that treaty is over 200 years old (500 if you believe England and Wales is Britain).
#3
-
- Fallen Brother
-
- 3736 posts
Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner
-
Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order
Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:56
I'm not European, so my perspective on this won't be well informed as I'm not exposed to the same current affairs input as you. Nonetheless I'll share a few thoughts I've built up all the same.
1) While I don't have a problem with Georgia and Turkey joining in principle - yes, they may be isolated from the rest of the EU in terms of borders, but at the moment at least, what with air travel and all, land borders need not necessarily dictate a country's membership of groups, particularly given they're both nations with major port infrastructure to allow sea-borne trade. I'll admit it does pose problems but I don't think they should be excluded because of land borders alone, and while obviously you could say that about anywhere, I don't think that Europe should be prevented from expanding beyond traditional views of the meaning of the word so long as the nations have a common interest.
This is where it gets tricky.
Much of this has to do with external influences and power politics, but there are cases where I think the EU is working against itself in terms of regional stability and cooperation (i.e. encroaching into Russia's 'backyard', basically). While it's fully within the rights of the EU and the states involved to cooperate and integrate so long as they are in agreement regardless of what Russia thinks, there are times when I just don't think people are making allowances (which of course works very much both ways). This is mostly not the EU and rather NATO, but still, the EU is an important geopolitical entity nonetheless which needs to make sure it knows that and takes both itself and its actions in light of this as well.
2) This mostly ties into the stuff written above. I think it's an important step that they do join the EU but it is a significant step which needs to be treated with care and analysed in depth, which didn't seem to happen. Again, mine is for the most part a relatively uninformed opinion, but joining the EU seems to have been treated more as a ceremony of cooperation than a complex geopolitical move with serious economic and potentially security considerations as well.
3) I don't really have much of an argument here. While no parliament of any reasonable size is an efficient organisation by virtue of their very nature, when you get people starting to propose laws about naming fruit you wonder if all that expense is worth it. And probably come to a fairly swift conclusion.
4) It's pretty much inevitable, and it's not really a fault of the EU or peculiar to it so much as that the EU represents a hitherto unknown concentration of these political outcasts. I can't really comment on how it feels, though.
5) Welcome to democracy at its most blatant! The EU is uniquely large as a union, and thus suffers uniquely extreme degrees of normal problems with such organisations. It's difficult to see what you could do except boot people out because they're a pain in the backside, though, which needless to say is not going to happen. Or you could institute a Big Brother style of membership where all member states start out with full membership at the beginning of the year and progressively vote each other out by popular ballot to select a winner, who has immunity next year. Or not.
6) Fully agreed; it might have been a pain but there's no way that any form of serious political union should exist without basic framework like this. Given that the USSR already had NATO to worry about, a political alliance probably wouldn't have made a lot of difference to them when they still had three times as many nuclear warheads as necessary to flatten all European military bases simultaneously whenever they wanted.
Lastly, I'd go with Dauth in putting it firmly in the basket of 'good concept, badly executed'. I don't know about restarting it from scratch but it needs to be more cohesive and with a better oversight for what it does in order to be effective. I think the main problem is that no-one's sure whether the EU is just a set of cooperation agreements with a banner or something more significant. I think it has both the potential and, soon enough, the need to create a stronger union than what we have today, but at the moment, it seems more bureaucratic than the UN with about a tenth of the number of states involved. Which is saying something.
1) While I don't have a problem with Georgia and Turkey joining in principle - yes, they may be isolated from the rest of the EU in terms of borders, but at the moment at least, what with air travel and all, land borders need not necessarily dictate a country's membership of groups, particularly given they're both nations with major port infrastructure to allow sea-borne trade. I'll admit it does pose problems but I don't think they should be excluded because of land borders alone, and while obviously you could say that about anywhere, I don't think that Europe should be prevented from expanding beyond traditional views of the meaning of the word so long as the nations have a common interest.
This is where it gets tricky.
Much of this has to do with external influences and power politics, but there are cases where I think the EU is working against itself in terms of regional stability and cooperation (i.e. encroaching into Russia's 'backyard', basically). While it's fully within the rights of the EU and the states involved to cooperate and integrate so long as they are in agreement regardless of what Russia thinks, there are times when I just don't think people are making allowances (which of course works very much both ways). This is mostly not the EU and rather NATO, but still, the EU is an important geopolitical entity nonetheless which needs to make sure it knows that and takes both itself and its actions in light of this as well.
