Thoughts about the European Union.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
While it started as an Economical community the EU is slowly growing into something much more pervasive. For the first time in History a group of independent states decided to chare a growing number of their sovereign powers among themselves.

Actually this isn't true. The United States beat Europe to it. After the Revolution - each state was it's own country, with it's own coinage, own armies, etc. They were only very precariously linked through the Articles of Confederation. This was basically a treaty between the states or as Article III states ...

The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other

The Articles gave no back bone to the Federal Government and the Revolutionary alliance, which was held together by the Articles, was breaking apart.

Right before the Constitutional Convention - New Jersey and Connecticut were preparing armies to attack New York over tarriffs on goods. NY blocked the harbor and required ALL shipping to first dock in NY ports - so they could collect the trariffs.

One of the key arguments against The Constitution were the same arguments going on in Europe right now against the EU - the lose of sovereignty, self determination, culture, etc.

Here are some really good books I have that will give you an idea about what the US did in 1787and how the states had to overcome many of their differences to form the United States.

Anti-Federalist Papers
Federalist Papers
Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787
Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787

By the way - New York almost didn't sign - if it wasn't for Hamilton - because so much power went from the states to the federal government. They were particularly upset that they were no longer going to be able to collect on the tarriffs.
This is from the book - "The Spirit of 1787" concerning the New York convention....

When the sixty-five delegates began their work on June 17, the Anti-Federalists majority was so overwhelming that there was every reason to believe that the Empire State would reject the Constitution.

...came another development, even more alarming to the foes of the Constitution. Up the Hudson River came reports if the Poughkeepsie convention refused to ratify, the city of New York would break away from the state, hold it's own convention and join the Union.

The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) were a requirement before several states would agree to sign.

[Elvellon]

My fault, I’ve not been totally accurate; perhaps I should have used the words “independent nations” instead.

The idea I was referring was that of states not only autonomous, but also with a different cultural and national identity, including a different language and history. (I was giving a euro centric meaning to the word state)

As for the American states, while technically they may have enjoyed a degree of autonomy after the War of Independence, it seems to me it was too limited and too short. I doubt that they had the time to develop a strong national spirit and identity by the end of the war. And, as you pointed out, politically they had a degree of integration from the very start, since they were a confederation. They never were truly fully independent states (they only had the potentiality for full independence, that you refer in that near war episode), or were recognised as such by the international community.

On the other hand I’m not certain about Vermont. I’ve read somewhere it was independent from the US for 14 years, but I don’t recall the level of autonomy enjoyed.

[jerseydevil]

Well - true we were all part of the "British Empire" before the war - so technically we weren't free countries at that time. But there was a seperate culture among all states even then. The states did not get along very much - the Revolutionary War caused us to get together. The states were only brought together really to fight for Indepence. The Revolutionary War armies were made up of state militias. People still looked at themselves as being Virginians, New Jerseyans, New Yorkers first before anything else. This is one of the reasons today that people in ths US still have strong opinions on their states. The one thing we did have in common was a common language (something that Europe doesn't have).

Currently- instead of NJ and NY waging armies against one another - we fight in the courts. NJ has fought over the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island (because both are in our territorial waters), sued New York for their polluting of our shores and way too many things to even mention.

Concerning Vermont - Vermont technically became a "state" in 1777 when it broke off from New York and New Hampshire. It wasn't admitted into the Union until 1791 though.

I do agree that for us - putting aside our differences and forming a country - was a lot easier than I think it will be for Europe.

I did mean to answer your initial question about the EU though. I think it will be an uphill battle for Europe to get over it's nationalistic feelings and embrace the idea of becoming a single country in the true sense. I think they can eventually become a "United States of Europe" though, which in the long run I think would be good for them. However, it would not be in America's best interest I don't think (not that we would stop it).

I also think Russia may eventually join. If they did - it would be one of the best things for Russia. It would be the greatest chapter in their long turbulent history. I think Russia could finally live in peace and find some security and a standard of living that they have never had before.

Do you think that if Europe did become one country - similar to the US - do you think there would be years, maybe decades of terrorist attacks or armed conflict from some of the very hard core nationalist parties? I know there have already been backlashes against the EU - and right now it's not even a true government. European countries are going to have to overcome centuries of history and war with each other. True you guys are at peace right now and have been for a while - but World War II was only
about 55 years ago and there is still strong national feelings of seperateness.

