I think the EU is getting an amazing amount of work done, if you consider that it consists of 28 nation states which went to war with each other regularly for centuries up to a couple of decades ago...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark%E2%80%93Sweden_relation...
"According to science, ..." and "in Sweden, they have..."
For anyone not familiar with the relationship: the two countries are closer than most neighbouring States in the US are; language is so close that people speak their own in conversation (think US vs. British English) and not only going from one country to the next is simpler and cheaper than going across London, but there is less identity checks.
Here is a non-exhaustive list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dano-Swedish_war
[0] The Hundred Years' War sort of ruins the statistics in terms of years at war.
In fact, do the English like anyone at all..?
We're amazingly tolerant, living in peace when surrounded by people we don't like ;)
The entire concept of the EU is that a straightforward homogenous marketplace engenders trade which in turn engenders peace, as attacking your trading partners is rarely a beneficial move.
Nuclear weapons and MAD were extant before the EEC and throughout its existence, and have not played a role in the stability of Europe beyond having a common foe on the doorstep to the east.
Colonialism/imperialism most certainly has not ended. Many European nations have territories dotted around the globe, many of which are still highly contentious, and the US continues to act on moral principals which fall squarely out of the big book of empire-building.
The EU/EC/EEC has achieved plenty - but we humans are not accustomed to understanding accomplishments or progress which occurs on a timescale beyond our own limited lives.
Some of these territories are considered to be part of the European Union, resulting in the slightly amusing fact that part of South America (French Guiana) is in fact part of the EU!
It's easy not to fight when there's nothing to fight over and you've got a massive bear beating at the door.
I'm not claiming the EU's done nothing, I think it's made Europe richer, increased growth, etc., I'm claiming the EU had nothing to do with peace in Europe. Europe would still be at peace today with or without a common market. Especially given that the UK didn't join for 25 years and a bunch more in the 80s and then more recently. And the UK invaded Egypt with France before they were both in the EEC.
That was NATO and mutual fear and needing protection from US doing that, not the EU. It was simply being in club capitalism and being very scared of club communism.
And the world changed, become smaller. Which developed nations have gone to war with each other since WW2? No European country invaded Norway for it's oil. The UK is seriously talking about letting Scotland drift away without going to war in it. Territory's not the same as it was.
Again, my claim is that Europe would still be at peace today with or without a common market, there's literally been no reason to fight.
Argentina / UK for one. And the Balkan conflicts for two.
I give you the Argentina/UK one, but that seriously almost didn't happen. And is really one of the last, thorny, vestiges of colonialism, like Israel.
But how does that differ to WWII? Sure, reparations, polish corridor (not a reason at all), rise of fascism - but those things happened in a Europe that had sworn it would never fight again at Versailles. LN failed impressively because it was oriented around arms control and security pacts, rather than trade agreements - it attempted to treat the symptoms, not the cause. NATO isn't dissimilar, but functions as the economic end of things is looked after by the EU.
Fundamentally, it's hard to either prove or disprove, as the only reference points we have are other similar historical contexts, but my money is on trade being a great enabler. Worked for the Romans, until they switched to military dominance (because they ended up with a plutarchy due to the traders (senators) getting richer, who ended up with private armies), at which point it all fell apart. Again, many other factors, and all of history is a great big murk from which we have to try to model what happens today.
In 2000, however, there are no practical reasons for such wars (at least in Europe), as annexing a part of your neighbour would gain you little and hurt you a lot due to the trade impact.
Which non-European developed countries have previously gone to war with each other as regularly as European nations?
Also compare the situation in Europe to that in e.g. east Asia with its rather curious barking over tiny islands or even eastern, non-EU Europe where an independent nation was just invaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Communi...
And there the reason for the ECSC, as stated by its "father" Robert Schuman: ----- He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr. ----
So, would Germany have attacked other countries again without the ECSC? No one knows, because crystal balls are bugged again. But we know that the stated reason for the ECSC (and everything that followed) was the fear that Germany would do this. And this fear lead to the idea of making war against each other impossible. And that worked quite well so far.
It's simply a political ideal, and an incredibly out-dated one at that. And I believe it's as deluded as communism, it's simply not how humans work. We don't share cultures, we have different values. Other countries are splitting up in the world today, splitting into their ethnic groups, where the EU is bizarrely trying to combine them.
