# Visions of Europe



## xarruc

In a separate thread the discussion shifted to discussing the hypothetical situation of Catalonia and other nations separating from their current capitals (IE here Madrid) and becoming independent member states.

  Given that Europeanisation (as in the trend for shift towards a central European govt. body) is unlikely to reverse in the short, medium and perhaps even long term, what are the foreros opinions on how they would like it go in the long term?

  I have two fears about Europe. The first is that without internal competition we will eventually become unproductive and uncompetitive. The second is that democracies are won by votes and you don’t get votes for good governing, rather by clever manipulation of key segments of the population.

  Two practical examples of this is that if the proposed mandatory VAT is imposed across all EU states, countries with low public spending would lose competitive advantage they have and would diminish incentives to keep public spending down. Secondly, recently some German MEPs tried to have bulls included on a list of protected animals (dogs, cocks, foxes, bears etc,) which it is illegal to fight for sport. Fortunately they were defeated: something regiospecific like bullfighting is not something that can be easily understood and should not, in my opinion, be in the mandate of a central European government.

  My vision of Europe is quite simple. I would like to see the big countries such as France, Spain, Germany, UK , Italy etc. split up to produce, lets say from the 25 members states, 100 autonomous territories. The middle governments, (Madrid, London, Berlin, Rome), would cease to function as anything more than the capitals of their provinces. There would be no Blairs, Chiracs, Prodis etc.

  The central government would have a restricted role, covering defence, overall economy and so. The rest of the power would rest in the autonomous states. Something akin to the USA, but with a weaker central government.

Do you like the way it is going? And how else would you like it to go?


----------



## invictaspirit

I would like to see a Europe that respects difference while exploring areas where true harmony could function.

The EU is currently almost hilarious in its levels of Kafka-esque bureaucracy. I know someone who works at the Comission. The waste and the pointless duplication of tasks is sick, really. I was more or less in favour of the constitution as it stood.

I do not accept that the death of the nation-state is inevitable, and see no real evidence that many other Europeans want this.

The problem with Europe, as I see it, is that it is caught between two poles: the 'French' model, which is only truly supported by Luxembourg and Belgium, and the 'British' model which finds some, though not total, sympathy in places like Sweden and Poland.

I have a lot of Dutch friends and they surprised me over the last two years. Many Dutch people are becoming very Euro-sceptic, and in an almost British way. You don't read it much, but the Dutch seemed to vote NEE against the Constitution because they thought the EU was getting too powerful. It was *not at all* like in France: because it wasn't sufficiently 'social'. One of the Dutch anti-Constitution slogans was "Strike back against the Empire!" There is certainly not the unquestioning, default love of federalism there that one still finds in countries like Luxembourg and some of Europe's mainstream political parties.

I would be very sad indeed to see the nations of Europe disappear. I still believe in the nation, while still believing in a level of union and co-operation within Europe. I am just fed up with the assumption that European harmony = socialism (both the left and the right, and Euro-federalists and Euro-sceptics are guilty of this assumption). It doesn't have to.


----------



## xarruc

I remember a few years back being horrified at the words "federal europe" But as time goes on, I feel there is an undercurrent sweeping us that way, one way or another. I think it has gone too far too fast and hence the bite back at the referendum.

Still I think the real problem is no one knows where it is going, why it is going there, who's driving it or who wants it.

I think we Europeans have to wake up and take control of this beast now. as I wrote in the other thread:

Who is your MEP'
What parties are the in the European parliament?
To what party does your MEP belong?

If you can't answer one of them you are as guilty as me. and I am the one bringing up the subject. That's the real problem


I wouldnt be too sad to see the nations disapear. I think regions are far more interesting - I rather think it would preserve regional cultures and customs.


----------



## maxiogee

xarruc said:


> Who is your MEP'
> What parties are the in the European parliament?
> To what party does your MEP belong?



Being Dublin/Irish I have four MEPs

Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin) [United European Left/Nordic Green Left group]
Gay Mitchell (Fine Gael) [Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats}
Eoin Ryan (Fianna Fáil) [Group of European Progressive Democrats]
Proinsias De Rossa (Labour Party) [Party of European Socialists group]

What knowing that says about me I don't know.

