European Union - Comments and Predictions
 

As an American, I am very curious about the process of European Unification. As an American that enjoys European travel, I am particularly curious about the impact that unification may have on the tourist. <BR> <BR>Some consequences are already apparent. I return from Europe with two passports stamps instead of five or six. The beautiful local currencies are scheduled to be replaced by the (far less interesting) Euro notes. Will postage stamps (my favorite cheap souvenir) be next? <BR> <BR>More importantly, is the diversity of European culture threatened by efforts to achieve legal and economic homogeneity? Will animal-loving nations like France and Belgium tolerate Spanish bullfights and English fox hunts? What impact will unified laws have on long-standing institutions like royalty? The Belgians love their king, the British are ambivalent about their monarch-in-waiting, and the French despise the concept entirely. How does legal unification even begin to reconcile the priorities of French farmers and German industrialists? Considering the recent "sanctions" against Austria, one might even question if the democratic process will survive unification. <BR> <BR>Originally, the motivating factors behind unification were strictly economic, primarily market integration and unhindered movement of workers and capital. Unification has resulted in the worlds largest coherent market, currently near 400 million consumers. Yet, Austrian sanctions were urged on the basis that the European community must reflect "shared values." Clearly, the concept of unification continues to evolve. Where is it headed?

You raise some interesting questions. <BR>I think the language differences will continue to keep cultures separate for a long time to come. Despite a common language, national TV, easy highway and airline access all over, there are many regional differences in the United States. <BR>The Euro currency onset is going to be interesting. I think it will come as a shock to some to give up their national currencies. It is all they have ever known. I am not sure I would want to quite using dollars. On the other hand, travel within Europe is so easy and so prevalent, that having a common unit of measure naturally gives way to a common unit of measure AND a common medium of exchange. The Euro right now measures prices, but you and I don't pay for anything yet with Euro currency. <BR>My prediction is this: as long as economic times are good and all of the nations in the European Economic Union are prospering, the market trends will succeed. If economic times turn bad, then we may have a different story. But the crest of the wave makes it hard to see any bad times ahead. <BR>In either event, I don't see wide spread economic success tearing down cultural differences. The outlier in all of this may be Scotland. If that "nation", as some Scots so vehemently claim it is, becomes soverign, I wonder where it will head? Closer to or farther away from the monetary union and the common market? <BR>Also, Switzerland has not joined. At what point will it be forced to become a part of the economic union? <BR>I am not sure how long and how well these islands of economic isolation can continue to thrive relative to the economically unified nations. <BR> <BR>

My husband, who is an economist, has a theory about how the world will become a more tolerant place. He calls it the MTV theory. He coined it while traveling for business in Asia, but I think it applies equally well to the question about Europe that you pose, Steve. To wit, when the younger generation (let's say, for the sake of arbitrariness, anyone now at age 25 or younger) gets to be in their 50s, lots and lots of regional and national differences will have begun to disappear. Why? Because they all grew up watching the likes of MTV, all around the world, and aspiring to be like that. <BR>My best friend in France gnashes his teeth because his son LOVES to go to McDonald's, now that it has reached their small village in the Loire Valley. <BR>Obviously, this is a pop theory and I am using it as a pop answer to your serious question. Still, I think it has some merit. <BR>Not that I think the MTVing of the world is a good thing, mind you. But at least if it is going to happen anyway, there might as well be something good to come out of it. <BR>Myself, I already am in mourning for the wonderful regional accents that used to live in the US. They are disappearing becomes of the homogenized accents we all hear on tv all the time. <BR>In short, regional differences are both good and bad--wonderful to behold but certainly not worth fighting for, especially not to the death.

