A couple of days ago I found (somewhere on the web) the plan of the EU regarding it's future expansion. In the year 2004 ten countries are joining in, and in 2007 a couple more. What I found interesting is that the EU wants to expand eastwards and, finally, meet Russia. The plan is that after Russia joins the EU, the EU would, after some time, become a country. The United states of Europe of sorts. Imagine the whole of Europe united. 1 000 000 000 people and the greatest millitary and economical might in the world... Do You think that a united Europe is a positive or a negative thing. Personally, I think it is an extremely positive thing but that is mainly because I live in Croatia, Europe.

This is indeed a very great project but do not forget that the different nationalities that exist in Europe have not been in entirely peacefull terms for a long time. This might cause some problems that come from the fear of one losing his national orientation. :confused:
But this is something i would love to see and i really hope that EU will overcome all the presented difficulties and take that giant leap to a more humanitarian and peacefull society that will include Europe as a whole not parts of her. :D
And to tell the truth this project has caused some serious headaches to the USA administration and most probably this is the real reason behind the attacks in Afganistan and Iraq. Because this way they will be able to control oil production and therefore control the global energy market.

Well, if it works for USA I don't see why it couldn't for Europe. Granted, with a lot more effort, but still. It's something worth striving for.

I think the EU is a great idea. But it's a difficult task, because we all got different systems. But in the end, all Europeans are in the same boat ... ah ... on the same continent. If Europeans don't learn to stick together. Well, than they haven't deserved anything.

But acutally, I am not so worried about the Americans. Americans are only a little bit younger than Europeans, meaning, they're old and grey too. Nor do I think, that Europa will again be a military power. Juste have the necessary military, not more. I don't think that Europeans are foolish enough to commit 4% of their GPD on military spending. Hey, we could build libraries and make more holidays in Greece, Ireland and Scandinavia.

But the 21 century is going to be the century of China (and India, Indonesia a little bit behind). And to protect European interest versus a world full of huge countries like them, we either stick together or go down together. And military confrontation with those would be stupid. Make business, not war !!!!

I personally doubt that there will ever be a country called the "United States of Europe". We are just to different.

The enlarged EU next year will be, in terms of GDP, about the same size as the USA. Very close anyway. Not actually much behind as it stands anyway, but there you go.

The idea of a true United States of Europe is still far fetched, and there are as yet no provisions for this within the EU charter. Long term it is perhaps inevitable, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it anytime soon.

There are some major obstacles in terms of uniting Europe this way, language, culture, history, religion etc. The US was to all intents and purposes a "new" continent being colonised, thus these things were not in the way. The Red Indians were, but that's a different story.

Still, I see this as exciting times for Europe, and as long as we can all beat up the French enough to stop them being so bloody obstinate, I think we can within Europe go a long way together.

I hope those of you who live in the acceding countries view this positively too. The EU welcomes Tal :grin:

By the way, I think you guys still have to approve it locally too.

I don't share your optimism.
I do think that a united Europe is a positive thing, but I doubt that will be achieved by enlargement. As recent events pointed out, Europe political power is very weak because its members rarely share common views and interests on a particular matter. Imo eastern European country joining the EU will add yet other differences that will have to be overcome thus slowing the unification process. Also, some of these countries are now virtually US colonies since the fall of USSR, for example: Poland spending over 3 billions € in US-made warplanes only days after signing its adhesion in the EU seems like a backstab: it says the EU will have to deal with even more US influence in their own ranks than there already is.
What could then happen is that the EU will remain a strong economy and lose everything else, no political will, no social security, no army, no danger to US leadership.
What could also happen is that the big boys (namely Germany and France), growing tired of dealing with troublemakers, will take the lead and enforce their will on smaller countries.
On a final note, I seriously doubt that Russia could join the EU any time soon.

