United Europe?

[rfmcdpei]

Kevin Clark, at Pentapod's World, argued that 2300AD closely parallels developments in the 19th century, complete with the decline of France as a hegemonic power caused by a war with a rising Germany and the development of America as a major power within its own frontiers.

Keeping this intriuging possibility in mind, one might note that there is a possibility of Europe responding to its relative decline (the growth of Asian, Western Hemispheric, and African first-tier powers) by grouping together inside a European Union of sorts.

Britain wouldn't be likely to join this bloc, given its transatlantic and French Arm commitments. Likewise France--if anything the fact that French Africa (and selected points elsewhere) makes France a hemispheric nation as opposed to a European nation.

Other European countries, though, might be interested. Perhaps a trilateral alliance of Germany-Poland-Ukraine, with influence extending south into central Europe and north into Scandinavia and Russia?

 

[Cymew]

While I'm not entirely sure what you're grasping for, I can say that the thought of Russia and Sweden on the same political field and alliance sounds...

odd.

 

[robmyers]

Originally posted by Cymew:
While I'm not entirely sure what you're grasping for, I can say that the thought of Russia and Sweden on the same political field and alliance sounds...

odd.

The thought of Germany and Poland (or France) in the same union would sound strange but everyone's friends now there's money and influence to be had...

The EU dream's moment may have passed. The Cold War has ended, Germany has re-unified, Britain is still in thrall to the US, the economy is stagnating under the Euro, old divisions and prejudices are re-appearing and the constitution hasn't been agreed. 2300AD's divided Europe looks more realistic now than at any time since the game was written...

- Rob.

 

[rfmcdpei]

It depends on the value you're placing on Europe. There isn't a European federation with ultimate power over foreign and military affairs, true; there is, though, a European confederation with decisive sway over economic affairs, and a common legal and economic authority with sway over all of Europe from Portugal and Ireland in the west to Greece, Finland (and soon Poland) in the east.

Moreover, there's the prospect of a "hard core" of Europe centered around a Franco-German alliance possibly including most or all of the founding Six and central Europe if EU integration stalls. That wouldn't include all of Europe, certainly, but it still would be substantial.

2300AD's Europe is marked by radical changes and a nostalgia for the pre-Twilight 20th century. There also seems to be some sort of vestigial European Community in operation, not a supranational authority so much as a free-trade bloc--the old EFTA versus the EEC. If things worked out properly, there could be a restoration of something.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I think that any attempt to form a unified Europe will eventually fall apart. The big nations (sometimes Germany, but mostly France) will drive the little countries to sek outside alliances. Much as the big states like Virginia and Pennsylvania almost split the American federation of states.

(Yeah, we got over it. But Virginia was just self-important. France is self-important and ambitious.)

 

[rfmcdpei]

I'm not sure about that. It depends on what value of "united" you mean--an integrated European nation is improbable, but a European confederation is probable indeed. Its competencies are limited to economic affairs for the time being, but I'd be skeptical that its authority wouldn't or couldn't extend further.

Major disparities in population and wealth, and conflicting ambitions, are common in most emerging federal/confederal systems. Witness regionalist conflict in Canada (between Atlantic and rest of Canada, between English and French, east and west) or the domination of Western Australia and Tasmania by the dominant southeastern quarter of the Australian continent.

The historical trend in western Europe (and soon central Europe) for the past half-century has been for the union to expand its geographic scope even as it increases its power. Whenever there has been an expansion to more member-states, however, the EEC/EC/EU has stopped expanding powers--witness the decade and a half of stagnation after Britain, Ireland, and Denmark joined. I suspect we'll approach a like period now.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I think it will be cyclic, but political and economic union will be unstable for the forseeable future. Maybe in a couple of centuries.

I tend to look at the last few centuries, not decades. Germany and France have both shown significant teritorial ambitions. It has been intermittent, but it wasn't just Napoleon and Hitler. I don't think armies are going to start marching, but I think some politicians will think about the EU as "greater France" or "greater Germany." If you think cultural imperialism is anoying from across the pond, imagine what it is like next door.