On the topic, I see the member states' parliaments being more and more marginalised and I imagine that they are going to end up as glorified regional assemblies (somewhat akin to county councils) and this worries me. Europe is too big and too disparate to be governed from a central government any time soon. The historical situation in Europe is different than that in America (which everyone seems to presume ought to be a model for a united Europe - ugh! No thanks. I like multi-party politics and don't fancy a President of Europe!) and tensions/rivalries are too many and varied to allow for total trust between states.


----------



## invictaspirit

> I remember a few years back being horrified at the words "federal europe" But as time goes on, I feel there is an undercurrent sweeping us that way, one way or another.


 
I have to say, I profoundly disagree with you and (respecfully!) wonder whether this is a take you have because you live in Catalonia (where the undercurrent sweeping that way must certainly be tangible, but is very definitely local).

I have a good mate who is an out-and-out European federalist. (She is Italian.) Over the last four years she has had her head in her hands at the sad demise of her dream. She would insist to you that, sadly, the undercurrent you speak of is more distant now than it ever was.

With Merkel in power in Germany, the possibility of Sarkozy or to a lesser extent the Blairite Royal in France, Euroscepticism alive and well in Britain, Denmark, Sweden and now the Netherlands to some extent...I see very little reason at all to think that there is a centralist, deeper union project around the corner, or the next three corners. If anything, I think it is going the other way.

The Europe of Chirac and Schroeder, or Mitterand and Kohl, is defunct, I think. I see more, not fewer, mildly Eurosceptic politicians coming to power in France and Germany. If Sarkozy is President he will to some degree share the Blair/Brown view of an economic and only very gently social/institutional Europe. Merkel already does to a similar degree.  Royal will also be far closer to Blair than Chirac in her Europe view.

Sorry. I just don't see any evidence of a federalist undercurrent sweeping us towards the USE. In fact I see us back-tracking.

Look at it this way. There *should* be a HUGE federalist movement now, to counter the power of Bush's USA, which virutally all Europeans, including a vast majority of the British, are bitterly critical of. But the need to create a multi-polar world has not driven Europeans into each other's arms.


----------



## BlueWolf

xarruc said:


> My vision of Europe is quite simple. I would like to see the big countries such as France, Spain, Germany, UK , Italy etc. split up to produce, lets say from the 25 members states, 100 autonomous territories. The middle governments, (Madrid, London, Berlin, Rome), would cease to function as anything more than the capitals of their provinces. There would be no Blairs, Chiracs, Prodis etc.



It doesn't seem very democratic. I don't think that the other countries who entered EU did it to be ruled by the "the big countries such as France, Spain, Germany, UK , Italy etc".




> Do you like the way it is going? And how else would you like it to go?



I'd like to know how it is going. I have no idea what EU wants for the future. It was very active when there was to change from the national currency to the Euro, but after that, I don't know any serious project where they all are united.
I'm not surprise that a lot of people don't trust EU. It follows a big dream, but it sometimes seems not to be able to see the reality.


----------



## xarruc

Sorry. What I wrote wasnt clear. Or rather it doesnt say what I wanted to say! which was not so much sweeping towards a federalist Europe, rather towards a centralised Europe. I agree that a federal Europe is less on the cards now than a few years ago.

My point is really that the EU is a monster that seems to grow independent of either the member states input or citizens opinions.

And I dont think its catalonia that makes me think that way - I get more information from the bbc webpage. I dont think is particularly discussed here - however it is almost certainly the bigger infuluence on my ideas about the type of Europe I would like to have.



> [I dont see that]..there is a centralist, deeper union project around the corner,


I'm repeating myself now from the other thread, but I read recently in Private Eye that the EU constitution has been brought back and that a working group is on it (2010 I think) The understanding from the article is that the constitution will not be fundamentally reworked, more just tweaked a bit.

Every week there seems to be a landmark case where the EU court of justice overturns an appeal or where an EU regulation will mean that workers can't do this or so on. It seems that more and more dribs and drabs are going to Brussels, and that its not so much being given as just being pinched, here and there, by one body or another. Even with Eurosceptics in power I think it would take a big, noisy action to stop it and as the voters don't seem too  bothered I think they have other fish to fry.

That said I can't see any huge changes of the scale of the Euro happening within the next few years.


----------



## xarruc

> It doesn't seem very democratic. I don't think that the other countries who entered EU did it to be ruled by the "the big countries such as France, Spain, Germany, UK , Italy etc".



I was imagining all states would be broken down to the size of the smaller ones such as those that already exist Luxumbourg, Belgium and those that don't yet (Catalonia, Scotland etc.) Based approximatly on size and population it would surely be more democratic thyan having some big countries and other small ones.