The main problem wiht us Europeans is that when a guy form China asks me where I am from, I will say that I am from Croatia, not Europe. Europe has something to build upon---A HISTORY. Since the times of Greek temples or the rise of Rome, Europe has always been The world. The north of Africa and Asia were the rest of the world.
And so everybody wanted a piece of the cake. Even small countries like Croatia took pride in the fact that they managed to have their own kingdom. Do you see my point. EUROPE IS HOME to so many people and the only way to go around their differences is to find something they all are. Europeans.
I think the EU will one day become a county. I firmly believe that we Europeans will finally realize that after the bloodiest century in history, we need our sword-arms strong and fast. And vigilant. And the arm can not act if the entire body is torn apart. Like Elrond said: "You will unite, or you will fall.!

I don't see Europe fusing into one grand country. I see them allying closely econimically, militarily, and in some senses politiccally, but you have vastly different cultures, some of whom hate each other, and they're not likely to want to join together.

As a counterweight to the US and China, though, go for all the allying you can!

A united Europe is wishful thinking, nothing more than a dream. Too much rivalry and pure hatred among most European countries. Differences that will never be put aside. It's a nice dream, but also a very naive one. It won't last.

A united Europe is wishful thinking, nothing more than a dream hm, so the alps and the dutch mountains will never unite. At least we drown together.

Just had a vision, 2070, China,India and their new colony North-America ally to reshape Europe.

Sounds good to me. I doubt that it will be one country in my lifetime, but one economic body, hopefully. If it is good for the world then it is good for me.

I'd like to see a USE too.

You'll have to pick one language, or a couple. Teaching all children 3 or 4 languages is nice, but not efficient enough for all the other things that you'll be doing. Roads are the next point, as you already have the trains.

And there's going to be a bunch of different laws that will have to be standardized, or you'll get criminals running over to another state, and you have to go through the process of extraditing them, which just bogs down your courts even more.

It'll take some serious work (physically), and a whole lot of compromising (idealistically). But I really think the entire world would be a better place if all the EU nations did things together, instead of just co-operating and tolerating each other.

It'll take a few years, I'd imagine, just to get used to the no-passport/visa thing...

I'll move to New Zealand the day Norway joins the EU. Nothing about it makes sense to me.

Ejsmith we don't need to excommunicate our own language to become a nation and take the English or French or German as our native language in order to unite. Most Europeans know a second language and the most common are English.
Also don't forget that the EU law is above every nation's law and generally there are not so significant differences in the laws of the european nations. And the EU laws are required to be accepted from every nation within this union so no problem with that.
The real problem is how to maintain the different nationalities in a uniformed structure of a nation and this will take time due to the history and the past conflicts (i.e. serbs croatians) but although i will not see this i sincerelly hope my children will rise other these petty things and understand that the future lies in peacefull existence with our neighbours and not in continuous conflict. :D
This is just my hope. :cool:
@ Mollusken what exactly is not making sense; Wouldn't you like to have the opportunity to travel within Europe without passports customs and all the bureaucracy that goes with travelling;

There are a lot of problems involving the EU. Some of them is mainly ignoring the positive side or making it positive.

1. As non-member I say. Since the times of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, there was never so much peace in Western Europe (except former Yugoslavia) than in the time since 1945. That is a huge, a giantic achievement.

2. The EU has nearly no means to create positive emotions, except maybe the EC-sign and the Euro. And the Euro creates mixed emotions and I think that's an understatement. But something like a Europewide holiday or a European football-team would rule.

European Football team -> players from all EU-member-states. A worthy opponent for Brazil. I'd even say, they would have a chance to win against Brazil. he, he, they're might even be able to compete with Brazil in the field of winning-parties. Yes, yes I know, that's impossible, because it would mean, that the Germans, French, Danish, British, Dutch etc. etc. etc. would have to let go of their own, highly worshipped national teams.

At Ejsmith: You're idea with language is nice. But my country has a lot of funny little cute languages. And come hell or high water, we would never, never, never, never give one of our languages up. Well, maybe Rumansh. But I wouldn't dare say that to a Rumansh-speaker. And learning a lot of languages is good. It's good training for the brain and opens up one's mind.

Also don't forget that the EU law is above every nation's law and generally there are not so significant differences in the laws of the european nations. And the EU laws are required to be accepted from every nation within this union so no problem with that.That's the problem. The EU laws can't possibly adjust to every single country's needs, and therefor many of them will be "unfair" for some. Norway is very different from Europe in many ways, and especially much of our economic politics could never be accepted by the EU.

the future lies in peacefull existence with our neighbours and not in continuous conflictWe have NATO for that.