We saw a little of that this year in the split over Iraq. The US found the French position contemptable, but Chirac seemed to find European support of the coalition (particularly by small countries) as treasonous. That cost him a lo of trust and goodwill over a minor matter.

 

[Pompe]

There were a fair deal of smaller EU states which indeed did show some more understanding for the French-German stance. Just check the American list of states approved for application in Iraqi rebuilding, and you'll note several smaller EU states missing. (And not states which France of Germany exactly has forced into line either).

What Chirac did object to was especially how soon-to-be member states acted, member states who stand to receive a fair deal of money from the EU. It was clumsy, but typical of any greater power's line of thinking. France is no better or worse than the US or Russia in this manner. Germany tried the same stint recently, and it will surface again before 2009 when the agreements run out and everything must be negotiated again.

When it comes to European integration, I believe it in a 2300AD context may not be very useful outside some sort of trade zone and various bilateral agreements. There have been wars and division, not unification on a larger scale.

However, if we look back on the first fifty EU years, I think it is fair to say that overall, the achievements have been quite considerable, given the history and nationalities involved. The newborn US had not the same luggage, so the comparison is not valid.

There have been failures for the EU, yes, and slow periods. I believe there will be fragmentation between countries aiming for more integration - a core - and not-too enthusiastic (Britain is a good example, where it is quite dubious where the loyalty lies) or simply poor outlyers. Still, there will be further integration, further expansion, and in another century, who knows? After all, the nation-states are not an eternal concept.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Pompe:
What Chirac did object to was especially how soon-to-be member states acted, member states who stand to receive a fair deal of money from the EU.

But the EU didn't take a stand on the war, one way or another. The UK, Danes, Spanish, and Italians were all part of the Coallition. But Chirac seems to feel that disagreeing with Fance was the same a betraying the EU. That attitude will be very devisive.

It was clumsy, but typical of any greater power's line of thinking. France is no better or worse than the US or Russia in this manner.

Well, the US usually is more generous with carrots and hides the stick better. But exactly my point: Chirac is thinking of Europe as "greater France". I wonder if the Spanish and Italians joined the Coallition out of conviction or just to put the Fench in their place.

I know Maggie Thatcher has talked about a "North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement", suggesting that Britain would be better off joining the Mexico/US/Canada trade zone. I find it ironic that Tony Blair, the anti-Thatcher, a man who finds European integration to be a moral imperitive, has driven a wedge into the EU by following another ethical conviction.

Perhaps I should say that in the long term economic and political imperitives will compel more integration. Indeed, twenty years ago I thought the fragmented Europe of T2300 was unreallistic. But national ambitions are emerging again in the post-soviet era and I fear the 21st century will be more like the 19th.

 

[mike wightman]

Mr. Whipsnade,
while I whole-heartedly agree with your summation of the travesty which is the proposed EU constitution I feel I must comment (and risk being Random Staticed) on one thing.
The EU constitution will have provision for a state that wishes to leave the union. What similar provision exists if, say for a hypothetical example, a few southern states wished to withdraw from your American Union?

The USA was able to settle these issues over two centuries ago.

I think one hundred and forty-ish is closer to the mark

 

[Erik Boielle]

000000Kevin Clark, at Pentapod's World, argued that 2300AD closely parallels developments in the 19th century, complete with the decline of France as a hegemonic power caused by a war with a rising Germany and the development of America as a major power within its own frontiers.000000

The real question, of course, is where is Britains almighty space navy?

 

[Pompe]

Mr Uncle Bob wrote:

"Well, the US usually is more generous with carrots and hides the stick better. But exactly my point: Chirac is thinking of Europe as "greater France". I wonder if the Spanish and Italians joined the Coallition out of conviction or just to put the Fench in their place."

