Should the united EU pull more weight at an international level?

turgon

In my opinion, the EU has a lot of potential to pull its weight at an international level, most obviously and especcially in things like peacekeeping/conflict resolution. At this moment in time Americas image is so tainted with two middle-eastern wars that the EU has the ability to step in and provide some sort of leadership.

I know many people are fundamentally opposed to the EU taking on the image of a single entity in many matters. However I think its fair to say that, now under the leadership of the EU, many of the member states would share same general goals and ideals in a lot of policy areas, and the ability for a united EU to show some worldwide leadership is very evident.

For example, this morning there was a brief notice that 66 UN member states had signed a non-binding agreement banning the criminalization of homosexuality. The piece was concluded with the sentence "All 27 EU member states signed the agreement". This kind of thing is very common, that all EU member states take the same progressive moves in such things.

So should the EU start acting more like a sovereign entity in international affairs. Instead of saying Britain & France& etc etc support humanitarian aid to some country, could the EU as a whole say this. I think that the idea of the EU as a united single entity acting in the general cause of "good" would be heartening and positive move that could inspire people across the globe.

Hitman Actual

You make some good points (even as a No voter ) and I agree with your sentiments. I think the new position of High Rep and the legal personality of the EU proposed to be introduced by Lisbon are definitely a step in the right direction, and even if Lisbon isn't ratified I'd still like to see those areas introduced at some stage. And even though Sarkozy has a lot of haters amongst No voters on here, I was impressed by his (and the EU's) handling of the Georgia crisis, while USA sat back in the shadows.

WooPeeA

Of course EU has a great opportunity and I think we should make a use of it as if we won't, we may lost that chance for generations.

But I believe that before we will start doing that, we should first to some steps to change our own societies. Just look around.. So many haters, so many anti-everything which contain EU everywhere. So many people want to destroy the EU and its ideas which are so great, just because some mister X have done something some time ago. They don't want even try to change it no matter what kind of policy they support, but destroy.

When majority of 500 million us, Europeans will finally understand that people from other countries are not opposers who are trying to gain our lands or goods one from another, but people who are willing to stand beside us in the case of crisis, or problem, or any other situation if needed.

Some politicians are aware of that, and whatever you say, they are intelligent people. At least many of them.

The only reason that stops them are we, the citizens. Not ready, and not aware of the chances that are right of the front of our faces. And I'm not talking about any federal state but a team.

Yes, we are friends, but not yet a family.

brianthebard

The legacy of colonialism is such that the majority of the world's population will not take kindly to a single European power ordering them around in a fashion similiar to the nineteenth century. Things are bad enough as it is with humanitarianism hiding the processes of neo-colonialism, and the EU giving aid as an attempt to white wash over its collective colonial heritage, while at the same time destroying local industry and production. Yes its possible for the EU to throw more weight around than it already does; but the majority of the world's population do not need another overbearing European colonist.

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

The legacy of colonialism is such that the majority of the world's population will not take kindly to a single European power ordering them around in a fashion similiar to the nineteenth century. Things are bad enough as it is with humanitarianism hiding the processes of neo-colonialism, and the EU giving aid as an attempt to white wash over its collective colonial heritage, while at the same time destroying local industry and production. Yes its possible for the EU to throw more weight around than it already does; but the majority of the world's population do not need another overbearing European colonist.

And neither do they need the US doing it.

A counter balance to the US would be good, especially a strong voice. Iraq being an example were the EU could have been louder but even then, the UK and Spain would have stopped it. Still, would have been good.

The ould colonial powers debate has kind of moved on, especially if the US is concerned.

turgon

Seanies32 wrote: »

The ould colonial powers debate has kind of moved on, especially if the US is concerned.

I disagree. Take some African politicians such as Robert Mugabe, who have a large dislike of the past and as such have become highly anti-British, and a large part of their platforms to get voted in (if that ever properly happens that is).

Despite the kip Mugabe has made of Zimbabwe the other Africans are hesitant to touch him because of his past. As well Im pretty sure if Britain invaded Mugabe's appeal in his country would spike.

From this point of view it would appear that one of the EU goals would be to distance itself from the pasts of some of its member states.

Eurosceptic2008

In some respects yes, and in others no. I don't want a United States of Europe spending US-style sums on defence, and throwing its weight around in foreign-wars. But I do want the EU to stand up for European exporters in world-trade negotiations and to provide a framework for sustained cuts in carbon-emissions by EU countries. I am not opposed to the EU, provided it's powers remain within certain parameters.

VoidStarNull

I think the EU has a key role to play internationally. In recent years Europe has tried to prod the world towards an international framework based on respect for institutions and the rule of law. This coincides with Europe's interests since the EU is militarily weak and has no appetite for military adventures. It has been opposed by the US, which is militarily strong and sees institutions and laws as unnecessary impediments to its own freedom of action. (This US policy may now be about to change, however).

The EU has been severely hampered by its inability to frame a common foreign policy or defence policy, with members repeatedly being cherry-picked by the US for induction into its own agenda. Even Russia has tried this ruse on the energy front, attempting to negotiate with individual EU states in order to prevent the EU from adopting a common position.

Individual EU members no longer have enough power to influence international affairs (just look at Britain). This is an area where pooling sovereignty can pay big dividends to Europeans.

turgon

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I am not opposed to the EU, provided it's powers remain within certain parameters.

What you are saying is that yes the EU can be a power for good (you emphasize only for its own member though), but no I dont want it getting too big.

Here, in my opinion, we come to the fork in the road as regards people thinking the EU should go forward as one entity on the international stage, or not. Those for thisargue that the benefits to this are easily deduced: VoidStarNull alludes to a front against the Russian Bear for example. Those against are generally powered by idealogical mindframes, such as a United Europe is bad, which is an argument powered more by the emotional ties to the idea of sovereignty rather than logical reasoning.

Eurosceptic2008

turgon wrote: »

What you are saying is that yes the EU can be a power for good (you emphasize only for its own member though), but no I dont want it getting too big.

Here, in my opinion, we come to the fork in the road as regards people thinking the EU should go forward as one entity on the international stage, or not. Those for thisargue that the benefits to this are easily deduced: VoidStarNull alludes to a front against the Russian Bear for example. Those against are generally powered by idealogical mindframes, such as a United Europe is bad, which is an argument powered more by the emotional ties to the idea of sovereignty rather than logical reasoning.

I think if you look at 757 years of Irish history you can find plenty of rational (not just emotional) arguments for national sovereignty, given what happened to us when we didn't have it.

lostexpectation

the eu is supposed to together but not as single entity, you don't get the idea, what is it you are trying to say.

Eurosceptic2008

lostexpectation wrote: »

the eu is supposed to together but not as single entity, you don't get the idea, what is it you are trying to say.

The EU should be the sum of its parts, not merely a part in its own right. I am okay with allowing the EU Commission to negotiate on international trade/environmental/anti-crime agreements but I would like national govts to have the final say on whether they come into force. I am Irish first and European second, and I will always put Irish interests before the European interest.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

The EU should be the sum of its parts, not merely a part in its own right. I am okay with allowing the EU Commission to negotiate on international trade/environmental/anti-crime agreements but I would like national govts to have the final say on whether they come into force. I am Irish first and European second, and I will always put Irish interests before the European interest.

You're in luck then. That's what the Council does.

regards,
Scofflaw