It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Future of Europe

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by muppet


Even better education as to how it all actually worked would make a massive difference. Economics, business and politics should be mandatory subjects at school.




Now you wouldn't want those uppity youngsters getting ideas about how the world really works now, would we?




posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   


I guess I miss the whole EU concept. For a few hundred years what you propose has been in place and we've all suffered wars and the like because of it.


Have you been living in an alternative universe, nothing like what i propose has existed in europe.???? Explain what you mean.



Germany decides to sell nuclear power plants to Iran
France balks and wants it stopped
The UK dithers
Italy and Greece, after an oil deal is made, agree with Germany and the power plants are built.

Then what?

France and the UK now have no Iranian oil. Iran has a new power plant. Israel bombs - - - -

Am I missing something in your European concept?


You are looking at a super worse case scenario, this could be applyed to any countrys
eg:

Russia decides to sell nuclear power plants to Iran
America balks and wants it stopped
The French dithers
Swiss and Germans, after an oil deal is made, agree with Russia and the power plants are built.


See, what you are saying could happen to any country not just those in Europe.
My alliance idea offers both unity and independence, it celebrates our differences, and gives countries the freedom to choose what they want to be apart of.

Reduced Costs
Independence and Unity
Flexiabilty
No all controlling superstate
Freedom of Choice



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
A big problem just now is the EU is made up of factions one doing this the other disagreeing. We should commit to a republic of europe or withdraw back to our individual countries we in the UK wont even accept the same currency as the rest of the EU .

Lets face it we cannot agree on anything the franco german block will win through and the UK might as well go with it or become the 51st state. More than likely Britain will more and more take a back seat and just go along for the ride until they ask us to do something we dont want to do then what?.

I dont know if anyone is interested but my local Gas supplier has just upped costs as it stated the need to buy in from elsewhere as the UK's own sources are failing. If we buy from the EU then as a member its probably cheaper but outside the EU then more expensive.

It may be that being a member of a large community might provide us with more PROS than CONS. Thats why Mr Blair is trying so hard to keep us in as he sees the whole jigsaw and we see only a few pieces.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard



I guess I miss the whole EU concept. For a few hundred years what you propose has been in place and we've all suffered wars and the like because of it.


Have you been living in an alternative universe, nothing like what i propose has existed in europe.???? Explain what you mean.


Here is the essence of your beginning post-


Originally posted by UK wizard

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

Each country would pick which organisations they wish to belong to




Remember?

This last sentence is the crux of the problem:
From the days of the Hanse Europeans have formed alliances that were protective and exclusionary. ALL were based upon economic conquest.

I will just limit my point of view to the last 200 years- from 2004 back to 1804
Let's work from the past forward

Britain (UK) and a gaggle of others that changed back and forth against France and a gaggle of others that changed back and forth.
Britain allied with Russia

During the war against the monster Napoleon Britain just happens to take Java and other possessions. Some are later restored.
France crushed (not merely defeated but crushed.) Their political institutions thrown in the trash, Britain/allies dictate terms.

Britain invades U.S.

U.S. and Britain burn each others local capitals.

Britain maintains near monopoly power in world trade.(this is REALLY what it's all about, isn't it?)

U.S. defeats Britain at New Orleans in a battle that changes nothing on the world stage except to give Britain a wake up call. Britain re-focuses on the “far east.”

British navy continues to strangle commerce world wide.

Britain and France economically invade Mexico. France stays as pseudo-conqueror.

Britain virtually monopolizes drug trade (YIKES) India and large parts of China are under British sway. British overseas companies rake in profits in excess of the revenues of most nations.

France holds small places in south east Asia.

Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and a few others rape Africa and Asia. Germany joins much later.

France invades northern Africa.

U.S. conquers Mexico.

British-Burmese War

Britain and France attack Russia to support Ottoman Empire.


One of my favorite conflicts:
"I believe that if this barbarous nation(Russia) the enemy of all
progress......
should once succeed in establishing itself in the heart of Europe,
it would be the greatest calamity which could befall the human race"
Lord Lyndhurst in a speech to the House of Lords

"I'll have your arm off before you know where you are"
Surgeon to Evelyn Wood, shot in the elbow


In an early instance of propaganda, British newspaper reports of the action said the Russians had fired at Turkish wounded in the water.

Louis Napoleon III, emperor of France, eager to emulate the military successes of his uncle Napoleon I

Another in a long line of Peace of Paris- Russia lost military rights but restored the status quo but proved only to be a truce which lasted until 1870 when Russia began to re-fortify the Black Sea and the Allies were unable to stop them.


Indian Army mutiny

British Persian War

Britain and France invade China for not allowing illegal drug trade!

I'll stop here, for now. This is only 1804 through 1856.

We still have 148 years to go. Two world wars, some major and minor European conflicts, the American Civil War, Spanish-American War, Viet Nam, Korea, Russo-Japanese War, another Chinese war, enumerable rebellions and independence movements, unification movements and other conflicts make this entire 200 year span very full of death, trade squabbles, drugs (again) and generalized misery for all but the chosen few. I left out other wars that European nations waged upon the world as the scrambled to position themselves.

