How Do you Feel about the EU [poll]

[Azeron]

Just so there can;t be any fuzzy voting, this poll is only done by posting.
EU residents only please

The Question, How do you feel about the EU?
1) I love it
2) I like it
3) I hate it
4) They are a bunch of commie pinkos
5) they are a bunch of capitalist pigs
6) I don't care
7) germany finally has a working plan to take over europe
any union with france is dammed from the start

any choice. Just state you country and city, and vote. voice another opinion if you want.

[Kuja]

where's the "this poll is useless, biased, and offensive" option?

Seriously, though. I have no opinion.

My stats: currently in Kent, USA

[Mr Bean]

Its just like everything else run by idiots

Lucky most are lazy idiots

[weemadando]

I'm not eligible to vote but as one of my PolSci subjects this semester focuses on internal EU politics I'll say that it is

1 and 7

Why does Britain (or at least the govt) WANT to give Gibraltar back to Spain? To appease Spain and attempt to form an equal-powered counter to the Germany-France political alliance in the EU.

I like it. But being an Aussie with a vested interest in trade and agricultural productivity I also dislike it. And I must say to the Americans: "would you kindly reopen your fucking ports already?"

[Raptor 597]

Why does Britain (or at least the govt) WANT to give Gibraltar back to Spain? To appease Spain and attempt to form an equal-powered counter to the Germany-France political alliance in the EU.

Fucking, Commies oh well. But France dies in the first 5 minutes, everyone attacks everyone France a big free-fo-fall especially since England occupies and fortifies Calsias(spelt wrong) The Swiss break out and hit everyone around, Spain comes up France's ridgid mountain ass, and Germany from the East.

[Knife]

And I must say to the Americans: "would you kindly reopen your fucking ports already?"

Here here....Stupid labor union. ooops, I mean stupid situation.

[Stormbringer]

And I must say to the Americans: "would you kindly reopen your fucking ports already?"

Here here....Stupid labor union. ooops, I mean stupid situation.

Actually, I agree with the first part. It's a fucking retarded situation. They're strangling the economy until they're out of a job simply because there is no place left for them.

Bring on the scab workers I say. Break the picket line.

[Master of Ossus]

I like the idea behind it, I just can't imagine that it will be very effective. There are too many cultural and economic differences between the countries involved for them to band together effectively. I like how Switzerland snubbed them. I also like how they can't even agree on official languages. More importantly, there is really no reason for the powerful nations to be involved deeply with the EU. Most of them already have respectable political and military power (since many of them vote and move as groups, anyway), and I see little reason for them to sabotage their own economic developments to help their less affluent neighbors.

[Akm72]

3) I hate it

The only reason I can see to be a member is to try and undermine it from the inside

[Colonel Olrik]

I like it and the idea it stands for. It helped Portugal to jump at least 20 years into the future in only 2 or 3. The same for other poorer countries. It has its problems, of course, but they arise from being a very young organization which has to decide if it wants to go fed or not.

I like the idea behind it, I just can't imagine that it will be very effective. There are too many cultural and economic differences between the countries involved for them to band together effectively.

Not that many. Britain, for example, has certainly more different ideas, but that has already happened in the past (like in the currency association [not euro currency]). Eventually, a compromise is reached.

The values shared by each country are similar. Having a liberal developed market and being a democracy is a rule to remain in the union.
There are cultural differences, but there are more similarities than differences, so you have always to balance both. Anyway, western culture is americanized.

The main difference between cultures is the language. Travelling through Europe, like I did this summer, is kind of a Babel tower. Thankefully, we have english, and french is rapidly losing the battle (hurrahh!!).

I like how Switzerland snubbed them.

Well, Switzerland snubbed the entire world. They're not even members of the U.N. And that's not entirely true. There are recent agreements giving full acess/living for swiss in the union and viceversa. And they do realize they lose money because of being an island. Just as most british bussinessmen are praying for the euro.