I think it would be weird if Morocco became part of the EU - since it's not part of the European Continent. I think the US would have sever problems if Europe tried becoming an "Empire" again by expanding beyond the European continent. I also don't think in the long run it benefits countries to become that big. True the world is a much smaller place today than it was, but people in Africa have much different beliefs than Europeans. For one thing - how would representation with in a central government be formed. In the US we had the "great compromise" that created the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House was requested by the larger states (representation based on population) and the Senate was what the smaller states wanted (equal representation - 2 senators for each state). The other argument that came about during the Constitutional Convention was how to handle representation when new states were admitted into the Union. Many people argument for no representation for them at all - fearing (rightly so) that it would dilute the power of the states that had actually fought for Indepence. But the most fair thing overruled - and no matter when a state becomes part of the US it has the full rights of every other state.

Puerto Rico votes every five years as to whether to become a state, become independant or stay the way they are as a territory. So far they have voted to stay as a territory - followed closely by statehood. Everytime the vote comes up there are arguments by many states how if Puerto Rico becomes a state - it'll reduce several existing state's representation in Congress. Initially the breakdown in the House was one representative for every 30,000 people. This worked until it was figured out that the House would get too large. Now the House of Representatives has a fixed number at 435 members. Each member represents about 500,000 people.House of Representatives FAQ

[Elvellon]

I think they can eventually become a "United States of Europe" though, which in the long run I think would be good for them. However, it would not be in America's best interest I don't think (not that we would stop it).

It will all depend of the future of globalisation, but especially of inter-regional integration.
The EU and the US are, currently the strongest world economies. As such, they are natural competitors but, at the same time, they are the best market each other could have. A greater degree of European integration would create an even stronger economy, increasing both competitiveness of the EU (a negative feature for the US) and the size and wealth of the European market (something positive for the US).

Politically I doubt that we will see any relevant estrangement between the EU and the US. The EU and the US share the same ideals and are culturally similar (but not equal) and economically they will be probably even more integrated in the future. Occasional conflicts will probably occur, but I don’t believe they will create a rift between them. Especially if a third power, say China, becomes also a serious competitor.

I also think Russia may eventually join.

I’m not so sure about that. Russia is a nation apart. Its people have always oscillated between isolationists and Europhiles, and I’m not certain what will be the result this time.
Besides, it is simply too big, its integration in the EU may be something insurmountable to accomplish simply due to logistical problems (roughly, it would be like the US integrating Brazil). Also there is the fear of many eastern European countries. They certainly don’t want Russia as part of the EU.

If they did - it would be one of the best things for Russia. It would be the greatest chapter in their long turbulent history. I think Russia could finally live in peace and find some security and a standard of living that they have never had before.

It certainly is an almost impossible feat, but, if accomplished, it could be something with astonishing results, for all involved.

Do you think that if Europe did become one country - similar to the US - do you think there would be years, maybe decades of terrorist attacks or armed conflict from some of the very hard core nationalist parties? I know there have already been backlashes against the EU - and right now it's not even a true government. European countries are going to have to overcome centuries of history and war with each other. True you guys are at peace right now and have been for a while - but World War II was only about 55 years ago and there is still strong national feelings of seperateness.

It is far from certain that the EU will evolve into a state. Many things can still go wrong. The EU is, at present, in a critical situation; despite the current level of economical integration, politically it is very fragile. The present institutions are not capable of reacting to both external and internal problems (or more accurately, they can, some of the time. But this is despite the institutions and not because of them). And the future integration of eastern European countries will only dilute the capability of answer of the European institutions.

If the EU is to become a country, it will need a radical alteration of its political institutions. Still, it is not very likely we will adopt a presidential form of government. It is more likely it will evolve into a parliamentary republic. (It would avoid nationalistic jalousies among the European nations

As for your question proper, I doubt we will see nationalist terrorism in Western Europe (further than the current ones). The large majority of the population of Western Europe don’t want to risk another war, precisely because they remember the two World Wars, and frankly, because a long history of wars before that. Besides, present day Western European nationalisms are (for the most part) much more subdued, there are still extremists but they an anachronism, and an embarrassment for the more progressive nationalists.

Nationalist terrorists usually believe they have the support of their national populations, but in Western Europe they have become very isolated and abhorred. They are the leftovers of another era (and they are special cases, Irish and Basque separatism is old, and present day terrorism is but the last incarnation of it). It is unlikely nationalists elsewhere will revert to such tactics, since it is the fastest and surest way to make one’s opinions and goals unpopular with the European populations. Much more likely is the rebirth and/or growth of populist/nationalist parties.