2) This mostly ties into the stuff written above. I think it's an important step that they do join the EU but it is a significant step which needs to be treated with care and analysed in depth, which didn't seem to happen. Again, mine is for the most part a relatively uninformed opinion, but joining the EU seems to have been treated more as a ceremony of cooperation than a complex geopolitical move with serious economic and potentially security considerations as well.
3) I don't really have much of an argument here. While no parliament of any reasonable size is an efficient organisation by virtue of their very nature, when you get people starting to propose laws about naming fruit you wonder if all that expense is worth it. And probably come to a fairly swift conclusion.
4) It's pretty much inevitable, and it's not really a fault of the EU or peculiar to it so much as that the EU represents a hitherto unknown concentration of these political outcasts. I can't really comment on how it feels, though.
5) Welcome to democracy at its most blatant! The EU is uniquely large as a union, and thus suffers uniquely extreme degrees of normal problems with such organisations. It's difficult to see what you could do except boot people out because they're a pain in the backside, though, which needless to say is not going to happen. Or you could institute a Big Brother style of membership where all member states start out with full membership at the beginning of the year and progressively vote each other out by popular ballot to select a winner, who has immunity next year. Or not.
6) Fully agreed; it might have been a pain but there's no way that any form of serious political union should exist without basic framework like this. Given that the USSR already had NATO to worry about, a political alliance probably wouldn't have made a lot of difference to them when they still had three times as many nuclear warheads as necessary to flatten all European military bases simultaneously whenever they wanted.
Lastly, I'd go with Dauth in putting it firmly in the basket of 'good concept, badly executed'. I don't know about restarting it from scratch but it needs to be more cohesive and with a better oversight for what it does in order to be effective. I think the main problem is that no-one's sure whether the EU is just a set of cooperation agreements with a banner or something more significant. I think it has both the potential and, soon enough, the need to create a stronger union than what we have today, but at the moment, it seems more bureaucratic than the UN with about a tenth of the number of states involved. Which is saying something.
Edited by CommanderJB, 22 January 2009 - 12:56.
Quote
"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark
#4
-
- Administrator
-
- 9627 posts
[...beep...]
Posted 22 January 2009 - 17:25
Quote
1. I don't get why countries like Georgia or Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. After all, Europe is primarily a geographical term. Adding more and more countries which, like Georgia, do not even share a border with an EU nation only serves to undermine the very meaning of the word 'Europe'.
I disagree on the issue of Turkey specifically. I deal everyday with Turkish people and from what I have seen they appear to be suitable to enter the EU at a future point. I also disagree with Dauth on their military and secularisation. This for me is a good thing and separates state and religion in the best way possible. However, that is not the point. There will always be a reason to include these countries as a fundamental principle of the EU seems to be strength in numbers. The more countries that join the greater the strength. Granted that is not true now, but the EU is unlikely to be what it should be until my ghrandchildren have grandchildren.
Quote
2. The integration of the eastern countries in the last few years was rushed. Whilst the idea of including them as well is, in a way, noble, it seems as if no-one actually considered that these countries could end up lagging behind 'the West' which only causes a separation within the EU itself.
Granted, but a country lagging behind in development isn't going to develop itself without help. How long has the African continent been behind the rest of the world? It takes massive amounts of investment of money and time for these nations to develop, on their own they would not, with the EU they will. In one sense the over regulation of the EU is their saving grace.
Quote
3. I perceive the EU as an overly bureaucratic organisation which spends too much time and money dealing with very petty issues and when they do come up with a new resolution, the people can rarely even relate to it.
Again, granted, but there is no way countries that have spent hundreds of years of history hitting each other with sticks and bits of metal are going to actually develop into a cohesive unit over night. Yes it's far to bureacratic, probably more so then it needs, but it is part of the checks and balances needed to bring so many ideologies into line. It will take time, generations even to iron out the system. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither was the collection of states across the pond, who regularly disagree on fundamental issues.
Quote
4. It seems like the European parliament is often abused as an 'honourable discharge' for politicians who, in some way, failed on a national level which makes the whole thing seem half-hearted.
No arguments there. Bantomweights in a heavyweight ring will fail massively.
Quote
5. The sheer number of states involved makes it almost impossible to find any common ground by now.
No, each countries political and social compasses change. Economic factors have a huge impact. One day, eventually people will realise that working together will pay off. As mentioned before, we have long histories of conflict and some still fresh in the minds of generations. They will die and those with no memories will take over. Progress may improve then.