----------



## invictaspirit

Understood!  

I don't share your vision, but thanks for the clarification.  Your vision is democratic, yes.  But I think it might prove unwieldy.  And for every region that has a strongly regionalist/autonomy-focused identity, there are several that do not and want to feel French, Italian, Swedish or British.

Another point I would make is that Europe will only move somewhere when Chirac is gone.  The poor old sod is still totally obsessed with a highly uniform, social Europe based around the Franco-German 'motor'.  He is the only EU leader that still has that unreconstructed Mitterand-Kohl vision.  The others have all died or retired.  Merkel seems to be embarrassed by the attention Chirac lavishes on her, and everyone else seems to ignore him.  It was a good idea in the 1960s and 1970s.  But with 25 members and its borders reaching Russia, there is little appetite in the EU for a union based to a large extent on what the French and Germans want.  Especially now as rather a lot of Germans don't seem to want it.


----------



## cuchuflete

For those who want any form of centralism or federalism in Europe, please look carefully at the theory, the US Constitution, and the reality, the US national government over the past few decades.

The Constitution, very wisely, reserves for the individual states all powers not specifically granted to the central, federal government.  That's the theory and the law.  In practice, however, the central government has steadily increased its power at the expense of the individual states.  Now and then this has had good effects, but often it has not.

On top of that movement towards centralized authority, there is an ongoing struggle between the constitutional balance of power among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.
Under the current regime, the executive is seen by many as having usurped powers not belonging to it under the constitution.  

More and more authority has moved from regional governments to a single national bureaucracy, and within that, to a single branch of government and a single individual.
The results should give pause to any advocate of the US as a role model for the nations of Europe.  

Please don't take this as an attack on any centralized authority.  Such a government can do many worthwhile things that are unlikely to be done by dozens of individual states.  The danger remains that the unelected bureaucrats will usurp authority to govern citizens who have had and can have little say in what those administrators impose.


----------



## Rodrigo_de_Burgos

A united Europe is kinda , well it worries me. Making the dream of Napoleon Bonaparte's dream come true, or the dream of Adolf Hitler. I like to see Europe working together but it should be watched.As for cuchuflete's comments, I would kinda have to agree, the Unites States has lost sight of it past and that is bad for everyone.


----------



## ireney

Well I know most of the Greek MEPs and who of these I voted for 

Europe doesn't really seems to know what the next step is supposed to be. What I would like to see is a sort of USA union. I don't think any other model is going to work anyway. Europe as is doesn't seem to work all that well (and that's coming from a citizen of state that has gained a lot in the past from being part of this Union (although lately it's becoming a pain, especially when it comes to rights of workers).


----------



## TimeHP

I like the idea of a united Europe.
I think that we are at very beginning and we have to wait for a while
to know if it will work or not. 
The _old lady_ has turned into a litlle baby that has to learn to stand up.
EU could be a good example, could improve democracy and help 
other countries. 
But, yes, there's a lack of information. There's plenty of projects that people ignore, because TV and magazines don't speak of EU a lot.
Moreover each country should stop to think to its own interest only (_e qui la vedo dura,_ almost impossible_)._

Ciao


----------



## maxiogee

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> A united Europe is kinda , well it worries me. Making the dream of Napoleon Bonaparte's dream come true, or the dream of Adolf Hitler. I like to see Europe working together but it should be watched.



What claptrap!

The 'dream' of Napoleon and the 'dream' of Hitler were not for a united Europe - they were for superstates which would be led by them! Hitler couldn't have cared less about European unity, nor could Napoleon - what mattered to them was personal power.

And even if they did desire what seems to be coming, why would that worry a non-European resident? What could be within the unity of Europe which threatens you, or your way of life, in any way?


----------



## invictaspirit

maxiogee said:


> What claptrap!
> 
> The 'dream' of Napoleon and the 'dream' of Hitler were not for a united Europe - they were for superstates which would be led by them! Hitler couldn't have cared less about European unity, nor could Napoleon - what mattered to them was personal power.
> 
> And even if they did desire what seems to be coming, why would that worry a non-European resident? What could be within the unity of Europe which threatens you, or your way of life, in any way?


 
Agreed.

Those 'United Europe' models were simply either a Greater France (Napoleon) or a Greater Germany (Hitler). The EU has never, and will never, have any resemblance to such a plan.