It is also important to notice that the press have usually oversimplified the tensions between europeists and nationalists. There is a certain divorce between the European politicians and their national populations, meaning that the construction of the EU have been mostly the work of the politicians and that the populations have not been called to take decisions often enough. This is a serious mistake. Wile it allowed integration to go faster than otherwise, it made it also much more fragile, since the population don’t feel as being part of the EU construction.
Many critics of the EU are not against the idea of a United Europe per se, but against the way it is being done. Others have different concepts of the degree of integration desirable and of how it should be achieved. It certainly can’t be simplified between those who want a federal Europe, and those who want to revert to the nation-state previous to the EEC.

More complex is the situation of Eastern Europe. Here nationalisms are more likely to take a violent tone (as we saw in the ex-Yugoslavia).

It seems worthy of consideration to me the question some europeans have asked: should the EU consolidate itself first and postpone the integration of the East?
Despite the urgency of aiding the East, it may be extremely difficult for the EU to solve it’s own internal political and social problems after the eastern countries joining it (considering the present level of difficulties). This could result in a crisis sometime into the future.

[Elvellon]

I think it would be weird if Morocco became part of the EU - since it's not part of the European Continent. I think the US would have sever problems if Europe tried becoming an "Empire" again by expanding beyond the European continent

Well, at least at present this is not being truly considered as an option by the EU. Yet, what is truly interesting is that this was brought up by Morocco (and if I’m not mistaken, there was some similar talk in Tunisia).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon

It will all depend of the future of globalisation, but especially of inter-regional integration.
The EU and the US are, currently the strongest world economies. As such, they are natural competitors but, at the same time, they are the best market each other could have. A greater degree of European integration would create an even stronger economy, increasing both competitiveness of the EU (a negative feature for the US) and the size and wealth of the European market (something positive for the US).

Politically I doubt that we will see any relevant estrangement between the EU and the US. The EU and the US share the same ideals and are culturally similar (but not equal) and economically they will be probably even more integrated in the future. Occasional conflicts will probably occur, but I don’t believe they will create a rift between them. Especially if a third power, say China, becomes also a serious competitor.

The US and Europe I don't think will be at war with each other - hopefully not within my lifetime at least. As you stated, the great thing about being major trading partners - it make war EXTREMELY expensive. Countries don't go to war against countries that they have major economic ties with.

I also agree - it does have good and bad points for the US. I support Europe becoming more united.

I’m not so sure about that. Russia is a nation apart. Its people have always oscillated between isolationists and Europhiles, and I’m not certain what will be the result this time.
Besides, it is simply too big, its integration in the EU may be something insurmountable to accomplish simply due to logistical problems (roughly, it would be like the US integrating Brazil). Also there is the fear of many eastern European countries. They certainly don’t want Russia as part of the EU.

The one different between Russia for Europe and Brazil for America - is that Russia is next door. Brazil from America is an entire hemisiphere away with many countries seperating the two. Brazil is also part of the South American Continent. We would incorporate Mexico and Canada first - and I don't see that happening. (I know that your Brazil thing was just an example of the differences between Western Europe and Russia)

I do agree that Russia is probably too big. I have a hard time picturing Russia (beyond the Ural Mountains_ becoming part of a United Europe.
From California to NJ is the same distance as western France to the Ural Mountains. Canada has talked many times of becoming part of the US - I used to think it would be a good idea. I don't anymore - their political system is too different and their political beliefs - it would drastically affect the equilbrium in the US Congress and would also water down too many of the existing state's representatives in the House.

Except for Puerto Rico and the other existing US terroritories becoming states - I think the US is the perfect size and we should not bring anymore states into the Union. I think Puerto Rico should just decide finally - does it want to be a state or does it want to be independant. They don't want to become a state for several reasons - they lose their national identity (although they are US citizens and they carry US passports anyway) and they lose their olympic team. The other thing was the language - many do not speak English. Continental US REFUSES to have a second "official" language. Those seemed to be the key arguments I heard last time it was up for election.
Facts About Puerto Rico (Statehood)
Puerto Rico Statehood Manifesto
When reading the Statehood Manifesto - remember that Puerto Rico votes to change their status. Once a majority of votes go towrd statehood or independence - then it will go before Congress.
Welcome to Puerto Rico: Government

It certainly is an almost impossible feat, but, if accomplished, it could be something with astonishing results, for all involved.

One of the big things that would come out of Russia becoming part of the EU - is it would help them with their "everyone is out to get us" feeling. History shows that they are right - their country has been repeatedly attacked from both the east and west. I think them becoming partial members of NATO has really help tie them close to Europe and the west and hopefully they will continue to grow into a true ally. I think most Americans already consider Russia as an ally - no longer an adversary.