Wouldn't you like to have the opportunity to travel within Europe without passports customs and all the bureaucracy that goes with travelling;It will only bring trouble. If people are to move as they want between countries, how can we control where they are?

he, he, they're might even be able to compete with Brazil in the field of winning-parties.The French have allready beaten them, and we beat them twice back in 1998. First 4-2 in a friendly, then 2-1 in the World Championship in France.

Norway has beaten brazil ? I wasn't aware of that. :thumb: No, I was mainly referring to the desaster 2002. Germany ? Final ? Without being able to play football at all ? How has this been possible ?

It will only bring trouble. If people are to move as they want between countries, how can we control where they are?
They do it already. EU-passport gets you in. People with no EU-passport (poor fellows like me) have to wait in line. And when I travel between countries, I don't want to be controlled. And people you want to control, usally master the art of getting anywhere they want while evading every kind of control anyway.

It will only bring trouble. If people are to move as they want between countries, how can we control where they are?
That's the reason they made the Shenghen treaty. When one travels from one EU country to another he has to show his ID with this they even know what you ate for supper if there is need to know.
Furthermore do you know for sure that the economical politics of Norway (which i'd love to visit or even stay there) are not accepted in the EU. I think that EU is only having concern over some major economical rates (inflation) not on all subjects.
Anyway noone is forcing anyone and if Norway does not want to become a member that is Norway's choice and she has to cope with it. :)

It will only bring trouble. If people are to move as they want between countries, how can we control where they are? :lol:

Mollusken, why should anyone want to? Should we make legislation as to where people should live?

Or are you scared that Norway would be swamped by our European bretheren? Who are of course already perfectly entitled to live in Norway......

Who are of course already perfectly entitled to live in Norway...... Why entitled to live in Norway ?

It might work, only if France is decimated.

I recently read a report that France has been helping to arm Iraq, and went so far as to tell other European nations that by supporting the U.S. actions in Iraq they would be making France their enemy. ooh, i bet they scared everyone with that one. I mean, wow, the French army, now there's a force to be reckoned with :lol:

Yes, why should we really bother to know where criminals or illegal immigrants are? Why do we even have passports or even borders anyway? Are those 15 minutes in lane waiting for the passport control when you're going on a trip to another country really that annoying?

Furthermore do you know for sure that the economical politics of Norway (which i'd love to visit or even stay there) are not accepted in the EU.They're allready nagging about how we economicly support people who live in the north, by lowering their taxes just to make sure they stay up there. If we didn't do this, more people would move down to the bigger cities in south Norway.

Or are you scared that Norway would be swamped by our European bretheren?Yes of course. Especially when the EU is expanding eastwards.

Migration would be a huge problem in a more closely tied EU. Decent people do not need their movements monitored or controlled, as they will be a benefit to whatever society they are in. Filthy criminals do need to be controlled, so they do not spread their depredations all over the place. Since you can't tell the difference at a glance, you have hassles for everyone trying to migrate.

The US manages to succeed because it is a "melting pot". The Europeans will never accept the necessary shedding of certain things that would be necessary if the EU were to adopt a "melting pot" society.

Canada is a "cultural mosaic". While Trudeau thought that model for a society would be more successful, he was wrong. It is not a model that will create a stable society. The various cultures clash too much and nothing gets accomplished.

Migration is an interseting topic.

A. There is already a lot of migration going on. The boundaries of all our countries are already to small. It would make no sense, economically or "personally" to stop people from travelling all over the place and settle in other places. And is already happening anyway.

B. The economical ties are like a web, economical speaking, Europe is one. Not separable anymore. And I can tell a story about that, because as "tranist" country, trillions of ****ed up Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Austrian, Polish, Danish etc. trucks are crossing central Europe, bringing goods all over the place. And that is really annoying. TRAFFIC JAM, nearly everyday at the mountain passes. And then terror in the holydays.

