The Eu
reasa
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think of it?</div> The EU is a subject that interests me, because I think its a good idea that isnt being done right. The countries of Europe are never known for their unity, so the EU is a big step forward. But as expected it has degressed into petty fights and national pride, as far as I can see. Example: France threatens not to let Poland into the EU because they suported the US. 2. Italian represenative? calls the German ambasdor? or some offcial, pretty much a Nazi. I hear and read bits and pieces like this every so often. Also the Euro, which I think is a good idea, but yet Britian and a few other countries refused to accpect it. Now if im up to speed the Euro is a collective of all the countries who use its econmies, so they can help each other? If im right it would have been in Britans favor to accpect it, as Germany has a better economy then they do.
I'm not completely sure everything I stated in the above is correct, so please inform me on anything thats wrong. I need to do some reading up on the EU, the news here dosent mention it much. Anyway discuss your thoughs on the EU.
I'm not completely sure everything I stated in the above is correct, so please inform me on anything thats wrong. I need to do some reading up on the EU, the news here dosent mention it much. Anyway discuss your thoughs on the EU.
Comments
But that's just my opinion.
Disbanding NATO would be a huge mistake. Until the UN gets its act together, NATO is really the only organization that can ( will? ) do anything militarily... and somewhat successful at that. Alot of the time, the UN will not do something just so that NATO can. Although NATO's original purpose for existence no longer applies... There is still a great deal of good that can become of NATO.
The EU on the other hand... Its going to be interesting to see how it turns out. I mean, blocking countries just because they make a decision that you disagree with is not a good sign. The members of the EU should not expect to agree all the time. Although the EU will bring their individual national interests together in many areas, that by no means should be an assumption that they will always agree. As far as I am aware, the EU has not been created to challenge an individual nation's sovereignty... Thus, expect nations to still do what is in their best interests.
The primary purpose of the EU is economical in nature. Now, economics seriously affects other things as well... But for now we'll just stick with economics. With the European countries forming the EU, their hope is that they will be able to have economic power and influence that rivals the US. They know that individually they do not stand a chance. So they came together.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NATO was formed as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact alliance in the East. That threat is now gone. What purpose exactly does NATO serve? It doesn't counterbalance any external threat because none exist. Internal threats are much more likely to be solved by individual nations themselves. Yes, before someone does bring it up, Kosovo. But that honestly did not require all of NATO to accomplish, nor an alliance on the scale of NATO. The UN could have done it, but would probably have been blocked by Russia's veto. Hence, I would believe that the problem lies with the UN's structure, and that NATO remains a fairly pointless alliance. Especially when it is constantly looking across the Atlantic at it's largest and most powerful member, the US.
As for the EU, I tend to think of it as a pipe dream. The nations of Europe are seperated by centuries of conflict, social and cultural differances and strong feelings of nationalism. I think that the only way Europe would truely come together would be if someone forced them to via war. Some have tried that, and failed in the attempt. Which would seem to indicate that Europe will always be divided, and that any alliances are merely temporary.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NATO was formed as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact alliance in the East. That threat is now gone. What purpose exactly does NATO serve? It doesn't counterbalance any external threat because none exist. Internal threats are much more likely to be solved by individual nations themselves. Yes, before someone does bring it up, Kosovo. But that honestly did not require all of NATO to accomplish, nor an alliance on the scale of NATO. The UN could have done it, but would probably have been blocked by Russia's veto. Hence, I would believe that the problem lies with the UN's structure, and that NATO remains a fairly pointless alliance. Especially when it is constantly looking across the Atlantic at it's largest and most powerful member, the US.
As for the EU, I tend to think of it as a pipe dream. The nations of Europe are seperated by centuries of conflict, social and cultural differances and strong feelings of nationalism. I think that the only way Europe would truely come together would be if someone forced them to via war. Some have tried that, and failed in the attempt. Which would seem to indicate that Europe will always be divided, and that any alliances are merely temporary. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So to sum up what Ryo said, NATO really is pointless, but we should keep it until the UN grows some balls. The idea of the EU is like perfect balance in games, less people w4oring the kar, a true communist government and world peace - great in theory, but it wont happen unless there are some critical changes made in a whole stack of areas.
The scotland/england gap amongst others is just as bad as any deep-seated anamosity out there and yet the country is still one and we work together most of the time ^^
The scotland/england gap amongst others is just as bad as any deep-seated anamosity out there and yet the country is still one and we work together most of the time ^^ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.snp.org.uk/html/vision/campaigns/campaigndetail.php?campaignID=8' target='_blank'>Scottish National Party</a>
I'm a Unionist by the way, fully believing in the United Kingdom as being more than the sum of its parts.