If the EU is to become a country, it will need a radical alteration of its political institutions. Still, it is not very likely we will adopt a presidential form of government. It is more likely it will evolve into a parliamentary republic. (It would avoid nationalistic jalousies among the European nations

I seriously doubted they would adopt a president. I figured they would have a Prime Minister - with representation among the "states" (currently countries) being members of a parliamen ( sort of similar to our congress being the representatives of the states to the Federal Government).

It is also important to notice that the press have usually oversimplified the tensions between europeists and nationalists. There is a certain divorce between the European politicians and their national populations, meaning that the construction of the EU have been mostly the work of the politicians and that the populations have not been called to take decisions often enough. This is a serious mistake. Wile it allowed integration to go faster than otherwise, it made it also much more fragile, since the population don’t feel as being part of the EU construction.

Many critics of the EU are not against the idea of a United Europe per se, but against the way it is being done. Others have different concepts of the degree of integration desirable and of how it should be achieved. It certainly can’t be simplified between those who want a federal Europe, and those who want to revert to the nation-state previous to the EEC.

It's just hard to see this somethimes when Le Pen gets voted as the "runner up" in Frence elections. Luckily it brought faith back to the US that France voted decidedly against him and his party in final elections. The US was very concerned over what was going on in Europe with that. It would be like the US having a KKK or white supremicist member elected as the presidential candidate for the Republican or Democratic Party. We are all too aware that neo-nazism and facism is not dead - in your part of the world or ours.

More complex is the situation of Eastern Europe. Here nationalisms are more likely to take a violent tone (as we saw in the ex-Yugoslavia).

It seems worthy of consideration to me the question some europeans have asked: should the EU consolidate itself first and postpone the integration of the East?
Despite the urgency of aiding the East, it may be extremely difficult for the EU to solve it’s own internal political and social problems after the eastern countries joining it (considering the present level of difficulties). This could result in a crisis sometime into the future.

I think Yogolavia is a unique situtation. I don't think you would see that kind of problem with Romania or Poland or the Czech Republic. Yugoslavia's problems go back 100's and 1000's of years and it was only through the force of communism that it kept that in check. No other former east block countries, except Checnya, has had that kind of violence or went into complete disarray after the break up of the Soviet Union.

My personal feeling concerning your question about whether the EU should incorporate eastern Europe immediately or later. I think the EU should plan out what it wants to become first - work with the existing membership on that. If it's going to become a new country - then do it (which would be a slow process because of the histories of the countries involved). If it's only economic than get the current members in order under the Euro before taking in other countries. They shouldn't introduce too many variables into the equation - otherwise it may just fail. Get the thing tested out with the current strong members then worry about taking in the weaker parts. Eastern Europe still does not have the economic strength that even the weakest Western European country has.

[Cirdan]

The Russia question is a bit hard to pin down at this point. Their economy is still very shaky even though they still weild a good deal of influence in some of the weaker "fossil" nations like Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kahzakstan. The tribal Khanates and ancient border disputes leave them dependent on Russia as a mechanism for economic and political stability. Oil in the region has only bolstered the strongman dictatorships and corruption in these areas. The few prosper while foreign elements take advantage.

The Ukraine and Belarus, while posessing many natural resources, have been decimated by years of comminist rule, pollution, and chernobyl. They are more culturally and politically tied to Russia than to the west, so any transition to a western style economy that is compatible with the will be slow in coming.

The animosities in the Balkans are not limited to the former Yugoslav republics and current rebellious provinces. Tensions between Greece and Macedonia, Bulgaria and Romania, Greece and Turkey, Bulgaria and Macedonia, and everybody and Albania (it is a mess!) are twisted in a convulsion of ethnic differences, border disputes, religious differences, and unforgotten historical atrocities on all sides. The the glimmer of hope is that economic reform and political stability that NATO admission and possible entrance into the EU.

There are roadblocks such as the split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic elements that have been addressed to some degree. The Pope recently visited Bulgaria despite their involvement in the assasination attempt on his life.

While the EU may be a competitor with the US the number of companies in one controlled by the interests in the other makes them more parners than anything. The regional trade agreements in areas with common interests should be a good tool to stabilize some of these regions. Nothing makes people get along like prosperity!

[jerseydevil]

I agree that Russia is a while off and still in finacial trouble. Hopefully things in that region of the world will calm down. I've heard about some of the growing conflicts in those areas - but still, at this time, nothing compared to Yugoslavia (except Checnya, which still isn't AS bad). Also - there are some countries that could probably make it in the EU - such as Poland and Czech Rebulic and Austria. But even for them it would be hard to just become a member of the EU.

And your comment about nothing makes people get along like prosperity is 100% correct. I think we've done a pretty good job with trying to foster trade between the former East Bloc countries.

