What do you think about the EU?

What do Russians, Americans and others here think about the EU?

• Successful peace project?
• "Necessary evil"? (that's probably the most common European view).
• Pointless and ineffective?
• Future superstate to stand up to the US and China (and Russia!)?
• Force of good in the world? Or hypocritical?
• Good or bad for Eastern Europe?
• USA puppet or sufficiently independent?
• Best thing to have happened to Europe?
• Its' two-tier agricultural politics....
• Take from the rich EU countries and give to the poor.. good or bad?

If you are European, do you think the EU is good as it is, support a federal super state or wish to dissolve the union?

Super cheezy pro-EU TV promotion aimed at young people: (they are giving politically correct reasons for why the EU is good: anti-racist, environmental, peace project, economic solidarity etc)
http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...l Version)</a>

Pointless and ineffective. It's creation was probably necessary but I don't think that this 'structure' will stand. Europeans will never think of themselves as the one country and that's fatal. Every country will be trying to take advantage of its neighbours and I don't think Europe will ever be truly unified. There are natural leaders like France or Germany and there are backwater outsiders like Eastern Europe. Seeing as France sends the gypsies home only proves my point.

The EU was an idea developed by those who have stated that their long term goal is a one world government. Why would any individual want to be part of the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cold

Why would any individual want to be part of the EU?

---

I guess the EU was formed as an attempt to withstand the economical pressure of the US. Just look at the anti-US sentiments strongly hooked together to the pan-Eurasian ideology.

So, the idea of United Europe rests on the well-being of USA. :lol: A political paradox.

That's right. It's because "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of EU foundation. ;)

That's wrong actually. It was the US that suggested the partnership that has developed into todays EU, after WW2 (although the idea was started by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi before then, in his book that is almost prophetc - Paneuropa)
The idea of the Americans lead to the Coal and Steel union which developed into the Europäische Gemeinschaft (EG) which became the EU in the 1990s.

The reason to have a Coal and Steel union was to tie together the economies of France and Germany so tightly that it would be economic suicide for one to start a war against the other.

And in case you haven't noticed, the EU is more of a puppet to the US than any kind of counterweight.

I started supporting it when I was at uni, and Asia was growing at a fantastic rate. All the ideals of socialism seemed to be dead or dying, and everyone was fed up with Europe being a playground of superpowers. The EU seemed to me and my friends like the only way that the the European countries could stand up for themselves on a global perspective. I was pretty active in the campaign ahead of the referendum on EU membership for Sweden.

In hindsight I am not completely convinced that it was the right thing to do, but at the time it felt completely right. The EU was clearly a successful peace project and not necessarily quite as "evil" as socialists and others had been preaching for years. I thought it could become whatever Europeans made it.. At least on paper, it is very democratic. My friends and I thought that if we weren't in it, we couldn't influence it, and that there was no other possible future for Europe anyway.

Also, I was quite passionate about solidarity with the Eastern European countries in an organisation called the PanEuropean Youth Movement. One of its main objectives in the 1990s was to try to get Eastern Europe to join the EU as soon as possible - for the EU to lower it's economic entry criteria so they'd qualify, and convince the Eastern Europeans that it was a good thing. At the time, it seemed like an almost impossible objective. But those objectives have been achieved. The only reason to support this was to improve living standards which fell so horribly in the 1990s.

Unfortunately nobody (at least not me!) considered the consequences of a situation whereby all European countries apart from Russia were members.. such a scenario was so far off in the future. The EU was never intended to be an "us vs them" type of situation in regards to other Europeans. The Paneuropean youth movement is a bit questionable to be honest, but back then, I completely agreed with all its goals. Coudenhove-Kalergi had said (in the 1920s!) that Brits and Russians would never want to be part of a pan-Europe anyway, so there was no point in trying to accommodate either. Not completely off the mark.

So since this is a Russian language forum, I wan't to shift the emphasis of this thread into something like 'Should Russia try to integrate into EU or should it try to integrate EU into Russia'. By latter I mean peaceful integration but being a host instead of being a newcomer. I know this is probably an utopian scenario but still Russia and Europe are on the same continent and they face roughly the same geopolitical challenges of withstanding both US and China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

By latter I mean peaceful integration but being a host instead of being a newcomer.

---

Wait, which one should become the host?

In this latter variant it's Russia.

I understand you really wish for that. But this is wrong to my mind. The population of EU is almost four times as much as the population of Russia. The latter just can't be the host.

What has population to do with that? Russia has the resources for all these people which I cannot say for Europe. Moreover, Siberia now is very scarcely populated which fact the Chinese is undoubtedly aware of. Europe is overpopulated. If Russia is to give free land in Siberia how many people would migrate there? (I'm only partly serious, of course, but I'd suspect that Europe would be more glad to deal with Russia than with China, but I might be wrong).

