European politicians' remarkable
speeches
Frankfurt, 2001.06.22
I.
Durant |
The belgian Transport Minister
speaks about the method to be used in the EU conference |
English
|
Paris, 2001.06.18
Lamy
& Strauss-Kahn |
Proposal of French-German
Union in the cultural, military and foreign
policy fields open to anybody is willing to join |
Summary |
Paris, 2001.05.29
Romano
Prodi |
The President of
the Commission is glad about the current lively debate |
|
Italiano |
|
Paris, 2001.05.28
Lionel
Jospin |
He speaks about a not well
defined Federation of Nation-States |
English |
Berlin, 2001.04.30
SPD |
Germany's socialdemocratic
party's discussion platform |
English |
Dublin, 2001.04.30
Joschka Fischer |
When the German minister
thought to be in front of the usually europhile Irish
poeple |
English |
Warszawa,
2000.10.6
Tony Blair |
The British premier look for
and find the polish supprt for his vision of "free
trade" Europe |
English |
Berlin,
2000.06.27
Jacques Chirac |
The French
Presidente replies cautionly |
English |
Français |
Berlin,
2000.05.12
Joschka Fischer |
On the occasion of
the 50th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, the
German minister, speaking on their own, envisages a
federal plan for Europe |
English |
Deutsch |
Talking
point: Is Europe heading for a super-state?
source: BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk
As an American
cultural student, I find it amusing to see how many in
the UK seems to thinks that the US has "a single,
binding culture and language". What they do have as a "glue"
is the flag, the Declaration of Independence etc, symbols
that works as a common culture. America is a union of
fifty states, all proud of having their "own"
culture etc. Plus, you have the African-American culture,
the Latin culture etc. And when we speak of the US, we
speak of it as a state, but when we speak of the future
EU as a state, we tend to use the word "super".
Why is that? Isn't the US more vast (geographically) than
the EU can hope to be? What we should do is to look at
other federal states, like Switzerland, where for example,
each canton decides their own budget.
|
I find people's
concerns regarding loss of cultural diversity ignorant
and naive. You just need to look at India and realise that
being one country has not reduced the cultural
diversities of different nationalities living in the
Indian federation. Besides, calling EU a superstate is
downright paranoid. The right expression is federation.
|
This whole debate is
riddled with daft contradictions. Schroeder
proposes a European government modelled on the German
constitution, which in turn was inspired by the British
after the last war, to avoid Germany ever becoming an
over-centralised 'super-state'. It has worked
rather well. Let's have Germany's decentralisation and
separation of powers, by all means. But let's also ditch
the Commission and Council of Ministers, with their
secretive, incestuous bureaucracy. No European government
will be credible until it is formed by two elected houses.
Then it would have some authority! |
I agree with Simon
Williams, I am 18 and the coming election will be my
first chance to vote. Nearly everyone I know of my own
age is far more anti EU than their parents. It shouldn't
really be surprising. The EU is a 50's idea from
a time when people thought big government was good for us.
Now is a time when government should be getting smaller
and less intrusive. Of course there are those
old fashioned pensioners who don't believe this, but
"the next generation" which Europhiles always
claim to be on their side is very definitely not! |
As for losing our
sovereignty, what does that mean? I currently have 1 vote
in 50 or so million, hardly much of a say. What
will happen with a larger superstate is a devolution of
power and democracy down to regional, even local level,
providing everyone with a much more significant say over
their future. Let's push for a more participatory local
democracy! |
Our identity is not
threatened. We are not British or German or Scottish or
Bavarian etc. because of laws or the national political
systems. It comes from the situation and the ways under
which we are raised. Why are so many people in Europe so
uncertain about their identities? A federal
Europe is not a matter of identity but of democracy,
efficient decision making and common interest. The
current situation of the EU, which is correctly described
as undemocratic and bureaucratic results from the fact,
that the national states still play the key role in
decision making. Lets go beyond the national states in
European decision making and create a federal system. |
Tomorrow's
Europe?
The UE in
some years: 25 Countries? |
This will be the
overall number if all the candidate countries will
join in coming years.
Currently the candidates' field
is divided into three groups: in the first one we
find Hungary, Cyprus, Estonia, Slovenia and Czech
Republic which could join in 2004 already.
Next to them stand Malta, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland
and Slovak Republic.
Bulgaria
and Romania surely shall not be in the first
enlargement wave.
Turkey can be the 28th State, but it has still a long
road to go.
|
|
One of
the possible UE-s: 21 member "States"? |
In this 2010's European Union we would find 21
Member-States: one of thme is a real federation, i.e.
a political Union between France, Germany and the
Benelux countries.
Their federal capital is Strasbourg, in the federal
district of Alsace.
Every willing Country could join this Federation of
the future.
|
|
|