The role of the EU vs US
To Americans, the European Union looks a lot like an attempt to create a "United States of Europe". This is rather far from the truth, as the Union was conceived as a way to keep Europe from its long history of war and to create prosperity. It was not designed to create a strong federal government of the sort the US enjoys.
The idea of a European Union was created in the 1950's, when western European continental states who had been the stomping ground of armies since the 1500's (or earlier) decided that enough was enough. The idea was put forward that if everyone was prospering, the need for war would be diminished. Thus, trade barriers were reduced and commerce flourished. Slowly additional nations signed on until we get today's EU which is several times the size of the original 1950's version.
The EU will probably never have a central government as strong or influential as the US federal government. It can be argued that the US founding-fathers sought each State to have its own government and the Federal government only came in when inter-State commerce or defense of the nation was being considered. Over the past two hundred plus years the Federal government of the US has increased in power to the point where comparing California to the US government and France to the EU government is not a close comparison. The big difference here is that France has a much longer history as a sovereign state than California (or even Texas) has. History weighs heavy to the traditionally-minded, so the power of the EU federal government will probably never gain as much influence as the US federal government.
The EU looks to soon have its first real challenge to the idea of an European Union, as various states rethink their participation. England is a prime example of a state that has been lukewarm to the idea all a long, and might consider pulling out at some point. Popular support of the EU is hard to accurately measure, as the people-on-the-street themselves don't have a good idea what "EU" means beyond foreign nationals meddling in their country and possibly the introduction of the Euro.
In a situation that does seem familiar to American observers, there is currently a rift in the EU regarding how to treat worker rights and what has been called 'family values' in the current election. In the one case, France is pressing for worker rights such as minimum wages and mandatory vacation-time. In the other case, places such as Ireland and Spain are having to offer abortions and may have to recognize gay marriages. The socialist leanings of France puts pressure on free-market advocates such as Britain and the former Soviet-bloc countries. The liberal leanings of Holland are putting pressure on conservative countries such as predominantly catholic Spain. The temptation is to throw a trantrum and leave the sandbox with all of your toys if you don't get your way, but the economic glue helps temper such instincts. If the EU survives this current challenge, it should be in a better place to survive for the long haul.
Is the EU supposed to be the 'second superpower' to challenge the US? Not entirely. For one, its federal bureaucracy isn't robust enough to be able to wield power as effectively as the US, even if their economic output rivals ours. The EU Presidency is not seen as nearly as 'strong' as the US Presidency. The EU does shell out more aid to foreign countries than the US does, but that hasn't done much to affect public opinion. Also US troops are still stationed all over EU member-states, largely thanks to NATO.
If the EU can survive the current internal debates, it should be in a solid position to wield effective power on the global stage. Perhaps the member-states (and future member-states) will find that the economic glue is a good thing, despite differences in opinion between east and west, and developed and under-developed.
The idea of a European Union was created in the 1950's, when western European continental states who had been the stomping ground of armies since the 1500's (or earlier) decided that enough was enough. The idea was put forward that if everyone was prospering, the need for war would be diminished. Thus, trade barriers were reduced and commerce flourished. Slowly additional nations signed on until we get today's EU which is several times the size of the original 1950's version.
The EU will probably never have a central government as strong or influential as the US federal government. It can be argued that the US founding-fathers sought each State to have its own government and the Federal government only came in when inter-State commerce or defense of the nation was being considered. Over the past two hundred plus years the Federal government of the US has increased in power to the point where comparing California to the US government and France to the EU government is not a close comparison. The big difference here is that France has a much longer history as a sovereign state than California (or even Texas) has. History weighs heavy to the traditionally-minded, so the power of the EU federal government will probably never gain as much influence as the US federal government.
The EU looks to soon have its first real challenge to the idea of an European Union, as various states rethink their participation. England is a prime example of a state that has been lukewarm to the idea all a long, and might consider pulling out at some point. Popular support of the EU is hard to accurately measure, as the people-on-the-street themselves don't have a good idea what "EU" means beyond foreign nationals meddling in their country and possibly the introduction of the Euro.
In a situation that does seem familiar to American observers, there is currently a rift in the EU regarding how to treat worker rights and what has been called 'family values' in the current election. In the one case, France is pressing for worker rights such as minimum wages and mandatory vacation-time. In the other case, places such as Ireland and Spain are having to offer abortions and may have to recognize gay marriages. The socialist leanings of France puts pressure on free-market advocates such as Britain and the former Soviet-bloc countries. The liberal leanings of Holland are putting pressure on conservative countries such as predominantly catholic Spain. The temptation is to throw a trantrum and leave the sandbox with all of your toys if you don't get your way, but the economic glue helps temper such instincts. If the EU survives this current challenge, it should be in a better place to survive for the long haul.
Is the EU supposed to be the 'second superpower' to challenge the US? Not entirely. For one, its federal bureaucracy isn't robust enough to be able to wield power as effectively as the US, even if their economic output rivals ours. The EU Presidency is not seen as nearly as 'strong' as the US Presidency. The EU does shell out more aid to foreign countries than the US does, but that hasn't done much to affect public opinion. Also US troops are still stationed all over EU member-states, largely thanks to NATO.
If the EU can survive the current internal debates, it should be in a solid position to wield effective power on the global stage. Perhaps the member-states (and future member-states) will find that the economic glue is a good thing, despite differences in opinion between east and west, and developed and under-developed.
posted by Corwin at 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home