While I find the current EU exceptionally bureaucratic, wasteful and with an institutional tendency towards the left, it has entirely benign and helpful intentions and has done a great deal of good.


----------



## mirx

maxiogee said:


> What claptrap!
> 
> The 'dream' of Napoleon and the 'dream' of Hitler were not for a united Europe - they were for superstates which would be led by them! Hitler couldn't have cared less about European unity, nor could Napoleon - what mattered to them was personal power.
> 
> And even if they did desire what seems to be coming, why would that worry a non-European resident? What could be within the unity of Europe which threatens you, or your way of life, in any way?


 
That's exactly what worries him and that's why it should be watched, a Europe with a one government, led by a person. 

And what happens in Europe, Maxiogge,  affects evryone, probably not directly, but for the USA a Eunited Europe would be a direct compitor, (like it already is economically with the introduction of the EURO) not only in the economics but also in Political power.

As for me, I wouldn't like Europe to become one country, I enjoy it much better the way  it is still now, the french are french, the spanish are spanish, the Irish are irish to some extent, the polish are very polish, end so on. 

If the prize to pay for a unified culture, economy and politics, is the death of the components of that same unification, than for me at least, is not worth it.

Maxiogee.

It doesn't threaten me, it doesn't directly affect me, but that's the way I'd like to see things.


----------



## invictaspirit

What a lot of Europeans don't seem to realise is that no-one in the world will take a European president or unified foreign policy remotely seriously without a single, powerful European military. And I strongly believe a European military is many, many decades from reality. The small rapid reaction forces and Eurocorps are good ideas. But you will never, ever get France and the UK to *genuinely* subsume their military infrastructures, which include nuclear weapons, into a massive European force. They will always want ultimate control from paris and London.

Call me a cynic, but the *only* reason France and the UK are still allowed to be permanent members of the UNSC is because they are nuclear powers. It is the fact that they have nuclear weapons and are therefore countries that must be militarily reckoned with that gives them an influence that outweighs their size and importance. Therefore, French foreign policy and British foreign policy are, like it or not, listened to outside Europe in ways that Italian or German foreign policy is not.

I think it is naive to imagine Paris or London will ever give up that extra 'step-up' in power and influence thewir nukes give them, and even more naive to imagine they will share them with others.

For that reason I can't imagine a truly unified European foreign policy being successful. It would be like the Americans planning foreign policy around a situation where only Texas and California had nukes and that the whole of the rest of the US was dependent on the agreement and goodwill of two states.

Of course, the nuclear issue is not the only one. But if you peel back the Euro-hype, you will find that it is seen as an exceptionally important one in Paris and London.


----------



## PandaX

cuchuflete said:


> For those who want any form of centralism or federalism in Europe, please look carefully at the theory, the US Constitution, and the reality, the US national government over the past few decades.
> 
> The Constitution, very wisely, reserves for the individual states all powers not specifically granted to the central, federal government.  That's the theory and the law.  In practice, however, the central government has steadily increased its power at the expense of the individual states.  Now and then this has had good effects, but often it has not.
> 
> On top of that movement towards centralized authority, there is an ongoing struggle between the constitutional balance of power among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.
> Under the current regime, the executive is seen by many as having usurped powers not belonging to it under the constitution.
> 
> More and more authority has moved from regional governments to a single national bureaucracy, and within that, to a single branch of government and a single individual.
> The results should give pause to any advocate of the US as a role model for the nations of Europe.
> 
> Please don't take this as an attack on any centralized authority.  Such a government can do many worthwhile things that are unlikely to be done by dozens of individual states.  The danger remains that the unelected bureaucrats will usurp authority to govern citizens who have had and can have little say in what those administrators impose.



Are you sure you are not just against the current administration? 

Surely there are periods in history, typically during war, where the federal government exercised its right to more control. After all, Lincoln put many from the press in prison during the Civil War.

I see nothing wrong with a federal Europe, if Europeans want that, so long as its primary motivation is not to simply be anti-American. 

There's nothing wrong with a critical ally but much of the rhetoric that comes out of Europe, in regards to the reasoning that goes into creating and evolving the EU, goes well beyond merely criticizing a friend and ally. Unfortunately, it is often quite hostile.

That kind of EU I am very much against.  It would only lead to a another Cold War.


