posted
Well, you have your first opinion from a European, hope that's ok!
What do I think? I think it's a nice dream, but that's all there is to it, at least for now. I'm all in favor of a strong European Union, but I don't think the member countries are mature enough to build one. I think that up to now we've just been playing with this "union" thing, and unless there's a real change sometimes soon I don't think that we're any match for the "American dream". Which, by the way, is not that shallow as it was written in that article, at least not in my opinion.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we want Europe to be a good dream, then maybe e could vote yes to have a constitution. Just a thought.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe... But i speak english in addition to french. We may speak languages. About maturity, Corwin, i agree. Nevertheless, i think to gain maturity, we must be perturbated by changeover. That what i think try to gather all European is a great and good changeover.
In addition to the article, a thing let me in wondering. The author of the book is well-known and very skilled. And he is an American. So when we stay sceptical with Europe here, in Europe, are-we right ? Or wrong ?
Posts: 1189 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, Europe is a very beautiful dream, who will come true only if we work enough to make it true. It could bring us so much...
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'll have to agree on a common language before you can dream the same dream.
I'm not sure they do, Scott. Without exception every European I know speaks at least two languages, and I think that learning more than one to the point where you can actually *think* in at least two languages is worthwhile.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Scott is right because I believe it is difficult to be-to feel like-a citizen of a nation where you do not speak that nation's language, where you cannot rely on going from one end to another and know that there the people have something tangible in common with you. Insofar as sharing a language is tangible.
I don't think it's necessary, and I have little doubt there are some people in this very community who live in nations where that isn't the case, and yet the people feel at home. But merging so many long-competing nations with often radically differing values...you guys need every edge you can get.
None of it has anything to do with the value of being bi-lingual, which is I think obviously high.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that just in Belgium alone there is a big rift between the Flemish speakers in the north and the French speakers in the south. I suppose economics plays a part, too, but every Belge I ever talked to focused on the language.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trick is, I don't think Europe, even as a strong, more federalized EU, wants to or should consider itself a nation.
One of the interesting schools of thought on globalism is that it will lead to increased community localism, and this has been born out in much of Europe.
The wealth of nations arises out of variance and difference, not uniformity. In the USA we've tried to forge a strong nationalism that preserves those essential differences, but often our strong federalist government works to eradicate them.
Strong nationalism has many benefits, but many problems as well, and is increasingly often used as a tool to incite people in efforts which seem fairly clearly not in the national self interest. It is increasingly a political tool instead of a binding force.
The EU has not put any significant work into creating a single European identity, but it has put work into increasing local identity. These nations and localities cooperate out of common self interest, not common allegiance. They have acknowledged that it is in their best interests redistribute wealth from prosperous areas to less prosperous ones, because in the long run less prosperous areas restrain everyone. While this has resulted in some mild economic inefficiencies in the community as a whole, the EU is home to many of the greatest economic success stories, ever, because of these efforts.
No single nationality is needed to achieve this, or even a single goal, but an acknowledgement that peoples are all in this together.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You'll have to agree on a common language before you can dream the same dream.
And I know that Quebec/RestofCanada is only two languages but we manage just fine. Parliamentary discussions are great, witht he debate flipping back and forth between English and French. And we were a similar thing- seperate countries joining for a dual language confederation.
quote:I'm not sure they do, Scott. Without exception every European I know speaks at least two languages
With the exception of the British, who are a lot behind.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pfft, the British aren't even on the continent! Who needs them, anyway? They're superfluous, like Newfoundland!
quote:And I know that Quebec/RestofCanada is only two languages but we manage just fine.
I thought we were doing well until the possibility of someone having to utter the phrase "The Right Honourable Stephen Harper" became something other than a joke. Now I'm not so sure.
quote:With the exception of the British, who are a lot behind.
Good point. I do know one British person (not you), and I just realized that she only speaks the one language (though after 40+ years of being married to a Palestinian, her comprehension of Arabic is decent even if her pronunciation isn't).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of nations will die slowly and painfully.
In another hundred years, odds are nobody will really remember World War 2 - probably not even the French and the Germans. Not beyond a footnote in history.
Until then, old history and even older rivalries will continue to crop up.
I remember the pro and con arguments in Ireland regarding the vote to join the EU.
The arguments against that stood out most vividly was the idea of committing Irish military assets in causes the Irish people didn't approve of.