I wish the same could be said for the European Union. It seems like a fantastic idea, but theres too much stopping a "Federal" Europe.
The best situation I could see would be a Europe like the Holy Roman Empire of Early Modern Europe - where the Emporer had little direct power and had to 'use' the princes to enforce his will, a 'Federal Europe' will not work, and the only way we would get to one would be if there was a great need to unify and the only way one could be formed would be against the will of the majority of people in Europe.
The EU will never be more than a set of tax laws, trade agreements, and currency consolidations unless the nations learn what we learned here in the US 228 years ago - the states (or nations) that make up a republic cannot be inherently more powerful than each other for the system to work. While the US House of Representatives allows a state with more people that have more votes, it is checked by a Senate that gives each state the same votes as every other. A centralized president checks those, and is in turn checked by them. And a centralized judiciary checks them all. The EU is sort of like the squabbling pre-US states in the 1780's, trying to decide how to use their newly-gained powers together. After 3000 years of internal warfare, political squabbling, bigotry, and nationalist superiority, I don't see Europe much closer to realizing any dreams of a workable republic or even an unworkable one. The EU will go the way of the League of Nations in short order as long as it has more powerful nations controlling weaker ones.
This did not happen - partly because of the pressures of the Cold War, but also not after its end. On the contrary, despite occasional differences (such as the question about the war in Iraq), those three and the other west European states have reached a state more benevolent than peaceful coexistence. Today, I, a German, am toying with the thought of studying in Great Britain, and a friend decided she'd take up a scholarship founded by the German government to study in France. The quite possibly biggest reason for this change is the close cooperation of the European Union.
In other words, the institution many of you label a failure has brought some of the most warlike rivals on Earth to peace with each other, which I personally would consider quite a success.
Many of you cited the second Gulf War as a sign of the EUs weakness and petty rivalry. I'd like to cite it as an example of its strength and united spirit.
We can all remember the visible gap between Chirac and Schröder on the one, and Blair and Aznar on the other side. What most are forgetting is the unity of a good <i>80 percent</i> of the European Unions population. No, <i>no</i> country of the current or future EU had a population supporting the war (short sentiment-spikes in Poland after Chiracs infamous snide remark nonwithstanding). This shows that the EU, while politically not yet a homogenous entity, has already reached a unity of popular sentiment that established federations, such as the United States, lacked numerous times throughout their history. Such a development isn't very surprising: The EU was first formed as an economic union, as its pioneers (such as the visionary French foreign minister Robert Schumann) realized the popular and political gaps between their states were too wide to bridge at that time.
Right now, we see the popular gap closing: When Donald Rumsfeld insulted France and Germany as parts of the 'Axis of Weasel', British newspapers screamed back as loudly as their German and French competitors. Throughout the war, no country saw protest actions as heavy as the United Kingdom, politically the closest ally of the US. The message was simple: The 'New Europe' Rumsfeld saw behind him didn't exist.
It is easy to look at the quarrels between the different European government - specifically the cabinet of the populist Berlusconi who told a German representative in the European Parliament to apply for a movie role as Nazi - and assume that Europe will never be united, but the fact that the very same Parliament (consisting of representatives from grossly different countries and political parties) defended this one of them as a whole tells something different. It's true that the bureaucracy in Brussels is ridiculous, it's true that the current administrative forms of the Union aren't practical, it's true that every single states government tries to play for its own advantage, it's also true that the joint currency will need a long time to be accepted, but look into a history book and tell me which of these issues the young United States didn't have to face.
The EU will soon recieve its first constitution. It'll be doubtlessly faulty in many points, but it'll be the beginning of a much more close political interaction between the national governments and thus a first step into a future without, or at least with less, petty quarrels.
The controversy around the war on Iraq initiated the forumaltion of a ruleset for a European foreign policy. Maybe, this was the last time that Europe spoke in different voices.
The hope for a united Europe does of course seem to be a dream: The very origin of nationality - united into a post-national federation? Many cultural gaps remain, some certainly forever, but, to quote an European: "To achieve the new, one has to attempt the impossible."
