The Future of Europe

The EU has caused division in many member countries, people either love or hate the EU and it's leaders (for what ever reason)
Taking part in the NWO threads has made me come to realise that Europe needs some type of free organisation(s) but not an all powerful single alliance
The problem is that each country wants something different from other countries and this leads to countries falling out and making life really difficult for each other
Each country wants certain things in the EU that other countries don't want, well i believe i have come up with a practical solution to suit both the pro-european and anti-european needs

Firstly the EU would be ended (read on please), and several independent alliances would be set up:
EFTA - European Free Trading allliance
ESR - European Science Research
EFA - European Fishing Alliance
etc....

Each country would pick which organisations they wish to belong to, (pick and mix), the organisations would not be linked but would also not be in competion due to their different purposes and goals
Each independent alliance would have a ''council'' where each member country would have one representative, this representative would have one vote in each organisation decision.
This way the huge powers of the current EU could not be abused nor the publics money wasted. These alliances would aid both europe and america as europe could act on it's own

i would like to hear you views (both pro-european and anti-european)
and i would welcome any questions or criticisms

thank you for reading


NOTE: this thread is not just for my future vision of Europe, but rather anybodies future vision of Europe..... how would you do it?

[edit on 24-8-2004 by UK Wizard]

[edit on 28-8-2004 by UK Wizard]

This is a good idea I think. Certainly a good starting point.

Each country would also need a get-out clause, so it could chose to leave a particular group if circumstances or the political environment changed.

I'm going to have to ponder this more... Good post!

Its a good idea, but the people who are lurking in the shadow of power wouldn't like this idea. These people who are lurking in the power want to have a single alliance that can become an international force. But it is a good idea

Let me get this straight...

The main criticism levelled at the EU is that it is a beaurocratic nightmare. How exactly would replacing one monolithic entity with a handful of monolithic entities make things better? Can you imagine the administrative nightmare? You're talking about multiplying the administrative costs by a factor (at least) five, since each new organisation would produce just as much paperwork as the EU does currently (the law of beaurocracy: paperwork expand to fill the available space).

These independant organisations would result in a massive duplication of effort, even more confusion and greater misunderstandings, more convoluted democratic systems, management structures and lines of responsibility, and all of this would be funded out of the public's pocket.

Also, the idea of "one nation, one vote" is fundamentally flawed - do you really think that Luxembourg deserves the same democratic representation as Germany, or that the UK's voice should be the same as Cyprus'?

I've got to say, UK Wizard, it sounds as if you've been persuaded that the EU is a good idea, but you just don't want it to be called the EU. Surely it would better to change the existing organisation, rather than create a plethora of replacements?

I do think it's an interesting proposal, UK Wizard, and it's certainly a fascinating mental exercise, but if you're looking for an accountable, transparent, and above all democractic organisation, you'll be better off changing the EU, rather than scrapping it.

Thoughts?

the paper work and administrative costs would not be multiplied as each alliance would only have paper work and administrative costs relating to their own alliance, like the proposed EDF (european defence force) would only have paper work relevant to it's part of the EU.
The budgets of the alliance would be dictated by who it's members are and how many there are of them

but you can see why i want to split the EU into different alliances, due to different countries wanting different things out of the EU

NOTE: there's no need for the EDF, we have NATO

[edit on 9-9-2004 by UK Wizard]

I think the thing with this idea is that there wouldn't be any need for centralized bureaucracy, just a single committee of ministers or representatives from each nation, in the same way that a foreign minister might represent a country at a summit. There would simply be a series of treaties and trade agreements. (In my reading of the idea anyway).

No central civil service is needed, therefore no bureaucracy, and above all, no centralized government structure. And since there is no central government structure to influence national issues, letting small countries have an equal say is not a problem.

The agreements would allow any country to continue to partake, or to leave, as they see fit. Much like NATO or the Commonwealth. If germany and france REALLY didn't like what a group of small counties were proposing, they could opt out.



[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

'Muppet' nailed it on the head , no central office for bureaucracy so there would be minimal bureaucracy

i think this idea could solve a lot of european problems, but nobody important is ever going to read it

You raise an interesting point. At least part of the our problem here is that the EU has compromised too much in the past - as far as I'm concerned, the EU shouldn't offer something for everyone, it should be what it is and let people join it or not as they see fit.

We in Britain don't have to join the EU. I think we should, because I think we'll benefit enormously. You guys - and double-teaming me is somewhat unfair, don't you think - think otherwise. Fair enough. But the UK, and the world, has suffered enough at the hands of compromised policies and half-assed measures. Do it, or don't. Make it work, or don't. We have the possibility, and the potential, to create something wonderful, something which will change the face of global politics and make the world safer and better for our children - or not.

We put the best people in place, and we let them do their damn jobs. If we don't agree with the outcome, then we shouldn't be part of it. But something great, nothing less than a shift in the political paradigm, is happening, and it's our decision whether or not we're part of it.

...

