The E.U. - Purpose?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by job, Jul 20, 2003.

  1. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #1
    After reading a highly interesting and moderate article in the WSJ over the current state of the E.U., I wanted to know what other forum members think the main purpose of the E.U. is.

    Even former members of the European Commission (the E.U.'s executive agency) don't really know. To quote Jacques Delors, the former president of the Commission:

    What is the purpose of the E.U.?

    Economic stability and/or cohesion? I was living in Germany when the Euro became a public currency. Prices for normal goods increased twofold. A loaf of bread cost me twice as much as it normally would have in Deutsche Marks.

    Defense? Against what? Several E.U. countries refuse to take part in any type of defense force on the basis of neutrality, whereas four countries who opposed the war in Iraq (France, Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg) announced plans to begin to combine parts of their defense establishment into a 'European Security and Defense Union.' Others, such as Spain and Poland refuse any such defense union citing conflicts of interest with NATO.
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    The EU exists for one reason only. World domination.
     
  3. job
    thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #3
    Whahahahahahahahaha...
     

    Attached Files:

    • inq.gif
      inq.gif
      File size:
      1.7 KB
      Views:
      3,195
  4. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #4
    my understanding is the EU is to, in order:

    1. keep its member nations from warring w/ each other
    2. provide economic security for its members

    a german friend told me once that the real impetus was to keep france and germany from fighting.
     
  5. job
    thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #5
    But is that realistic considering the current relations between the European nations? I can't see anyone of them wanting to go to war with each other.

    And that's where I disagree. Countries with strong currencies (United Kingdom) have everything to lose by switching to the Euro. Open borders, although desireable for trade, certainly represent a security risk, albeit not a major one.

    Over what?
     
  6. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #6
    anything. they* have had three major wars in the past 133 years.

    * in the 1870s it was prussia
     
  7. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    I thought the main purpose of the EU was to create a large free-trade zone in Europe, which it has. Or did I miss something?
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #8
    Here's a better one.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #9
    i own a comfy chair.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #10
    Sorry for bringing up the inquisition again. :D

    If I remember right, the EU was thought up after WWII for mainly economic reasons -- i.e. free trade. I may be wrong. I'm just going from memory from a class I took in college.
     
  11. job
    thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #11
    But do you honestly believe that there is/was any possibility of another European war, especially between France and Germany?
     
  12. job
    thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #12
    hehehehe...

    :D

    thats good.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #13
    of course. it follows the laws of entropy.
     
  14. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #14
    Another Western European war is unlikely at this time, thanks to American military domination of Western Europe and political development in countries like Germany over the Cold War period, but times do change, and demographics change. Therefore, that might not be the case in 50 years, so an EU is useful to keep the peace between European powers. By having a free market and open borders, there's no benefit to going to war, and with governments based on democratic values, there is no motivation.

    One purpose of the EU is to keep African farmers from having a fair shot at European markets. Another, according to France, is to provide a counter balance to US power (a sentiment that Tony Blair characterizes as dangerous). The purpose of the EU should be to spread liberty and free market economies throughout the world, IMO.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    You are a cruel, cruel man!

    Really the EU is many things for many different countries. It is a step in the dream of a United States of Europe for some and a way to lower trade barriers for others. If your interested in what's going on in the EU lately, try the BBC's website. They have lots of information on the upcoming inclusion of 10 new members, the vote on the Euro in Sweden, and of course the British discussions about when or if to join the Euro Zone. There is also a EU website that has lots of resources at http://europa.eu.int/
     
  16. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    This is essentially a repetition of the belief commonly held before World War I that the nations of Europe were too economically (and politically) entwined to see any good come from fighting each other. Yet even as they convinced themselves that war was an impossibility, they all planned for war -- and stumbled inexorably towards it. And, even after the war started, most of the military planners and politicians remained convinced it would last only weeks or months at worst. World War I was the product of the theory that countries should plan for war, but that peace could be allowed to take care of itself.
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    I agree. The current state of things, with the warmongering, conquering and threatening other nations with their military and economic power is unacceptable.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #18
    That was a good one!!! :D

    groovebuster
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #19
    Hopefully the EU will act as a counterbalance against US imperialism.

    They aren't doing a very good job of it at the moment, though.
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #20
    "There is no more dangerous theory in international politics than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitive powers; different poles around which nations gather.

    Such a theory may have made sense in 19th-century Europe. It was perforce the position in the Cold War.

    Today, it is an anachronism to be discarded like traditional theories of security. And it is dangerous because it is not rivalry but partnership we need; a common will and a shared purpose in the face of a common threat." --Tony Blair.

    I am inclined to agree with him.
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    But you also said the Cold War was the right thing to do.

    Which is it?
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #22
    It's both, pseudobrit. Standing up to the Soviet Union was the right thing to do. It could have been done better, IMO, but it was done fairly well.

    Have you any comment on the views of the prime minister?
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    Then I'd ask who's to say standing up to the USA isn't the right thing to do?

    You have to admit we as Americans will be a little biased on such an idea.
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #24
    Tony Blair, for one.
     
  25. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #25
    this post tongue in cheek

    sigh. is the answer to _every_ rhetorical question "tony blair"?

    :)
     

Share This Page