C Europe needs nothing more than MIGRATION. Really. Migration is needed. Because nearly all Western European countries have a population decrease. But nearly no one has the guts to adress the problem. We got a giantic demographical problem. That's why nearly ever European country has now worries about the pensions-system. It just doesn't work, when they are not enough young ones there, to replace the ones who retire. Just not enough babies.

Greenlion420, where O where did you hear about France helping to arm Iraq? LOLZ. Everybody knows who armed Iraq and Afghanistan. The US did.
And about the strengthe of the French army....why do you think that France can vote a "veto" on the UN security council? Only France, Russia, China and the US can. Because France is a nuclear power with a huge aircraft potential (the Mirage 2000c is fantastic), a big tank force and, not to forget, the foreign legion.

We were threatened, harrassed, surrounded, menaced and brainwashed by Jacques Chirac. The most frightening moment was, when he was aired on the EBC (European Broadcasting Corporation, controlled by the French state) and spoke his famous words, I still tremble in horror everytime I think about it:" The EU has decided to support Saddam Hussein wherever we can!". Silvio Berlusconi was crying, Joschka Fischer trembled, José María Aznar was hiding behind a chair and Tony Blair fled to Washington.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "nationalities" (ethnic differences) of the different nations in Europe posing a problem to a United Europe. Given the incredibly low birth rates in most European countries, and the high immigration from non-European nations, the national identities of most of European nations will be eliminated within the next 50 years.

At least, I can I comfort myself with the thought that in 50 years, there will be no more WASPs in North-America. :D ;)

I think that USE would cause more problems than it will solve. Think about another arms race. Or a balance of powers like before WW1. How do they sound? But even after thinking of that i must agree that it would be a wonderful thing. Imagin that, USA second powerfullest military power :) . That is a think i would love to see.

But what i think would be much better than USE would be one world country thing, if you understand what i mean. Run by the UN or a similar (spelling?) organisation, with its own army, currency, capital, airport and even its own postage system. I know that it would be extremly hard to control the entire world but lets say that the countries each remain seperate. Kind of like what the different states in USA are like (well what i think they are like, i dont know for sure). They all have their own seperate laws and currency and every thing but are governed by one big power. Maybe even send a rep from each country to the UN or what ever it is.
This way you'd get no power struggles, you'd have free trade, and there would be great human right thingys because there will be someone who could inforce the international laws.

And this problem mentioned before about not been able to keep track of people, why get rid of passports. You could still have passports just on "world passport" thing, you could still have check points at every "country" border.
Imagin how much troble this will save when travelling over seas. No currency exchanges need (u could use this international currency) no international drivers licence, no visas, etc

@Mollusken
:yot: Why New Zealand? Thats an interesting choice. I was borne in norway my self and then now live in New Zealand which is better than any of Norway i can remember, but still why New Zealand?

@ Malaqai

You said it yourself, the Mirage, that's exactly THE most important fighter of the Iraqi airforce. But of course now you're gonna say that they bought them from America, right ? :D

No, I am gonna say that France SOLD them to Iraq. The same way that every arms-company in the world sells their weapons. They do it to make money, you know?
And about the EU announcing to support Iraq. That NEVER happened, cause the EU is closely followed in my country (cause we want to join in) and I would have seen it.

@RotKU: How does the scenario you describe differ significantly from what Europe has now? What am I missing?

BTW, there's only one currency and postal system in the US, not one for every state. Large airports are generally run by the city they're in, while small ones are often private enterprises. When it comes to state law v. federal (and I hope that dmc , Sir Bel, or Laches will correct me if I'm wrong!), what you have is the federal government making umbrella policy (Thou shalt not discriminate in hiring) that the states then have to administer locally. Federal law also governs interstate matters, like commerce or communications.

Economics is the engine of society. It would be nice if people throughout the world could rise above cultural and liguistic differences for the purposes of making money, and then go back home and spend their profits however they wanted. I'm not hopeful.

I'm not hopeful Rallymama, I am. In the end, the spirit of trade will always prevail over the spirit of war. If the French and the Germans can, everyone can.

At Malaqai: That with France, the EU and Blair escaping to Washington was a joke. At least I tried to make a joke.