I think there should be a close and equal free trade area between Russia and the EU.
Including "free movement goods and people" interchangeable education qualifications and all of the basic principles of the EU.

That would allow Russia to continue doing whatever it wants to do without changing to accommodate to EU rules, but still have the majority of the benefits of membership. Plus, it would get around the problem of Russia being "too big" for the EU.

The one reservation I have is the situation with corruption in Russia. It is very offputting. The whole oligarchy situation does not appeal to me at all.

I think that Russia will play a more and more important role in Europe either way.
Russia has so much to offer Europe; agriculture, scientific expertise, forest...
The fact that the Americans have a thorn in their side to Russia has nothing to do with us.

There is one more really important point to consider: Transportation from East Asia. If the Transsiberian Railway was properly modernised and expanded it could transport goods from Asia much faster, cheaper and ecological than via sea or air. If it is stretched all the way to South Korea (this is being planned), then any goods from Korea or Japan could benefit form this route too. It can already be used for transports from China although I have read that that is not utilised to it's full potential.

Europe is VERY dependant on Russia for gas and oil and I'd just be worried that there was more European reliance on Russia than the other way around.

I'd also like to see Ukraine and Belarus fully benefiting from the same agreement.

Add the projects of a tunnel under the Bering's straight to Alaska. It costs trillions right now, but a railway connecting Asia and America might be worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

What has population to do with that? Russia has the resources for all these people which I cannot say for Europe. Moreover, Siberia now is very scarcely populated which fact the Chinese is undoubtedly aware of. Europe is overpopulated. If Russia is to give free land in Siberia how many people would migrate there? (I'm only partly serious, of course, but I'd suspect that Europe would be more glad to deal with Russia than with China, but I might be wrong).

---

Yeah, well, I guess neither of the two is welcome to absorb the Europe. What about normal cooperation, why not? Russia is more desirable here cuz China has quite an unpredictable system, no one can trust commies. But again, no absorption.

@Hanna
So, you're saying that Greece has entered the EU so as not to be attacked by France and Germany and vice versa? ;)

You seem to make a logical mistake confusing between the major driving forces behind the inception and the major driving forces behind the sustainability and the expansion. How can you explain the foundation of the Euro currency? A major step to prevent France from assaulting Germany? That's laughable. :)

The present pan-European ideology postulates the external enemy (the US that is) and acts accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

@Hanna
So, you're saying that Greece has entered the EU so as not to be attacked by France and Germany and vice versa? ;).

---

Obviously not but that's how it STARTED. I believe Greece joined in the 70s or 80s. Originally there were only a few members, namely the ones that had been the most involved in recent wars, and their neighbours. However the idea proved useful in many different ways, hence Greece's decision to join. Nowadays of course, the EU is about much. much more than preventing France and Germany from fighting each other.

One of the really nice things about the EU is that all the parts are treated as equals even though in reality there are all sorts of economic, linguistic, religious and other differences. Nowadays kids are taught to appreciate every part of the EU for what it has to offer and whatever is good about that area. For the first time there is real hope of no more wars on the European continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Add the projects of a tunnel under the Bering's straight to Alaska. It costs trillions right now, but a railway connecting Asia and America might be worth it.

---

That would be incredibly cool... but is it really feasible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

One of the really nice things about the EU is that all the parts are treated as equals even though in reality there are all sorts of economic, linguistic, religious and other differences. Nowadays kids are taught to appreciate every part of the EU for what it has to offer and whatever is good about that area. For the first time there is real hope of no more wars on the European continent.

---

You should leave the lightweight .net programmers and start working at the propaganda department. :mosking: Do you seriously think the WWI and WWII could have been prevented by teaching kids to appreciate every part of Europe? The uneducated kids were the reason? :shocked:

I think you've teased me enough today. I have run out of inspiration to respond.

But there has never been a war between the EU countries, so my "propaganda" is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think you've teased me enough today. I have run out of inspiration to respond. But there has never been a war between the EU countries, so my "propaganda" is true.

---

Come on, no more teasing today? Is that for real? ;)
As for the wars, there are several things here:

1. As long as the economy is tightly integrated, the local economies could not be protected/promoted by the local armies. So, yes, the EU leads to more Europe-wide security.

2. To further extrapolate that logic, as long as the world economy is global and tightly integrated, there would be more global security.

So, what have you said about the evils of the globalization last time? :mosking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

But there has never been a war between the EU countries, so my "propaganda" is true.

---

Well, yes, but European countries have been warring with each other since the time Europe had been populated. They stopped doing so only in 1945 ))) (if we don't count Yugoslavia). Several thousands years of war compared to 65 years of relative peace...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

That would be incredibly cool... but is it really feasible?

