GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Europeans .... from an American point of view

pimplink · 10-13-2002, 08:41 PM

From Plastic.Com
================

Why there will NEVER be a United States of Europe

I think it's clear that how each European country views the prospect of a united Europe is controlled by the history of their power as influencers of Europe in the past. Byatt notes the hesitation of the Norwegians to identify with Europe. Well, that's hardly surprising. Denmark and Sweden took turns ruling them for almost all of their history as a nation. Norwegians have a complex about their national identity as a result. Much worse than Canada in relation to the US, because Canadians don't have to endure Americans telling them that we gave them their ability to read and write, which is what the Danes tell the Norwegians.

France, on the other hand, is very enthusiastic about Europe because it sees the EU as the newest vehicle through which it can gratify its dreams of political hegemony. The French have always seen themselves as the true rulers of Europe, though, with the significant exception of Napoleon, they have had zero success at realizing that dream. They are also smart enough to know that their ability to influence the world merely as France ended at Suez - crushed at the hands of the United States. So they have conceptualized the EU as the new vessel for the expression of French power. Their Josef Conradian empire in west Africa is small consolation for those ambitions.

The English and Spanish are ambivalent because they see themselves as part of a wider world, and one that they helped make. Unlike the French, both England and Spain actually had the experience of ruling a huge chunk of the world, and so their amibitions remain turned in that direction. The so-called "anglosphere" of Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand and India beckons the English with an air of familiarity that they rarely feel in Europe proper. Likewise for the Spanish. Europe is to them actually an afterthought, as they have often been to Europe.

Add to this the xenophobia inherent in social democratic societies, and it seems that the formation of a unified European identity is far-fetched. Rather, what we will see is a unified administrative entity that is used, in succession, by a variety of thinly-veiled national agendas. We already see in the budget process that the old powers of Europe will simply refuse to honor their EU commitments when it conflicts with their national interests (as France has recently done with respect to EU limits on its budget deficit.).

The US has such a strong national identity because it was formed by people who were consciously, actively forsaking their old one. This is not the case of the EU, where the task is to somehow integrate a dizzying array of ancient national identities into one super-identity. It can only fail.

But that does not mean the EU will fail, or that it is a bad thing. It just won't be a United States of Europe. Indeed, one wonders if its formation does not herald an era of quiescence and introspection for Europe on the world stage, as it turns more and more inward on itself and its own dilemmas of identity. In that respect, the formation of the EU may in fact strengthen the ascendancy of the US and China as the powers of the 21st century, both countries unfettered by such preoccupations.

10-13-2002, 08:41 PM
pimplink Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Closer than you think Posts: 9,535	Europeans .... from an American point of view From Plastic.Com ================ Why there will NEVER be a United States of Europe I think it's clear that how each European country views the prospect of a united Europe is controlled by the history of their power as influencers of Europe in the past. Byatt notes the hesitation of the Norwegians to identify with Europe. Well, that's hardly surprising. Denmark and Sweden took turns ruling them for almost all of their history as a nation. Norwegians have a complex about their national identity as a result. Much worse than Canada in relation to the US, because Canadians don't have to endure Americans telling them that we gave them their ability to read and write, which is what the Danes tell the Norwegians. France, on the other hand, is very enthusiastic about Europe because it sees the EU as the newest vehicle through which it can gratify its dreams of political hegemony. The French have always seen themselves as the true rulers of Europe, though, with the significant exception of Napoleon, they have had zero success at realizing that dream. They are also smart enough to know that their ability to influence the world merely as France ended at Suez - crushed at the hands of the United States. So they have conceptualized the EU as the new vessel for the expression of French power. Their Josef Conradian empire in west Africa is small consolation for those ambitions. The English and Spanish are ambivalent because they see themselves as part of a wider world, and one that they helped make. Unlike the French, both England and Spain actually had the experience of ruling a huge chunk of the world, and so their amibitions remain turned in that direction. The so-called "anglosphere" of Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand and India beckons the English with an air of familiarity that they rarely feel in Europe proper. Likewise for the Spanish. Europe is to them actually an afterthought, as they have often been to Europe. Add to this the xenophobia inherent in social democratic societies, and it seems that the formation of a unified European identity is far-fetched. Rather, what we will see is a unified administrative entity that is used, in succession, by a variety of thinly-veiled national agendas. We already see in the budget process that the old powers of Europe will simply refuse to honor their EU commitments when it conflicts with their national interests (as France has recently done with respect to EU limits on its budget deficit.). The US has such a strong national identity because it was formed by people who were consciously, actively forsaking their old one. This is not the case of the EU, where the task is to somehow integrate a dizzying array of ancient national identities into one super-identity. It can only fail. But that does not mean the EU will fail, or that it is a bad thing. It just won't be a United States of Europe. Indeed, one wonders if its formation does not herald an era of quiescence and introspection for Europe on the world stage, as it turns more and more inward on itself and its own dilemmas of identity. In that respect, the formation of the EU may in fact strengthen the ascendancy of the US and China as the powers of the 21st century, both countries unfettered by such preoccupations.