EuroBillTracker

Your future:

http://www.ibeurope.com/Database/Factsheets/F055.htm

http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/ ... 4.en03.pdf

Well, I really would like it to be real. But the critics I have read from eht english, spanish, danish, polish delegations make me doubt of this project.

I also regret that the french government is more in favor of a "Europe des Nations". I think it's time for a federal Europe, or a confederal (like in Switzerland)...

Olivier

Olivier wrote:I have read from eht english, spanish, danish, polish delegations make me doubt of this project.
Olivier

Isn't it that country who support US in Irak
A coincidence

I don't see any benefits in EU being a federal union. The cultures of the countries, and above all, the political cultures are far too different. A federal union could be possible to realise but I don't think that kind of a system would be better than an economical union of independent countries.

For me it would be ideal if the integration could be kept in an economical level. This kind of co-operation makes the countries stronger in the international market and turns a profit to every member. There's absolutely no point to make integration to be an intrinsic value.

I don't agree...
we need a political union with a common foreign policy.
The Iraq crisis can never happen again

Europeans need to take responsibiliy ... and not just be rich and stand aside, but come forward on the international political level ....

What we see today is a USA treating European member states as if they were El Salvador...

Belgium is currently forming a gouvernment after the recent elections ... Can you imagine that the Bush administration is taking part in the discussion who goes on defence and who will be minister of Foreign affairs ... Can you imagine that the USA is telling us which laws we should abolish ? (genocide law) Well it is true, and it is happening !

If we do not comply, the NATO buildings will no longer be in Brussels (USA decides ALONE) and the Antwerp harbour will be boycotted (Are we Afghanistan or what ???)

We will not forget

Skylimit wrote:What we see today is a USA treating European lember states as if they were El Salvador...

The European Union can't stop its developpement when, at the same time, we all criticize its passivity about the immigration in all Europe, pollutions of our coasts (Erika, Prestige...)

The USA play with the lack of unity in Europe. Like Skylimit, I am chocked that peoples in America oblige the belgian parlament to modify its laws because the White House does not like them.

France has not put its veto in the UN, some countries think differently and the question is now about how to punish them.

The best thing we have since Europe exists is peace. The crisis on Irak proved that peace is fragile. I want Europe to be strong enough to assure the Europeans of their own security.

Moreover: I now think that it some countries don't want more Europe, they can't prevent the others from moving forward.
I easily imagine a "noyau dur" of countries into a federal union, for example with Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Germany and all the other one which agree to join.

What do we need the common foreign policy for? Isn't it better if every country can tell its own opinion?

I'm afraid it wouldn't have changed the opinion of US if we had had a common minister of foreign affairs who had been against the war. USA just wanted Iraq and that's it. They have a big army and they can do whatever they want. NATO is just their stooge which they use for their own political meanings. Why did Al Qaeda attack to USA and not to Belgium instead? The answer is USA has so much asked for it for the past decades. They finally managed to get someone really displeased with their foreign policy.

If USA wants to advise Belgium in forming the government it just shows its own stupidity. Belgians can tell them to belt up.

On the other hand, I agree EU should have some bollocks in foreign affairs, everyone could see it in the Balkan crisis. EU should dump NATO and form its own alliance. Then we could decide if we want to help USA or leave them to solve their self-inflicted problems.

Aaron wrote:What do we need the common foreign policy for? Isn't it better if every country can tell its own opinion?

I think it can't be, because nobody would hear our opinions untill we are united. For important topics, such as wars, genocides, massive pollution, I think it's better for Europe to tell its opinion to the rest of the world, because I am convinced that the European Union can propose interesting solutions.
Moreover, all the people of Canada I meet wish Europe to counterbalance the US power. We can't have a world leaded selfishly by a unique superpower.

The opinion of France alone, of Britain alone, of Finland alone... is nothing compared to the opinion of the USA. The opinion of the EU could be as important as the US one. It worths it.

Aaron wrote: I'm afraid it wouldn't have changed the opinion of US if we had had a common minister of foreign affairs who had been against the war. USA just wanted Iraq and that's it.

I agree, but at the same time we would not have got internal fights inside Europe. France + Germany + Belgium... / GB + Spain + Portugal...

The result of the European unification is a global peace on all the continent, which is brand new when you look back to our history. The USA play a dangerous game in spliting Europe. Remember the arrogance of D. Rumsfeld talking about "Old Europe"...
It's obvious the EU construction bothers the USA now that a Constitution is on the table.

They have a big army and they can do whatever they want. NATO is just their stooge which they use for their own political meanings.

They have a big army but they are very weak into occupation. Look at what happens in Afghanistan and Irak also: 150 US soldiers have been killed in Irak since the end of the battle. Saddam has disappeared (like Ben Laden). Their behaviour in Irak make them hated by the population...

They always need Europe after the war. They need the european money and a worldwide agreement helps them to act.

The USA can't afford of ruining all the alliances, ruining the UN... The US leaders have not understood they can't afford of isolate themselve from the rest of the world.
Our world of 2003 is not the world of 1946 and 1980. The danger is no more in Moscow, but for some people it's now in Washington (cf the famous poll in 12 countries which shows that the war in Irak has destroyed the natural sympathy generated after the WTC events).

Their power is also strong because of the Dollar power, which is very weak since the USA let their deficits increase dramaticaly. John S has explained it very well in another thread.

A bankrupt would reduce their influence very, very much.

Why did Al Qaeda attack to USA and not to Belgium instead? The answer is USA has so much asked for it for the past decades. They finally managed to get someone really displeased with their foreign policy.

Not only someone, but almost all the planet nowadays.

If USA wants to advise Belgium in forming the government it just shows its own stupidity. Belgians can tell them to belt up.