Tangent Absorbing and melting states into a singular, cohesive Nation is a lot easier than convincing Nations to surrender their identities and autonomy to a strong central government.
Or risk forming a bloated, indecisive committee to govern the new Nation.
Language There has been a resurgence in France concerning French cultural values in response to the perceived threat of American incursions.
That said, I don't think English will diminish in importance and may very well become a "common tounge" in addition to native languages.
Assuming, of course, North America continues to exert influence over international business.
posted
There are two types of Europeans who don't speak English: the French because they won't, and the Italians because they can't.
All, joking aside:
quote:the "European Dream", which champions communalism, sustainability, and human rights over property rights and radical individualism, is better-suited to 21st century challenges than the "American dream" of personal fortune, which may be obsolete.
I think that's the key here. It's a very different set of values and thus a different definition of success. It's a different concept of what it means to be wealthy.
And I'm all for that, but that may just be because I got run over by the American dream.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, all the discussions take around the language. I add this argument in my basket for my own though.
Anna, I don't watch TV and the Jospin's discour because i have stopped watching TV for four months. I understood TV take my time a lot. So i prefer read or write or other social activities.
Annie, French people have a real difficulty with english language because of the difference of the french language spectrum of frequency, and the english language one. It is the same for italians. But for me italian is easier than english.
Well trevor, i read your opinion. I don't think WW2 may be delete from memories in Europe in 100 years. Because of video, of movies, and of victims. About Tangent, i'm not sure but i understand your argument. And about languages, i think you are in truth, but i also think this common tongue become too simple to have a perfect comprehension of details.
Posts: 1189 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
National identity is a very strong and deep-rooted thing. Spanish, French, English, American, etc.
For a very long time, "Nation" was as high as it went on the organizational chart.
Military and economic alliances existed, but neither really challenged the notion and concept of Nations.
I think it will be difficult for people to stop thinking of themselves as Italian or German or French - if for no other reason than the languages are different and cultural nuances will differ largely from region to region, moreso because of geographic and national divides.
That said, a dramatic increase in the urban areas of Europe may very well hasten a cultural melting pot - border cities often find the lines blurred between one country and the other.
Edit: Historical argument WW2 was one example and that was 60 years ago, give or take.
The English and Irish are still at odds and that has been going on for how many years?
My point is - in another 100 years, ancient history will be just that and not a sticking point to people in the region.
Provided, of course, it doesn't insist on renewing itself, like the Irish/English conflicts.
posted
I really like the idea of the European dream. I like the idea of Europe. But at the same time, I don't believe that it would help in any way for nations to be expected to use another language or adopt an unfamiliar culture. It should be about working together, recognizing the importance of diversity, and dealing with the fact that diversity is a positive thing which doesn't have to make us enemies any longer. I believe that anything else would undermine the dream we are trying to support.
Most people in Britain still refer to 'Europe' as if it is somewhere else (Britain is its own little continent, you see). We will almost certainly vote 'No' to a referendum on the constitution, and there is no movement towards joining the Euro. I think we'll take it slow, see how it goes and then join in if it all seems to be going well. Twenty years, and we might just join in properly.
There is still a lot of resentment about the fact that some of our laws are made in a different country. There's a whole political party (UKIP) which is devoted to taking us right out of Europe all together. A lot of that is linked to the immigration issue - I heard the leader of the party on the radio the other week saying that he 'just had to look around in London to see the number of immigrants', which made my blood boil as you obviously cannot possibly be able to tell just from looking at someone whether they come from somewhere else or were born in this country. If we object to Europe, it should be for economic or socio-political reasons, not because of racism or xenophobia.
I am, however, taking it as a positive sign that none of the main parties are not campaigning on a 'Europe is bad' agenda (like the Conservatives usually do) for our election next week.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought we were doing well until the possibility of someone having to utter the phrase "The Right Honourable Stephen Harper" became something other than a joke. Now I'm not so sure.
Unlike Twinky, I abandoned all illusions that we were doing well almost as soon as I was old enough to pay attention to anything outside my sandbox. The fact that we now utter the phrase "The Right Honourable Paul Martin" as something other than a joke (though that is still open to debate) is merely the umpteenth confirmation of that.
All that being said, I agree with the common European language thing. Obviously, it can't be any particular national language, because that would cause resentment in every other European state. What they need to do is revive Latin and make that the official language. And they can call the head of the EU "Caesar" again. And then change it to "European Empire", just for kicks.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, Europe has no big problems with languages being imposed on populaces. Each country decides what its own languages are, and some of the more important languages in the EU make up the official languages for conducting business.
