Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Modern Protectionism

  1. #1 Modern Protectionism 
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    1) In Europe employees have many rights. Also for their delivered work the company and employee need to pay a lot of taxes. These taxes are necessary to keep a social system running, to keep clinical costs low, doctor appointments etc. affordable for everybody. The taxes keep the pensions running and give the poor a minimum to survive.
    The backside, one employee costs the double he actually receives (high employee costs), resulting in the migration of the production facilities to low income countries.
    2) Europe tries to make industry in agreement with nature, environmental norms the factories have to follow are strict and efforts are made to reduce CO2 emission.
    The backside, higher production costs compared with countries that have lack toward environmental issues.

    This being a fact (I mean I am not looking for the discussion if this is the best system or not, above is just an introduction to come to my discussion point so lets agree that this is the policy of Europe).

    So this being a fact we need to defend our economy, the only way by doing is to ask import taxes for each threatening economy. I will give two examples to make my point clear:

    a) Chinese production is booming, they do not have our social standard for their employees and not our environmental norms. So import products of this country must receive and extra environmental and social tax.
    b) The USA does not ratify the Kyoto protocol; when Europe does, we should apply some kind of environmental taxes on import products.


    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Interesting point. There does seem to be a case for protectionism. The problem is that most forms of protectionism (like tariffs and quotas) are very hard to realize nowadays. What if for example China or the US would respond to an environmental tariff by imposing their own tariffs? We have no means to prevent them from doing that, and the WTO wouldnt help us (because the WTO practically opposes all forms of protectionism).

    An easier way to compensate for competition problems would be to simply instate higher standards for products in the EU. There are allready minimum requirements for products to be allowed into the EU, like hygiene standards for food products. This could be expanded to include workers' rights issues and environmental issues.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Coming from the U.S., I would suggest that the WTO should include environmental requirements. Actions with global consequences should have global requirements.

    Employee rights are different; I think they should be regulated on a regional international level [In the U.S. Social Security benefits are tied to how much an person and spouse paid into the system.]

    Don't ask me to defend Kyoto; I won't.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    The problem is that most forms of protectionism (like tariffs and quotas) are very hard to realize nowadays. (because the WTO practically opposes all forms of protectionism).
    I agree the WTO forms a big obstacle in this matter; even the European parliament is opposed to such ideas (as far as I known). So the realisation of this measure is indeed almost impossible. First the global idea of how people think of world economics must be changed.
    I understand the practical side of your solution, but by this measure you totally shut of your market so I fear your argument is also applicable in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    I would suggest that the WTO should include environmental requirements. Actions with global consequences should have global requirements.
    I agree

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Employee rights are different; I think they should be regulated on a regional international level.
    Okay, I think I follow you; I would not drive the global right of employees to far either. How pensions and social security is managed or not is indeed up to the local authorities. However a few rights are essential. Unions should be allowed, child labour prohibited and minimum wages and a maximum hours labour per week introduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Don't ask me to defend Kyoto; I won't.
    I have doubted to give the example of the Kyoto protocol because I feared it would distract many from the main topic. However I could not resist the temptation, so I thank you because you could hold your arguments, maybe we will meet each other about this in another topic.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Well, this is no fun; agreement can kind of kill a conversation, can't it?

    Actually, I meant '... the U.S. position on Kyoto'

    Quote Originally Posted by Him
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Employee rights are different; I think they should be regulated on a regional international level.
    Okay, I think I follow you; I would not drive the global right of employees to far either. How pensions and social security is managed or not is indeed up to the local authorities. However a few rights are essential. Unions should be allowed, child labour prohibited and minimum wages and a maximum hours labour per week introduced.
    Wages would be the trickiest to regulate; in order to account for differences in cost of living and standard of living, the regulations would have to be either too complex or too general to be praticably enforceable. Forced to chose, I would go with the general statement, 'adequate to maintain an adequate standard of living'; or maybe tied to local housing costs?

    Hours could be tricky, too; most people would rather have a job and work long hours, than starve. So, I would have a pretty high maximun number of hours allowed AND very stringent over time regulations.

    I think child labor should be regulated, but not banned; if it is banned, there is nothing to protect the children at all. I would even support a lower wage for children, just to keep them out of an underground economy. But the hours would have to be strictly llimited.

    I also think unions are a dead-end; the scabs will always be with us. But I will accept the right to organize as a requirement.