Talk all one wants to about "unification" and other such abstractions, but we had a clear picture of how un-unified the Europeans are at this point in the very recent past. I refer to the continuing problems in the Balkans, particularly in the former Yugoslavia. Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo up in smoke and flames. And who had to provide the political leadership to cool (if not solve) this mess? That's right, the United States of America. And, in of all places, Dayton, Ohio! Unification? Don't hold your breath. And please don't even look at Ireland! <BR>And the Greeks against the Turks, and the Turks against the Greeks. And then we have the Basques. And whatever you do, don't go near the Caucasus region! It's a cauldron, ready to boil at any moment. Then we have people like M. LePen in France, the rising number of neo-Nazis in Germany, the recent embarrassment of Austria -- the list goes on and on. And these are good times. Wait 'til economic conditions turn downward. With Europe's built-in rigidities in its labor market. Hmmm. <BR>

There are various models in the British debate about Europe which can be crudely summarised as: <BR>1. Full economic and political union (a United States of Europe); <BR>2. Continued enlargement into Eastern Europe on the basis of being a large trading bloc with a unified market; <BR>3. Withdrawal (very unlikely). <BR>Some feel that the Euro is a step from being in 2 to being in 1, and that is one of the reasons why there is hostility to it among many (but not all) people here.

European Unification is beginning to grind to a halt as we finally have to face the issues which have been shelved till now,especially money/the Euro - nobody really wants to share an economy with some of the basket cases we see - as we take in more ex Eastern bloc states this becomes more obvious. <BR> Already the EEC loses billions to corrupt states (eg Italy).Trouble is nobody is doing anything about it, it's too embarrassing to even dare mention it inside the offices of the EEC. <BR> Views on this vary - for instance the French tend to be all for things which they perceive as "a good thing" irrespective of the the practicalities. <BR>The British are less concerned with the moral aspects of unification but very worried that it just wont work, no matter how good an idea it seems. <BR> I think its hit a wall.

Frank. <BR>You have a bit if a nerve: the blatant cover up of the mad cow disease thoughout the 1980s and early 1990s in Britain and you call Italy corrupt. <BR> <BR>Far from fearing that it (political union) won't work, your government fears that it will work only too well: the English Government (English Scots Welsh etc etc) are the main supporters of the "corrupt eastern european basket cases" coming in for the sole reason to dilute any further progress towards political union by making a 20+ memebersip unmanageable. <BR> <BR>Your country has done nothing but whinge ever since it joined in 1973. I for one would delighted to have the eastern europeans in and you lot quit instead. <BR>

The EC did not just start as an economic movement. After the war, many politicians saw it as a necessary development to ensure peace and political stability in Europe. It had political motivations from the start and if anything, they are getting less important now than a few decades ago. <BR> <BR>There were prophecies about failure right from the start and until now, they were always wrong. The EC has its drawbacks but all in all, the advantages for all member states are greater than the disadvantages. I don't see any sensible reason why this trend should change in the future. <BR> <BR>The diversity of the european cultures is of course threatened but mainly by the increase of interchange of the cultures. This happened before but in most cases more slowly. Today, it would happen with or without the EC and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. <BR> <BR>Still the european countries will keep their seperate cultures to a great extend because of the lack of a common language. This guarantees a much greater diversity than mono-lingual countries can offer. <BR> <BR>Of course a legal unification can't reconcile the interests of french farmers and german industrialists. On the other hand, neither does the german constitution reconcile the interests of german farmers and german industrialists. But french industrialists and german industrialists share quite a lot of common ground. <BR> <BR>

