Thoughts about the European Union.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have a question.

Globalization is drawing all the world, with all cultures and customs, closer and closer together all the time. Everything and everyone is becoming more and more connected. Doesn't the fight to preserve cultural distinctiveness seem like rather a lost cause, therefore, in the long run?

Perhaps you are right. As a matter of fact, allready I don't really know what my own cultural is exactly. What I meant to say was that I do not want the Netherlands, our language and values, to get lost in the bigger whole. The EU is a cooperation, not a nation or whatever and I would like to more or less keep it that way.
Also, I think globalization is more like a "guided natural" system of change and integration, whereas becoming the EU is more forcefull. We want to have the latest technology, fashion etc and we want to know what is going on in the world. We don't even think about the fact that Coca Cola is originally not from the Netherlands, because if you have a problem, you write to an office in the Netherlands. You probably don't think "Hey this beer is Dutch!" when you drink Heineken. Globalization is chosen for and embraced (or not) by the people, but the EU is something the governments came up with. As long as it does not clearly effect the daily lives of people and gives them a change to embrace or reject it, the new imported values and cultures etc. will remain foreign.
That is a big difference.

@ The Gaffer: Really? In the Netherlands we always complain about the Germans not being able to meet the quota's and stuff. I didn't know the French are actually worse. Allthough our impression of France isn't always very nice either (no offense to whomever might take offense )

[Jonathan]

The EU has made Europe more diverse than ever before.

Lots of funds have been allocated to preserve and support cultures and traditions within the member countries and big efforts have been made to reduce economic and social gaps between regions.

The EU has brought the member countries closer, and that without endangering cultural distinctiveness.

[Mari]

Perhaps, but there has been talk of the Netherlands having to change their refugee-system, policy on drugs and alcohol (which admittedly might not be such a bad idea) and other legal things to fit "better into the new Europe".
These are some major changes.

[Earniel]

I suppose there's a good and a bad side to everything, even to the EU. Belgium's just been slapped again with a fine yesterday for not being quick enough to implement a EU guideline (will we ever be? ) about putting union representation in smaller companies.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Mari

Perhaps, but there has been talk of the Netherlands having to change their refugee-system, policy on drugs and alcohol (which admittedly might not be such a bad idea) and other legal things to fit "better into the new Europe".
These are some major changes.

Not sure how this correlates to my previous post but those kinds of changes you are talking about have been issues in every other member country as well. Many people are uncertain when it comes to more or less radical changes. It is all an adaption process in order to make cooperation within the EU run as smoothly as possible but of course it makes some citizens feel a bit dismayed.

[Mari]

True.
And allthough I might not have shown it in my previous posts, I am actually pro-EU.

[Jonathan]

The Lisbon treaty will come into effect on December 1st and the EU will get its first president and its first chief of foreign affairs. This evening the EU leaders in Brussels might already agree on with two choices for the jobs.

As for the presidency, the BBC mentions these seven names. It is also already decided upon that the president will come the centre-right whereas the chief of foreign affairs are to be more to the left on the political scale.

Media speculates that Belgian prime minister Herman Van Rompuy is the most likely choice for president. It is also proposed that British ex-minister Catherine Ashton might claim the role as the EU's voice in foreign affairs.

So, before the decision is made public - does anyone have any favourite candidate for the office of president or foreign affairs?

[Earniel]

Eh, Europe can have Van Rompuy if it wants. He may not be the worst for the role, if I'm honest, but I'm not counting on it anyway. It's very probable the Brits will block his candidacy, as they have done more or less regularly with Belgian politicians for high-level EU-posts in the past.

EDIT: Just saw the news, so it is Van Rompuy after all. It looks like the Brits preferred Foreign Affairs above Chairmanship.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Just saw the news, so it is Van Rompuy after all. It looks like the Brits preferred Foreign Affairs above Chairmanship.

I guess The Brits didn't. But supposedly they saw the obvious advantages of reaching a consensus with all 27 member states.