    I would add access to affordable health-care.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Well, this is no fun; agreement can kind of kill a conversation, can't it?
    Just being honest;
    me being late with my reply also does not help...

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Wages would be the trickiest to regulate
    I’m not suggesting a fixed minimum wage must be introduced in every country, just that every country at least must decide: which is the lowest wage one receives for one month work, in relation with a maximal of hours work. (and live up to it off course)
    Comparing these figures with the index of the country, the EU can decide whether the products are welcome or not, or correction taxes are needed.
    I'm not sure housing requirements are calculated into the index, but I is certainly is possible

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Hours could be tricky, too; most people would rather have a job and work long hours, than starve.

    Here you come up with an important issue, which I did not address in my first writing and which I find equally important. By the correction you prevent people being exploited. Large companies will always try to find the cheapest workers. In this system they still can chose for the poorer countries were the index will be low and as a consequence also the wages. But the people do not have to work for a hunger-fee (literally translated from Dutch, do not know the expressing exist in English).

    Further I think exceptions to rules are absolutely possible I mean, you may not punish companies who travel to Africa or other poor countries in South America and Asia. My suggested correction primarily must go into action when you have “settled” economies like China nowadays, also east Europe (in major for environmental issues).

    Regarding the child labour, I think we have the support the UN maximal here to make child education a top priority, this you can only do by keeping them out of the factories.
    The best way to help a poor country is by educating their children, so every factor which harms this process must be extruded.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Having lived through the formation of the EU, you obviously have a better idea about how all this could be done than I. The only information about the process that is widely reported in the U.S is a rejection of something by a member state, and even then, the reasons behind the rejection are seldom discussed in any depth.

    I suggested housing costs as they are the highest expense for most workers in the U.S. I believe that most financial advisors suggest that one budget one-third of one's gross income for housing; however, in some housing markets, the average house costs ten times the local average annual salary.

    [Wait a minute; if taxes account for at least a quarter of one's income, that must be wrong. Maybe it's net income.]

    Limited straight time hours combined with high overtime regulations seems like a great idea to me; employers would be forced to hire more workers, limiting the pool of unemployed on which to draw. If there are fewer unemployed with which to replace dissatisfied workers, workers should receive better treatment and wages. So strictly enforced over-time costs should naturally increase straight time wages.

    As for child labor:
    It has alway been and will always be with us. My spouse was raised on a family farm and has been employeed since age four. Please don't think I am suggesting this in an industrial economy! However, I maintain that the worst thing to do for children is to drive their labor underground. I think that a simple index of hours worked to hours educated would be a good idea, particularly in poorer countries; the cost of education would be passed directly to the employers. Although I am not an adherent of privitization in general, I think this would have several benefits for both the companies and the government.

    Enforcement would be a problem, but, then, it always is.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    About how it can be done, I am in the dark as you are. The EU is necessity but also a very bureaucratic system and thus inefficient. But maybe the largest obstacle facing the EU is, it does not have any political underground. I mean, many politicians regard Europe as way to achieve their own national problems and do look at the larger picture. This is because the national elections are still far more important then EU elections, resulting that every nations is not striding for a better Europe but for a better place of his or her country in Europe. This is a pity because Europe has a lot of potential.

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    [Wait a minute; if taxes account for at least a quarter of one's income, that must be wrong. Maybe it's net income.]
    Our net income is half of our brut income. Actually this is wrong it is half if you calculate the taxes you pay and your employer has to pay for your wage (Again depending on the amount you earn, minimum wages pay lesser tax in percentage).
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Him
    ... The EU is necessity but also a very bureaucratic system and thus inefficient.
    ... I mean, many politicians regard Europe as way to achieve their own national problems and do look at the larger picture.
    These may be good things...

    Governments are, essentially, a concentration of power; those with power tend to abuse it; so a stable but relatively inefficient government may be the safest for the populace.

    As for the nationalist tendencies of politicians, they are elected to represent their constituents' interest in the larger assembly, whether that is a local or an international congress. "All politics is local."

    I think that a responsive and efficient representative government can be very dangerous; it would lead to laws and policies strongly effected by inflamed emotions.