The EU hasn't been tested. It's not had a single test because for decades the pressure the Cold War forced co-operation, and after the cold war finished we had a massive economic bubble, meaning everyone was swimming in cash.
We've finally had the crash and it doesn't look all that swimmingly amazing or stable in the EU any more.
You think if fascists seized control of Greece they would magically be peaceful because they're in the EU?
In reality, it's a delusion to believe that ethnicities and cultures can be divided by national borders. This hasn't ever worked except maybe on some islands. And not even in Great Britain, which consists of islands.
Even after the crash, Europe (and each and every of its members) is immensely more wealthy than after WWII, and still more wealthy than ever before.
Fascists did seize control of Greece several times, never under EU membership though. The EU did force Greece to get its affairs in order. But it sure wasn't pretty to watch...
Yugoslavia on the one side and NATO on the other. Like, twice. (And those may have started as internal Yugoslav conflicts, but then, WW1 started as an internal Austro-Hungarian conflict, too.)
> post-Yugoslavia wars (is there a name for them?)
Also wasn't there Hundred Year War, or are we sticking to modern ages?
I’m quite convinced that the EU and its predecessors were instrumental in keeping Western Europe very stable and very peaceful. The cold war helped, sure, but even 24 years after the end of that stability and peace aren‘t even threatened a little bit. Conflicts can and are routinely solved politically, not through any passive aggressive grandstanding that marks so many other international relationships. (I have always said that to judge supra-national institutions you have to look at how they deal with conflict, not how often they agree or how harmonious they sound when everyone has the same opinion. Those institutions exist to work constructively on solutions for conflicts and problems, that’s when you have to evaluate them. And there is nothing wrong with differences in opinion existing if institutions are in place to resolve that and find a compromise.)
Additionally the EU has been very profitable for very many European companies. Creating a common market (still imperfect and still more to profit companies than people, of course) has been a major advantage for everyone.
To the contrast, my partner was born and raised close to the Belarussian border and that's still like I remember borders: Armed guards, passport check, fences, need a visa to cross. 20km of queue, 36hours of wait for trucks trying to pass the border.
_This_ is what the European Union achieved. It's still messy and there's a lot of things that go wrong and possibly that will never really change, because a union of such diverse people with such diverse and distinct history will never be able to figure out how to cater to all needs in a fair way, but the achievement of having no separating border between so many countries with different rules and regulations, it's just amazing and I cherish it every day and I'm deeply saddened every time I meet people that can't see it.
Which is kind of a shame, because there are few things that make one feel as free as driving past the empty booths of an abandoned checkpoint without even slowing down.
Also, the EU is not getting much useful done considering the millions that pour into it daily. The level of waste and bureaucracy is staggering. Moving the entire parliament between locations, the amount of money wasted in translating every document into every language, and so on.
The EU is obsessed with micromanaging every little detail of our lives. From regulations on fruit to banning things like light bulbs and vacuum cleaners. And the less said about the absolutely ridiculous nightmare that is "cookie law" the better. No one should be creating laws on what websites are allowed to do with cookies.
Thankfully the UK will not be part of the EU for too much longer. I give it 5 years at the most. (See the landslide win by UKIP in the debates this week).
If that doesn't happen, you can be pretty sure there will be wars in europe. Unchecked mass immigration tends to end up badly.
Because fuck those people who don't speak a certain language, amirite?
As someone from the US, some nanny-statism I dislike aside, I am very, very jealous of what the EU's getting done. They don't let corporations walk all over them, possible waste and bureaucracy issues aside.
No, because it shows how idiotic the EU is to start with. Trying to create laws that fit all countries, and then translating them into every language is just a silly waste of money.
OK, another example for you: The parliament MOVES from Brussels to Strasburg EACH MONTH!!! (From wikipedia) - "Each month, the EP moves back and forth to meet the EU obligation to hold meetings also in France."
What the hell is the point of that amount of waste and traveling?
The "ME ME ME" age of politics needs to end. And in some places, it appears it's moving towards that goal.
It's not about being selfish. It's about democracy and freedom. Imagine laws being created by people who don't even live on the same landmass as you, speak the same language, or know anything about your country or culture. Imagine if Brazil started making laws about what US citizens could do.
London is a 4 hour drive from Brussels.
Washington D.C. is a 41 hour drive from Seattle. And you can't even drive from D.C. to Hawaii.