[bropous]

Well, there would be no real problem with the European Union if they had just a little less of the leftism which tore Europe apart the majority of the twentieth century. From Nazism to Fascism to Communism to Socialism, europe has time and again limited its true potential by interfering in the productiveness of the individual and mistrust of business interests.

Additionally, the crushing burden of socialistic give-aways and support of the mommy-state have restricted european commercial growth, have made european goods non-competitive on the world markets, and the new isolationism brewing out of Deutschland and my own mother country, France, ignores true threats to peace and stability and seeks to allow other nations to take care of security while europe, besotted in its superior attitudes and its willingness to coddle nations which threaten their neighbors far, far away from Europe simply add to the world opinion that a united Europe will not be as major a player on the world stage as, say, the United States or Russia.

Europe may awaken from its collective malaise, but just as no true hero has come out of France since 1815, no true hero has issued forth from Europe since 1945.

How quickly they forget.

[Cirdan]

Most first world countries, including the US, have adopted the social welfare aspects of the socialist model that were useful while discarding the flawed economic model. Our current standard of living would be, on average lower, if this was not so. The social safety net and the regulated but not managed economy accounts for the greater overall stability since the Great Depression. The attempts at true deregulation lead to the Savings and Loan debacle of the 80's and the corporate corruption scandals of the current period.

Europe is smart to focus on social aspects since they already spent centuries devoting themselves to wars. They will have to make some major adjustments to accommodate the graying of the population. France in particular has made it too easy to survive without working.

There are often mischaracterisations about the French because they bore the brunt of the German Hegemony in the last two centuries after the Napoleonic era. I think maybe you are referring to heroic leadership. Many valiant frenchmen died stopping the German advance in WWI. Losing doesn't preclude heroism.

Also, the Nazis and Fascists were right-wing extremists and used the socialist label much the way dictators use the democratic label; mainly for propaganda purposes. The Nazis hated the communists and used the balash of the fear of communism, in part, to ascend to power.

The coutries with the biggest challenges are those now entering the union. Romania has never really operated as a normal, independent, peaceful state. The nations that were subject to the Ottomans and the communists have no history of running a democratic and properous country. The EU will be a great influence by pushing democratic reforms as linked to economic advance.

[bropous]

The Nationalist Socialist Party was most certainly a government of the Left in a the best traditions of Socialism. The same mistrust of the individual in basic life and in commerce were hallmarks of both the Nazis and the current mommy-state socialists.

It may be popular to call Nazis and Fascists "right wing", but that is a misnomer; the "right" end of the political spectrum tends to respect the individual and riles at the notion that government oversight is required in all aspects of society, and the "left" end of the political science spectrum riles at the idea that the individual can regulate his/her own actions and commerce without government oversight. Simply put, leftists distrust the individual to provide for and keep peace himeslf/herself, and therefore the force of government is needed to regulate such interactions.

Admittedly, I am speaking pure political science.

Part of the confusion is that in the US, the party of the "left," the Democrats, actually espouse some conservative issue and the Republicans, the party of the "right," actually back a lot of liberal issues. The removal of government from issues in the bedroom are seen as a "liberal" position, but in a true sense, it is a CONSERVATIVE position. The use of the government to restrict the right of an individual to possess and use drugs may be characterized incorrectly as a "conservative" position, but in reality, it is a LIBERAL position.

On another point, true, there has been quite a good amount of socialism which has been adopted in the United States, and not necessarily for the better. However, I take great exception to the point that were it not for a social safety net and government interference in commerce that the natural outgrowth would be a lower standard of living for all people. Our family was quite poor when I was a young-'un, and yet without the reliance on a social safety net me, my brothers and sisters ended up being the first generation in our family to go to college. We got there by hard work.

Socialism ignores and frustrates individual initiative and removes responsibility from the individual for his/her own condition. It is far easier to blame a monolithic government for one's own condition than to take the responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions and inactions.

A society should help those who cannot care for themselves, that is a moral position and supportable in view of the inability of SOME members of society to provide for themselves, and it should be ONLY those who cannot care for themselves who should receive assistance from a government. Any extension of support to people who are capable of providing for themselves in a free market is simply the theft of the tax dollars of one citizen who works to support another who does not want to.

THAT is part and parcel of why the European Union is destined to join the ranks of the Hanseatic League and the League of Nations unless it is able to begin to pare back the scale of social support programs which pay able-bodied people not to work. Eventually the number of debits against the public exhequer is going to overcome the number of credits put there by taxpaying workers and the social safety net will collapse. Unfortunately a lot of folks are too happy with living on the dole to worry about what will happen to the entire society when their economy completely collapses.