    ... I don't have a coherent theory about this, but I suspect that inefficiency, sluggishness, and local partisanship are not only inevitable but desirable qualities in a representative government.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by j

    Governments are, essentially, a concentration of power; those with power tend to abuse it; so a stable but relatively inefficient government may be the safest for the populace.
    Funny way of thinking can’t think of good comparison, but it is almost like saying that you should be glad if there is only food which tastes bad, because then you would not get to fat.
    Although I can not disagree with the fact that power institutes have the bias to grown into corruption. I still prefer a well functioning system, a correct and swift government is more transparent then a sluggish one. Making it easier to detect certain illegal practices. An inefficient government has the same means to harbour corrupt people, actually they have more potential because the system is less transparent.
    In conclusion, it is not the system which is corrupt but the people who abuse it; in an inefficient government there are more possibilities to cover your black operation being less save for the voters.
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    As for the nationalist tendencies of politicians, they are elected to represent their constituents' interest in the larger assembly, whether that is a local or an international congress. "All politics is local."
    If you consider it the duty of an European politician purely to defends their own countries interests in larger system, then the EU is domed to vanish. This nationalism will be present and is useful, however if EU wants to considers itself as a world player a broader way of thinking is necessary.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Him
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    ... a stable but relatively inefficient government may be the safest for the populace.
    ... it is almost like saying that you should be glad if there is only food which tastes bad, because then you would not get to fat....
    a correct and swift government is more transparent then a sluggish one...
    In conclusion, it is not the system which is corrupt but the people who abuse it; in an inefficient government there are more possibilities to cover your black operation being less save for the voters.[abbreviated for reference; see full quote above]
    I have no problem with your analogy between [fast] food and government; I will work it into my personal political philosophy.

    As for transparency, I do believe a people in a republic get the government they deserve. If the national attention span is so short that corruption escapes public notice, that is the people's fault. A slower moving government should actually give the electorate more time to research and evaluate the claims and proposals of their officials.

    Furthermore, I worry far more about transparent but wrong policies and actions of my government than by simply venial and corrupt ones [have I mentioned I am from the U.S.?]

    Quote Originally Posted by Him
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    As for the nationalist tendencies of politicians, they are elected to represent their constituents' interest in the larger assembly, whether that is a local or an international congress. "All politics is local."
    If you consider it the duty of an European politician purely to defends their own countries interests in larger system, then the EU is domed to vanish. This nationalism will be present and is useful, however if EU wants to considers itself as a world player a broader way of thinking is necessary.
    Ah, now this gets interesting; I am a U.S. Citizen. We have a popularly elected bicameral legislative body, and a presidential rather than a parlimentary-based executive branch. So we expect our Representatives in the large House of Representatives to, well, represent our local interests and our Senators to come to a national consensus. Given that there are only one hundred Senators, and they serve for six years, it is easier for them to compromise.

    Members of a single congress [which I believe the EU has] must both represent local interests AND compromise on local, multi-national, and international issues. I'd rather wrestle an alligator.

    I must take acception to the implication in your final sentence. The EU is now a world player, and its member states and their subjects and citizens must recognize that. From the news I get from BBC World, I do not think that you do.

    I do realize that I do not know the finer details about the internal conflicts in the EU, but, frankly, they are none of my business. I just think the members should concentrate more on mutual needs and goals arising from the EU's unavoidable international importance.

    [After all, some body has got to keep my country in line; will it be the EU, China, or whatever political force that kicks our arrogants asses out of the 'Middle East'?]
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Furthermore, I worry far more about transparent but wrong policies and actions of my government than by simply venial and corrupt ones [have I mentioned I am from the U.S.?]
    I understand your concern, some policies of the leadership of your country threaten world stability, in comparison some illegal practices are peanuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Ah, now this gets interesting; I am a U.S. Citizen. We have a popularly elected bicameral legislative body, and a presidential rather than a parlimentary-based executive branch. So we expect our Representatives in the large House of Representatives to, well, represent our local interests and our Senators to come to a national consensus. Given that there are only one hundred Senators, and they serve for six years, it is easier for them to compromise.
    However (correct me if I am wrong) congressman or senators are elected by the members of their own state, people from other states can’t vote for them, meaning they also shall have the tendency to fight for local interests in the national setting.