Who are the economic powers behind the concept of a united Europe? France and Germany, certainly. How assured can we be of the long term stability of those economies? I wonder! Both countries are faced with aging populations and extraordinarily generous and costly social programs to address the needs of the aged. <BR>Germany has spent billions in attempts to revitalize the former East Germany, yet unemployment ranges above 20% in certain former industrial areas of the east. The inability of many, many former East Germans to shed socialist principles and adopt democratic ones hampers self-motivated initiatives to better themselves. The French working class is reluctant to relinquish the social benefits garnered through its union's activism. The strength of Europe's economy, based on that of France and Germany is tenuous at best. <BR> <BR>The dissolution of the Soviet republics and their satellites has resulted in few democratic regimes. Rather there is evidence of capitalist oligarchies emerging with little distribution of wealth to impact favorably upon the average citizen. <BR> <BR>The ethnic animosities existing in Brittany, northern Spain, the Balkans, Turkey and Greece, Corsica and France, centuries old in their origins, show no signs of abatement or resolution. Compounding the problems inherent in ethnicity are the huge immigrant populations from Africa and eastern Europe that are unable to contribute to the economies of Europe but are instead a drain on Europe's social programs. <BR> <BR>Not only must Europe cope with the interests, concerns and needs of the French farmer vis a vis the German industrialist, or the German farmer and German industrialist for that matter, but it must reconcile economic disparities between the poverty stricken regions of southern Italy with the wealthy industrialized North, for example. <BR> <BR>A minor glitch in the economic boom, a prolonged "peace-keeping action" or large scale disruptive action by social groups, be they unions, political activists or neo-Nazis and their ilk could easily cause the concept and promise of European unity to once again become a dream rather than a near reality. <BR>

I'm excited about the future of the EC because I think it may mean the end of the British occupation of Northern Ireland. No borders, no more bitching by my countrymen in the six counties about whether to stay part of the UK or join up with the Republic. They've been so pathetically wishy-washy about the whole thing that it's been decided for them. Thank God I moved out of there.

Why is everyone so negative? Most of the EU is rich, unemployment is much lower than the statistics show (the black market!), borders have almost disappeared, more and more people move to other regions and countries within Europe, Germany and France are changing rapidly, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Baltic States will be ready to join the EU soon, the EU is moving towards a much better immigration policy (admitting thousands of skilled workers from outside), etc. etc. <BR>Ofcourse, there are still some problems and there always will be problems, but the EU is one of the best places in the world to live: stable, social and rich. <BR>

My opinion is that the increasing pace of economic and cultural integration of Europe (which I think will soon make the EU itself obsolete) needs to be seen in the context of all the other revolutions occurring simultaneously across the world - demographic, technological, health and communications, all of them. Issues of "state" and "culture" and "nationhood" are being blurred so fast that, even with the attempts by Scots or Welsh or Catalans, et al, to assert nationhood, irrespective of statehood, the world is barreling along towards a grand integration from which only the strongest, maybe the most distinctive, maybe not, characteristics of individual regional/cultural identity will survive. <BR> <BR>Just look at this forum, in a tiny corner of a house in the suburbs of cyberspace. Time and distance are rendered nil. Some threads, like the "where are you right now" one come close to real-time conversations, conducted across a small but noisy room. But the writers are in London or Alabama or Thailand or Australia. English is the lingua franca, the majority of readers know that haggis doesn't come in tubes (and even know what haggis is - there's another revolution!) and some of us know more about each other than we know about the neighbors next door. And this is now only Year 5 or 6 (or more or less depending on your reckoning) of the Internet Age. What chance of survival do we think the old animosities will have in Year 50? My guess is that the Bretons and the Kosovars and the Basques will have long since found new equilibrium points with their fellow Europeans, and I don't think the EU will have had anything at all to do with it. <BR> <BR>I can't overstate my recommendation that if this subject interests you that you go out - tonight - and get a copy of Thomas Friedman's most excellent book, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." For those of you who aren't familiar with the author, he's a journalist by profession (NY Times) whose chronicles of the Israel-Lebanon-PLO conflict won him a Pulitzer prize a few years ago, and his book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" won the National Book Award. Friedman's analysis on how the globalization of the economy, communications, education, and technology, confront the traditions of cultural identity, planned economies, of statehood and nationality - well, I thought it was something of a transforming experience. <BR> <BR>Finally, I offer two words on the topic of cultural integration: NFL Europe. <BR>