Belgium can't tell them alone!
The USA put the pressure on a country, one by one, like a bad guy who bash the weak pupils on a schoolground.
Today the pressure is on Belgium. Tomorrow will be the turn of Syria, Iran, Turkey, France, Germany or Canada...

EU should dump NATO and form its own alliance. Then we could decide if we want to help USA or leave them to solve their self-inflicted problems.

It's not possible with the Europe we have today and won't be possible untill Europe has not become (con)federal.

I don't want Europe to oppose the USA all the time, just an equality in our relationship. We are partners, not servants. It has become obvious the Americans don't think this way.

Aaron wrote:USA just wanted Iraq and that's it.

You really think they are done now ?? They want nothing less than total world dominance ... and this is not even a secret

The next step is Iran...

Or North-Korea...

I don't think so... There is no oil in North Korea.

I think the reason why Americans wanted to take over Iraq is the world's second biggest oil resources. Saudi Arabia has the biggest resources but it starts to be very unstable politically. Americans realised that after the terrorist attack in New York; most of the hi-jackers were Saudi Arabian. The royal family, Al Saudi's, is very unfamous nowadays. If there started some riots in Saudi Arabia and Iraq was still in trade blockeade, everyone can imagine what would have happened to the oil price then...

I guess the following country on the list would not be Iran but Syria.

Olivier wrote:

Aaron wrote: I'm afraid it wouldn't have changed the opinion of US if we had had a common minister of foreign affairs who had been against the war. USA just wanted Iraq and that's it.

I agree, but at the same time we would not have got internal fights inside Europe. France + Germany + Belgium... / GB + Spain + Portugal...

At least it's far better than a common European government which is supporting the USA policy...

On the top of that, the structure of today's EU system is totally incompenent for a (con)federation. It's horribly slow and ineffective, far too bureaucratic. On the other hand, it's difficult to make it operative without reducing democracy and control against bribing.

Olivier wrote:

They have a big army and they can do whatever they want. NATO is just their stooge which they use for their own political meanings.

They have a big army but they are very weak into occupation. Look at what happens in Afghanistan and Irak also: 150 US soldiers have been killed in Irak since the end of the battle. Saddam has disappeared (like Ben Laden). Their behaviour in Irak make them hated by the population...

Again one reason why EU should get rid of NATO. Times have changed since the days when NATO was founded. I think this is not really what the old member countries wanted when they joined to the organisation.

Olivier wrote:The USA can't afford of ruining all the alliances, ruining the UN...

USA is worried about UN only when it suits their needs. You can see USA has totally paralysed UN.

Olivier wrote:The US leaders have not understood they can't afford of isolate themselve from the rest of the world.

Yeah, unfortunately they can't... A political isolation would be brilliant if it was complete.

Olivier wrote:Their power is also strong because of the Dollar power, which is very weak since the USA let their deficits increase dramaticaly. John S has explained it very well in another thread.

It's an interesting article. Some economy gurus counted 25 years time for USA until their economy collapses to an economical crisis. They reduced it to 20 years when Bush Jr became president elected...

Olivier wrote:A bankrupt would reduce their influence very, very much.

That's true. They would not have enough of money to maintain such an army they have now. The bad side is the problem in today's world economy is that everything effects on everything. If, or when, USA collapses it effects everywhere in the world. Let's hope China, Russia and India will be strong factors in world economy by then because otherwise we would be alone as the EU internal demand would not be high enough to satisfy the internal supply.

On the other hand, also German economy is in a bad shape. The public sector deficit is too high and for example cities of Hamburg and Berlin have nearly bankrupted. This is a very bad thing as Germany is the economy locomotive of Europe. I don't remember exactly how big role the German gross national product has in EU but I think it's something like 40%...

Olivier wrote:

If USA wants to advise Belgium in forming the government it just shows its own stupidity. Belgians can tell them to belt up.

Belgium can't tell them alone!
The USA put the pressure on a country, one by one, like a bad guy who bash the weak pupils on a schoolground.
Today the pressure is on Belgium. Tomorrow will be the turn of Syria, Iran, Turkey, France, Germany or Canada...

I think they can. What would Americans do in practice? They would not send their marines to take over the Belgian parliament house. They can't do anything else but accept the Belgian government and be happy of it or just moan about it.

Olivier wrote:

EU should dump NATO and form its own alliance. Then we could decide if we want to help USA or leave them to solve their self-inflicted problems.

It's not possible with the Europe we have today and won't be possible untill Europe has not become (con)federal.

I think it is possible. We simply just extend the co-operation to the defence. There is a problem though... the new members are much more likely to adopt the American point of view.

Olivier wrote:I don't want Europe to oppose the USA all the time, just an equality in our relationship. We are partners, not servants. It has become obvious the Americans don't think this way.

European countries, not only EU but also Russia, are too worried about hurting the feelings of USA when Bush does something really bully. USA can always count on the fact that other countries first tell to USA they dislike their policy and after the crisis they are ready to do anything to improve their relationships to USA. Just see what has happened after the Iraqi war. Other countries are ready to give USA the priviledge to break against human rights in UN operations. It's amazing and very sad to see that for so many European countries friendship with USA is more important than human rights. The European model of equal human rights and punishment for crimes is dead.

Aaron wrote:
I think the reason why Americans wanted to take over Iraq is the world's second biggest oil resources. Saudi Arabia has the biggest resources but it starts to be very unstable politically. Americans realised that after the terrorist attack in New York; most of the hi-jackers were Saudi Arabian. The royal family, Al Saudi's, is very unfamous nowadays. If there started some riots in Saudi Arabia and Iraq was still in trade blockeade, everyone can imagine what would have happened to the oil price then...

I guess the following country on the list would not be Iran but Syria.

I agree with you on the causes of the war. Maybe the next step is... Saudi Arabia!