[ May 07, 2003, 19:50: Message edited by: Yago ]

thank you Pac man. and as for France having nukes, who cares, we all got 'em. it's the so-called French army itself i was poking at. :D

You don't have to thank me dude, there's too much US bashing going on, and frankly, it makes me pretty sick. As if the US is some kind of evil empire trying to conquer the world.

AT YAGO:
A joke, eh? I am sorry, but I didn't see your face nor hear your voice...I though you were being serious. Sorry.

well, actually Pac man, one of my biggest fears is that the U.S. will someday try to conquer the world. very slowly we are all watching the U.S. turn into the very same thing it's founders ran away from :(

but thanks for backing me up anyway and yes the Mirage is bad as hell, too bad you can throw off French radar by coating the nose of your aircraft with tin foil, they'll never see you coming :D

@Rallymama
Sorry i'm not to sure if i know what your talking about, but hey i'll take a guess.
With the arms race and like before during the "cold" war, with of corse the worlds other super powers ie. USA. Do you really think that they will let another contry become more powerful than they are?
And then with the balance of powers i'm sure i did mean something but i have no idea now.

I know that theres only one currency and postal system in the USA, I sort of said that and then wrote a bit and relised that it wasn't like the USA much at all. I was going to change that (or remove it) but never quiet got around to it.

And i don't see why the laws should work any different. Most of the laws international (i guess then it would just be national) and then just a few laws national (or stat or whatever) for the different caltures and believes.

And this will happen... just wait and see...

I agree with Greenlion420 about the USA trying to conquer the world. Bush has already conquered the UK - as long as Blair is in charge then the UK will just be another state of America. We are on the wrong side of the ocean and if we are going to join with someone it should be Europe - unfortunately i think there is too much xenophobia and racism in the UK (even amongst ourselves - ie scotland and england) for us to ever join Europe properly.

In the end I'm not too worried about the USA taking over the world as everyone else who has tried to create an empire/take over the world has failed and usually left themselves in a worse situation than when they started out anyway.

That last paragraph is a great way of looking at things, monkey, I've never quiet seen it that way. Thanks :thumb: .

Thats what i like about this place, hearing other people opinons and looking at things in a different perspective. :)

Well, you don't have to conquer the world with weapons these days. Money will do fine.

Coorperations rule, not armies. :D

He, he. That's an intersting point, the American Empire.

My view is, the best way for the European continent is splendid isolation. Eu or not, just work together and hands off any Empire.

Empire building: Well, I could care less if they're on the Empire-building trip or not, just 3 points worry me.

1. Economical cost. Americans are there to do business with us. If they, like they do now, throw all they're money in the Empire-drain, Empire costs an awful lot of money, it hurts business.

2. The logics of Empire demand, that they have all the geopolitical important regions in the world under control (Middle-Eastern-Oil-Fields) to secure the dominance. This attempt will lead to even more chaos in this region, which affects again the rest of the world economically. As Oil is not in unlimited supply on this planet, seems like they're going to have Euroasia be the economic-balls.

3. The logics of Empire demand further, that they must feel threatend by China (and India a little bit behind) and secure, that China does not grow in power. Hm, controlling the oil-supply ? As the growth of China is an irreversible fact, it forces the Empire to take a belligrent position versus China. Pissin' off China isn't the best idea in the world, in my opinion.

In short, some say China is like Germany in the 1890's, a danger rising to power. I say, China is like the England in the 16th, a rising power and the USA is like Spain, trying to build an invincible Armada. Imperial overstretch is economical suicide. I think, Europe should behave like a smart group of sailors, and jump from the sinking ship and try to swim to the saving coast and look for it's on economical survival.

Mollusken, I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you, but when did you last leave Norway?

Yes, why should we really bother to know where criminals or illegal immigrants are? Why do we even have passports or even borders anyway? Are those 15 minutes in lane waiting for the passport control when you're going on a trip to another country really that annoying?
Firstly, what on earth does any of the EU stuff have to do with illegal immigrants? We are talking about migration within the EU, not immigration into it.

Crime is hardly a phenomenon restircted by borders and exclusive to "other countries". Criminals do not tend to put under "occupation" in their passports.

