Is the European Union project a threat to stability, democracy and peace?

[User157088589849]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68

A classic example of how the european union with the help of unelected bureaucrats in the commission from small nations use this project to change rules when they like. The crisis in Ukraine had the european union/commissions fingers all over it.

If anyone stands in there way, you are trodden on.

[eric82oslo]

Without the EU, Europe would still live in the aftermath of the two world wars. Thanks to the EU, the number of intra-European wars west of Ukraine has been kept at only one (Yugoslavian civil war).

[Deus Naturae]

Without the EU, Europe would still live in the aftermath of the two world wars. Thanks to the EU, the number of intra-European wars west of Ukraine has been kept at only one (Yugoslavian civil war).

Without the EU, which Western European country/ies do you believe would start invading the others?

[User157088589849]

Without the EU, Europe would still live in the aftermath of the two world wars. Thanks to the EU, the number of intra-European wars west of Ukraine has been kept at only one (Yugoslavian civil war).

Who would be fighting each other?

It is a portugese and belgium and now luxembourg bureaucrat spreading this virus with no democratic representation. If you don't vote for something they go ahead anyway.

Its an absolute disaster. The european unions mission to expand itself is actually provoking countries. If you want to defend yourself or reject the european union, they just tread on you.

Imagine Kazakstan, Turkey in the European Union. its a complete mess.

[swl]

nope

[Yeahsayyeah]

Just no.

I'm very surprised every time, when  US-Americans, that have a federation with a strong role of the states (I'm oversimplifying, here), don't get it that European integration is a long-term process with difficult negotiations and sometimes backlashes, but has been an appealing goal for many Europeans for many decades.

There is a lack of democratic control in EU institutions, but the provisions of the Lisbon treaty have actually reduced this, as they strengthen the role of the EU parliament. (The revision of the treaty after the Irish "no" - that had not much to do with its actual provisions, anyway - helped the interests of the Irish government - like upholding the "every state must have its own commissioner" crap). But the main problem with democratic lack of control is not so much the commission's burocracy, but the national government's outsourcing all the unpopular stuff, that they want to do but not be held accountable for to the EU via the European Council and the Council of the European Union (where they gather themselves) and than blaming Brussels for it.

The European Integration project has actually helped stability, peace and prosperity in (Western and later Southern and Eastern) Europe, e.g. through free trade, giving a forum for negotiations and providing funds to help poorer regions. At the moment, it seems we are at a watershed: A joint currency actually needs joint fiscal, economic and social (European meaning)  policies to work in the long run. So several paths seem to be possible. The best probably would be to provide these joint policies, but most of the contemporary political class isn't very visionary, fearing the loss of influence in their petty national states and the rise of euroscepticist populism (that they are actually firing up by bad policy decisions, communication and using the comfortable option of blaming Brussels for everything. The other point is, weither such joint policies (e.g. transfering competences to the European level) would need more common European political culture and discourse (that is slowly developing via the instrument of the European Citizens' initiative and the strengthened role of the parliament, but it will take time, until people notice that.

The second possibility would be some rollback of the integration, but their is no easy level to return to as integration has been in flow permanently and the process in different spheres has been intertwined for the last 25 years. And their really is no precedent how to accomplish a smooth disintegration. The most I can think of is actually some split in the EURO currency if the costs of keeping it would get out of control totally. Some egoisms could be appeased by giving some other competences back to the states, but where to go? It won't be something interfering with the EG/EU "common standard in a common market" approach. It won't be the agaric sector, because that would be highly unpopular with a core constituency of the centre-right parties in the long run. There is not much room for feasible returns of security policies in the environment of "international terrorism" and "international crime" (Actually much could be done to improve the cooperation between the normal police on different sides of intra-Schengen borders).

The third possibility would be having some kind of both as is often adressed with the slogan of a "Europe of different speed levels": Having a core Euro-zone that is integrating further politically and economically while having a bunch of others where only the common market things apply. (Actually, the provisions of EURO currency introduction and the Schengen treaty, that is not part of the EU treaties already follow this part.)

[Franzl]

Without the EU, Europe would still live in the aftermath of the two world wars. Thanks to the EU, the number of intra-European wars west of Ukraine has been kept at only one (Yugoslavian civil war).

This is nonsense.

I'm mostly in favor of further European integration, but trying to sell the EU as some holy institution without which Europe would be in ruins is just dishonest.

[ingemann]

Without the EU, Europe would still live in the aftermath of the two world wars. Thanks to the EU, the number of intra-European wars west of Ukraine has been kept at only one (Yugoslavian civil war).

This is nonsense.

I'm mostly in favor of further European integration, but trying to sell the EU as some holy institution without which Europe would be in ruins is just dishonest.

I honestly think it's a lot more complex than this, without EU we would likely have a weak EFTA like organisation in western Europe, while we would see Benelux and the Nordic Countries would have their unions (likely less integrated than EU, but more than NAFTA), but at same time it would be harder to travel over borders, there would be less economic integration and sometimes we would see small trade wars and less coopearation in dealing with criminality. The Iberian peninsula and Ireland would be much poorer.

 It would not be bad, just less preferable to how western Europe look right now.

East Europe (as in everything east of Germany, Austria and Italy) on the other side...

I think we would have seen at least one war, which EU have served to cool down, Hungary and its neighbours would be the main candidate. Beside that east Europe would be significant poorer without both the access to EU's market, the transfer of fund and EU forcing political, judicial and economic standards through. Just look at Poland and Ukraine in the nineties, there was not a big difference on their economy, but the closer Poland came to EU membership and while the implemented the Copenhagen Criteria, the more the Polish economy improved. The fact that EU force Rule of Law through, may be the one thing which do the most for new members and for the old members would doesn't ignore this criteria.