[Cirdan]

Only looking at the political and judicial views of a form of government completely neglects the economic philosophies of the system. If you use totalitarian to describe those systems which put the state over the individual and promote order over freedom, then you must evaluate how the country manages it's economy. A right-wing government favors an open economy and and limited group freedom. A left-wing government favors a highly managed economy with limited individual freedom. Most governments in any extreme will become more totalitarian because they hold belief not in common with the majority of the population. Historically the have gained power by force, usually during a time of extreme weakness of leadership in government.

Social safety nets do serve to help people through unfortunate cicumstances. The recent reforms in the US have helped reduce the ability of people to ride the gravy train for free. I can personally attest to the fact that without unemployment insurance I might have lost my house during this economic downturn. Because I worked for 18 years without interruption, I don't feel guilty getting help while I get back on my feet. It is an investment to help people not fall into such dire circumstance that they are unable to recover. Assistance should never be allowed to become a lifestyle for people who live outside the law and collect a government check as a perk. France would probably have half the unemployment rate if it wasn''t so easy to get by without working. Sometimes the free market doesn't work for everyone because it may no be economically feasable. The free market may be a good economic model but it is a flawed social model.

I think the euro model will adapt and change because it has a strong tradition of higher education and enlightened thought. Some will have a more difficult time than others, of course.

I loved the Hanseatic League reference. Long live the Hansa

[Elvellon]

Well, there would be no real problem with the European Union if they had just a little less of the leftism which tore Europe apart the majority of the twentieth century. From Nazism to Fascism to Communism to Socialism, europe has time and again limited its true potential by interfering in the productiveness of the individual and mistrust of business interests

Unlikely. Disregarding your concept of leftism (with what I personally disagree) the welfare state allowed Europe a high level of prosperity, at the same time mitigating the worst existing social tensions that were so common in Europe.

Frankly, if you dismantled most of what survives of the welfare state, you wouldn’t be contributing to solve Europe’s problems, but instead, you would be creating and rekindling ancient ones.

The EU isn’t the US. The dismantling of the Welfare State as a mean to stimulate the economy, in an attempt to emulate the US, disregards that the EU has many economic and social specificities. The economy would fail to respond at the desired level and, at the same time, new (and old) social problems would emerge as a result.

Additionally, the crushing burden of socialistic give-aways and support of the mommy-state have restricted european commercial growth, have made european goods non-competitive on the world markets,

The “crushing burden” of the Welfare State has been greatly exaggerated. It isn’t as significant to Europe’s competitiveness as some would like us to believe. Many economists that so defend seem to conveniently forget all the other factors involved; even forgetting simple things, like productivity levels and the results the Welfare State have in creating a more stable market.

and the new isolationism brewing out of Deutschland and my own mother country, France, ignores true threats to peace and stability and seeks to allow other nations to take care of security while europe, besotted in its superior attitudes and its willingness to coddle nations which threaten their neighbors far, far away from Europe simply add to the world opinion that a united Europe will not be as major a player on the world stage as, say, the United States or Russia.

Not really. Europe don’t have a problem of isolationism as, say, the US may have. The unwillingness of some European states to support unilateral actions of the US (or that, at least, are seen as such by them) isn’t because of a desire of isolation of the world affairs. On the contrary, it is born of the desire to implement their view on those affairs; both including the defence of what the French see as their interest in the Middle East, and the desire of safeguarding the role of the UN. The desire of non-involvement of the germans is still in great part the result of post war trauma, the memory of WWII isn’t wipeout of the collective memory (as it isn’t from many Europeans in fact, making Europe, that suffered devastation in its own soil, much more unwilling to consider war as an alternative). However, Europe is generally much more aware of the outside world that it seems to be the norm in the US (or so it seems to many Europeans that visit or live in the US).

[Elvellon]

The Nationalist Socialist Party was most certainly a government of the Left in a the best traditions of Socialism. The same mistrust of the individual in basic life and in commerce were hallmarks of both the Nazis and the current mommy-state socialists.

I certainly don’t agree with you, there is no similitude between modern social democracies and Nazism, any way you may want to look at it.

Mistrust of the individual? Why? Because state direct intervention and regulative function?
But that cannot be equated with your conclusion. Even the economically liberal minded right defend some level of state intervention and regulation (Law, police and the like), so what is at stake is how much regulation needs a society to have to function normally. This is true for both the democratic right as it is for the left.

the "right" end of the political spectrum tends to respect the individual and riles at the notion that government oversight is required in all aspects of society,

No offence intended, but that is as wrong as it can be. My own country suffered a right wing dictatorship for a very long while. There wasn’t any respect for the individual then, only for some individuals, at the expense of all the rest (and yes, it most certainly was a right wing dictatorship). It is true that “some” right is as you claim, but certainly not all, not even today. Those ideals of respect for the individual are far from being a monopoly of the right (and during most of history were at odds with it).

and the "left" end of the political science spectrum riles at the idea that the individual can regulate his/her own actions and commerce without government oversight. Simply put, leftists distrust the individual to provide for and keep peace himeslf/herself, and therefore the force of government is needed to regulate such interactions.