[edit]Copy&pasting from the wordpad isn't my friend. Cleared up.[/edit]
Europe has 3000 years of uninterrupted warfare, political upheavel, and regionalism. <i>Uninterrupted</i>. In the case of the EU, the safe bet is on self-destruction, just like the entire history of europe. Until you get rid of language, political, and cultural differences, you will remain the same europe of old. Having some common trade tarrifs and some common rules of law is nothing new at all in europe - everytime a minor empire was formed it happened, under Napoleon, The Romans, the Holy Romans, the Germans, etc. It never lasted long, and europe always implodes under its own dead weight every time, usually in only a few years...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Until you get rid of language, political, and cultural differences, you will remain the same europe of old.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The United States house, as you'll proudly confirm, people of more different languages and cultures than any other nation in the world. Yet, they don't seem to implode. The concept of a necessary national cultural identity is an obsolete myth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It never lasted long, and europe always implodes under its own dead weight every time, usually in only a few years... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The EU afforded western Europe the longest lasting period of peace in its history already - so much for the "few years". To get back to my first point: Fifty years ago, people would've laughed at the mere idea of German and French citizens jointly protesting against a war. Today, it is history. Why does this change seem so unlikely/superficial to you? Because a lot of burried people thought differently? According to that logic, America will have to reinstitute slavery.
The EU is fine, so long as we (the UK) stay out of it. Let the continentals have thier own little get together. We're British
Wait... The very same people? Boy, that's a surprise, because honestly, I didn't know Hitler, Churchill and de Gaulle were still alive.
The time of the empires is over, for <i>everyone</i>. Their leaders are burried.
The European Union is no empire. Claiming that someone will be "taking" everything "over" is just not true.
Additionally, I'd like to note that the United Kingdom is already a big player in the EU from an economical point of view. It hasn't adopted the Euro, but profits greatly from the joint trade zone. If Britain really decided to go isolationist, it'd soon face tremendous economical hardships.
Times may have changed, but have people's attitude's caught up?
The EU might be the best thing since sliced bread, but I dont like it. I dont know why i dont like it. maybe its the attitude i caught from my parents. I dont like the idea of my country being ruled from somewhere else. the EU is already imposing so many regulations and rules that we survived quite happily without. Why cant we have a joint trade zone without the EU parlliament dictating our every move from brussels?
Sure we're getting a scottish parliment or something built in hollyrood park but it's still not finished and it's becoming a bit of a joke. As long as I'm happy and the rules don't get in the way it doesn't mean much to me either way ^^
Now, for the issue of stupid rules from Brussels and Strassbourg.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why cant we have a joint trade zone without the EU parlliament dictating our every move from brussels? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the joint trade zone is the original reason for the administration - a trade zone needs regulation, which Brussels is supposed to provide.
Other areas of the EUs legislation are much younger, and generally by far more agreeable; take, for example, the EUs environmental policy, which is generally applied quite swiftly in all member states without more protest than any given national law on the same topic would've created. In so far, Brussels isn't really dictating any step to us. It's arguably taking power away from the countrys governments, but this power is ultimately put into other electable hands - the parliament - with the additional advantage that the then passed legislation takes effect on a by far bigger scale and thus more effectively.
What puts the EU in a shady light are mainly all those overly authoritarian economical rules (my favorite example remains the size limitation for pickles). Those, however, are mainly the product of a bureaucracy (not even the parliament itself) that tries what it just doesn't have to: Equalize the whole of the European market in every respect. This might be important in the case of, say, medics (you want to ensure that the aspirin you bought in France are identical to those you were told to take by a German doctor), but was drawn out to ridiculous, and unnecessary extends. I won't try to claim something different.
The matter of fact is however that, provided you wish to profit off the trade zone, you'll also have to organize it. This can happen in a sensible fashion - as I hope the constitution will open up by reducing the power of the bureaucracy in favor of electable institutions - or in todays, but it remains necessary for the economic aspects of the Union.
[edit]Edited to make more sense.[/edit]
May I take a wild guess?
I think it's because UK has a long history of being superior militarily and economically to other nations. It still has a relatively strong economy, own currency and even royal family. I hope you wont get offended or anything, but I think you are sub-conciously clinging on to the dream of English empire. After all the superiority it feels bad to be <b>equal</b> with other countries.
I might be way off with this, however I would like you to try to understand that every country has its own history and people proud of it. I say cherish the history but don't let it dictate the future. If EU works it means a lot of security, peace and prosperity. I think we should give it a shot.
Edit: And I think that the difference of EU countries is not only a weakness. I think that things get looked from many different angles when all the deciding people have different backgrounds. If we look at Russia, China or USA, the people who are deciding have a lot more congruent opinions on things, which makes decision making easier but those decisions might be too narrow minded.
what's next? The united states of mexico?
May I take a wild guess?
I think it's because UK has a long history of being superior militarily and economically to other nations. It still has a relatively strong economy, own currency and even royal family. I hope you wont get offended or anything, but I think you are sub-conciously clinging on to the dream of English empire. After all the superiority it feels bad to be <b>equal</b> with other countries.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think you are right
this is how i see it, to put it bluntly (please dont take offence)
Germany tried to take over Europe in 1914, and failed. They tried by the smae millitary method in 1935 and failed again. Now it just seems that they are trying through politics instead.
