Over the past few years the European Union has expanded but also changed drastically. I am, as an inhabitant of a founding member of the EU, ofcourse in favour of a strong Europe and in this topic I'll try and convince you of my vision on what course the EU should fare.


In 2004 the "Eastern Bloc" joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania joined. I think this was a huge mistake. These countries have lived under the shadow of communism for years and their economy in 1990 was weak to say the least. They have, to an extent, crawled back to their feet, but still : a lot of the countries that joined the EU since 2004 still get alot of agricultural subsidies. Agreed, the EU has helped them alot and that was planned, but is that the purpose of the EU? What we should have done is wait another 5 to 10 years, maybe support and prepare said countries BEFORE letting them just join. Look at Turkey, they want to join the EU because they would love the support. We can't kick all the countries out now, but we should not make the same mistake with for example the Balkan region. If they want to join, they need to have a healthy economy or else the EU will get dragged down in another country's problems.


Also, the EU should once again be a superpower. Although many difficulties lay ahead, we must all unite and make a bigger impact on the world, politically, military and economically. Give, for a start, the NATO a purpose! Right now, all the NATO (or should I say, England and The Netherlands..) does is support America. Instead of sucking up to America, the NATO and in general the EU should be more independent and once again rule the Earth, like it once did. And if the current resources or whatever you might think of are inadequate, we should start thinking of...expanding our borders again.



You may now post your thoughts on this.

"EU should be more independent and once again rule the Earth, like it once did."

The EU never ruled the Earth, that was us Britons ;D

So you're basically saying the EU should kick the weaklings out and go to war with them so you can have all their resources, land, etc.

And honestly, a war with today's military advancements would really be stupid. Nuclear weapons are bound to be used eventually and if some bigass war in Europe started, I'm sure someone is bound to use one. This would just cause massive, unneeded destruction and problems. Not to mention, I believe that one nuclear missile sent off would just cause many more to be launched causing just a huge world war with nothing happening but people pressing buttons to shoot big radioactive missiles at each other. Not good.

I never said going that Europe should go to war, I said Europe should have a strong combined and independent army.



Hm.

You owned, you being your king and his company, and commited disgusting acts upon one nation. Nation =/= world.

But we ruled over it didn't we? And how about this and this and even this? Europe was the centre of the world, THE power for a long time.

Purge the world from infidels! EU power!

I was primarily disputing your claim, as i thought by EU you meant European Union, rather than Europe.

??????????????????

I'm all for this ideological increasement of our assets!

[nerd]
Honestly, the EU needs a common language before it can really get things done. Having that many countries with everyone speaking a different languages, and translators for translators is so messy. Not necessarily saying English, hell maybe they can devise something like Esperanto.
[/nerd]

Lol

And why would all of Europe try to fit into one country?

I lulz'd. In 1973 after the stock market crash, Britain had just joined the EU and had one of the weakest economies for an MEDC in the world, mainly due to the widespread nationalisation of industry and services. Thanks to stronger European trading from joining the EU and through privatisation of much of Britain's industry, we managed to pull out of it and sustain 15 years of near constant growth. Of course most British people don't know that Europe as much as Thatcher dragged us out of recession so I can't really fault you for not knowing.

Allowing poor countries into the EU doesn't actually hurt it. Since the capital is staying within the borders of the EU, it's merely wealth relocation. Those countries will be bringing what capital they have in with them as well as strong workforces which often economically migrate. Insofar as I'm aware, health systems across Europe are currently being propped up by migrant doctors. Certainly this is the case in the UK where we've had some 11000 new doctors registered from outside the UK in the last 6 years, of which about 20% were Polish. Since we were/are suffering shortfalls in GP's and specialist consultants, this has benefited the NHS to no end.

You also cite the subsidies paid to the countries who joined the EU in 2004, whilst of course avoiding the fact that limits were placed on the amount the could receive, which of course also continues to ensure that France is the greatest beneficiary (22%) of the CAP scheme. Infact, France has only stopped veto'ing any discussions on the CAP scheme since the introduction of the new member states. By joining, they may cost the EU more in the short term(18% of the CAP budget) but save a colossal figure in the long through an overhaul of the CAP system and the way payments are decided.

As for the superpower part, I just laughed. It's taken the USA 200 years to get to the state of federalism they're now at and they mostly speak the same language and all answer to the same federal government. The EU has been around for 40 years in it's current incarnation, we speak a multitude of languages and the European Parliament only has competency in certain areas. Further to this that each member state has their own constitution be it codified or non-codified which often clashes with the over-arching EU constitution which hasn't even been ratified. The USA at least has one flag, one constitution and a chance of integration. We really have none.

rob... delete this later.. but you seriously made me came :\

You're wrong Rob, stop watching the History channel.

Timon, there really is no point in me posting in this thread, because I'd just agree with you.

Agree with the majority of your post Rob, people in this country have no idea how bad it’d be without the extensive immigration that has occurred in the last few decades, yet quickly jump to criticise immigrants for ‘taking’ jobs. Well what you expect them to do? Not work? In which case they’d also be criticised. They can’t win.

However, I do believe that it is a lot ‘easier’ (the term being loosely applied) to become a Superpower in the 21st century than say, the early 19th or 18th, meaning that the EU will not require such a long warm-up period. Trade between countries a hundred years ago was much less limited than what it is now, (in 1900, the total world export was only valued at roughly $ 10,100,000,000, compared with the EU’s $ 1,952,000,000,000 in 2007), countries were more self sufficient so imposing your economic might was harder. Currently, the EU plays home to the world’s largest economy (Eurozone) so in that respect, the EU is already, at least partially, an economic superpower. The Euro is a strong currency (don’t laugh, we’re in a recession. ) and gradually, when the entire EU adopts it, this will only increase the economic power and unity of the union.

That being said, it will be a long time, if ever, before the EU becomes one country. What is more likely to happen is not too different from the current system, but with one army and one currency for all member states. Countries like their 'independence.'