---

Not right now. As I said it would cost trillions now, but in the near future - maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, yes, but European countries have been warring with each other since the time Europe had been populated. They stopped doing so only in 1945 ))) (if we don't count Yugoslavia). Several thousands years of war compared to 65 years of relative peace...

---

Yes Mr Cynic ;-) This is true, but do you see any wars between the EU countries on the horizon? We will break the 100 year barrier before you know it!

France and the UK just formed a "defense union" which lets both countries cut back national defense expenditure. I think it's a question of time before Germany and Spain joins this.

There's been talk about a joint EU defense since the 1990s but people were not ready for it. I think it will happen. When that's complete, then there definitely won't be any internal wars within the EU.

In my view, Europe has no enemies other than poverty in Africa and wars in the Middle East creating millions of would-be migrants and refugees that we cannot accommodate.

@ Croc: EU is not globalism is regionalism!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes Mr Cynic ;-) This is true, but do you see any wars between the EU countries on the horizon?

---

No, I don't. Equally I do not see any wars between any 'civilized' countries. War IS expensive. If 300 years ago killing an enemy soldier cost about $0.5, 100 years ago it was already about $50 and now it's $50,000 or more. But this doesn't mean anything. The nature of war has changed. Countries try not to make war upon other countries, but individuals continue to do it. That's what terrorism (or extremism) is about. While you cannot defeat any country with military terms alone you can achieve your objectives using other methods which are sometimes as deadly as capet bombing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

EU is not globalism is regionalism!

---

Whoa! Look who is using the double standards now!! So, the exact same processes are dubbed "regionalization" to divert the attention away from the evil "globalization" and we're all set!! "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi." ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

France and the UK just formed a "defense union"

---

Khrrrm. Cough, cough. Am I the only one to see the irony in this?
If I AM the only one, that's okay. Maybe it is just vodka speaking. Not asking anyone to agree. Or disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by translationsnmru

Khrrrm. Cough, cough. Am I the only one to see the irony in this?
If I AM the only one, that's okay. Maybe it is just vodka speaking. Not asking anyone to agree. Or disagree.

---

:-o

Why this irony is so special in comparison to the irony of any other combination?

There is no external threat to Europe in the conventional way.
My opinion is that the biggest threat are the problems created by mass-immigration from the Middle East and Africa. I could say a lot of things about this, but will not, because of PC self-censorship. But it was not a wise idea to allow the situation to develop as it has.

Croc: EU is no more "globalisation" than Canada, the USA, the Russian Federation etc! In fact, less so, since the states are still single entities to the outside world. For example, California is much bigger than the average European country.
Actually I should probably say economic globalisation when I rant, because that's what I disagree with, not cooperation between states with a shared history and culture like Europe.

Interesting comments about the economics of war, by Ramil. If so, there is also a war against those countries that are under economic sanctions, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

There is no external threat to Europe in the conventional way.

---

That is because you don't own or direct a business. The entire EU is under HUGE economical stress from both the US and China. Russia and Ukraine add up with their energy carrier power games. The OPEC acts aggressively as usual while having some kind of internal power and share disputes (Saudi Arabia vs Iran and previously vs Iraq). It's all very confusing and unpredictable. Throw in some internal issues like Greece's influence on the Euro and you'll get some sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

The biggest threat are the problems created by mass-immigration from the Middle East and Africa. I could say a lot of things about this, but I won't. But it was not a wise idea to allow the situation to develop as it has.

---

The original text you had was much more detailed and honest. The new "I could say a lot of things about this, but I won't" seems like a gesture to the political correctness. ;)

EDIT: Wow, you're still working on your post! Sorry about my comment then.

Nevertheless, the mass-immigration issue is hotly debated in any country. To the best of my knowledge, the only sensible solution to that issue is to allow the countries with bad economics to have a better economics. The globalization processes could help. As a country, if you're willing to 'plug into' the global economics and play by its rules, you'd benefit economically. The transparency, accountability and standardization are the keys. It doesn't really matter if a country adapts a monarchy or an anarchy. But many of the cultural values will be lost. So, it's the famous "Lexus and the olive tree" issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

Croc: EU is no more "globalisation" than Canada, the USA, the Russian Federation etc! In fact, less so, since the states are still single entities to the outside world. For example, California is much bigger than the average European country.

---

EU is a very special globalization project in cultural sense. It tries to incorporate very different and powerful national cultures into one state.

Before there were empires, which did the same. But empires tried to do it on the base of the differentiation of functions between cultures. Which implies inequality in many senses. EU tries to do it on the base of economical and lifestyle unification and this is the idea of globalization.

USA is a pure national state while Russia keeps many features of empire.