Well, if Herman Van Rompuy can perform such a miracle as forming a Belgian government, he should be able to successfully unite the EU as well


Article in the Guardian

[Earniel]

Hm, you have a very positive view on European politics, don't you?

Ah, yes, the Van Rompuy 'miracle' formation of the Belgian federal government. I've had quite a few laughs reading how it was portrayed in the foreign news outlets.

I don't find it much of a miracle if you just keep status quo by ignoring the issues and postponing the discussion on them, well, indefinitely. It'll be interesting (in the way that a full-blown volcano eruption, Krakatoa-style, is interesting) to see if the next Belgian prime minister is going to be brave and attempt a resolution, but my guess is that the next elections are pretty much still going to be un-constitutional...

[Jonathan]

All focus lies on the two top posts but everyone seems to have forgotten the third post that the EU leaders also decided on! Namely, the (in comparison rather insignificant) job as Secretary General of the EU Council.

I had to go to the EU's official website to read that the third job goes to Pierre de Boissieu from France (who already is the current Deputy Secretary General).

[Coffeehouse]

The EU has done, again, what it is becoming exceedingly skilled at doing, letting important decision on the Union's now and future, dive into obscurity.

When will the European Union becoming a bottom-up, and not just a top-down project? They've chosen a relatively obscure person to a position that should have been awarded to a preferably known leader/statesman, whom has the charisma to make the EU pull in the same direction.

The EU needs leadership that has the courage to formulate European policies with appeal to Europeans. For instance, the foreign policy of the EU (which it needs to have if it is to move its weight around) is a joke. The EUs foreign policy can be summed up in two words: United States. There is seldom any real European policy, that can stand on its own two feet.

For the EU to become an actual global player, which it says it aspires to, it needs to have the clout. You do not get clout by choosing politicial leadership (though I am sure the Belgian is a bright fellow!) that is obscure to the vast majority of Europeans. I think this shows that the European Union as a Union of Europeans, if you can call it so, is still in early infancy.

Where's the courage Europe?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

When will the European Union becoming a bottom-up, and not just a top-down project?

Or, alternately, a belly-up one.

[Earniel]

Heheheh.

As long as the seperate states want to strengthen and perpetuate their own national interests, the EU as a unified, global player is IMO going to remain an unattainable goal.

And frankly, the whole EU itself is an obscure entity for pretty much the majority of its population. The EU structure doesn't give much opportunity for population involvement. A lot of it is decided seemingly over our heads. We don't get a say in who joins the Union, what policies will be enacted, heck we can't even vote for our own president.

[Jonathan]

Coffeehouse, they purposely and intentionally chose a comparatively and less-charismatic politician. Why a person like Tony Blair didn't end up on the post (albeit his rather heavy support) was in part because a highly influential and powerful president turned out fairly undesirable by the member states. Moreover, I dare say a large part of the European population would feel somewhat uncomfortable waking up one day with a mighty politician running their union that they didn't even elect.

Interestingly however, this hasn't stopped many a European from criticising the decision, saying it is dull and whatnot. But I don't think it is unlikely that we would have whined whoever was elected committee chairman

But picking Van Rumpoy was a strategic choice, especially when considering the aspect of the Lisbon treaty that is to facilitate attendance to the EU's internal politics. Had clout been the only goal, I would have agreed with you on your thoughts about leadership

[GrayMouser]

Considering that in the last two campaigns for the leadership of Europe the leading contenders were Hitler and Napoleon respectively, I'd say dull is good!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Also tall.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Where's the courage Europe?

I think the Dutch and French voters gave you the answer to that one when they were voting on the Constitution.



I am an enthusiast for the EU, but their politicians are unbelievably arrogant.

[inked]

Good ol' EU. Promoting the French to complain.........

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/repo...p-muslim-ones/


Is this political correctness run so amuck that it has no basis in reality or history or something more dire and sinister?

Well, it resuscitated another thread at any rate.................

[Mari]

So wait, what? The CNA bases an entire article on something 1 quote from a French politician? I hope they checked her claims before publishing that...