That France has seen the EU as a strengthening point for their own ambitions is nothing new, it has been an obvious part of the Union since the very beginning. It, however, is not necessarily a great problem. All nations joining the EU are out to get something from it, own national ambitions. It need not even be such a great conflict in practice, a lot of Europeans are pragmatic, non-sentimental and more than a little cynical when it comes to these things.

However, one can note that neither the Spanish nor the Italian _people_ were overly interested in getting involved in Iraq. If we _had_ an European parliament making the decision, or an European referendum, I'm not sure even Blair would have had his way. The problem lies not necessarily with the Union, but with the nation-states.

"Perhaps I should say that in the long term economic and political imperitives will compel more integration. Indeed, twenty years ago I thought the fragmented Europe of T2300 was unreallistic. But national ambitions are emerging again in the post-soviet era and I fear the 21st century will be more like the 19th."

Do you live in the EU, Mr Uncle Bob? I'll tell you that - to me - the last twenty years of integration are very far-reaching - but not the big political issues I imagine one see in the foreign media where the reports are about divisions in foreign policy and constantly failed meetings, instead in the small, day to day things.

That is where Europe is uniting steadily every day, that is where you should look, not where Berlusconi, Chirac and their pals sit. Their places are, I bet, the _last_ and _final_ place the unification will be evident. If ever - it will always be political conflict in some form.

 

[Jame]

Forgive me, but I just had to say this after all the comments.

"This world must become one political (as opposed to cultural) entity. It will then be One World Under...

... ME!"

(I do believe that (1.) there should be one world government, which tries to make all peoples equal [equity for all as opposed to equality, at least] and (2.)there are certain ideals which should transcend culture, though - like equality/equity.)

 

[Whipsnade]

Pompe chided:

"I'm not certain who gives these epithets to people. I do not recollect seeing them in the thread, so I must ask myself why they are included."

"We should be careful to not ourselves use the same chauvinism we so dislike in others. Do you not agree, Mr Whipsnade?"


Mr. Pompe,

You are, of course, entirely correct sir. I have removed the offending post. Chalk it up to an act of peevishness by a tired old fat man.

I will say this however; the technocrats trying to foist a 'centrist' vision onto the European Union would be well advised to look to a federal model. As you pointed out, several nations use such a system; Switzerland, Canada, and the USA as prime examples. The failure of the recent EU constitutional convention was due to the feeling by several nations that they were being lectured to and not consulted with.

No one man, no one faith, and no one political system has a lock on the truth. All can learn from all and the self-appointed technocrats in Brussels need to remember that.

I have the highest hopes for the EU. However, until the EU lives up to its own claims; by honestly negotiating Turkey's admission and treating smaller/newer member states like the larger/older ones, than the EU can claim no moral high ground either.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[rfmcdpei]

Mr. Whipsnade:

I'll believe in the EU when Turkey is allowed to join

Why? Right now, Turkey is a relatively poor country with a quickly growing population and a legacy of far too much military involvement in national political life. Having a European Union member-state that could conceivably fall prey to military coups and internal ethnic civil war is suitable for a cyberpunk scenario of the future, but it doesn't make for a desirable scenario.

The European Union requires a fairly high standard of its member-states. It was entirely conceivable for NAFTA to be negotiated with a Mexico that was semi-democratic. To join the European Union (and its predecessor organizations), though, a country first has to be democratic and have the rule of law. Central European applicants have done a better job of achieving both of these qualities than Turkey. More importantly, they have experiencedactual economic growth in the past decade, unlike Turkey.

Uncle Bob:

Chirac is thinking of Europe as "greater France". I wonder if the Spanish and Italians joined the Coallition out of conviction or just to put the Fench in their place.

The latter, aided in Italy's case by the election of a Ross Perot equivalent as head of state. I suspect that Italy's current alignment towards the US might not be durable.

I know Maggie Thatcher has talked about a "North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement", suggesting that Britain would be better off joining the Mexico/US/Canada trade zone.

