Does the EU still exist?

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:13 pm

I am pessimistic about the situation in Europe.
About Irak, all Europe is devided:

For the war: United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and the Eastern countries.

For the peace: Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden...

Neutral: Ireland, Finland, Austria...

I wonder if GW Bush and D. Rumsfeld have not reached their goal. Europe is splitting...

Skylimit · Post by **Skylimit** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:21 pm

The question was raised on Belgian television
"Is this the end of Europe" ?

I think we can either get stronger from this crisis, or implode ... but it will never be the same again ... Bush has committed a 9/11 to the EU an UN,
I feel it was deliberate.

We need an enlarged United States of Europe, with a directly elected president and an own military and a common foreign policy, or we may
as well seize to exist.

I would rather have a smaller Europe, than this devided Europe

Maybe the "Old Europe"

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:39 pm

Skylimit wrote:The question was raised on Belgian television
"Is this the end of Europe" ?

I think we can either get stronger from this crisis, or implode ... but it will never be the same again ... Bush has committed a 9/11 to the EU an UN,
I feel it was deliberate.

Of course it was!
he has told to the American people that his goal is to prevent anyone from being able to counterbalance the US policy and the US military supremacy. It's the case for the islamic countries, but also for Russia, China, Europe...

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:41 pm

Skylimit wrote:
We need an enlarged United States of Europe, with a directly elected president and an own military and a common foreign policy, or we may
as well seize to exist.

I would rather have a smaller Europe, than this devided Europe
Maybe the "Old Europe"

I wonder if the people of Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands... want it as we do.

In another hand, if Bush's policy appear more and more brutal, cynic and unilateral, I wonder if the british could feel more and more that the EU is necessary.

Gauss · Post by **Gauss** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:43 pm

We'll see what the policies of the next British prime minister will be like. (Blair's time is running out.) But I hope (actually expect) that they will strive for a more powerful EU.
Again, we should be grateful for Rumsfeld. When it was unclear whether Britain would attack without UN resolution (other than 1441) he remarked something like "We can do it without you anyway."
And that's not like allies talk with each other.

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:23 am

Gauss wrote: And that's not like allies talk with each other.

Actually, they don't care about GB... The USA administration thinks it can lead the world alone.

eurobillsandcoins · Post by **eurobillsandcoins** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:27 am

The USA thinks they're the big cheese in this world, they just want power and oil (what more does Bush want world domination?

) Sheese, Bush is a jackass.

Gauss · Post by **Gauss** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:05 am

Olivier wrote:Actually, they don't care about GB... The USA administration thinks it can lead the world alone.

Exactly. And some governments realized that earlier, others later. I think GB realized it after Rumsfelds remarks and this may have consequences for their future support of unilateral actions. And, surprisingly, quite a few Americans would reject policies that result in true isolation of the US - right now, in the news, there appear to be some allies (GB, Australia, Spain) but if they reject support requests next time...

But remember history, 12 years ago. President Bush led a relatively short and successful war against Iraq (supported by a broad international coalition and authorized by the UN). The war and the rising oil prices due to it, however, caused an economic crisis in the US. The budget had a huge deficit (partly carried over from Bush's predecessor), and despite being a war hero, Bush was not re-elected.
Compare that to the situation now. Except for the parts in brackets it's quite similar to what we have right now, right?

Skylimit · Post by **Skylimit** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:28 pm

Olivier wrote: Actually, they don't care about GB... The USA administration thinks it can lead the world alone.

They never talk about American troups, but about "coalition forces"

I think the support from Britain and others is vital for the US
"to keep up appearances"

Antti · Post by **Antti** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:33 pm

It's just that they don't (yet) want to tell the world their real plans of world domination.
Now it's better to say 'coalition forces' in order not to insult some of the few countries supporting the war. They could well do all this alone and then continue doing other pre-empitive strikes until they dominate the world but it looks better to the world if they are not acting alone.
It's just so hard for some Americans to see what coiuld someone have against their supreme culture, economy, political system and glorious leader.

Skylimit · Post by **Skylimit** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:37 pm

Iran has always been impossible to invade ...

Now after two short campaigns, US forces occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan, the neighbouring countries

What would be their next move ?
[careful this time ... Iran really has Weapons of MD]

BossaNova · Post by **BossaNova** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:16 pm

well, what we see it's a separation of politicians, I guess the european people are more united then ever, each day i feel more european, when i see all this american fundamentalism.. the biggest danger of world peace..

what we see it's a clarification of positions, but that's healthy..

to those who had doubts, watching Paulo Portas (portuguese Haider

) saying that first were our transatlantic relations, and only then Europe, was clearfying enough I guess....

no we know, who's who in relation to europe, even I had always many doubts about europe, now more then ever, I'm european..

although one thing i must see, i no longer believe that UK's memebership is good for europe.. they should be apart for some years.. until they really feel more european.. (i no people in uk are against war, but it's the only country, where a large majority of political parties are in favor

)

bn

Skylimit · Post by **Skylimit** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:58 pm

BossaNova wrote: although one thing i must see, i no longer believe that UK's memebership is good for europe..

I agree, Britain has lost its place in Europe, if it does not sack Tony Blair.
I feel that all Britain has done in Europe is trying to block every decision in the area of a social & political Europe, and trying to block the Euro
-> torpedoed it ... the Europe the founding members want is being blocked by mainly Britain ... When Labour got to power I was really hopeful ... but Blair has deeply disappointed me
He appears to be as anti-European as Thatcher was.

I am convinced that many of you share this frustration, yet, conflict is not the right way to solve this issue. Europe will only make sense if it is united, with Britain on board. We need the British to join the Euro, join a European military, and form a United Europe.

We need to educate the British. It is not in their interest to act as a member state of the USA. Their future is in Europe, or in a vacuum, when they are asked to leave the Union (if this is technically possible)

Europe must carry on, with new projects, without Britain, but also without ejecting them, for now ...

At the same time, I am worried, that once the dream of a strong and united Europe is there ... it will have an elected president that holds the same rethoric as Bush. France may well be the first country to achieve this (Len Pen defeated the socialist candidate ... and Chirac emerged because traditional politics supported him) With the right propaganda, Europe has the potential of acting as stupid as the Americans (after all : what are Americans ? )

Gauss · Post by **Gauss** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 11:43 pm

Skylimit wrote:after all : what are Americans ?

US citizens, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Peruvians, ..........................

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 6:22 pm

Gauss wrote: The budget had a huge deficit (partly carried over from Bush's predecessor), and despite being a war hero, Bush was not re-elected.
Compare that to the situation now. Except for the parts in brackets it's quite similar to what we have right now, right?

Bush JR is on the good way to do like his father... but with more collateral damages: a stronger anti-americanism all over the world, a scepticist GB, angry Arabs...

Bad work!