Call me old fasioned (i have pretty stonrg views for an 18 yr old) but I am going to oppose it all the way
[edit]Oh, and one could argue that France and GB tried the very same in 1914. My nitpicky side would like to add that WW2 started in 1933 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->[/edit]
May I take a wild guess?
I think it's because UK has a long history of being superior militarily and economically to other nations. It still has a relatively strong economy, own currency and even royal family. I hope you wont get offended or anything, but I think you are sub-conciously clinging on to the dream of English empire. After all the superiority it feels bad to be <b>equal</b> with other countries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think you are right
this is how i see it, to put it bluntly (please dont take offence)
Germany tried to take over Europe in 1914, and failed. They tried by the smae millitary method in 1935 and failed again. Now it just seems that they are trying through politics instead.
Call me old fasioned (i have pretty stonrg views for an 18 yr old) but I am going to oppose it all the way <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see you have some issues with Germany and I guess that's understandable. However I don't think Germany would have anymore control in EU than UK. And even if it would be true, who cares? It's good for everyone. Someone once said: "Pride only hurts. It's never does any good"
Also, I'm a little bewildered at that fear of Germans. You know, I happen to be one, and so far, I haven't tried to invade you...
I pretty surprised by your lack of knowledge. I thought EU headquarter is in Brussel, which is not in German. So like you said, I guess you don't have any problems with it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
[QUOTE=Nem the fast]Also, I'm a little bewildered at that fear of Germans. You know, I happen to be one, and so far, I haven't tried to invade you...[/QUOTE]
Oh please, we all know of you not-so-sekrat plans to conquer world with gigantic sauerkraut-catapults <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Fair point, to a degree. But in the modern time, wars can be fought with money just as well as bullets. Failure to join the EU is economic suicide, or I don't think you'd see as many nations doing it. It's certainly not being done for altruistic reasons, and that makes you far more comparable to a Roman empire than a USA. It is the modern equivalent of Caesar's siege warfare - 'Join us or perish'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The United States house, as you'll proudly confirm, people of more different languages and cultures than any other nation in the world. Yet, they don't seem to implode. The concept of a necessary national cultural identity is an obsolete myth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The common language of the USA is English. Everyone speaks it, at least after one generation of immigration. Europe has no such correlation, and speaks over 200 languages. Your argument is not applicable, and also is not born out by history at all. Lack of communication and language/regional differences, along with economics, are the cause of those 3000 years of continuous european conflict I mentioned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The EU afforded western Europe the longest lasting period of peace in its history already - so much for the "few years". To get back to my first point: Fifty years ago, people would've laughed at the mere idea of German and French citizens jointly protesting against a war. Today, it is history. Why does this change seem so unlikely/superficial to you? Because a lot of burried people thought differently? According to that logic, America will have to reinstitute slavery. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to the former Yugoslavia and current Russian Republic. Both have been involved in wars continuously for the past 20 years. You mean to say <i>Western</i> Europe, I hope. I said uninterrupted warfare for a reason, and just because the Western Europeans do not consider eastern europeans the real thing, does not make the wars non-existent. And you might want to check your <a href='http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_157706.php' target='_blank'>newspaper</a>, the Ukraine and Russia are about to start shooting very soon over border disputes.
I still have not seen any true rebuttal other than 'well, we should try anyways'. I agree with that statement, but it is the only one you can make. Europe has no history of peaceful trade, and the current bickering amongst rookie and veteran EU states, plus the exclusion of other countries leading to ill will, points to a repeat of history.
And they are just being prudent. I guess they still teach <i>some</i> history to you crazy kids these days... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Which emphasizes my point: EU countries will keep on biggering as long as part of them have connections to NATO and UN(maybe not so much). All the major conflicts(verbal also) inside EU has been caused by a war(that doesn't actually concern EU so much) that some of the nations support and others don't.
Good example is Gulf War, take two and few countries supporting it and most not. Yes, I am suggesting isolationism for 5-10 years from all foreign conflicts to get things straight and forming tighter bonds between EU nations. I'm saying what we <i>should</i> do, not what we will do.