More importantly, there is really no reason for the powerful nations to be involved deeply with the EU. Most of them already have respectable political and military power (since many of them vote and move as groups, anyway), .

Ah, but that is only part of the history. All the big nations realise that the only way to have a respected army, not negligible comparing to the U.S, is to unit efforts. Just imagine the cost of a modern aircraft carrier to see the picture. Fance has only one (and being France, lost one of its two helix in the maiden voyage) and England has two or three. It's just not enough and their costs make it unbearable to have more. The same with research and army costs.

and I see little reason for them to sabotage their own economic developments to help their less affluent neighbors.

Happened many times in the past, still happening. The reason is altruism, in a small part, and acess to other markets and areas of influence. Poland alone has 40 (? ) million inhabitants. Many European companies (including portuguese) are already exploiting that market, made easy by the good will of the polish governments.

[Master of Ossus]

So, basically you're saying that the EU is almost a purely military union of Europe, and that the economic and social aspects of it actually injure the continent's wealthier nations? I really don't see how a group that has such difficulty establishing an official language can be particularly good at unifying diverse interests. I also think that there are really a multitude of cultural differences between areas like Eastern Europe (and Turkey, for that matter) and Western Europe, as well as differences between French, German, Italian, Spanish, and English-dominated areas. All of those are further sub-divided by economic and further social boundaries.

Finally, the EU has no aircraft carriers ANYWAY, and if they can't standardize a language for their military forces, it is simply impossible for such a group to be much more efficient than the way things already work with many of the powerful European nations moving as a group, anyway.

And Switzerland has NOT been hurt, economically, by being an island. Do you have any idea how much money was involved in their bank accounts after it was stolen from the Jews in WWII? It moved the country from being economically about as well-off as Spain is today, and made it into one of the wealthiest countries in all of Europe, in less than a DECADE (of course, the devastation of the rest of Europe also played a significant part, but the Jewish gold financed Swiss banks as they loaned money to the rest of the Continent). Today, only a few small countries, like Monaco, are better off than Switzerland. And their standard of living is one of the highest in the world.

[Azeron]

europe has aricraft carriers.

France has 2 or 3 super carrier class (so much smaller than nimitiz class)
And england has quite a few what we would call excort carriers. Basically carriers to small for big supersonic fighters and other aircraft, but big enough for harriers and helicopters.

Switzerland is a member of the UN, but like the vatican is an observer membership.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Congratulations, you've graduated from the User099 school of biased polling!

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of the Europeans and their Anti-American shenaigans, but they can enforce whatever policy they want, even if it won't work. You're only strawmanning yourself further into that hole you're in.

[Azeron]

ohh and italy has one escort carrier, simillar to britain.

Might I add only the UK actively trains thier pilots for carrier based operations.



And asst- whatever exceptinally long name, I thoght people were enjoying it, and didn't think the poll was biased as there were options for everyone. Including both facists and communists and french haters.

So I don't see your point, if you could be more specific, or should I chalk this up to not bothering to read the post before you spoke?

[Admiral Piett]

europe has aricraft carriers.

France has 2 or 3 super carrier class (so much smaller than nimitiz class)
And england has quite a few what we would call excort carriers. Basically carriers to small for big supersonic fighters and other aircraft, but big enough for harriers and helicopters.

Switzerland is a member of the UN, but like the vatican is an observer membership.

No
France has only one carrier,the Charles De Gaulle.One other may be built however.
Italy has one escort carrier in service and another one in construction.
Spain has one escort carrier also.

[Azeron]

I thought the french has a carrier mouthballed in the reserves just in case? Is that right?

really spain has an aircraft carrier, is it an escort or what?

[Colonel Olrik]

So, basically you're saying that the EU is almost a purely military union of Europe,
and that the economic and social aspects of it actually injure the continent's wealthier nations?

I didn't say that. I stated that the military strength will always be insignificant compared to the U.S without a common program. And all the countries know that.

