# does the EU have a future



## joe sod (31 May 2005)

Where does Europe go from here. It seems that Europe in its current form cannot work. There are too many different countries with different economies at different stages of development. All of these countries cannot be brought together under one umbrella and one currency. When the original common market was formed with France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, it was a cohesive force because these countries had been through a common traumatic experience and desired the same things. From there it grew gradually bringing in Britain and Ireland and later Greece and Spain. Because these new countries were brought in gradually and were not hugely different to the original countries the EU could continue to operate effectively.

            In my opinion it was a mistake to bring in all the Eastern European countries. These countries are at a completely different stage of development and are looking for very different things to the older members. I think these countries should have formed their own union the same as France and Germany etc did 50 years ago. Afterall these countries were through a similar traumatic experience of Soviet domination and have much more in common with each other than they do with the older members. This was clearly shown during the Iraq war when they refused to tow the line of France and Germany. Of course the Americans were delighted with this because it proved that Europe could not speak with one voice.

            I think we are seeing the first signs of a breakup in the current EU. It was a mistake to try and expand it beyond its natural limits of a club of similar countries looking for similar things. Afterall when the USA was brought together it was a federation of states sharing a relatively common history and looking for similar things. They didn’t try to expand it to include Mexico and South America because these countries even though American had been through a different experience namely Spanish colonisation rather than British and they had a longer history than the states forming the US.


----------



## d53 (31 May 2005)

Joe - interesting thought.

However, when the U.S.A was originally formed, it was a collection of colonies with little or nothing economically in common - slave owning Virginia versus trading and shipping Massachusetts versus basically self-sufficiency farming in west Pennsylvania.  Even today, it could be argued that the economy of Montana has nothing in common with that of New York or California.

Is it that Europe will break up or that merely that further integration will stop?

d


----------



## shnaek (1 Jun 2005)

I think also that it was a mistake to expand so fast. I know the reason the Brits supported the expansion was so that European power would be dilluted. And so it has been. By beaurocracy. How anything is going to get done in a 25 nation block under the old rules which were put together for far fewer countries is beyond me.

European integration is a great idea in principle. We are a continent of vastly different peoples and cultures. If we can form a coalition then it is to our credit. Anything that helps to make sure what happened at the begining and middle of the last century in Europe never happens again has to be for all our good.

So hopefully Europe can pull it together and we can continue to move forward. It is scary to think of the alternative.


----------



## Chris (2 Jun 2005)

You could also argue that Ireland was in the same economic state back in 73 as some of the new eatern European states are now; I would even go as far as saying that some of the new memebers are at a more advanced stage of economic development than Ireland was 30 years ago.
To say though, that the union could fall apart because of the diversity of cultures, economies etc. is a little bit unfounded, in my opinion. The recent French no vote, and the very likely Dutch no vote on the constitution, says nothing more than that it's too early to be doing so. I think that the whole media and political fuss about this being the end of a EU constitution is total BS. The no votes are more an inconvinience, as it means that the whole process of renegotiating between all states needs to start again; which it will.
I do agree on the point though, that the last enlargenment was too big/fast. 10 new memeber states is an awful lot, especially with the 2 largest economies, Germany and France, in such limbo; it was a big risk and we'll have to wait and see what the outcome will be.


----------



## joe sod (11 Jun 2005)

I think the way things are going a split in the EU or a two speed Europe is the only logical way to proceed. There are two camps, one camp wants the American liberal economics path such as Britain and Eastern Europe. France Germany etc want more protection and less free trade with the poorer countries. These two camps can no longer be accomodated under one EU. Of course Ireland has been a great beneficiary because it tried to be in both camps. But this fudge looks like it will be resolved and Ireland may have to finally choose between "boston and berlin". The french and germans have a point it is not fair on them that Ireland can have lower tax rates attracting far more than its fair share of foreign investment and still be in the EU


----------