I think just this alone should be reason enough to try something different. Europeans are warlike peoples, their own history proves them so. Europe has tried schemes similar to what you propose and they have failed.




Germany decides to sell nuclear power plants to Iran
France balks and wants it stopped
The UK dithers
Italy and Greece, after an oil deal is made, agree with Germany and the power plants are built.

Then what?

France and the UK now have no Iranian oil. Iran has a new power plant. Israel bombs - - - -

Am I missing something in your European concept?

Originally posted by UK Wizard
You are looking at a super worse case scenario, this could be applyed to any countrys
eg:

Russia decides to sell nuclear power plants to Iran
America balks and wants it stopped
The French dithers
Swiss and Germans, after an oil deal is made, agree with Russia and the power plants are built.


See, what you are saying could happen to any country not just those in Europe.
My alliance idea offers both unity and independence, it celebrates our differences, and gives countries the freedom to choose what they want to be apart of.

Reduced Costs
Independence and Unity
Flexiabilty
No all controlling superstate
Freedom of Choice


The 'alliance' as you propose seems to me to turn the clock back. Nationalistic aspirations, supra-national corporations and trade blocks, protectionism, economic blackmail, higher management costs (larger bureaucracies) and renewed militarism.

Every nation would ONCE AGAIN develop complete vertical monopolies.

I am not a one-worlder. I watch the FOREX daily as you might try for a while. I believe you will see historically what happens to national currencies that become too valuable as a symbol of nationhood. The EURO will become “a” dominant currency and eventually perhaps “the” dominant currency. In the near term very stable nations such as Germany are paying a high price for abandoning their nationalistic tendencies.

As the world hopefully progresses away from the waste of war maybe a little bit more of the waste will become useful to those young and those climbing the economic ladder from the lower rungs.

On my “theoretical” idea of nuclear power plants- that is what happened, isn't it?


The World Today
ELEANOR HALL: While the United States battles to win hearts and minds in Iraq, in neighbouring Iran, Russia is making important diplomatic and economic inroads. Russia is building the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant in a deal worth $800 million and thousands of jobs.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
me personally im totally against the EU and U.K. joining it (fully).
If there isnt a referendom and we are in 100% what will happen about the rate of taxes for eg' the cost of ciggarettes in the u.k. as apposed to the cost of the same in spain? wasnt it said a few yrs ago now , but 'once all of europe is commited we will all live within a 6% either way difference of each other in any european contry', by this it was meant your wages and housing and food and luxuries would be equivilent to withing 6% of a person from an other european country like for like.
I cant see how this would work , when u.k. has one of the highest taxes for everything across the board and , will the citezens in the other euro countries ALLOW their gov' to up all the taxes on cigarrettes, alcohol, and luxury items to with in 6% of ours (u.k.) i dont think they will, no.
The gov' has been saying for a long time that going into the euro will help the businesses of this country with trade????? why?, we have traded in sterling forever...many companies have made millions and done well, anyone in the import/export trade or other business knows that when you trade abroad sometimes the currency exchange is good for you other times it will be against you..thats business..
Unless you are going to trade in europe then there isnt a currency benifit for you!
How much more of a strain would it put on the NHS/DSS and the like?
what 'true' benifits are we normal 'joe public' going to have and see, are they going to be in our wage packets? our standard of living? where??? im sorry but i genuinly cannot see any good (for the good of its citizens) reason for the u.k. to join (100% full) the euro


PROUD TO BE ENGLISH
SAY NO TO THE EURO



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
UPDATEED************
in the last para' im meant to say 'unless you were ONLY going to trade in europe....' sorry



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Thats why Mr Blair is trying so hard to keep us in as he sees the whole jigsaw and we see only a few pieces.


I understand there are certain discussions that have to go on behind closed doors.

I think if you are right though, Mr Blair playing a dangerous game (in term of his own credibility). If there is more the situation than meets the eye he should say so. Secrecy is fine for war-time, but when it comes to re-designing political structures and making laws, it's not.

Of course Blair is still in a tricky position. He is personally committed the EU, and to be fair is standing up to the French and germans over the important issues like defense, taxation etc. For each "concession" like this he wins, he as to give something though... each time taking the EU further from it's original intended role as simple trading bloc.

He's also committed to the Euro of course, and he knows he can't win that one. A No in the referendum would signal and end to his Premiership. Tough one. Does he carry on regardless, holding true to his pro-Euro beliefs? Maybe not.. He's too smart to ignore the polls. Does he modify his stated position to take into account anti Euro feeling in the UK? Quite possibly, but of course, he can't do it publicly or he'd be burning his last hand the the EU table...

You're right, it's jigsaw, and a complex one at that, but at the end of the day he is a Prime Minister, not a President, and I would like to see these things discussed openly in parliament...not behind closed doors.



[edit on 2/9/04 by muppet]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join