Sorry, guys, I'm feeling a little passionate tonight. And muppet, I respect your opinions enormously, but if you think that any governmental organisation will ever operate on a "minimum" of beaurocracy, you're nuts. No-one on the public payroll uses one page when ten will do!

Seriously, if we get behind this idea, we can make the EU something great, something we'll be proud to be part of. We don't need to change the rules of the game, we don't need to dissolve the current organisation, we just need to commit ourselves to making it work - for the benefit of the UK, and the benefit of all European citizens.

Or am I crazy?

you defend yourself very well StrangeLands , thats why your being 'double teamed' every other pro-EU person i've argued with just breaks down into insulting me and declaring I'm a sepratist fool.

I think your being a little optimistic when it comes to the EU, yes it has the potentional to be great and make a huge change in global politics, BUT it's not working... we need an alternative or a change of leadership.
If we don't, Britain will being to slip into the anti-european mood rather than the current anti-EU mood.

LOL Well I wasn't going to say anything StrangeLands, but seeing as you mention it..

Seriously though, I take your point about the EU needing a clear "you're in it, or you're not in it" policy, if it is to deal with the range of issues that are within it's scope. Obviously I'd say that means we should reduce the range of issues it deals with, but I guess you know my position..

In the meantime, I'll step back for now... I know how tiring at can be fending off two rabid typists at the same time!!

take care

[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

must bring down EU...

sorry this is a fairly serious thread...

it's nice to know that all of us can agrue nicely

Can we all agree that Britain needs a membership vote for staying or leaving the EU?

[edit on 9-9-2004 by UK Wizard]

Wiz,

yes I think there should be a vote if the issue comes up, but then again I wouldn't neccessarily want it too soon.

I think the single currency referendum, and the constitutional referendum should come first, since they help to define exactly what it is we are proposed to be a member of.

Then again, if the quality of debate in the mass media doesn't improve somewhat, I fear too many voters will misunderstand the issues in each ballot. viz-a-vie voting a load of Anti-EU'ers into an EU parliament! I don't get that at all. It's like voting for an anti-parliamentary MP. . I might not want to be part of a federal EU, but neither do I want to sabotage it for those who do!

oh well..

Well, this is how I see it.. We either join the EU and be part of something important or a complete withdrawel and left alone.. If we decide for indefinate not to join the EU will simply became a US colony because we can't stay on our own in a world thats constantly changing and views of single nations being ignored...

I would rather be part of the EU and become a value asset to europe rather then joining with the US...

UK Patriot,

I understand you're concerns re: the US, but with respect that is one of the worst possible reasons to commit to a federal Europe/Euro..

I strongly disagree with the idea that Britain would be "alone" without the EU, or that we will be forced to choose between two superstates.

Don't forget, :-

Out of a world population of 6 billion people, over 5 billion of them are neither European nor American.

Most of the worlds raw materials are not in the US or Europe.

The fastest growing economies in the world, the ones who are our prime export targets, are not European or American.

Britain IS a global power. Not through military might, or through Europe, or through the US, but because of our international outlook, our business links, our language, and our culture.

We do business internationally, and always have done. Being an independent nation with good relationships with both powers is the best place we can be, PARTICULARLY in this modern fast changing world. Geo-politics is far more complex than simply forming a big group with your neighbours so as to be "listened to". In fact, we are in a prime economic, geographic and cultural position to gain from both relationships, as long as we don't go sacrificing one for the other.

So please, if anyone is reading this thread thinks it's a choice between the US and Europe, it's not.

An interesting idea, but wouldn't that make things even more complicated than they already are now?

The way I understood it, based what I've read, is that the EU will have departments like what you listed above that countries can join as they please. For example, the EU has the Euro currency, but at least one EU member -- the UK -- decided to keep its own currency. The UK didn't get kicked out of the EU for its decision -- it's still an EU member in good standing all the same.

Based on my understanding, everyone in the EU maintains their own language, borders (though open with other EU members), culture, and soverignty (like having its own court system and maintaining its own military). It kind of reminded me of NATO with economic benefits when I was reading about it.

Of course, I'm over here in the US, reading about it from the outside in, so feel free to critique my statements (Just be nice to me! I'm trying to learn and understand here! )


[edit on 7/1/2004 by ThunderCloud]

That's OK ThunderCloud, you can join us baffled europeans in trying to make sense of it all. A simple issue, it isn't!!

Hi

I think that one should cancel the great EU subventions.
Right now this money is being abused by some nations...

sorry, can't express myself in english so good...

gr33tz, l33chy

Actually I think this is good idea, but on the other hand, if some country will break rules of one of these organizations, who will judge it then, although maybe it would be better, at least Latvia will be able not to pay money to every criminal who seeks protection in Europe’s court of human rights.

Heh, I stand corrected.. It's nice not to get the usual retarded posted which only contains exsessive flaming regarding the situation with europe...

[edit on 2-7-2004 by UK Patriot]

Thanks sorry for the rant but as you can guess this is a little personal bugbear of mine!

[edit on 2-7-2004 by muppet]