Its worked just fine so far.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are always going to be people who complain about things, though. For a broken-in-half country, we are doing very well. We haven't had a major civil war, we haven't tried to kill off any ethnicities for the last thirty or forty years. Sure, there are nutcases who would like to speak ONLY English or ONLY French, but I like to think that for a country that started with battles, we haven't done too badly.
Or perhaps I'm just incorrigibly optimistic . It's my belief that people need to learn to get along with people who speak a different language so they might as well do it now than later.
I'm assuming, d_h, that you don't like the idea of a European Confederation, from the Empire comment? I'm not so sure if you were just joking.
If they brought in Latin, all the slavic countries would complain. It's the same idea. People just need to learn to get along.
posted
You know, within modern European countries, diverse languages existed historically and exist today. There's a lot of pride involved, and a push to get the native Breton and Occitan taught in parts of France, for example, but as a nation, they managed just fine administratively, even under the third republic when people in many departments didn't even speak French as a second language.
I think language is the least influential of the issues here.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't usually watch TV - I have been without it for 6 weeks after our moving and it didn't bother me. Only I thought it was an important thing, which is why I watched it. After all, it was the first time Lionel Jospin expressed his views on TV since 21 April 2002. And I found them quite accurate. He definitively convinced me to vote yes. After all, apart from a few points, it only sums up the content of all treatises that exist anyway. The only different thing is that it's the beginning of a common constitution, and I believe it's a good thing. Besides, vote no would be sending the wrong message to other Europeans. I know a lot of people who will vote no "because they want to bother Chirac and Raffarin". Well, wake up, guys : these two won't be the ones most annoyed by this kind of votes, the other Europeans will, and I know who will rejoice : Le Pen.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The European Constitution mostly keeps the status quo in place, formalizing and collating it.
The main new things:
Slightly simplified governmental structure, mainly getting rid of redundancies.
Formal statement of rights, using the current de facto one.
Increases the European Parliament's size and power, possibly reducing the "Democracy Deficit" many people see in the EU.
Honestly, the minister of foreign affairs isn't a big deal, at least not yet, though I'll mention it here because some people think it is.
The power of the larger member states in Qualified Majority Voting is slightly reduced. They still hold disproportionate power, but with the accession of so many smaller states the current balance is really unacceptable (this became quite clear when doing QMV at the Model EU I participated in -- I spent far too much of my time persuading big states and far too little time persuading most states).
I actually think that what some French politicians may not like is that legislative Council (of Ministers) sessions would now be open to the public . . .
Oh, one nifty bit: if you can get one million signatures for a piece of legislation, the Commission is required to look at it.
All in all, the Constitution is minor changes, smoothing over, and unification. There are some people in countries receiving much benefit from the EU that are recommending a No vote because they feel it doesn't do enough. Not many, luckily.
France's power and glory, among a few in particular, has been much enhanced by the EU. Rejecting that commonality and success now would be a silly thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum... I agree. You correctly explain it. I would like to add, actually the treaty of Nice is a very bad thing for political actions : The blocage power of little countries is very strong. Currently, only 2% of political decision can be executed.
The constitution will permet to have more possibility to go a head.
Actually, i am balancing the for and the against. It's very hard !
Posts: 1189 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rejecting the European Constitution wouldn't eliminate the Treaty of Nice at all, and repealing any of the Treaty of Nice would be catastrophic for the EU.
And there's a reason the small states, collectively, get a lot of say -- there are a lot of them! Even so, the large states have by far the most say in the direction of the EU, and will continue to. Look at almost any discussion of an EC policy and you'll see phrases like "Germany's position . . ." and "The French minister said . . .". The big states are in no danger of losing their influence.
You can't shut out the little states and still expect them to want to join, though. This is the penalty of forming an inclusive, peaceful union which creates economic growth for all, that the all get a say in it.
Also, I must admit to being somewhat bemused at the notion that a government which passes little policy law (that which needs to go through the Council of Ministers) is a bad government. Most complaints I hear about laws, in the US and in European states, come from laws not being debated sufficiently or being bullied through by a bare majority, both things which the EU does a good job of preventing. A government which is inefficient at passing policy law is a good government.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go European Unity! Bring on the Fourth Reich! Pax Romana all the way!