Quote
6. Something as basic and fundamental as a constitution should have been introduced at the very beginning.
Perhaps, but it will happen. Being more positive than negative would help.
Quote
In closing please describe how you feel about the EU, selecting one of these terms.
O other (please specify)
O other (please specify)
Yes it is a good idea, yes it isn't implemented well. But there is no way to do this better. It is a long so process of integration that no one actually wants right now. It is better to begin the process rather than put it off. I am of the belief that we would all stand to benefit, economically, culturally, socially and morally from European integration. It just needs time to be accepted. We all need to "sail our ships in the same direction", but we are in a big ocean. The rest will catch up with a favourable wind.
#5
-
- Member
-
- 316 posts
Professional
Posted 23 January 2009 - 17:35
Entropa, it seemed to be national shame of the Czech Republic since it was created just by few Czech artists under David Černý [Czernyy] instead of 25 artists from every EU country.
Bulgaria ("turkish toilets") has been shrouded, Slovaks are sattisfied with an apologize, don't know about Germans and hackencroissed highways in number 18 on the Entropa.
But this is typical, freedom of artist's show, same like that Muhammad caricature in Denmark (you can see it on Entropa in that LEGO). In the end this very satirical work isn't so bad.
It shows the EU as liberal to freedom of expression, full of differences and prejudices.
1. I don't know if getting Albanians, Turks or Caucasus nations into EU is good idea in next 30 years, there are too many radicals among Albanians and Turks, there are videos like that in "Kosovo: Stolen Land" (I know, it's tendentious, but still it's not easy to tell what is true even in normal documentary films or TV News) when dozens of Albanian children in Kosovo shout to few Serbian Children: " You are Christians?! Jugalate you! Even you, you <sarkastic tone> "Virgin Mary"! "
I have heard UCK which did same crimes as Serbians, wasn't judged, that they are delivering drugs into Europe, etc.
No matter how true is this, Kosovo problem is like a barrel of gunpowder. No countries with possible strongly maffia government should be allowed to enter EU (this is case of Ukraine, too). Have you heard Bulgaria or the Czech Republic ended with corruption? So Croatia or even Serbia yes, Kosovo or Turkey NO.
Turks are nationalistic like Chinese (Kurdistan is like Tibet, only with difference that Kurds do guerilla attacks on Turkish army and that Turkey is member of the NATO).
2. This isn't so easy, this lagging started with rushed privatization which ended with destruction of possible competition rivals (Škoda, Dacia, etc.), only few remained,
these were damaged by EU itself (Czech lands were exporting sugar since early 19th century, but EU changed this, almost same fate happened to Moravian wine), many products had to be renamed (potatoe Rum to Tuzemák), other smaller were almost destroy by big companies (Hundai in Nošovice almost ruined specific EU sheltered Nošovice Liberty Cabbage). What can help new members? Larger integration! "Brothers"(almost same language as Czechs, etc.) Slovaks have been saved by Euro, currency Kč - Czech Crown has been ruined by it's strong position, unstable Civic Democrat (weird rightwingers who aren't capable to bring real reforms) government, economical crisis, etc. (July 23.5 Kč/€, today 28.5 Kč/€)...
It seems that Romanian wage is around 300 € with price of food and so like in Germany, Czech Republic 892 € now (was 1040 € in July 2008) with slightly lower prices of food (but almost same for living and same for energy), Croatia probably something around 700 € (I guess according to older datas) with prices of products slightly lower than in Germany, Germany 1500€ (before crisis), Ukraine around 200 € with lower prices of products a bit than in Germany. This should be also viepoint of membership.
3. EU is bureaucratical monster, it's problem for firms and villages to get to money from the EU, there are many signs that EU is rulled by companies (instead) of politicians, I don't know how in most of the EU, but here family members of politicians own private companies (what about that so-called conflict of interests!!) or have high positions there...
Other criminal component is existence of lobbyism (source of billion bribes, for example in Czech Republic (Gripens, coal mining), Poland (coal mining) or Sweden (Gripens)) and possible dangers caused by Lisbon Treaty, one of them is better soil for lobbyists, this is what Communistic Party of Bohemia and Moravia (asociate member of the European Left) critizised, it was also critizised from some reasons by Civic Democrats (senators, president prof. V. Klaus) or Irish citizens, I am afraid they are right in this.
EU is too complicated to be safe from financial crime or corrupcy. BTW, don't worry, there can't be more bureaucrats than citizens.