Nero: <BR>It is precisely the refusal to deal with the real fiscal issues that is stopping unification.If anybody brings the subject up (you call it whining) it starts a bout of name-calling, so nobody speaks. <BR>Foot-dragging by civil servants trying to protect their industry is bad form, but not in the same league as having a prime minister on trial for personal corruption. <BR>Until this problem is recognised & dealt with we will have difficulty with unification. <BR>Meanwhile Italy is welcome to unify with its neighbours Albania & Yugoslavia, if you think they'd make better partners than the UK.Just do it!Go ahead! <BR>There is of course no corruption in these places either, their economies are wonderful & Italy would have a bright economic future with its new partners. <BR>Except that Italy seems preoccupied with keeping Albanians & Yugoslavians out at the moment....... <BR>Whether or not the UK gov supports the entry of the basket cases (which is undeniably what they are) makes no difference to the fact that the corruption issue is stopping progress. <BR>You may be right in saying that the UK is using expansion to keep unification shallow, but have you asked why they want to keep it shallow, and why they are using such roundabout methods? <BR>It is because the EC don't want to address the problem. <BR>If your partner has a big problem with something & you refuse to even discuss it then the relationship will not improve.

For the record the front runners for joining are: Poland Hungary Slovenia. Other countries are in the running too except Albania and the other ex-Yugoslavia states. So there's no corruption with British political figures or for that matter local government ? None have ever been jailed for perjury or insider dealing? ???????? And of course everybody over there is totally honest with the benefits system!! <BR> <BR>Actually a considerable amount of the EEC increase of expenditure occurred in 1975 when to "give the British back their money" the regional development grants were set up. <BR> <BR>Face it the British have never wanted to join the EEC as it was called then, and developed the EFTA as an alternative. When they found that is was here to stay they decided to join - but unlike the other - with the aim of slowing it down as much as possible. No they want to join the euro nor schengen nor common defence etc etc. Even if the EU were to be faultless which it will never be, Britain will always find excuses to slow things down or stop them altogether. <BR> <BR>But to encourage the entrance of new and poorer states (when at the same time complaining that the budget is too high) solely for the purpose of bringing everything to a unmanageable halt is truly deplorable.

A number of responses have expressed doubt that the European Union is politically sustainable. History is on their side. The Romans failed to unify the European continent. So did Napoleon and Hitler. It may be unreasonable to assume that nameless bureaucrats and obscure presidents (i.e., Prodi) will be any more successful. <BR> <BR>The obstacles are many. Cultural and ethnic divisions. Long standing national resentments. Even the reluctancy with which proud nations like France, Germany and the UK will accept state-like status (Will Germany be the Texas of the EU? France the California? The UK the New York?). <BR> <BR>The most difficult obstacles are economic. Basic economic theory dictates that free trade equalizes wages. In addition, disparities in taxation and social benefits (e.g., welfare, health care, minimum wage requirements, etc.) will be minimized. For these reasons, it is understandable that the UK, with its relatively high economic productivity and standard of living, is ambivalent about participating in the unification process. If wages in Manchester are unacceptably high, production will be relocated to the outskirts of Athens or Lisbon. <BR> <BR>The best hope for a stable unification process is that the economically robust nations will sufficiently elevate overall EU productivity to alleviate the negative impacts of economic parity among member nations. Otherwise, the standard of living in the most productive nations will deteriorate. Unfortunately, this possibility seems less viable with the recent replacements of the fiscally conservative governments of Germany and the UK. <BR> <BR>The European Union is currently dominated by socialism. Not the militant, red flag waving brand of socialism, but, rather, the more insidious strain of socialism that is concealed in oppressive regulatory agencies and restrictive employment practices. The reluctancy of so many Europeans to trust their own ability and judgement, and their willingness to trust the state to solve their problems, will only exacerbate the economic challenges of unification.

Steve, with all respect, but you should read The Economist more often. <BR>1. The UK is below average on the list of rich European countries. Many years of Thatcherism did not do much good to the country. <BR>2. The social-democrat governments in Germany and France have, in only a few years, achieved more pro-business modern tax legislation than their conservative colleagues in a decade. <BR>3.Labour markets are changing rapidly in some countries (Ireland, UK, Netherlands), and more slowly in others (Germany, France), but they are changing everywhere. <BR>4. Europe is trying to combine the best of both worlds: a competitive, modern economy without the extreme poverty, the enormous differences in wealth, and the ghettos that we know from the USA. I think most Europeans are very willing to give up 10% of their salaries to have a relatively crime-free, safe society where everyone has health insurance. <BR>