And, on the countrary, I said that, by helping the poorer nations, the wealthier are also helping themselves. I've given you an example. Poland has a very large market. With all the benesses given by the government, eager to follow E.U regulations, E.U companies are actively entering that market. It is good for Poland (foreign investment) and for the investing countries.

And to top that there's solidariety. I'm hopelessly biased on that, as Portugal having advanced 20 years in only a few. That is a good thing, no matter how you put it. The principle of helping the poorer states of the union reach an economic level within the parameters of the Union.
It helps to consolidate the European sense in the people.

The E.U also exists to impede new conflics or extremist rises to power in the territory. It's mere presence serves as moderator of each country governments, certifying they're acting with conformation to the treaties.

I really don't see how a group that has such difficulty establishing an official language can be particularly good at unifying diverse interests.

It exists. It's english. The future will be (is) everybody in the E.U speaking both languages, the native one and english. AS much as some french may hate the idea ^_^

I also think that there are really a multitude of cultural differences between areas like Eastern Europe (and Turkey, for that matter) and Western Europe, as well as differences between French, German, Italian, Spanish, and English-dominated areas. All of those are further sub-divided by economic and further social boundaries.

Turkey is indeed different. That's why todays announcement of the next ten countries to enter the union in the next years left Turkey out (again). They simply have to consolidate democracy and human rights, as well as put the extremisms where they belong, before the E.U accepts their entry.

And that's an example of the positive effect the Union has in the region.
Could you explain me the insanable differences you see between french and german, or spanish? And the english point of view really is restricted to their country. They have a proud history and are always very reluctant to accept any kind of loss of sovereigny.

Finally, the EU has no aircraft carriers ANYWAY, and if they can't standardize a language for their military forces, it is simply impossible for such a group to be much more efficient than the way things already work with many of the powerful European nations moving as a group, anyway.

Are you taking the absence of E.U troops as proof they'll never exist? The language is english. We do not have that hard time understanding each other. The latin languages are similar enough, foe instance, and thankfully the nordic countries have really good english speakers (hell, their pronounce is almost better than the british)

The nations do not move as a group regarding defense. Obviously, they stand together, but there are not joint investments/forces. That's one of the differences between the U.S and the E.U. Imagine if each U.S state had each one a carrier and their own army..

And Switzerland has NOT been hurt, economically, by being an island. Do you have any idea how much money was involved in their bank accounts after it was stolen from the Jews in WWII? It moved the country from being economically about as well-off as Spain is today, and made it into one of the wealthiest countries in all of Europe, in less than a DECADE (of course, the devastation of the rest of Europe also played a significant part, but the Jewish gold financed Swiss banks as they loaned money to the rest of the Continent). Today, only a few small countries, like Monaco, are better off than Switzerland. And their standard of living is one of the highest in the world.

They got rich in the past, but I was talking about today. They are suffering because of the extra taxes their producs have to pay. They lose competitivity as the markets around them are opened to each other and more closed to them. They're currency is stronger than it should, by any acounts.

And what I said remains true. There has been an agreement between the E.U and Switzerland concerning free residing/travelling for the citizens. That is one of the signs they are facing the fact the E.U is a reality. Much like the british bussinessmen.

[victorhadin]

europe has aricraft carriers.

France has 2 or 3 super carrier class (so much smaller than nimitiz class)
And england has quite a few what we would call excort carriers. Basically carriers to small for big supersonic fighters and other aircraft, but big enough for harriers and helicopters.

Switzerland is a member of the UN, but like the vatican is an observer membership.

I think what was meant was that the EU as an organisation has no aircraft carriers. It is not a military organisation.

It is primarily an economic union, and in it's primary goals it has actually succeeded, whether you want to ignore it or not. It has massively reduced the old trade dependance on the US and has built up the economies of EU nations, formed a buffer against future industrialised war and promoted free and easy trade between member nations.

It is flawed, certainly, but in these core aims it is a brilliant success.