This doesn't make economic sense, given that for Britain, the rest of the EU is a more important trading partner than the US. The CIA World Factbook, for instance, points out that Britain's largest export market is the US, but its second export market and top import market is Germany. Going by the statistics they list, 49.6% of Britain exporting is done with the largest/nearest EU states versus 15.5% for the US, and 36.4% of British importing is done with the same group of states versus 11.9% for the US. Britain is European, after all.

I find it ironic that Tony Blair, the anti-Thatcher, a man who finds European integration to be a moral imperitive, has driven a wedge into the EU by following another ethical conviction.

This is a normal thing--looking from Canada, violent disagrements between a confederation's constituent units and confederal government are quite common. We're not going to break up confederation because of that. (And yes, if Québec left the rest of Canada would likely stay together. Too much inertia to do otherwise, really, and too much of a common identity.)

Perhaps I should say that in the long term economic and political imperitives will compel more integration. Indeed, twenty years ago I thought the fragmented Europe of T2300 was unreallistic. But national ambitions are emerging again in the post-soviet era and I fear the 21st century will be more like the 19th.

Why? There were a lot of disputes over Iraq, to be sure. There are also quite a few other areas of policy where Europeans were quite united. For instance, the entire European Union--including Britain, might I add--was entirely ready to start a trade war, directed by Brussels, with the US over steel tariffs. More, pan-European cooperation has been institutionalized in any number of fashions, and non-institutionalized, whether through the growth of a European youth culture or by transnational economic integration.

War may well continue on the fringes of Europe, in the Balkans or the former Soviet sphere, for a while yet. Predicting war inside the European Union, or a breakdown of European structures altogether, is rather unlikely. European integration will continue to face troubles becoming deeper, as states try to bargain to establish a working relationship--we saw that at the EU constitutional convention, for example--but an impetus for regression is unlikely. You'd need something much more polarizing than Iraq to do that, but anything so threatening would be as likely to unite Europe as fragment it.

 

[Whipsnade]

Randy McDonald wrote:

"Why? Right now, Turkey is a relatively poor country with a quickly growing population and a legacy of far too much military involvement in national political life."


Mr. McDonald,

Unlike, say, Spain in the mid 70s? Or Portugal a few years before that? Or the former Warsaw Pact members that will be members soon? Or the various pieces of Yugoslavia?

Spain was joined of the EU rather quickly after Franco's death. Rather odd when you remember it had been a militarily propped up, fascist dictatorship for the last 40 years. And that it was 'relatively poor' and had a 'fast growing population'. And that Spain's first truly popular election had ended in a civil war that involved most of Europe and is still considered a dress rehersal for WW2.

Spain met all of the 'no membership' criteria you apply to Turkey and then some. So why did the EU allow Spain to join so quickly while it has been jerking Turkey around since the late 60s? Couldn't be that Spain is 'white' and 'christian' while Turkey is 'brown' and 'muslim' right? I mean those oh so moral Europeans aren't racist, religious snobs? Right?

"Having a European Union member-state that could conceivably fall prey to military coups and internal ethnic civil war is suitable for a cyberpunk scenario of the future, but it doesn't make for a desirable scenario."

Unlike Austria? Germany? Spain? France? Britain? Greece? All of which have fell prey to military coups and internal ethnic civil war within modern memory? Nah, you're right. It has nothing to do with Turkey being 'brown' and 'muslim', doesn't it?

"The European Union requires a fairly high standard of its member-states. It was entirely conceivable for NAFTA to be negotiated with a Mexico that was semi-democratic. To join the European Union (and its predecessor organizations), though, a country first has to be democratic and have the rule of law."

If you think DeGaulle's France in the 60s was 'democratic', you've got another thing coming. Ditto for Greece. And how long do these traits need to be in place? Spain hadn't been 'democratic' for very long before joining the EU. Of course Spain is white and christian, as as Greece.

"Central European applicants have done a better job of achieving both of these qualities than Turkey. More importantly, they have experiencedactual economic growth in the past decade, unlike Turkey."