4. EU parliament isn't very capable of doing something, but many times it's the alpha legislative, still there are some things which needs to be united (when you have harder ecological limits (like here in CZ with water I think) than the rest of EU, the rest of the EU should harder them to your level), EU council is sometimes pain in the a$$ from unjustice reasons (Slovaks were almost before Blackout which could be caused by gas abscence, so they announced they can start one nuclear plant with old reactor(with one known medium weakness), EU council criticized this immediatelly). I thing this is rather objective of Senate (full of seniors, voters participation: 15%, mostly rightwingers).
But yes, it is possible.
5. EU is too complicated...
6. I am afraid of the Lisbon Treaty (see above). What would help EU is integration into real Union, something like the USA or Germany, not some poor quarreled set of countries where few rich western companies act like colonialists (also those from S. Korea or the USA) in bussiness sphere (when new members have just 1 or 2 big independent companies, other owned by big companies from the West, this is what happened here (Kofola limonade empire, one oil empire and several PC game production strong smaller companies)), unlike before WW2 (which can be seen as a start of neokolonialism). There's almost nothing important remained, much better than this would be one vital European Federation (English as main language (sorry German or French), each state with his own language and parliament) ...
I can imagine EU to be set over whole Europe, Caucasus (2050), Israel (2050) or even Russia (2050) if they decided to left Shanghai Cooperation. I can also imagine creation of Union between EU and the USA, but this would be rather question of USA mood and distant future (2080).
Latin Union* or something like that is being formed, so EU would be small.
After few centuries (unless mankind will fall or even extinct (I hope not) untill that) the Earth Union would be necessary to be competitionable with alliens (I really doubt we will be those advanced), but this is beyond current sight and rather sci-fi...
I think EU is:
*ugh, Latin Empire...
Bulgaria ("turkish toilets") has been shrouded, Slovaks are sattisfied with an apologize, don't know about Germans and hackencroissed highways in number 18 on the Entropa.
But this is typical, freedom of artist's show, same like that Muhammad caricature in Denmark (you can see it on Entropa in that LEGO). In the end this very satirical work isn't so bad.
It shows the EU as liberal to freedom of expression, full of differences and prejudices.
1. I don't know if getting Albanians, Turks or Caucasus nations into EU is good idea in next 30 years, there are too many radicals among Albanians and Turks, there are videos like that in "Kosovo: Stolen Land" (I know, it's tendentious, but still it's not easy to tell what is true even in normal documentary films or TV News) when dozens of Albanian children in Kosovo shout to few Serbian Children: " You are Christians?! Jugalate you! Even you, you <sarkastic tone> "Virgin Mary"! "
I have heard UCK which did same crimes as Serbians, wasn't judged, that they are delivering drugs into Europe, etc.
No matter how true is this, Kosovo problem is like a barrel of gunpowder. No countries with possible strongly maffia government should be allowed to enter EU (this is case of Ukraine, too). Have you heard Bulgaria or the Czech Republic ended with corruption? So Croatia or even Serbia yes, Kosovo or Turkey NO.
Turks are nationalistic like Chinese (Kurdistan is like Tibet, only with difference that Kurds do guerilla attacks on Turkish army and that Turkey is member of the NATO).
2. This isn't so easy, this lagging started with rushed privatization which ended with destruction of possible competition rivals (Škoda, Dacia, etc.), only few remained,
these were damaged by EU itself (Czech lands were exporting sugar since early 19th century, but EU changed this, almost same fate happened to Moravian wine), many products had to be renamed (potatoe Rum to Tuzemák), other smaller were almost destroy by big companies (Hundai in Nošovice almost ruined specific EU sheltered Nošovice Liberty Cabbage). What can help new members? Larger integration! "Brothers"(almost same language as Czechs, etc.) Slovaks have been saved by Euro, currency Kč - Czech Crown has been ruined by it's strong position, unstable Civic Democrat (weird rightwingers who aren't capable to bring real reforms) government, economical crisis, etc. (July 23.5 Kč/€, today 28.5 Kč/€)...
It seems that Romanian wage is around 300 € with price of food and so like in Germany, Czech Republic 892 € now (was 1040 € in July 2008) with slightly lower prices of food (but almost same for living and same for energy), Croatia probably something around 700 € (I guess according to older datas) with prices of products slightly lower than in Germany, Germany 1500€ (before crisis), Ukraine around 200 € with lower prices of products a bit than in Germany. This should be also viepoint of membership.