Edit: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lack of communication and language/regional differences, along with economics, are the cause of those 3000 years of continuous european conflict I mentioned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And EU was formed to keep those communications lacking? Actually the communication flood is overwhelming. I would be fine with english but if finnish represantive makes a note, it will be translated to every single EU language. I guess we are still trying to maintain some equality by keeping tens of different languages as 'official' but sooner or later they raise(probably) english over others. Hopefully <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
This point would be applicable if the east-integration would've been initiated by the EU. In reality, many of the former Red Curtain states pretty much wrote the attempt of joining the EU into the preambles of their new constitutions, and then had to overcome strong restraints from big parts of the union (big parts of Germanys conservatices rejected the expansion to the last minute). Thus, this is either the first passive aggressive economic war of history, or just not an occupational action.
Note also that the new states will recieve massive economic support for years on end, so it's not as though they made a bad deal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The common language of the USA is English. Everyone speaks it, at least after one generation of immigration. Europe has no such correlation, and speaks over 200 languages. Your argument is not applicable, and also is not born out by history at all. Lack of communication and language/regional differences, along with economics, are the cause of those 3000 years of continuous european conflict I mentioned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The common language of the EU is English, as well. Everyone speaks it, at least if he passed school after 1950. I'll agree that communication remains an issue, but progress is being made, and by far more rapidly than you're willing to admit; my generation (incidentally the first generation after the opening of the national borders) is capable of communicating pretty much Europe-wide.
My point was that the United States prove that a culturally heterogenous state can be stable - which you won't doubt. I did not assume my argument to originate from history, nor did I doubt that communication was often an issue that led to conflict, but this issue <i>is being remedied</i>. Unfortunately, one can not shake a wand and get everyone to understand a language. Such a development takes time, but it happens, steadily.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You mean to say Western Europe, I hope.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. That's why I said it. I can go back and capitalize the 'w', if you wish, but I don't see how that'd make a difference <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Seriously, you can't really blame the EU for not keeping countries that aren't members at peace. Thus, Russia and Eastern Europe fall off the record for now.
[edit]Sorry, slipped over your last paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still have not seen any true rebuttal other than 'well, we should try anyways'. I agree with that statement, but it is the only one you can make. Europe has no history of peaceful trade, and the current bickering amongst rookie and veteran EU states, plus the exclusion of other countries leading to ill will, points to a repeat of history. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really see why you keep putting that much emphasis on older history in this case. The fact that my grand-grandparents (for this is the last generation truly unconcerned with the EU) didn't trade with some Britons grand-grandparents won't keep me from buying a Mini when I want one, just like it didn't stop my father, as I might add. Europe <i>has</i> a history of peaceful trade - the last fifty-two years. That's nearly one-fourth of the age of the US, so stop belittling it.
The "current bickering amongst rookie and veteran EU states" is, as I already pointed out, quite comparable to the bickering between some other states before they decided to take that 'United' seriously. It'll die down with the end of the unanimosity-rule in decisionmaking and the further homogenization of the economic situation within the EU, which has already progressed far enough to divide the bickering into the 'veterans' and the 'rookies', two groups of states with comparable economic interests. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
We seem to be in consensus about the advantages of a union of european states. These advantages seem to outweigh current smaller issues by far - so why <i>shouldn't</i> we try, anyways?[/edit]
Yes, you can blame the EU - they are the major governing body of Europe now, aren't they? If you cannot keep your own front yard policed, how do you expect to handle bigger situations? WW1 started when you ignored conflict in eastern europe; time to learn from past mistakes. More importantly, letting things like continous civil war continue in south east europe, as well as aligning yourselves with a Russia which has been slaughtering Chechnyan moslems for 20 years, is no way to gain the moral highground.
As for English speaking, you greatly overestimate the number of fluent speakers. In some parts, like urban areas of Germany, or the Netherlands, or pretty much all of scandanavia, I would wholeheartedly agree. In Italy, France, Spain, Protugal, Turkey - nonsense. People do not speak nearly fluent enough to consider it a true cross-country language EU-wide. Maybe in a few more generations, although I doubt it sincerely in France alone...
As for the US being culturally heterogenous... again, this is a popular misconception. While we are far more heterogenous as a whole than any european country, we are on average quite homogenous throughout the country. You need to come experience this for yourself in order to see what I mean, but trust me as someone who has been to 42 states and lived in Chicago, california, the south, the north east, and elsewhere. The laws, the culture, the social mores, the standards, etc. are very similar anywhere you go.
To your first point about the benefits - tell that to all these farmers I keep reading about, complaining about the trade agreements that put many of them out of business. I'm not sure that propping up poorer european states is going to have the intended result. It weakens the stronger countries, and leads to yet more resentment and regional animosities between the haves and have nots.
Like I have said, I think the EU is a good idea, and I hope it works out - you can never have enough stability in the world. But I think you need to get realistic about your chances, considering that the manner in which the EU is being created is pretty flawed.