What I just dont see plausible is that the European nations will give up most of their sovereignty for the EU. Theyve fought for thousands of years to secure just that and in a matter of a decade, they will unite under one banner? I dont think they will give it up that easily. I know I wouldnt. Maybe its just me but if there was a United States of North America, and a Canadian was elected, I would be wish washy because he wouldnt have the US' best interests in mind, only the North American. It would be this even more so in Europe as there are so many nations with so many cultures and histories.

 I do not know the personal biases of Europe or even if there are any that warrant observing, but I dont see a United Europe (a truly united) in the recent future. I see a confederacy at most, with a figure-head of a President that has very limited power, but in the end, besides the economic aspect of it, I dont see it being all that important. 

 But if the EU was branching into the direction of a completely united nation, I dont know if it would work or not. 

 

As for the internal conflict, whose to say that it will makeit more stabler? What if Slovakia has a dispute with Hungary and a small war happens? Of course the EU would try to stabilize it but I just can imagine a large civil split in a country that is not united by a single interest besides the Euro. 

konnichiwa said: clandecyon said: Revelations talks about this union in the Bible. That is why Christians would not like it and see it as a sign of the end of the world. I am also a strong christian and do not denote logic and science. I just do not see anything supporting either side 100% and believe they can coexist. Everyone needs to believe in something as we are Human. The first 5 of the 7 seals to unlocking tribulation have actually already happened if anyone is interested in hearing my interpretation. I just find prophecy, the supernatural, effect of religion on the mind and culture, as well as evidence of alternate realities and parallel universes fascinating. People fear what they do not know and these days those fears are dealt with by pretending none of it exists, but there is no solid evidence that it does not. It is sad though that much of our passion, imagination, and creativity is stifled by hate and growing dependence on what we "see." I believe in the fact that a world without religion is the best.

That's not a fact. Either way, I think a world without religion would be EXACTLY like a world with relgion. Just the assholes who use extremist relgious groups to enforce their agendas would instead use some other type of fear to enforce their agendas. Xenophobia for example. Religion doesn't make people bad. Bad people distort religion. If it wasn't religion it'd just be something else. If someone wants to hurt you and you take away their gun, they are just going to stab you, if you take away their knife they will hit you with their knuckles till they bleed. The only way to stop someone and their intentions is to change their intentions. Well or kill them. But people frown on that sort of thing.

Bursche said: What I just dont see plausible is that the European nations will give up most of their sovereignty for the EU. Theyve fought for thousands of years to secure just that and in a matter of a decade, they will unite under one banner? I dont think they will give it up that easily. I know I wouldnt. Maybe its just me but if there was a United States of North America, and a Canadian was elected, I would be wish washy because he wouldnt have the US' best interests in mind, only the North American. It would be this even more so in Europe as there are so many nations with so many cultures and histories. I do not know the personal biases of Europe or even if there are any that warrant observing, but I dont see a United Europe (a truly united) in the recent future. I see a confederacy at most, with a figure-head of a President that has very limited power, but in the end, besides the economic aspect of it, I dont see it being all that important. But if the EU was branching into the direction of a completely united nation, I dont know if it would work or not. As for the internal conflict, whose to say that it will makeit more stabler? What if Slovakia has a dispute with Hungary and a small war happens? Of course the EU would try to stabilize it but I just can imagine a large civil split in a country that is not united by a single interest besides the Euro.

Other groups have surived that fine. For example when the United States was fairly young Ohio and Michigan fought a war over Toledo. (Over who gets to keep it surpringly, not who has to take it.)

phil said: ChichiriMuyo said: For those who were curious about languages spoken around the world... Most Commonly Spoken Languages Rank Language Number of Speakers 1 Chinese (Mandarin) 1,000,000,000 + 2 English 508,000,000 3 Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu) 497,000,000 4 Spanish 392,000,000 5 Russian 277,000,000 6 Arabic 246,000,000 7 Bengali 211,000,000 8 Portuguese 191,000,000 9 Malay-Indonesian 159,000,000 10 French 129,000,000 Source: University of Washington Is that native speakers only or does it include second language?

 yeah this is just native speaker but overall there are 1.8 billion people world wide  can speak some english and by 2050 over 3 billion will speak english 

We knew this was coming.
Now all EU has to do is agree on the Constitution. (or did they already do this?)
I hope it will be a democratic based Constitution.

This move is not against the U.S., it will help the U.S.

darthdevidem said: THANK GOD we in the UK are not in this,,,,

Well ,Gordon Brown arrived late and signed alone ....but he signed this nonetheless didnt he ?

 

By the way ,I dont see this move as definitive in any way ...

famousringo said:  I assume you're referring to the World Wars and the centuries of relatively low-key conflicts that preceeded it. Those wars are one of the principle driving forces behind the EU. Europe witnessed first-hand the devastation of total war on a scale which is little more than an academic concept in the rest of the world. Children in Europe grow up surrounded by war memorials and unexploded ordinance.  The EU is meant to ensure that such an event doesn't happen a third time. The purpose is to build as many links of understanding between European nations as possible, to develop a network of co-dependancy and tolerance that would make military conflict within the EU incomprehensible.

Reminds me of the USA right before the Civil War.

After reading some our your comments, there is something that has been hinted on that I would like to expand.

US and EU future relations.

Recently Bush changed the US doctrine from something in the realm of 'ensure the dominance of democracy' to 'ensure US is the sole super power of the world'.

To me, this means that if any nation, allies included, try to present themselves as a superpower the US will use economic and political tools to push them down. Similar to how US won the cold war. US spent way more militarily and used a lot of political/economical pressure to ensure USSR failed.

Now, with EU this would be different. For one, US had the EU as a partner against USSR. With EU, US would be alone.

My thoughts are how would US and EU relate with each other? Would they begin to be at constant odds, simply to be at odds, as happened frequently between US and USSR. Would EU push unified military and greatly increase the monetary budget to match or exceed that of the ungodly high US military budget? Honestly, I don't know. US history with most of EU members has been really good. Some recent lapses in policy of course with Iraq and especially with climate related issues. But, in general very favorable. Plus, we already have NATO and a pretty good military relationship as a whole.

Also, what about Canada? They are clearly a US neighbor, but their style of government is much more closer with EU than US. i.e. much more socialist. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I personally think, globally, health care and education should be free for all. That is about it though. Marketplace should remain capitalistic.

What are your thoughts? Do you see more friction between a strongly unified EU and the US or a pretty much unchanged status quo.

konnichiwa said: Ickalanda said: kitler53 said: ismael said: wauuu, that would be...strange, people speaking different lenguages living in one "country"   Canada manages just fine. besides, it won't be too long before English is the common tongue around the world. xD English practically already is the common langauge around the world. Like half the world speaks it I think. The most spoken language will probably be Mandarin (Chinese) and Hindi (India) and I am not sure about Spanish (doesn't South Africa speaks it too?).

 English is the number one second langauge with the majority of India speaking english because it had been under control of Great Britain for a long time and a large number of Chinese and others speak english now.  Its the common langauge for business.