Seriously though, I don't think language is as big a problem as people think. As it's been said, most Europeans can speak at least two. And even if they can't there's always crude hand signals to break those language barriers.
quote: The English and Irish are still at odds and that has been going on for how many years?
We aren't really, it's just those damn Catholics and Protestans in the north.
quote: I'm assuming, d_h, that you don't like the idea of a European Confederation, from the Empire comment? I'm not so sure if you were just joking.
I was only mostly joking.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the idea of a unified Europe. But I wasn't really expressing dislike, I was just pointing out that this new Unified Europe is something of a modern re-casting of that 1500 year-old dream of rebuilding the Roman Empire (Charlemagne, Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon, etc.) Europeans have never really let go of that idea.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its really nothing like it at all. The EU is a sort of institution we've never run into at all, and monarchy with delusions of empire is the form of government its just about furthest from (though its not particularly near even parliamentary democracies, presidential democracies, or any other sort of modern government).
Probably the vaguely closest relative was the early swiss federation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was in identical (or even similar) political system. But the whole idea of a unified Europe is one that directly descends from the Roman Empire, and it is something that someone has been attempting virtually non-stop ever since the fall of Rome.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmm, yes and no. While the notion of a united europe, mostly under conquest, has been a goal of many, the people who brought about the EU were motivated primarily by theories of social unity pretty darn unlike the notions of new rome dreamers.
Of course there's no hope of not harking back to that period at all, but I think the motivation was much more immediate, mainly being "enough with the world wars!"
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Also, it is my humble opinion that the EU that exists today is really just in its barest beginnings, still not even a prototype of what it will eventually become. I think we will be seeing huge and rapid changes in the nature of the union in the near future. I would bet on gradually increasing centralization. But I don't think the process has move along far enough for us to accurately predict with any accuracy what will finally come of it.
posted
As I said, I think more immediate. They didn't want a Roman peace, enforced by a central authority, they wanted an economic peace, which seemed realizable after Bretton Woods, and they didn't want it because Rome had it, but because the world wars were awful.
But for it not being in Europe, you could cast America's growth as a "Roman play" simply because the basics are always the same. Its pretty clear most of the people involved weren't thinking of Rome, just as based on my reading of the people behind the EU their minds weren't on Rome.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The vote is on May, the 29th. It really gets on my nerves, because too much people I know, even clever people, will vote no "because they have had enough of the government". That's the stupidest reason to vote no I know of, and it's the most current one. Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We will see what happens to EU and whether it works as intended or not.
My biggest concern is that EU is made up of 25 different nations with different cultures, history, legal and political systems, different views on many present day issues.
Don't want to sound skeptical, but at this time, I don't see how all these nations can and want to form a strong EU. In don't see the national governments giving up some of their powers in favor of EU. Perhaps that can happen, but that would require way to different mindsets of European political leaders.
As for the EU constitution, I am bit afraid whether it's going to be ratified in the Czech Rep. That's going to be a tough vote. On the other side, I don't think that the other 9 new EU countries will have problems ratifying the EU constitution.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's right. Lot of people want to use this referendum to claim to the government a "raz-le-bol" about the society organisation. And moreover, when Euro came and replace Franc, the life cost has increased a lot, but not the compensation. So it's not the Euro fault, but the companies fault.
And Media don't give us a real and objective explanation of what is different with the actual system, and the futur system with the constitution.
So i try to understand by myself, without all partisan texts i receive in my mailbox. I'd like to stay objective to choose my answer.
Currently i stay on white vote : no opinion. I am for the European Union but i must study the text.
posted
I don't want the governments giving up all that much of their power to the EU. Strong economic power (such as they already have), yes, and perhaps a bit more authority in funds collection and distribution, but beyond that mostly just enough structure to enable the states to form beneficial cooperations in other areas. Also the authority to insist on certain basic social rules, that are largely agreed upon between the states in principle if not in action at all times.
And the EU is not intended to be so powerful in non-economic areas.
There's no particular reason the EU needs to become a true nation, and I think any quick path, and most long paths, to that would be bloody.
And the national governments have already given up significant power to the EU -- it is an established, tested principle that EU law trumps national law, including national constitutions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'll have to agree on a common language before you can dream the same dream.
Because otherwise some of you will have to dream with subtitles, and we all know how frustrating that can be.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
we are not good in other languages.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