Secondly, on the points of Norway and passport controls... There is no passport control between Norway and the following countries: Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece.

In other words the entire EU except Ireland and the UK.

Thirdly, since 1 Jan 1994, ANY EU citizen has been entitled to enter Norway to live and work, just like any Norwegian citizen can move to any EU country. This has neither caused an mass influx or an exedus between Norway and the EU to my knowledge.

Finally, there will be a seven year restriction on the new member countries joining from Eastern Europe in terms of free migration, in order to build up the infrastructure and improve the economies of these countries. Similar restrictions were applied when Spain and Portugal joined in 1986, but were lifted early when the economic growth of these countries improved, and they had net immigration from the rest of the EU, not the other way around.

Try to consider what the EU would do for Norway rather than just focus specific things that will have to change.

I was in Estonia at the end of March, and in Sweden in April. But I don't travel a lot (why would I ever want to see other countries, when I haven't even seen everything here?).

Norway will suffer from very little influence in the EU because of our small population (4,5 million). We will have very little to say in the parliament in Brüssel, and therefor we will have to adjust to a lot of laws which might not be the best solutions for Norwegian needs. I believe we can manage ourselves, and I don't understand why other countries in Europe can't do this as well.

and I don't understand why other countries in Europe can't do this as well. We're likeley to join the EU as the last (if the ever want to accept us). I think Norway will be going in long before us. The problem is, Integration is reality. Rallymama mentioned US-mail. The Telecom sector is wholly integretated anyway. My cell-phone works over a British-company called "Orange". And the traditional post sector works perfectly from country to country. It acutally always did. Highways don't suddenly end on the frontier. It's easily possible to drive from Amsterdam direct to Southern-Italy. And everybody has a Nokia Cell phone. Now, would it be wise, if every European country would have it's own special law concerning cell-phones ? Or are any everyday problems known, concerning law and trade between European countries. Did they not accept an Italian Visa-Card in Kopenhagen or Mallorca ?

Norway will suffer from very little influence in the EU because of our small population (4,5 million). We will have very little to say in the parliament in Brüssel, and therefor we will have to adjust to a lot of laws which might not be the best solutions for Norwegian needs. I believe we can manage ourselves, and I don't understand why other countries in Europe can't do this as well. I've been waiting and hoping someone would make a connection with this. This fear of Mollusken's is precisely the reason and justification for an electoral system which protects the minority from being over run - which has been criticized extensively on these boards for being undemocratic - when it's in the U.S. anyways.

Just something interesting I thought.

As far as will it work - I posted something a while back, let's see, where was it....ah:

A friend of mine at the 'Frankfurter Allgemeine', and whose political opinions I sometimes quite respect, has a theory that the whole pensions/benefits fiasco will probably be overshadowed fairly soon by the EU Question.

My friend thinks that, as Germans slowly wake up to the fact that they are not longer able to retire at 45 on a full pension, that their jobs are no longer as safe as they were, and that their schools are in crisis; they will slowly demand that their country stops subsidising the EU to the enormous extent that it does at present. My journalist friend believes that German public opinion, more than anything else, might well destroy both the Euro and the EU Experiment......

As to German popular opinion and its hypothetical role in getting rid of the Euro, my friend at the FAZ thinks that it will be the ordinary German on the street who will eventually rise up and protest. My friend thinks that Germans will become increasingly tired of their high taxes and steadily declining public services, and that they will increasingly resent the fact that their money is subsidising the rest of the EU, whilst their economy is stagnating and their pensions and benefits are in crisis. Many Germans will then start putting increasing pressure on their politicians to reduce national contributions to the EU, which will then totally devastate EU finances and make subsidies impossible to finance. The crisis in European funding would cut the EU infrastructure back to absolute basics, many of the biggest net contributors would follow Germany's example and refuse to make payments, and this might lead in turn to the Euro becoming unsustainable.
IF the EU collapses it'll probably be similar to this theory in some way. I regularly visit a board with a lot of European visitors as well and a number of them from various powerful European nations chimed in to say that in their opinion if it collapses it'll be because of something like that with the big nations getting fed up.