[Crown]

I like the idea behind it, I just can't imagine that it will be very effective. There are too many cultural and economic differences between the countries involved for them to band together effectively. I like how Switzerland snubbed them. I also like how they can't even agree on official languages.

I too like the idea behind the EU, given the fact that the two most devastating wars of human history were intiated on European soil, it's always a blessing to see former enemies try and resolve their differences with peacefull discussions and diplomacy. However the issue of a common language I feel at this point is mute. As far as I am aware, don't all the members of the EU have English as a second language in their school systems anyway? I mean that is the only language that would really work anyway, unless we either all learn to speak either Latin or Greek (since these two languages are the root of ALL the European languages). But there is no real need for this issue to be resloved at this point anyway.

Currently the EU is a political and economic alliance, not a military one. There is no rush to transform it into one, since who is at war with the EU anyway? The rapid reaction force is only meant to be 60,000 strong, and is only being formed as a testiment to the EU inability to deal with peacekeeping crises on its borders.

More importantly, there is really no reason for the powerful nations to be involved deeply with the EU. Most of them already have respectable political and military power (since many of them vote and move as groups, anyway), and I see little reason for them to sabotage their own economic developments to help their less affluent neighbors.

Here I disagree sharply. Prosperous and well-to-do neighbours are to be encouraged. If there was any lesson that the World, especially Europe, learned after the disaster of WWII (which only occured because Europe was bent on "making Germany pay" for WWI), it is this. While in the short term the richer nations will face some hardship, the rewards of a larger and freer market heavily outwiegh the negatives.

So, basically you're saying that the EU is almost a purely military union of Europe, and that the economic and social aspects of it actually injure the continent's wealthier nations? I really don't see how a group that has such difficulty establishing an official language can be particularly good at unifying diverse interests. I also think that there are really a multitude of cultural differences between areas like Eastern Europe (and Turkey, for that matter) and Western Europe, as well as differences between French, German, Italian, Spanish, and English-dominated areas. All of those are further sub-divided by economic and further social boundaries.

Again you are playing the military card. While I do see it as a possibility in the future, that is not what the EU stands for today. And the language problem is solved when looking at the goals of a freer market. Money. How much? And to whom? That's what the EU is trying to accomplish. So far calls for a 'Federal Europe' have met with resitance, simply because it's a complex issue that will take a long time to sort out. However the first ideal of the EU; a larger, freer, common market, is one that is for all intents and purposes working admirally.

The differences between East and West are there, I agree, however Europe has two options;

• Enlargement and struggle with its Easter neighbours equally in building a better Europe.
• Shut them out and have an even worse difference in prosperity in the future.

The EU has chosen the first option, and I for one applaud them for it. The canditate states have all worked hard to reform and adjust to the requirements for membership. Becoming apart of the EU can only help them and at the same time help the EU.

This doesn't mean there aren't some issues left to be solved, for example Poland is a huge problem. For one it has the ability to become the 'jewel in the crown' of the newer states, however something like 40-50% of its work force is in agriculture. So you have the issue of whether the EU will continue to subsidise it's farmers after enlargement; France and Greece argue yes. However with such a large population employed in agriculture, it isn't feasable, in fact it would send Brussell's broke! The other issue is economic aid, Portugal, Spain, Greece and to a very small extent Italy, fear that the current aid they are recieving from the EU will by diverted to the newer poorer countries.

The Turkey problem is also another interesting one. Both Turkey and and the EU stand to gain from its inclusion, however there are too many problems with Turkey at this point in time, Governments come and go (more than Italy), inflation is something like 100-200%, human rights issues and well yes Greece. I would like to point out that this isn't some Greek plan to impeed Turkey's entrance to the EU, as some would say, at the moment Turkey hasn't demonstrated it can commit to the agreements of the EU as well as the other applicants. I would also point out that Turkey has been a candidate since 1959 for EU inclusion (back when it was the EC), and it still has a lot to go before it will be accepted into the EU.