Don't you just love to read Sjoerd's views on the U. S. economy? I wonder how long he has actually lived here, earned a living here, and invested here. <BR>And that last bit about willingness to pay 10% -- what 10%? Marginal tax rates in western European nations are universally higher than in the U.S., if that is what he is driving at. Slowly but surely, America is working toward health care coverage for all its citizens, starting with its children. In the meantime, it's a mystery within a puzzle within an enigma why 30-some million Americans fail to be covered. I predict that, barring an economic catastrophe or a war, that we will wind up with a plan that works, is fair, and is comprehensive -- after we muddle through for another generation. For a nation that prides itself on its ability to accomplish its goals, we are laggards in this critical area. Europeans wonder why this is so, while at the same time they have no idea how much of their income is actually being siphoned away in direct and in indirect taxation. If they knew, there would be such an outcry that we could hear it all the way across the Atlantic. But the idea of European Union will remain just that -- a nice idea whose time has not yet come.

Yes, I pay a 60% marginal tax rate and no, that is not a lot because I get a lot back for it: good public transport (I don't even need a car, though I have one), a state pension, good health care, and most importantly the certainty that whatever bad happens to me/us, I/we won't be on my/our own and someone is going to care. <BR>I visited the USA not too long ago and was invited to a "middle class" (their words) party. I was surprised that no one at that big party had ever been to Europe. They all claimed they couldn't afford it. Most of them had 2 or 3 week annual holidays only. Most of them were couples - both working, which -they said- they needed to to have enough money to run the family. <BR>Don't get me wrong: I am not a USA-basher, and there are some things there that I like more than in Europe. But it is simply not true that the "average" American has a "better" quality of life than the "average" European. <BR>

I cannot see how Sjoerd has commented on US economy to any great extent. Indeed it seems we Americans have done more to try and put forward our thoughts on Europe on these message boards, when the majority of us are mere travellers (or should that be tourists). <BR>60% tax rate is pretty steep. Here in the UK where I live (American "middle class" working for a US company here) the tax rate I believe is a maximum of 40% but most people pay 25%. But here though I can walk in safety after dark, do not have to lock my car doors in certain areas, and do not have to go through a metal detector to visit my childs school. So some may call worth it.

I don't understand the argument about higher wages in Manchester than in Lisbon or Athens. In the moment we already have a free flow of goods in the EC. This is independend from the question whether the EC will continue on its way to a political union. By the way, we also have trade with countries outside of the EC and of course some jobs are lost because of lower costs of production in other countries. Labour intensive but cheap goods can't be produced at competitive prices in prosperous countries. This doesn't mean that the countries in the EC would be more prosperous if they cut all trade with countries outside of their own economic zone. The same applies for the free market of the EC since it does not only creates more competition but also opens new possibilities for the member states. <BR> <BR>But I think that an important point is missed in the whole discussion: Is there an alternative to a closer political union? <BR> <BR>If the EC continues to grow, and I believe that this is necessary and in the best interest of all involved nations, the question arises how the decision making processes are organized. It's not just the question whether the nation states hand part of their autonomy to the EC. This has already happened. The question is whether a system designed to work for eight or ten nations can still work for 20. The most obvious point is of course the veto but there are also other problems for the 'government' and for the administration. The EC isn't organized in a very effective way and the already existing problems will become worse when the number of members increases. <BR> <BR>Assuming that the EC increases and assuming that the current system has to be reformed, what is the alternative to increased political union? I read a lot of the problems such a move might make but what else could be done? <BR> <BR>In my opinion, the EC will change towards greater political union because it is in the best interest of everybody. If we continue with the economic integration, sooner or later reforms of the political side have to happen or the administration isn't able to do its job in an effective way and in this case we will all suffer from it. <BR> <BR>Most arguments, especially the economic ones, were raised every time something was done about the EC. Still, most european countries want into the EC because it offers plenty of advantages. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>