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> What claptrap!
> 
> The 'dream' of Napoleon and the 'dream' of Hitler were not for a united Europe - they were for superstates which would be led by them! Hitler couldn't have cared less about European unity, nor could Napoleon - what mattered to them was personal power.
> 
> And even if they did desire what seems to be coming, why would that worry a non-European resident? What could be within the unity of Europe which threatens you, or your way of life, in any way?





mirx said:


> That's exactly what worries him and that's why it should be watched, a Europe with a one government, led by a person.



You say "That's" - but "That" is not what is on offer here.
His "that" was one megalomaniac ruler of a forcibly united Europe.
What's on offer is a (rotating) figure-head ruler of a mainly economic (and somewhatr political) union.


----------



## maxiogee

mirx said:


> As for me, I wouldn't like Europe to become one country, I enjoy it much better the way  it is still now, the french are french, the spanish are spanish, the Irish are irish to some extent, the polish are very polish, end so on.



What a wealth of prejudice is in that "to some extent" - we are *still* Irish.
What we are not is a static culture living according to some 'moment in time' concept of nationality.




> If the prize to pay for a unified culture, economy and politics, is the death of the components of that same unification, than for me at least, is not worth it.


Culture, economy and politics are living, vibrant things which react to, and adapt to, the changes a population sees in the world around it. Do you think that being a part of a unified political union would make Spain any less 'Spanish'? Has any part of Spain lost anything which it wished to keep because it is part of the large union which is Spain?
Has the economy of the Balearic Islands suffered because it is part of the Spanish economy?




> It doesn't threaten me, it doesn't directly affect me, but that's the way I'd like to see things.


I think your words betray a greater awareness of threat than you admit to.


----------



## Siberia

Sometimes I feel so far away from Europe though I'm living in it. The idea of any kind of unity seems 'madness'. Why do I think that? Well, I'm from an area of Britain which has always struggled, and still is, with the idea of being part of Britain, let alone Europe. I'm living on a Mediterranean island, at the moment, that is quite far from the mainland and is struggling with its own identity. Before feeling European, the people have to feel part of a a nation or at least part of something. In this area of the world, people live in houses with high walls around them so that no one can pry and, of course, no one can see outside into the community. The blinds and shutters that you can see are always closed anyway, because of the sunshine - I wonder?. Some people have never left, and still don't today, their own villages. The "capital" 50 Kms away seems thousands of miles away, let's not talk about the capital of the country which you get to in an hour by plane! Europe? What is Europe for these "Europeans" that rarely watch national news but only local news, that don't know what's going on in their own country, half of the time, never mind in the rest of Europe or the the world for that matter.
Would these people vote for a united Europe? Yes, if a clever 'local' politician, master of words, manipulator and great media man will tell them it's for their own benefit. Otherwise, they won't even bother going to the polls - something which has been happening quite often recently, making many elections, referendums fail miserably.
So, yes, I think the idea of a united Europe in this context is 'folly' and people who think "we are to be watched" need not worry!!!

Siberia feeling quite down


----------



## fuzionman1997

maxiogee said:


> What a wealth of prejudice is in that "to some extent" - we are *still* Irish.
> What we are not is a static culture living according to some 'moment in time' concept of nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> Culture, economy and politics are living, vibrant things which react to, and adapt to, the changes a population sees in the world around it. Do you think that being a part of a unified political union would make Spain any less 'Spanish'? Has any part of Spain lost anything which it wished to keep because it is part of the large union which is Spain?
> Has the economy of the Balearic Islands suffered because it is part of the Spanish economy?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your words betray a greater awareness of threat than you admit to.



I don't think that the individual nation states in Europe will be forced to sacrifice their cultural individuality in any way at all. Why are people so afraid that is going to happen?  In fact the cultural identity of each nation state will be open to others to explore and be a part of.  Has the cultural identity of New Orleans changed because it's unified with 50 other states in the U.S.?  Or New York or California for that matter?  Each of these states has distinct differences attributed to it.  Of course the U.S. is not as old a civilization as Europe, but nonetheless, I think the same concept would apply to Europe.

If they do join a larger political union the only thing they will perhaps lose is the ability to use their national military to further their own national interests. That military will be integrated into an EU military. The state of California can't use its national guard to invade Hawaii for example.  It has to follow the orders of the federal government.  The same thing applies in the European Union. The military of a particular nation state would follow the orders of a central European government.