Could Britain or Spain or Ireland have passed that economic growth hurdle when they finally joined? Oops, that's right... white and christian... I keep forgetting!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Pompe]

Mr Whipsnade wrote:

"I have removed the offending post."

I will remove my answer to said post.

"No one man, no one faith, and no one political system has a lock on the truth. All can learn from all and the self-appointed technocrats in Brussels need to remember that."

I don't think the main problem is with Bruxelles, oddly enough. Sure, they are bureaucrats and technocrats, but they can be considered to be rather open to the pan-European idea (as that is what gives them a job) and the people of Europe.

I think the problem is the national politicians who are dominated by all-too-typical stints to catch a place in the spotlight (and appeal to their home voters as well as catch Diplomatic Power Points), associate with foreign powers whose interest in a strong, united Europe might be minimal at best or run for another election somewhere in their homelands, guaranteeing a constant election crisis.

If the Commission and the European Parliament ran Europe, well, it'd be different. But as it now is, it is a bit like if America was run by a dozen of state governors of which at least two are in a re-election campaign at any given time and of which half a dozen prefer consorting with Canada or Mexico. The Prime Ministers should run their countries, the Commission should run Europe.

"I have the highest hopes for the EU. However, until the EU lives up to its own claims; by honestly negotiating Turkey's admission and treating smaller/newer member states like the larger/older ones, than the EU can claim no moral high ground either."

Smaller member states in the EU are not necessarily badly treated - their voting power and influence is not bad if one consider how small the populations are. It is the 80 million Germans who have a really bad deal in the votes department, and who also end up paying for the show.

When it comes to Turkey, I don't think they are ready to join, politically, juridically and economically. They will be one day, maybe sooner than we think, but for the near future the EU will have enough to work with in Eastern Europe.

 

[Pompe]

Mr Whipsnade wrote:

"It has nothing to do with Turkey being 'brown' and 'muslim', doesn't it?"

Of course it has do do with a lot of things, most being fairly pragmatic. Such things include:

1: Turkey is not geographically European to 95%. The EU might prefer to expand within Europe first, then cross Gibraltar and the Bosporus. The EU does have extra-European territories, but never to such a large part of a member state, and the Eurasian Union isn't in planning.

2: The addition of a large, comparatively poor and yes, Muslim, country is not desirable now when the EU already has a fair deal to do for the foreseeable future. When Spain was admitted, the EU expanded slowly and had less of an internal and external agenda. Now, the EU adds on ten poorer states and more are coming in the next wave. Getting in Eastern Europe and Turkey at the same time might be a bit much, and the EU has made the choice to go East first.

3: The Cyprus question.

4: The fact that America has lobbied for Turkey hasn't helped a bit - in fact, it likely has made things worse. The EU naturally and quite predictably got very suspicious of why the US tells who the EU should admit, especially when the US administration hasn't exactly scored popularity points with the EU recently.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Turkey used to be known as "the sick man of Europe." And Istamboul is on the European side of the bosphorus.

I think it has rather more to do with the Turkish laborers who perform the same function in many European economies that illegal Mexican workers do in the US. If Turkey joins thee EU Turkish labor can demand equal status, which will cost employers a bundle.

And Canadians haven't forgotten our rather pitiful attempts too ivade two centuries ago. At the same time the French conquored most of Europe.

And, talking to Canadians on other forums, there is a lot of anti-govenment feeling in the Western provinces, maybe as much as in Quebec. I was joking about annexing the oil rich provinces, fully expecting to be told where to stuff it by theseloyal cana. Instead I heard responses like, "Do you think you would?"

 

[Colin]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:

And, talking to Canadians on other forums, there is a lot of anti-govenment feeling in the Western provinces, maybe as much as in Quebec. I was joking about annexing the oil rich provinces, fully expecting to be told where to stuff it by theseloyal cana. Instead I heard responses like, "Do you think you would?"

Not any of the several hundred Western Canadians that I know. There's nothing wrong with being American mind you, we just prefer being Canadian.