Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

July 3rd, 2007

Tags

Comments

19 Comments so far.
Add yours.

What is the EU?

A Question of perspective:

How do you view the European Union?

1) An attempt to build a supranational government to compete with the United States.

2) A kind alternative to a third world war which struggles to redefine Europe, its government, values and culture.

3) A free trade agreement spiraling out of control into a bulky bureaucracy.

Comments to this entry

IJ
July 3, 2007
11:28 am
What is the EU? Probably a test of political internationalism.

The United Nations system was created by the international community in order to prevent a repeat of the key events that led up to WW2 - with its 60m deaths. The UN is said to be supported by the EU. Anyway the main safeguards introduced after WW2 were against harmful national economics; but the idea of a UN economic agency - the IMF - overseeing the international monetary system and the exchange rate policies of its member countries soon proved politically unacceptable.

On foreign affairs, the EU issued a video recently, THE EU AND THE US
Gaius
July 3, 2007
11:31 am
The EU wants to be a competitor with the United States. But good luck. In 2006, total U.S. GDP was over 13 Trillion dollars. That is more than all of Europe and Russia combined.

And I really liked your subtitle "Speak Victorian, Think Pagan." It seemed to capture the image of soldiers at a frontier outpost, reporting back the gathering storm. It just seemed to go best with your Victorian personas. It reminded me of British soldiers in pith helmets holding the line against oncoming tribal hordes. Anyway, like the page.
Gaius
July 3, 2007
11:34 am
I noticed just as I send my comment my web address was wrong. It is: thecapitoltribune.blogspot.com
jomama
July 3, 2007
12:18 pm
I'd go with No. 3, done in an attempt to hide the failure of the nation
state.

http://djomama.blogspot.com/2006/12/first-world-government-junk-bonds-on.html

The proposed North American Union will be a similar attempt.
mihnea
July 3, 2007
12:59 pm
somewhere between 2 and 3, although leaning more towards 2.
Richardson
July 3, 2007
1:11 pm
IMO, initially 1 & 2, now probably about a quarter each 1 & 2 and half 3.
IJ
July 3, 2007
3:49 pm
Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?

[i]The most important feature of the comparison is neither the growth nor the unemployment record of the US and the EU. It is, rather, that US growth, unlike that in the EU, is funded by a dangerously high mountain of foreign debt. US external indebtedness, in turn, is driven by the US house-price bubble, enabling US consumers to spend more than they earn. Ironically, it is the EU which, together with China and Japan, continues to lend the money to the US which keeps their households spending and their economy growing. The truth is that neither side ”˜wins' in this beauty contest.[/i]

The last time debt rose to alarmingly high levels in the US was over 30 years ago: the liability fell because of a series of moves that effectively eliminated the International Monetary Fund as a UN power (#1). The repercussions allowed assaults on taxpayers in other parts of the world - including Europe where a common currency was being launched. What next?
Michael
July 3, 2007
7:25 pm
Just guessing? Started as 2, evolved to 3 with some people dreaming of becoming 1.
ElamBend
July 3, 2007
8:56 pm
Number 3, trying to be turned into Number 1 some certain European elites.
Consul-At-Arms
July 4, 2007
2:15 am
I've linked back to you "here.":http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-what-is-eu.html
Curzon
July 4, 2007
5:59 am
As Michael said: started as 2, became 3, and trying to be 1.
Nick
July 4, 2007
1:16 pm
Err, not much of a choice, is it? I've always thought of the EU as a European Commonwealth, broadly defined by several common denominators (basic human rights, political systems, rule of law, cultural heritage, history, geography etc) which may or may not be held by every member state in equal amount.

Or rather, that's what i think of the EU now. I used to think it was 3, but arguably the boldest step it could take would be to have a directly elected President with a 'cabinet' selected from the elected representatives of the European Parliament, for that added twist of democratic legitimacy. I don't particularly like the current 'Buggins Turn' concept of the revolving presidency.
lirelou
July 5, 2007
12:31 am
Although there is some #1 sentiment among some of the EU's original founders (v.g., le grand Charles), itcan be viewed as the natural outgrowth of two centuries of European history. Empire and wars of reunification had their day, and served their purposes, but in the wake of WWII cooperation seemed the better option. I do not view the EU as competing with the U.S. (though in the economics sphere, that is a must), but rather as being influenced by its example. A viable European Union is in the world's best interests. A case can certainly be made that is has already served Europe's interests very well. The same cannot be said of NATO, which should be given a proper burial. As should any attempt to revive the "European Constitution".
giustino
July 5, 2007
5:09 am
Estonia is the most EU-friendly state. Why? Because small countries *mostly* benefit from political and economic integration. I think the EU right now is deciding between being #1 and #2. Most EU states are already themselves #3, so #3 is just a natural extension of EU policies.

Here's the dilemma though. I think most EU states, including Estonia, would like to remain at #2, trade freely, and call it a day. But when you have non-market actors (cough, cough, Gazprom) working to monopolize the EU energy supply, then it might make sense to have an EU foreign minister and an "energy tsar" to speak on behalf of the EU member states.

Being loosely connected and exchanging bar tenders sans visas is a great way to live. But it does open the doors to nefarious actors from abroad that exploit that division to their benefit, not the EUs. In essence, there is a European interest. The question is how to defend it and act on behalf of it.
a517dogg
July 5, 2007
3:37 pm
The EU - Metternich's dream.
a517dogg
July 5, 2007
3:58 pm
The EU - Metternich's dream?
Joe
July 6, 2007
9:03 pm
The initial intent behind the EU was obviously number 2, and it worked astoundingly well. Since then, 3 was added on, and it worked astoundingly well. (I would dispute the "out of control" part simply because a single large bureaucracy is much easier than 20+ smaller bureaucracies with their own provincial rules and procedures.)

As for point 1: Many leaders have had this vision, but it is a vision which European people do not widely accept. So while 1 may be a fair characterization of Eurocrats in Brussels, it is not a fair characterization of the EU generally. This may change as the world continues to globalize and Europeans feel less and less different from one another, but for the next couple of generations, nationalism in Europe (of a mostly benign sort) will probably be too strong to make a European nation-state possible.
Elizabeth
July 7, 2007
10:58 am
(d), all of the above.

1) An attempt to build a supranational government to compete with the United States.

This is one of the reasons it stays attractive, and thus, is part of its raison d'etre, regardless of original intent.

2) A kind alternative to a third world war which struggles to redefine Europe, its government, values and culture.

Certainly for smaller groups of people, this protective, cultural function is a strong point. It helps to win over the masses and the "alternative to a third world war" part was quite strong earlier on.

3) A free trade agreement spiraling out of control into a bulky bureaucracy.

In reality, it did begin as a free trade agreement. "Out of control" is a bit strong, since we have seen successful referendums against the EU constitution. So some checks and balances exist. But it does seem to have a forward-moving inertia. Bulky bureaucracy? Well, it is a European Union, after all. I'd rather have bureaucracy than anarchy, though.
Colm O'Connor
July 12, 2007
4:06 pm
It started out as 2. It doesn't really have a coordinated enough direction or strong enough leadership to have any singular reason or purpose any more, though.

It mostly functions as an attempt to unify laws and regulations now, in an attempt to increase free trade and overall GDP, as well as some people's dreams for supra-national expansion and to bring "European-ish" values to neighboring states.