(offtop: I started to type word "EU" in Russian layout and suddenly... :dunno:)

suddenly what?

Anyway, what do YOU think about EU membership for Ukraine?
Are you interested?

@Croc - yeah. It is an unbelievably sensitive topic. I started a long rant about it, but then I changed my mind; it's simply not worth it. You imply that you, maybe like your own culture a tiny bit better than some other culture and voila - you are a racist, on par with the nazis. I can't even begin to tell you. In Scandinavia, the UK and Germany this has gone beyond anything you can imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

suddenly what?

---

Suddenly I got a vulgar abbreviation. Analog of English "sad trash".
:oops:

This is not really my opinion...

Quote:

---

Anyway, what do YOU think about EU membership for Ukraine?
Are you interested?

---

Sure we are. But EU is not. :(

There seems to be a lot of double standards from the EU regarding elections in ex-Soviet countries.
If the EUs (and the US') preferred candidate wins, then it was a fair election, otherwise it was not...
I am just about to read up about the "Orange Revolution". Don't know anything about it at all, but I plan to visit Ukraine this spring, so I want to know about the recent history.

(Seriously, if Romania can join, so can you.... )
Somehow I don't think Russia would support the idea too strongly though.
The reason I asked about it is because I checked the Swedish news and there was an article about a visit by someone called Kostiantyn Hrysjtjenko. He says "Without Ukraine, the EU is never complete".

I don't think the problem is in "fair election". EU can not digest more lands and people, at least for now. There are economical and organizational reasons, migration etc.

Ukraine will hardly join NATO but if EU is ready to accept us... Just whistle. No essential opposition to this idea will arise. :D

"Orange revolution" is a complicated matter as well as all Ukrainian internal affairs, but up to now the situation is bad. Not as bad as in 90s, of course, but still. Economy and life level are going down, people are sick of politics and don't believe any political power.

If I start a thread about the Orange revolution, will you answer my (stupid) questions in an objective manner? :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

If I start a thread about the Orange revolution, will you answer my (stupid) questions in an objective manner? :-)

---

I'll try to. Though my answers will be stupid as well, because that is the doom of any political discussion. :D

EU? It is just great, isn't it? I wonder if Germans will enjoy bailing out countries like Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, probably, and many more countries. I think Germans are also happy that the Government keeps printing money to pay them when their employer would have laid them off.

It must be nice to print money whenever you want. I guess the Euro currency is magic and nothing will happen to it - no chance of it losing value or anything like that, no.

I think many Germans must drink Beck or something because they don't seem to mind what consecutive Governments do and keep voting in these parties. Silly citizens.

EU or Euro towards one global currency, perhaps? I think elites benefit and if the entire thing collapses, these politicians and elites will be fine because they'll have a considerable savings to leave whatever country and go to where it's safe and lounge around in leather sofas while singing in their BMWs. I find it fascinating how people tolerate these politicians and believe their every word. They sure have a lot of optimism. I wonder if they like being brainwashed.

I hope my opinion isn't too harsh.... I think I speak the truth, though. Time will tell and history will illustrate how accurate this is.

There is more substance to the Euro than the dollar. Printing money with nothing to back it is much more of an American than European practice.

Germany is the biggest supporter of the EU because it is the only way that Germany can grow and become strong without people flipping out (since the two world wars are still at the back of public consciousness in Europe). It's worth it for them.

I don't think the Euro will collapse... having the Euro is the only way for the Europeans to have a currency to match the dollar in importance.

I feel very ambivalent about the EU. On the one hand I think we need it. On the other hand I am well aware that it is rather un-democratic, overly bureaucratic and inefficient. It could become truly terrible if things got out of control. And yes, it's very much about taking from the richer countries and giving to the poorer, but there is a certain amount of financial logic to it. It's not purely charity... It also allows European companies to have duty free cheap production in those countries that have the lowest salaries.

The EU is mostly run by the European Comission which is a meritocracy. You get a job there by taking an entrance exam and assuming you pass, using connections and every trick you can think of to get a job in one of the directorates Then you work your way up and some people become comissioners who set the policies for the EU. I was actually planning to work there until I started working in IT instead. Now I am not interested anymore.

I disagree. I think the problem is much worse than you describe. When the potential is great of various EU countries collapsing with some already that have or about to, you have a problem. Do you think things will be so rosy in Germany that they will vote to bail them out? What will happen to the Euro after this? What if citizens refuse and want to return to the Mark?

I really think you underestimate the problem.

Also, those elites already wish for a Global Currency so the problems are convenient for them.

Maybe you and others have not had a deep investigation into it or don't want such negative outlook.

I think some people like Nigel Farage gives some real info but since the problem is in infancy stages, no one will off him quite yet.

I think the Baltic countries and others near Russia will wish they avoided the Euro eventually.