No, you seem to have got it wrong there. As the democratic left sees it, state intervention and regulation isn’t defended as a way to control the individual, but as a way of correcting economical disturbances and inefficiencies that the Market is incapable of taking care by itself. Restrictions imposed upon the individual conduct are secondary; they are not the goal. It is not the individual, but the perfection of the Market Economy model, that democratic left is suspicious about.

[bropous]

Sorry you don;t want to admit the truth when it comes to the political left.

The Nazis were most certainly EXACTLY as I described them.

It is intellectually lazy to simply accept the mass media definition of political science terms, but a good, solid look at OBJECTIVE political science will most assuredly reinforce everything I have said about the Left. AND the Right.

The Left has quite simply a vested interest in laying the guilt for most of the crimes against humanity occurring in the twentieth century at the feet of the Right, and has co-opted the educational system in order to cement its heterodoxy in the minds of mankind. It is almost impossible to find a self-admitted conservative in history classrooms, and far more rare is a true conservative in a college classroom.

The fact is, the Left has simply rewritten history in an attempt to paint the left as some touchy-feely, unicorns-capering-in-the-dewy-grass kind of feel-good movement with the best interests of the species in mind in all its actions. Reality is, in fact, far different.

Look at the major mass murderers in the twentieth century, and all of them, without exception, were Leftists:

Lenin
Beria
Stalin
Hitler
Kruschev
Brezhnev
Kosyigin
Pol Pot
Mao tse-Tung.
Castro
Guevara
Franco

Every last one of these monsters were in goose-step with the marching orders of the Left: Use the government to control the individual. Damn human rights, the rights of the individual are not important, the State is the important thing. The over-arching common thread in the rule of each of these despots, and their myriad carbon copies across the globe, was a reliance on using governmental power to limit and retard the growth and productivity of the individual by slaving his production of goods and services to systems used to redistribute wealth, with the lion's share of that redistribution going directly into the coffers of the government.

"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day (and, I might add, he will be back again the next day asking for another one); TEACH him to fish, and he eats for life."

This is the inherent flaw in Leftism, and why it will be the downfall of the European Union if the current trends in Spain, Ireland, Italy and Austria do not gain greater influence in the counsels of Brussels.

Leftism is "everybody in the cart, never you mind who's gonna pull it." In the end, the cart remains stationary.

In a welfare state, when the taxation of workers becomes too onerous, and the prospects of the Dole become too alluring, the society is destined to fail because eventually the Payors to the system become overwhelmed by the Payees.

Taking care of people who cannot take care of themselves is the correct thing to do. Creating a dependent class so massah up in da Big House gots plenny of riches while de field hands starve is the natural outgrowth of the failed and murderous policies of the Left. Leftists are responsible for the majority of the murder which occurred in the twentieth century, or, rather, the failed ideology [SOME, and none in present company] bleat so vociferously has been.

[With that I shut my mouth on politics. Yup, I am a conservative, a proud American, and right now I am too worked up in a patriotic fever about the whole war to discuss political differences politely.]

I do much better discussing Tolkien. I tend to tick people off far less. Well, maybe a BIT less.

[Cirdan]

It's simply revisionist history to say that Hilter was a leftist. He himself considered himself so. He hated the communists so how could they both be on the same side? No one of the period evr thought otherwise, so why rewrite history to suit some current political agenda?

[Dunadan]

One of the best things about Europe is that the states are fairly strong and interventionist. Broupus may be surprised to know that this does not include lining its citizens up against the wall.

I would regard how a country treats its poorest citizens as an important measure of how civilised it is. There is a tangible sense of collective responsibility in every European country (well, all the ones I have visited). The welfare state is the left's real legacy to the 21st century.

(I might also point out that state-sponsored murder is not practised in the EU, though I could mention some other "developed" nations where it is)

The most important reason why the European Union is good is that there is a chance that elected agents can get their act together to combat rampant global capitalism. The main question is whether we will stop squabbling long enough to do so in a cohesive manner. They are starting to do this at some levels, but there is a long way to go.

That doesn't mean we lose our identities. Wales, for example, was joined (not mere federation) to England in 1301 but they still have their own language, arts, sports, leeks, etc. The really exciting idea is that legislative power can be devolved to more local levels at the same time, as is happening here in the UK.

