European Values and Vision

Re: Defining the European Union

echarp — 2007-03-20 18:45:54+0100

Re: Defining the European Union

eggy — 2007-03-20 15:12:45+0100

I do not think the EU is responsible for any of its included nations, they are responsible for their own self. So too Belarus.

Belarus could be a good thing for the EU if it overcomes it’s human Rights violations and develops a meaningful democracy. Presently it seems to be negotiating with Russia. Belarus needs energy and Russia could supply it. If it entered the EU, the EU would have to arrange to supply energy.

Belarus has a strong children and women health record. This is a plus for them and contradicts the human rights violations.

I suspect Belarus will decide it’s way. The EU could benefit by offering admittance, providing the terms of rights and democracy were met first.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus

Re: Defining the European Union

echarp — 2007-03-20 14:50:58+0100

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 02:28:23PM +0100, eggy wrote:

> I think there are many ways to be a “POWER”. I believe the EU has much power > for diplomacy, such as trade sanctions etc. The NUKE emblem is useless, if one > country started it, the whole of us would be done for. The answer there is > total disarmament of all NUKES.

Not sure, nukes will probably never really go away.

Re: Defining the European Union

echarp — 2007-03-20 14:43:03+0100

I don’t know for sure. England does manage to carry on without any constitution. And most countries have independent constitutions on their own…

Re: Defining the European Union

echarp — 2007-03-20 14:35:38+0100

There are open possibilities.

First one would be the euro. If more and more countries use it as their money of keep, then the dollar and US economy are in great direct troubles.

Next, is US relationships with the rest of the world. South America for example, could become an even closer partner with Europe. There are talks of free trade.

Re: Defining the European Union

echarp — 2007-03-20 14:31:01+0100

I actually think that the US are just acting like the lions they are. And they are asking for their share…

But in the long term, multilateralism is definitely a better approach, for everybody.

Let’s hope they don’t get more imperial…

Re: Defining the European Union

eggy — 2007-03-20 14:28:23+0100

I think there are many ways to be a “POWER”. I believe the EU has much power for diplomacy, such as trade sanctions etc. The NUKE emblem is useless, if one country started it, the whole of us would be done for. The answer there is total disarmament of all NUKES.

It has also been shown (Iraq) that the local people can stand against a major assault. The Swiss train everyone to use weapons safely. I believe that is the best “total” defense.

So don’t waste money on superior weapons. I also think the EU should command NATO instead of the US. I realize NATO agreed to be “with” the US but that is old needs. Russia is different now. The NATO country’s within the EU could withdraw from the present NATO and be EUTO. That would also reduce the danger of the radical “super power”.

Re: Defining the European Union

eggy — 2007-03-20 14:11:19+0100

Re: Defining the European Union

echarp — 2007-03-20 13:52:49+0100

Re: Closing question

echarp — 2007-03-20 13:52:22+0100