Finally, the EU has no aircraft carriers ANYWAY, and if they can't standardize a language for their military forces, it is simply impossible for such a group to be much more efficient than the way things already work with many of the powerful European nations moving as a group, anyway.

Again the EU at present is not a military group, it's an economic one. I suspect though that this point was made to a reference to some else's post and the point I make goes for both of you. Let's not discuss what if, and look at what is going now, yes?

And Switzerland has NOT been hurt, economically, by being an island. Do you have any idea how much money was involved in their bank accounts after it was stolen from the Jews in WWII? It moved the country from being economically about as well-off as Spain is today, and made it into one of the wealthiest countries in all of Europe, in less than a DECADE (of course, the devastation of the rest of Europe also played a significant part, but the Jewish gold financed Swiss banks as they loaned money to the rest of the Continent). Today, only a few small countries, like Monaco, are better off than Switzerland. And their standard of living is one of the highest in the world.

All very nice, however there is a difference between the value of one's money and the economic state of country. America has the strongest economy in the world, however the UK has a stronger currency. Which is wealthier? I believe the point that Colonel Olrik, was trying to make is that the Swiss as well as the British are going to find it hard to compete with companies that are based in the Eurozone. Already British companies are complaining that the Sterling is over valued and they are loosing out to international competition. This is the point that was being presented.

As to Azeron I am getting my Greek passport soon, in order to work in the EU without a visa, so I feel that I qualify as being able to answer your poll;

I feel the EU is a great idea. I feel that there will be a lot of work to do for the politicians to work everything out, but I for one am happy with it.

[Stuart Mackey]

I thought the french has a carrier mouthballed in the reserves just in case? Is that right?

really spain has an aircraft carrier, is it an escort or what?

Try doing a web search on the subject..idiot.

[Sea Skimmer]

I thought the french has a carrier mouthballed in the reserves just in case? Is that right?

really spain has an aircraft carrier, is it an escort or what?

The French are retaining the Foch in reserve. When the de Gaulle goes in for her first refit, the Foch will be reactivated to take over for its duration. This was not planned as the French navy was until very recently still hoping to get a second new carrier, but it now is quite clear that will not happen soon enough, if ever.

Spain has the Principe de Asturias. This carrier is classified as a CVS, or aircraft carrier, ASW. The design is basically that of the USN planned sea control ship. It is intended to get a large group of ASW helicopters to sea efficiently along with a small Harrier group to bring down any annoying patrol aircraft such as Bear-D's flying recon for Soviet naval aviation.

Currently it operates a mix of EAV-8 Harrier II and Harrier II Plus, normally 6 though up to twelve have been embarked. Also carried are 6-10 Seakings, a couple AB-212's and a pair of B model Seahawks. Maximum speed is only 25 knots though, which is the only downside to this compact but effective ship. Though you don’t need a 30+ flank speed to cover a 15-knot convoy.

[Admiral Piett]

Strange, all the material I have read so far seems to imply that they want to get rid of the Foch.Were not they planning to sell it to Brazil?

[Guest]

7 the Germans continue to try and conquer europe, i resent having my cultural identidy branded as UnPC, i'm Irish i like being irish, i'm not and never will be a european, I refuse to live in the United States of Europe.

[unigolyn]

7 the Germans continue to try and conquer europe, i resent having my cultural identidy branded as UnPC, i'm Irish i like being irish, i'm not and never will be a european, I refuse to live in the United States of Europe.

But you are one, and so is everyone else who is born in Europe. There's no such thing as a United States of Europe. No one is making you eat spaghetti while wearing lederhosen and yodeling the Marsseilles. No one is making the french drink Guinness and yell Erin go bragh. I don't see how anyone's cultural identity is threatened by the EU, unless losing one's national currency counts. And in Belfast you have the UK pound anyway.

Most anti-EU people hate it for reasons that are mostly baseless and if there is some truth to them, they're hugely overinflated. Since when is being Irish unPC? You resent and refuse things that don't exist, it's kinda like religion in that sense.