3. EU is bureaucratical monster, it's problem for firms and villages to get to money from the EU, there are many signs that EU is rulled by companies (instead) of politicians, I don't know how in most of the EU, but here family members of politicians own private companies (what about that so-called conflict of interests!!) or have high positions there...
Other criminal component is existence of lobbyism (source of billion bribes, for example in Czech Republic (Gripens, coal mining), Poland (coal mining) or Sweden (Gripens)) and possible dangers caused by Lisbon Treaty, one of them is better soil for lobbyists, this is what Communistic Party of Bohemia and Moravia (asociate member of the European Left) critizised, it was also critizised from some reasons by Civic Democrats (senators, president prof. V. Klaus) or Irish citizens, I am afraid they are right in this.
EU is too complicated to be safe from financial crime or corrupcy. BTW, don't worry, there can't be more bureaucrats than citizens.
4. EU parliament isn't very capable of doing something, but many times it's the alpha legislative, still there are some things which needs to be united (when you have harder ecological limits (like here in CZ with water I think) than the rest of EU, the rest of the EU should harder them to your level), EU council is sometimes pain in the a$$ from unjustice reasons (Slovaks were almost before Blackout which could be caused by gas abscence, so they announced they can start one nuclear plant with old reactor(with one known medium weakness), EU council criticized this immediatelly). I thing this is rather objective of Senate (full of seniors, voters participation: 15%, mostly rightwingers).
But yes, it is possible.
5. EU is too complicated...
6. I am afraid of the Lisbon Treaty (see above). What would help EU is integration into real Union, something like the USA or Germany, not some poor quarreled set of countries where few rich western companies act like colonialists (also those from S. Korea or the USA) in bussiness sphere (when new members have just 1 or 2 big independent companies, other owned by big companies from the West, this is what happened here (Kofola limonade empire, one oil empire and several PC game production strong smaller companies)), unlike before WW2 (which can be seen as a start of neokolonialism). There's almost nothing important remained, much better than this would be one vital European Federation (English as main language (sorry German or French), each state with his own language and parliament) ...
I can imagine EU to be set over whole Europe, Caucasus (2050), Israel (2050) or even Russia (2050) if they decided to left Shanghai Cooperation. I can also imagine creation of Union between EU and the USA, but this would be rather question of USA mood and distant future (2080).
Latin Union* or something like that is being formed, so EU would be small.
After few centuries (unless mankind will fall or even extinct (I hope not) untill that) the Earth Union would be necessary to be competitionable with alliens (I really doubt we will be those advanced), but this is beyond current sight and rather sci-fi...
I think EU is:
Quote
flawed but functional
*ugh, Latin Empire...
Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 23 January 2009 - 21:12.
(I'm making RA2YR mod, check Revora Forums for more info)
+ equivalents :p
#6
-
- Member Test
-
- 1899 posts
Shyborg Commander
-
Projects: Frontline Chaos creator and leader, Invasion Confirmed co-leader
Posted 23 January 2009 - 17:48
For me, I think it's rather flawed: it says to many countries they must do stuff, but they don't get anything in return when the countries ask something. Also, smaller countries like the Netherlands are almost completely ignored, while we must do the most stuff of almost all members.
The only good thing of it is that we have no border, so trading can go better (even though it has it's flaws too, like we being overwhelmed by Eastern-Europeans).
The only good thing of it is that we have no border, so trading can go better (even though it has it's flaws too, like we being overwhelmed by Eastern-Europeans).
#7
-
- Member
-
- 3328 posts
Humble darkspawn
Posted 23 January 2009 - 22:51
If you think the Netherlands is ignored you are pretty wrong, it is just that bigger countries get a bigger voice.
it would be very bad if all countries with equal size/number of inhabitants as the Netherlands would have the same influence. Then the endless bureaucracy called EU will be complete horror.
it would be very bad if all countries with equal size/number of inhabitants as the Netherlands would have the same influence. Then the endless bureaucracy called EU will be complete horror.
#8
-
- Member Test
-
- 1899 posts
Shyborg Commander
-
Projects: Frontline Chaos creator and leader, Invasion Confirmed co-leader
Posted 24 January 2009 - 12:17
Yeah, just like with us voting against a European set of rules was pretty much ignored by the others 
#9
-
- Gold Member
-
- 11193 posts
<Custom title available>
Posted 25 January 2009 - 16:01
Dutchygamer, on 24 Jan 2009, 12:17, said:
Yeah, just like with us voting against a European set of rules was pretty much ignored by the others
I would have expected more defence for the EU especially on such a large forum, though it appears that everyone hates it now.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
