St Exupère;5509776 said:
scy,
Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.
My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.
Again, this is true but is not the point I wished to make in terms of power perspectives and geopolitics for the century to come.
Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.
As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.
Take Turkey: the EU has no position, and no will to have any on whether Turkey should or not be in Europe. The discussions are purely administrative and technocratic. The essence of the EU is to have no positioning of its own on real, touchy and thorny issues.
Again this is not the point; the point I make is that the EU is not European, and will not exist as a geopolitical power in the way the USA, China and others do.
I did not state any "position" on Turkey of my own; just said that the EU will be divided and un-democratic about Turkey's membership, and that because of its weakness the EU as a whole will never oppose to Turkey's entry. It is Turkey that sets the pace here, and the EU will either bend and accept Turkey's entry, or break apart because of its divisions on this thorny issue such as many others. Just look at the current embroglio regarding visas to the USA - even on this the EU is incapable of having any sort of real sovereign power.
All this being said, I am only describing what I believe is a strong trend; trends can and do change, especially when surprising events do occur. And they always do.
Cheers
Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.
I think you have a blend image of French culture when what i am saying i don't care how the culture will change by adding Africans to the system as long as those Africans identify themselfs as French and Europeans. And i think , this is happening , at least in England , by not extreme-Muslims. A few generations after their won't be any gap. That is the culture that i am referring . I don't get how it would look more than an African , country , explain that . As long as it isn't a destabilization factor , i don't care.
My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.
A lot migrations happened the previous years and i think , the problems are not as bad as we assume. There are problems , Indeed , though. And some countries to face bigger problems than others and on them , yes the problem may be big but not in all Europe. The problem has less to do with migration rates and more with the birth rates of the immigrants that surpasses those of Europeans . It isn't easy to tell if this will be a problem.
Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.
Europe is the strongest Economy on the Planet and has the largest population on the planet. It may not always globally act as one but it doesn't have to Globally act as one. I will not argue how will Europe act towards it's neighboors , i will just say that what matters most is the effect that Europian Nations have in the entity that is called European Union. Bulgaria , Romania for example , their entry was best thing that ever happened to them in recent times. Few countries will resist entering Eu , considering the political benefits.
That means more and more countries industrialize and enter an axon of rich countries with the Help of Eu money. The situation is set to improve more and more in the future.
The one currency of the strongest economy in the Planet is reason enough for any country to change it's policy towards all Eu nations , because all use the same currency.
I don't think Europe is under a need to protect it's borders although i agree it can't act Globally in the way the other superpower does , to protect it's interest. And they don't want to. But what i am arguing is , do they have to ?
But i guess you agree a bit of the above but what you don't "like" is that Eu doesn't act as a sovereign power. I guess if European Nations do not agree on one issue , several of them create axons , teams based on their interests and so i agree , there is division in Eu. However , trends change , like you said.
But i also think that their are common Eu interests and in that case some of Eu members create an opposition to that interests if it's against theres. That is why i described the Thorn , because it isn't always two opposing Euorpian teams but one European one and an other one that fights for Other Interests. Which is better , as there is less division on the interests of Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scy12 View Post
The one currency , Global and Political realities of Eu , and so on will lead more and more countries to enter the Eu axon as i call it.
As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.
European Union also tries to act as one Mega -Government and European laws overcome National laws. Their European policies on Health , Education and so on and there is also the European court . The economical and immigrant policies are also very important. I see Eu more like a world government rather than just one economical union. And ofcourse Countries would want to enter for the political gain of expressing their opinion in political and other matters of such organisation. European Union is a baby and look how it is , it is unimaginable , how it may evolve. The abolishion of all National goverments all the creation of a Federation ( if it isn't already done) state isn't out of the question. You can't accuse an organisation for weakness when it is in the evolution progress.
I did not state any "position" on Turkey of my own; just said that the EU will be divided and un-democratic about Turkey's membership, and that because of its weakness the EU as a whole will never oppose to Turkey's entry. It is Turkey that sets the pace here, and the EU will either bend and accept Turkey's entry, or break apart because of its divisions on this thorny issue such as many others. Just look at the current embroglio regarding visas to the USA - even on this the EU is incapable of having any sort of real sovereign power.
In this example , it is in Eu interest not to accept Turkey as a full member. Yet there is division . That means that Usa Forces other Eu countries or they act on common interest in a direction that creates problems with Eu. However we still don't know how Eu will act in this situation. It is not Black and White , there are conflicting interests in the Eu , sure but for how long ? Why i call them thorns ? Because their is a clear common Eu interests axon and then some other countries try to disagree on that based on Pressure from other powers. How do they handle this , especially with every member having Veto power , i don't know. But While Money flows rapidly in Europe , who cares if Eu doesn't act like a decisive , National Entity/Government , would.
Like i said, Is it so important ?