[Cirdan]

mmmmmmmmm... leeks. I made leek soup yesterday.

Yes, there is probably nothing but good coming from the EU. Certainly there will be logistical problems, but it beats the way things were 100 years ago.

[Elvellon]

Well, once again I’ve to disagree with you, Bropous.

Let’s look at what you say:

It is intellectually lazy to simply accept the mass media definition of political science terms, but a good, solid look at OBJECTIVE political science will most assuredly reinforce everything I have said about the Left. AND the Right.

I wish it were so Bropous, I wish that my knowledge of the totalitarian Right would be merely that of a intellectually lazy person, content with what a ineffectual media feeds him. Unfortunately it is not so.

You are most likely American. Your real life knowledge of the Right is therefore most probably limited to the traditionally democratic, economically liberal American Right. That seems to colour your definition of what is the Right and what is not. Understandably, you wish to limit the definition of right to what you personally know and identify with. Understandable, but incorrect.

As you most probably know, your classification of what is Right and what is Left would be far from being generally accepted by those who have an interest in political science.

You fail to take into account essential things; like the economical system and social goals, and focus on superficial characteristics that don’t really serve to make any accurate definition.

Totalitarianism and state intervention are not, nor ever were, considered as exclusive from the Left. Nor are democracy and individual rights considered exclusive from the Right. Nor are they considered necessary elements to define Right and Left.

You fail to see that under the flag of “Right” and “Left” there are many currents, and that, furthermore, it doesn’t exist a “pure” Right (or Left) ideology (and certainly not one that was applied with any significant degree of “purity”), nor ever were one accepted as such.

The Left has quite simply a vested interest in laying the guilt for most of the crimes against humanity occurring in the twentieth century at the feet of the Right, and has co-opted the educational system in order to cement its heterodoxy in the minds of mankind. It is almost impossible to find a self-admitted conservative in history classrooms, and far more rare is a true conservative in a college classroom.

The fact is, the Left has simply rewritten history in an attempt to paint the left as some touchy-feely, unicorns-capering-in-the-dewy-grass kind of feel-good movement with the best interests of the species in mind in all its actions. Reality is, in fact, far different.

Revisionism? Frankly it sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory. Look around you. Do you think that those Americans of the Democrat party are a bunch of secret friends of ol’ Mao and Joe Stalin? Were Kennedy and the Soviets just playing a game during the missile crisis? Is the media everywhere (even those privately held) just a pawn of the “demonic” Left?

Look at the major mass murderers in the twentieth century, and all of them, without exception, were Leftists:

Lenin
Beria
Stalin
Hitler
Kruschev
Brezhnev
Kosyigin
Pol Pot
Mao tse-Tung.
Castro
Guevara
Franco

Every last one of these monsters were in goose-step with the marching orders of the Left: Use the government to control the individual. Damn human rights, the rights of the individual are not important, the State is the important thing. The over-arching common thread in the rule of each of these despots, and their myriad carbon copies across the globe, was a reliance on using governmental power to limit and retard the growth and productivity of the individual by slaving his production of goods and services to systems used to redistribute wealth, with the lion's share of that redistribution going directly into the coffers of the government.

No, they are most definitely not all leftists.

I noticed you have not included some of other names that deserve to be in the list of the dictators of the XX century:
Mussolini, Salazar (the right wing dictator of my own country btw), and a plethora of South American dictators (most Right wing, some left), etc.

That you seem to fink that a dictator as Franco (and I guess you would say the same of his buddy Salazar) was a leftist dictator is beyond my ken. Based in what?
State intervention and lack of human rights?
What about simple things as the economic model or the social model? To most of us that are still the relevant issues in defining what is Right and what is Left.
And you know what? Those dictators (Franco , Salazar) and their cohorts never considered themselves as anything else but good defenders of the Right…

And I’m not even going to argue again over Hither and the Nazism…

[Elvellon]

In a welfare state, when the taxation of workers becomes too onerous, and the prospects of the Dole become too alluring, the society is destined to fail because eventually the Payors to the system become overwhelmed by the Payees.

Bropous, your notion of the role of the welfare state seems to be seriously outdated.
You seem to believe that in the modern European democracies the state simply supports those out of a job. Not so.

The role of the state is much more complex.
It serves a broker between those that look for a job and those that offer them.
It offers professional tutoring. Allowing for a recycling of those that have no skills wanted in the present market.

In essence, it serves to diminish the time of unemployment and offer solutions. Your concept of “give them money and forget’em” is totally obsolete in most countries.