When looking real hard at culture, I'm sure we can find as many differences between people from NY,NY and say Fairbanks, Alaska as we could between Londoners and Berliners.
I'm not against your arguments that the EU is a Bad Thing as such (I'm still on the fence on that one), but if you're thinking that US citizens cannot possibly relate to our issues with the EU since they're all nice and united, you could be in for a surprise.
With Europe, the UK is a different landmass, we all speak different languages, and we have centuries of complex history and culture.
Sure, the US varies quite a bit, but nothing like the amount that europe varies.
I'm glad to see a European that the idea of local government isn't completely lost upon.
Its also strange to see such a pro-centralization crowd on HN given that the causation relationship between diversity/decentralization and robustness of a complex network is well documented.
That is not "another example"; that is easily the most ridiculous waste of time and money in the EU. There's plenty of other waste, but none of it compares even remotely to this.
We're doing this to remain relevant and to prevent other nations from tearing us apart through uneven economic exchanges much like workers ensure they cannot be exploited by joining unions. It is a union and has all the perks (and problems!) associated with unionization.
Or are you of the other faction which actually believes you can have free trade without the EU, and even without talking to each other? Really, the alternative is 28*27 bilateral treaties on each and every issue in international trade. More, if you include Switzerland and Norway.
I think the back and forth isn't necessary. On the other hand, the parliament is regulating the biggest single economy in the world. I'd be careful of penny-pinching at the wrong end. And the parliament isn't the biggest cost in the EU budget. Quite the opposite.
You don't go to war with your major trading partners, it would be economic suicide. Of course, the EU isn't the only reason why there hasn't been (more) war, but it's a significant contributing factor along with organisations like NATO.
>From regulations on fruit
Ugh. I wish people would stop bringing this horrendous straw-man up. Those regulations replaced a dozen separate national regulations with one single European regulation. That's good for trade and good for consumers. It's not something to bitch about.
>Thankfully the UK will not be part of the EU for too much longer.
You may be waiting a lot longer than you think.
No, I won't. The public is overwhelmingly hostile, and demands a say in who is creating our laws.
There will be an absolute landslide victory for UKIP in the may elections, and the government will have to take note. If around 80% want to withdraw from Europe, you're going to have to do what they want at some point.
The public will demand we govern ourselves rather than be dictated to by some foreigners.
If not, I'm sure there will be wars pretty soon...
Yeah, I certainly hope so. Britain has been helding back European integration long enough :)
London is 2H30 from my home (Paris), but I found going to Roma or Barcelona more easy, since I don't need any ID (and don't have to deal with customs and the induced delays).
I board the train on the evening, and when I wake up I'me ready for a week-end abroad. It's also cheaper, but that can be explained by the technical feat required to create The Channel Tunnel.
I don’t know and don’t care about the former, but being able to implement remotely sensible policies without an American outpost sitting at the table will be a net plus for Europe, yes. I wonder why you guys wanted to join in the first place. Free tr…uce, free trace, free…trade, maybe?
EDIT: OTOH, is there any industry left in Britain that could benefit from ‘just’ free trade, as opposed to free movement of capital and such?
Not sure that qualifies as 'overwhelmingly hostile', especially with so many undecideds.
As an outside observer from another continent, pitching the idea of an in-out referendum struck me more like your politicians simultaneously punting and pandering on the issue without actually caring to leave the EU. Especially considering that your current government refused to even try and make the referendum happen unless you reelect them first. The further you get from the 2008 economic meltdown the less you'll care to leave the EU and they know it.
I just checked the polling and even though a few years ago there was a 25 percentage point lean towards leaving, it's declined over the years and I'm completely unsurprised to see today that in March opinion has started leaning towards staying.
Current opinion polls would beg to differ. Labour is polling first and UKIP and the Conservatives are vying for 2nd place.
And as for a referendum, ~43% want to remain in the EU with ~36% wanting to leave.
I suggest you go read up on WWI.
If you think the EU is too bureaucratic and wasteful, you might be right. But just consider the alternative, if you wanted a free trade zone and international cooperations in all sorts of areas between 28 nations. You would have to negotiate bilateral treaties between 28 nations.
Another good point for the EU is that it demands democratic standards from all the members.
I don't... I don't see any upside to increased centralisation and globalisation.
How do you think google trains their translation algorithms?
(They also use the UN equivalents.)