----------



## mirx

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a wealth of prejudice is in that "to some extent" - we are *still* Irish.
> 
> 
> 
> Of Course you are Irish. And of course you didn't get stuck in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Culture, economy and politics are living, vibrant things which react to, and adapt to, the changes a population sees in the world around it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, and since there's no way to avoid these changes, for me at least, it would be better do delay them as much as posible, of course only when those changes don't prevent peoples from growing stronger and healthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your words betray a greater awareness of threat than you admit to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, I am.
> 
> I must have not expressed exactly what I meant to say, cultures are not lost or dead, but they do "evolve". They acquire other culture's culture, and when this changes don't mean a great positive advance, then fot me those shifts are useless. You may call me romantic for trying to preserve something as much as it can be preserved.
> 
> Many communities in Spain have lost part of their culture and heritage, and with a bigger union it won't be communities but whole states giving something up and very likely getting something from other states.
> 
> A economic unification could also develope a greater problem, Canada, USA and Mexico share a free trade agreement, the winner... The USA, Mexico's infrastructure don't allow it to export and produce as much as the USA or Canada do, Canada's relatively small, diverse and spread population are not very favored either.
> 
> Something like that could happen to Portugal, Greece and even Ireland, who might be absorbed by the "Big Countries".
> 
> Of Course a European Union will work, it's working. But it should be watched, closely watched.
Click to expand...


----------



## maxiogee

mirx said:


> Many communities in Spain have lost part of their culture and heritage, and with a bigger union it won't be communities but whole states giving something up and very likely getting something from other states.


Communities and Countries don't just "give up" their culture. They outgrow it, and leave behind out-dated practices (generally ones people can no longer recall the origins or purpose of) and adopt new and more generally acceptable ones. That's what culture *is* - the social practices of a large proportion of a group of people. It is constantly changing.

Imagine the person who, 500 years ago, lived close to where you live now. Now imagine them coming back every fifty years to the same spot to see how people lived. They'd be horrified to see the slow steady change in culture over the years and would, at each visit, exclaim something along the lines of "You've stopped doing X", "You no longer do the Y dance", "Your young people no longer no the story of Z". Admittedly in their recent visits they'd see an increase in the rate of change, but this is not in itself a bad thing. Change is how we live. A society which doesn't change stagnates.


----------



## mirx

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communities and Countries don't just "give up" their culture. They outgrow it, and leave behind out-dated practices (generally ones people can no longer recall the origins or purpose of) and adopt new and more generally acceptable ones. That's what culture *is* - the social practices of a large proportion of a group of people. It is constantly changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very practical and optimistic way to see things. Good for you!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## PandaX

fuzionman1997 said:


> I don't think that the individual nation states in Europe will be forced to sacrifice their cultural individuality in any way at all. Why are people so afraid that is going to happen?  In fact the cultural identity of each nation state will be open to others to explore and be a part of.  Has the cultural identity of New Orleans changed because it's unified with 50 other states in the U.S.?  Or New York or California for that matter?  Each of these states has distinct differences attributed to it.  Of course the U.S. is not as old a civilization as Europe, but nonetheless, *I think the same concept would apply to Europe*.



Americans states formed and evolved together with an essentially similar culture. That is not the case with Europe. European countries have had their identities, their culture, longer than America has existed.


----------



## PianoMan

Personally, I have faith in the EU, I believe it is something that has and will bring about great economic, environmental, and reform.  The brilliance of such a widely-used currency is fantastic and one of my favorite aspects of European infrastructure is the Euro.


----------



## PandaX

PianoMan said:


> Personally, I have faith in the EU, I believe it is something that has and will bring about great economic, environmental, and reform.  The brilliance of such a widely-used currency is fantastic and one of my favorite aspects of European infrastructure is the Euro.



Couldn't those things have been done without the EU? 

Isn't the American dollar widely used? Whjat's the difference?


----------



## Setwale_Charm

My opinion as of someone having worked a bit for the system is that it is soon going to simply collapse unless it undergoes major modernisation and alteration of its goals and mentality. And in that case this will no longer be the EU we are talking about now. 
On the whole, I have always been the opponent of the EU although I have become milder in the recent years. There are some good things they do and I think, they are beginning to realise what the bad things are too.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

PandaX said:


> Isn't the American dollar widely used? Whjat's the difference?


 

 I`m afraid not. And it`s being ousted by euro very fast in non-EU countries as well. Not very convenient, I would say but there it is. Seems to be one thing we will have to accept. Euro is dominant now.


----------