Note, this isn't saying that it's right around the corner or that Germany or others are on the brink. It was a 20-30 years down the road thing:

Well, I thought that Schröder had started thinking about legislation on the issues of pensions, labour laws and pensions in the few months before the election. However, after the Social Democrats won in September, these proposed pieces of legislation mysteriously disappeared and never made it into parliamentary discussion.

Things are indisputably going less well for the German economy; it is certainly stagnating and has been the slowest-growing in the whole of the EU for the last eight years running. The Germans were formally reprimanded recently by the EU High Command for letting their budget deficit increase over acceptable EU levels. However, given that the bankrupt and antiquated GDR only formally became part of a reunified Germany in 1990, it is absolutely astonishing that the Germans have managed to transform the east so overwhelmingly in such a short space of time, and have not bankrupted the entire country in the process. Germany was saddled with the ongoing bill for transforming an area of 18 million people, an obsolete economy and a pre-WWII infrastructure into a modern, twenty-first century European region, with all the welfare and social benefits that entails. The result so far is absolutely astonishing. Additionally, the German economy is an overwhelmingly export-driven one, which means that it is hugely vulnerable during a world-wide economic slump like the one we are seeing at present. The German economy is also hidebound by extremely restrictive and intrusive regulation, and heavily burdened by one of the most protected, expensive and inflexible labour forces on the planet.

However, the German economy is still by far the biggest in Europe (a third bigger again than the economies of either the UK or France). The idea that Germany is slowly stagnating into oblivion has been around for years now, yet the country is still by far the richest country in the EU, with incredibly generous welfare payments and benefits for everybody in need of them. German workers are entitled to six or eight weeks' holiday a year, and work approximately 25% fewer hours a year than their counterparts in America. Despite the productivity downturn, lack of economic growth and a persistent failure to modernise labour-relations, taxes or the welfare state, Germans still live extremely well.

As to what I think will happen: probably very little, at least not for the next few years. I can't imagine that Schröder will be exactly keen to institute radical reform in the face of the minuscule parliamentary majority for the SDP. Demographic trends and economic forecasts mean, I think, that Germany will start to run out of money sometime in the next 20-30 years. I imagine that the Europe Union Experiment might well have muddied the waters irrecoverably long before that. I dunno, seems reasonable.

EDIT - flood protection cut me off.

Yeah that's true, a lot of European countries (like mine) facing huge economical problems. They're on a turning point. They all need reform.

European-integration is not something which is chosen, it is something that already happened and is beyond political will. The economies have grown into eachother a long time ago.

Just which reform is another question.

But that has actually nothing to do with the EU. Those problems are homemade for all of them. But I am still waiting for those fools at the EU-central bank to jump into the inflation game. Dam, what's the reason in having an influential currency, when the influence is not used ? inflate now!

But, sigh, European countries are not the only economies of the world, which have a rocky road ahead.

The worst problem Europeans now face is a reform of the school-system. Germany is one of the worst, the northern states have f''''ed up their schoolsystem. And concering internal problems. I guess, the south-Germans will be fed-up with paying for the east and the north, sooner than Germany is fed-up with paying for the European rest. Some of those payments are good investment. I hope Poland becomes an economical-tiger, which will draw the "old" Europeans out of the slump. Europe can't rest on the shoulder of Finland and Nokia for the rest of eternity. The only other thriving economy and hope is China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1023629.stm

Unlike their Swedish and Danish neighbours, Finns appear to be enthusiastic about the European project. Finland is the only Nordic EU member to adopt the euro as the national currency. Finland's consensus politics makes for stable, if slow-moving government.

The country has developed a modern, competitive economy, adding to the traditional timber and metals industries a substantial telecommunications sector. The Finnish firm Nokia emerged as the world's number one mobile phone maker as the sector boomed and the rate of economic growth topped 6% in 2000.

However, as tough times hit telecoms early in the new millennium even Nokia was forced to make cuts in the work force. Finnish exports fell in 2001 and the economy as a whole slowed throughout 2002 and into 2003 with unemployment above the European average.



[ May 23, 2003, 17:34: Message edited by: Yago ]