EUROPEAN UNION COULD 'SPLIT' OVER CONSTITUTION

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-24 07:14am

THE EUROPEAN Union could be destroyed by divisions over plans for a new constitution, the world's most influential business journal declared today.

In a warning to Europe's leaders, The Economist said it was 'probable' the EU would split into rival camps if one or more countries votes against the constitution.

But it argued that such a collapse would actually be a good thing with Britain and other countries able to choose how much - or how little - they wanted to be involved.

'These referendums could throw the EU into the sort of crisis that puts the integration process into reverse or even causes the EU to split,' warned the magazine.

'The EU may indeed split. But a split need not be a dis-aster. It could lead to a multi-layered EU in which different countries adopt different levels of political integration and experiment with different economic models.'

However, the magazine added that there was also the potential for a 'darker' out-come. 'A split could cause Europe once again to divide into rival power blocks. 'That could threaten what most agree is the Union's central achievement - peace in Europe.'

The Economist's analysis is spelt out in a special 14-page report today on the state of Europe under the headline 'a divided Union'.

It argues the European Union have been gravely damaged by three core problems - economically it is falling far behind the U.S. and Asia, politically it is deeply divided on issues like Iraq, the new EU constitution and the euro and its legitimacy has been shattered by a crippling 'lack of popular understanding and enthusiasm'.

These problems have left the EU highly vulnerable at a time when it has just taken in 10 new members, including eight relatively impoverished countries from Eastern Europe, fuelling fears about immigration and cheap labour.

And The Economist identifies the controversial new constitution as the straw that could break the camel's back.

A total of 11 countries - including Britain - have now pledged to give the people a vote on the constitution.

The magazine also argues that change is necessary to stop Europe slipping further behind its rivals.

'Europe's share of the world economy is shrinking as the United States constantly outstrips European growth and the Asian economies surge ahead,' it warned

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-24 07:42am

Meh, reports such as this are things that one beleive when one see's it.
The bit about the EU's economy may well be accurate unless they get over their protectionism.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2004-09-24 07:43am

WOW!!! WRITING IN ALL CAPS MAKES THE NEWS SO MUCH MORE RELEVANT!!!111!!!

The article presents some possible, but also some of the most pessimistic scenarios plotted by the most formidable english euro-skeptics. In the real world, if the Constitution is rejected by some members either it will be dropped or adopted by some and not by others, like the Euro. In the end, nobody will care, since the Constitution is basically a compilation of all the already existing treaties, which will still apply.

Edit: by the way

fuelling fears about immigration and cheap labour.

I'd like to see how this can happen, since the free movement of people inside the EU does not apply to the new countries, and it won't in the near future. Methinks the article is somewhat biased.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-24 07:46am

Colonel Olrik wrote:WOW!!! WRITING IN ALL CAPS MAKES THE NEWS SO MUCH MORE RELEVANT!!!111!!!

The article presents some possible, but also some of the most pessimistic scenarios plotted by the most formidable english euro-skeptics. In the real world, if the Constitution is rejected by some members either it will be dropped or adopted by some and not by others, like the Euro. In the end, nobody will care, since the Constitution is basically a compilation of all the already existing treaties, which will still apply.

Edit: by the way

fuelling fears about immigration and cheap labour.
I'd like to see how this can happen, since the free movement of people inside the EU does not apply to the new countries, and it won't in the near future. Methinks the article is somewhat biased.

The caps were a copy and paste.. sorry

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-24 09:29am

If the constitution fails a year or so later we will get The Treaty of Warsaw which includes all the updates the constitution did, nobody will pay it much mind and things will continue on as normal.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-09-24 11:13am

Oh wow the drudgereport is full of shit, again!

What a suprise!

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-24 11:14am

Faram wrote:Oh wow the drudgereport is full of shit, again!

What a suprise!

Faram... did you see it came from the Economist..

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-09-24 11:16am

theski wrote:Faram... did you see it came from the Economist..

Ehh okay

Change that to The Economist is full of shit!

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-09-24 12:10pm

Faram wrote:
theski wrote:Faram... did you see it came from the Economist..
Ehh okay

Change that to The Economist is full of shit!

Have you read the article?

It is the pretty standard, well-written Economist fare. Here is one side, here is the other. So the Euroskeptics view is presented - so is the pro-Euro side. Personally, I like the Economist - tends to have a somewhat dispassionate view of things.

They are also saying that a split (given some countries referendum requirements - it is likely that at least some countries will say no) is not necessarily the end of the world. But, if the split leads to different factions, the old "European" type of power blocks could rise again.

So, no, the Economist is not full of shit. It is simplying saying that the EU Constitutional process is not going to be smooth as people are implying.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-09-24 01:35pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: Methinks the article is somewhat biased.

*looks at source*
"The Economist via The Drudge Report"

Wow, no shit Dr. Smartman.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-24 01:54pm

Jalinth wrote: So, no, the Economist is not full of shit. It is simplying saying that the EU Constitutional process is not going to be smooth as people are implying.

Who exactly is implying it is going to be smooth?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-09-24 02:04pm

TheDarkling wrote:
Jalinth wrote: So, no, the Economist is not full of shit. It is simplying saying that the EU Constitutional process is not going to be smooth as people are implying.
Who exactly is implying it is going to be smooth?

Maybe it's trying to tell outside observers(aka Americans, Canadians) that it is not going to be smooth.

And smooth is relative; it probably meant, from what I read, "less smooth than anticipated."

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-24 02:44pm

Guardsman Bass wrote: And smooth is relative; it probably meant, from what I read, "less smooth than anticipated."

The view in Britain is that there isn't a cat in hell's chance of it passing.

I disagree with that view but it is the most widely held one at the moment.

So at the moment in Britain less smooth than anticipated would probably involve a public revolt and the lynching of the government.