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Members of a single congress [which I believe the EU has] must both represent local interests AND compromise on local, multi-national, and international issues. I'd rather wrestle an alligator.
    It is the intention of the counties comprising the EU to group their sovereignty to create a influence in the world which would non of the members achieve on its own. Off course it initial goal had broadened and focuses mainly on easier trades between members.
    What I mean our representatives in the EU have (but I am not an expert on this) have a comparable function as your Senators.
    (There is also the counsil of the European union in which the ministers of the different countries gather (which ones depending on the topic) to discuss topic like Economic and Financial Affairs, Justice and Home Affairs, Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Fisheries, Environment, …) I find this comparable to your house of representatives (but again I am a little bit in the dark here).
    However the global mission of the EU is a death born child (dutch expression) there European countries will never walk behind the same flag as Americans do. For example, the Brittan will always try to do the opposite of the main land. The French and Germans have never been good neighbour (however must say this does not form an obstacle anymore). But in summery we have to many different people with to much national pride to all pull the same rope.
    Take my own country for instance Belgium (with capital Brussel or Bruxelles in French), with only ten million people still the idea exists to divide the country in two (Flanders and Wallonie) and their Brussels (how you write it) forms a problem the only solution is a division in three.

    My point, it will not be for tomorrow and it will probably never exist, that the different countries will give a coherent point about a world topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by j

    The EU is now a world player, and its member states and their subjects and citizens must recognize that. From the news I get from BBC World, I do not think that you do.
    Indeed some EU countries are world players, but not in coherent way.
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    [After all, some body has got to keep my country in line; will it be the EU, China, or whatever political force that kicks our arrogants asses out of the 'Middle East'?]
    Nice example to support my opinion, Europe helped from day one in Iraq (Spain and Great Brittan) while in the same time Belgium, France and also Germany (with some doubts) where trying all diplomatic possibilities to prevent the invasions.

    So if we really want to be a world player, and have a real influences on the policies of the U.S. such divisions are mortal.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Hmmm ...

    Well, have the EU member states ever had a reason to walk behind the same flag? I do not recall the EU ever having faced a single general threat. And the EU is very, very young. So conflict and conflict resolution within the group will naturally be the primary focus, possibly until a serious external threat needs to be faced.

    The EU is taking the economic road to unity; that just will not be a fast as a huge bloody war.

    To hear debate within the House of Representatives [the bigger house, members have shorter terms of office], one would have trouble believing that the States ever walk behind the same flag. And there are still, and always will be, arguments concerning states' rights v. the scope of the federal government. The U.S. has been arguing about this issue for about 200 years now, and will probably never stop.

    Then there is the matter of language and media; you guys really need to pick an official language to promote through out the EU; all children should start learning the same language in additional to their national language in the primary grades. I would suggest Flemish or Portuguese [because you know the British, French, and Germans will always resist using each others languages]. Then, in twenty years, you will have an international media.

    I actually find national separatism a sign of the strength of the EU; no-one would seriously consider separating unless they felt united under, and protected by, a larger international government, would they? Even the Irish care less about Partitioning, as both areas are part of the EU. [Maybe if the EU adopted Basque as its official language ...].

    As for influencing my country, well, it's like influencing an aircraft carrier; it's not easy and it's not fast. Patience is needed; nuclear weapons help.

    I dislike bringing personality into discussions, but I think you might be significantly younger than I am. Older people prefer slower and more measured change, and older people tend to run governments. On a less personal note, people tend to hold to the ideologies learned in their youth; I think that it will take at least another generation for holders of a European [rather than nationalistic] ideology to come to power.

    The EU will become a world power once the member states recognize that no single European nation ever will ever again be.


    [Quick clarification on the U.S. legislative branch practical policy: yes, you have the details correct, both the Congress and the Senate are directly elected by the people of each state, now, and are responsible for promoting local interests. However, the Senate [members were originally appointed, not directly elected] are expected to find workable compromises and to pay more attention to international policy.]
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    I mixed your text to make my text more readable.

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Well, have the EU member states ever had a reason to walk behind the same flag? I do not recall the EU ever having faced a single general threat. And the EU is very, very young. So conflict and conflict resolution within the group will naturally be the primary focus, possibly until a serious external threat needs to be faced.
    You say: first there must be a single threat and then there will be unity.
    But we shall not see a single threat as single.

    Take the largest threat the US faces today, terrorism. Europe faces the same threat, especially there our borders are weaker. (Am not implying the attacks in Madrid and London were of the same order as 9/11; but similar scenarios are possible in Europe).

    The bombing were specific toward the countries involved in Iraq. However Brussels (with the Nato and as capital city of the EU) will be hot target for terrorists whatever the individual position Belgium is. The same can be said for France having the EU-parliament in Strasbourg.
    My point being, we shall only consider a threat as a single threat as we do single actions otherwise we do not consider it as single.


    Quote Originally Posted by j


    As for influencing my country, well, it's like influencing an aircraft carrier; it's not easy and it's not fast. Patience is needed; nuclear weapons help.
    Nicely put. I will use it in my end statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by j

    I dislike bringing personality into discussions, but I think you might be significantly younger than I am. Older people prefer slower and more measured change, and older people tend to run governments. On a less personal note, people tend to hold to the ideologies learned in their youth; I think that it will take at least another generation for holders of a European [rather than nationalistic] ideology to come to power.
    National tendencies will slumber over generations and turn to a European feeling… is an idea which I also find logic but also a very dangerous thought.
    Take Yugoslavia for instance, 15 years ago everybody was still convinced putting the different Balkan people in one state was a fine solution to divide the land after WOI.

    Approximately 3 generations did not milder national feeling, a little propaganda and they’re back.

    Quote Originally Posted by j

    I actually find national separatism a sign of the strength of the EU; no-one would seriously consider separating unless they felt united under, and protected by, a larger international government, would they?
    to few to be significant I guess
    Quote Originally Posted by j

    Even the Irish care less about Partitioning, as both areas are part of the EU. [Maybe if the EU adopted Basque as its official language ...].
    Perhaps my examples about Yugoslavia and previously Flanders and Wallonie are indeed not (fully) applicable on the EU-model and thus a bit simplistic. But I find them useful to point out that the EU can not have to dominant power over the different nationalities because this will result in obstructions. However not having enough power makes the EU makes it less dominant toward other countries. (And this is kind of ambiguous …..)

    Quote Originally Posted by j

    Then there is the matter of language and media; you guys really need to pick an official language to promote through out the EU; all children should start learning the same language in additional to their national language in the primary grades. I would suggest Flemish or Portuguese [because you know the British, French, and Germans will always resist using each others languages]. Then, in twenty years, you will have an international media.
    Here you touch the point why the EU is inefficient. Because of national pride we can not choose the most logic answer to a problem.

    You’re idea of Flemish is very polite however only (lets say) 17 million EU-members speak Dutch (Flemish is a dialect dividable in even more dialects sometimes quite different, but I am loosing my subject), and only South-Africa as a non EU country has a comparable language. So Portuguese and Spanish will be more evident.

    Quote Originally Posted by j
    The EU will become a world power once the member states recognize that no single European nation ever will ever again be.
    The only way to make the EU powerful is an individual army stronger then that of France, GB and Germany.
    And actually I think my taxes can be better spent, so as a consequence I prefer the EU with less international power.
    Implying that my initial idea in the post is in conflict with the only way it is achievable.

    Or as you said in time …
    and indeed “Time is on my side” to quote the Rolling Stone however I do not think the lyrics are originally theirs.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Tell me, do you think that the responsibility of monitoring the Isreali border crossings will be the opportunity for the EU to define a new means of expressing international influence?

    If so, do you think the EU will be able to take advantage of it?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4437936.stm
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    do you think that the responsibility of monitoring the Isreali border crossings will be the opportunity for the EU to define a new means of expressing international influence?
    Not that I have any inside information or diplomatic sources; but I like to believe that the independent role the EU tries to establish is the future for Europe diplomacy.
    I am convinced this monitoring is consequence of the nuanced point of view the EU has concerning Palestinians and Israeli and world topics in general (Although in Belgium the Jews believe we support the Palestinians too much; but this is another discussion).
    So indeed I see this as an opportunity
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    If so, do you think the EU will be able to take advantage of it?
    Advantage is not the exact word I am looking for. As you said it is an opportunity; in my opinion to proof our neutrality. Trying directly to benefit from the situation would be unethical and stupid. However if the EU proves himself to be reliable I see a broader role for the EU in peace negotiations. Also Further role in negotiations with regimes without the bully “watch out we stronger then you”, which would be a nice change for stability in general. And I consider this an advantage for the EU but also for other continents.
    However this is my optimistic naive point of view, but I like and believe in it.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    I meant exactly what you describe by 'take advantage'; to promote a new paradigm of international co-operation, in which the EU will be a major influence.

    I'm excited about this; this could be something new and interesting.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •