EU will fall??

[KShan5[PrFC]]

FRANKFURT, Germany (Reuters) - The unspeakable is being whispered: could the euro currency project fail?

In economic research reports and newspaper columns, European Central Bank watchers have begun to speculate on the fate of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) should French voters reject the European constitution next month.

"The euro at risk" was the headline of a Deutsche Bank report to its clients on Monday. "Its life expectancy may soon be regarded as finite," Financial Times columnist Wolfgang Munchau wrote the same day.

Supporters of the constitution say it is vital for ensuring that the European Union functions properly after the bloc's expansion last year. But opinion polls show a clear majority of French voters plan to reject it in a referendum on May 29.

The constitution needs backing from all 25 member states and some analysts say its failure could lead to a reversal of European political integration.

"The EU could disintegrate toward a free-trade zone," said WestLB Financial Markets on Tuesday. "Such developments would spell disaster for EMU and the ECB."

Certainly a collapse of the second biggest monetary bloc in the world remains a distant and unlikely prospect. Europe usually muddles through its crises.

Yet these rumblings are more than scare tactics. The euro is only 6 years old, and its launch contradicted economic theory. Skeptics argued that currency union cannot work without political union because unified fiscal and macroeconomic policies are needed to complement a single monetary policy.

The fear is they may be proved right.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/17/news...reut/index.htm

Any thoughts?

[keith]

well the conflation of trade/financial/political integration has always been one of the EUs problems.

..problem in this case being massive volumes of analytical hot air.

The idea that the Euro could collapse due to a failure to ratify the constitution will be widely floated both by those who want the constitution ratified and by those who do not. Expect to hear much more nonsense on this topic over the next year.

[veeco]

Current polls show that the Yes has a slim margin for French EU constitution adoption. While it's not really clear which of the yes or the no will be adopted, there seems to be a trend towards adoption.

Also, if the No was to be chosen by the French, it would not mean that the Euro would be dropped. The being part of the Euro zone is a separate thing than adopting the consitution. May EU countries don't use the Euro nowadays, yet they will still vote to accept the constitution.

If France refuses to accept the constitution, the previous treaties will still apply for it. Which is kind of interesting, because a large part of the constitution only reuses the wordings from those treaties, which have been accepted before.

[Epee_Pox]

If I wanted the EU to be strong, I'd be more concerned by the UK's overwhelming resistance to ratifying the EU constitution. Blair wants to, but the population doesn't, and that's going to kill him next year.

It is understandable why the majority are expected to vote no in the UK. Its economy consistently outperforms those of Germany, France and Italy. It didn't adopt the Euro, and has done very well without it. So the UK doesn't really need to join the EU constitution. And there is a popular perception that the EU is just a tool to benefit the special economic interests of France and Germany against the real interests of greater Europe.

Additionally, there are significant cultural differences between the UK and the continental countries. Individualism tends to be stronger in the UK, with less of a feeling of entitlement to government support. The UK population tends to be simultaneously suspicious of continental approaches, and much less xenophobic than the continental peoples. UK law, the evolving embodiment of the rules of its culture, is hugely different from the legal systems of the continent -- in the continent, every little thing has to be codified (resulting in unwieldy constitutions that are essentially legislation rather than the core principles from which law derives), and the law cannot evolve as it does in the courts of the UK. There are vastly different public ethos. So culturally, it is easy to see why people in the UK are reluctant to sign on to a continental-style constitution that they don't feel represents them.

Without UK ratification, the EU is in trouble. If the remaining countries ratify the constitution and try to ostracize the UK, they'll fail, because the border countries don't want an EU dominated by France and Germany. France and Germany might try to create their own smaller EU with allied countries, but that would just reinforce existing resentment against them.

What they'd have to do to preserve the EU is draft a whole new constitution that is acceptable to the UK population. The absolutlely overwhelming opposition to the present version in the UK has to tell them something. It's not just a result of demagoguery or misinformation -- it's a result of serious cultural, economic and legal contradictions that need to be resolved before the UK can see it in it's best interests to join the EU.

[Teme]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Without UK ratification, the EU is in trouble. If the remaining countries ratify the constitution and try to ostracize the UK, they'll fail, because the border countries don't want an EU dominated by France and Germany. France and Germany might try to create their own smaller EU with allied countries, but that would just reinforce existing resentment against them.

What they'd have to do to preserve the EU is draft a whole new constitution that is acceptable to the UK population. The absolutlely overwhelming opposition to the present version in the UK has to tell them something. It's not just a result of demagoguery or misinformation -- it's a result of serious cultural, economic and legal contradictions that need to be resolved before the UK can see it in it's best interests to join the EU.

I beg to disagree. With the way Britain has approached the whole EU thing, whether or not she ratifies the constitution bears no significance. Well, other than the fact that the current constitution is the one made acceptable to UK, which is why it's so unacceptable to France. If UK turns it down, EU could come up with a better one, more suitable to Europe, but I doubt nobody's willing to go through the trouble given that it's already ratified in 6 countries.

I don't think it's Europe's duty to appease UK. As you said, UK differs so much from the rest of us, that the EU is probably much stronger without it.

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

If I wanted the EU to be strong, I'd be more concerned by the UK's overwhelming resistance to ratifying the EU constitution. Blair wants to, but the population doesn't, and that's going to kill him next year.

It is understandable why the majority are expected to vote no in the UK. Its economy consistently outperforms those of Germany, France and Italy. It didn't adopt the Euro, and has done very well without it. So the UK doesn't really need to join the EU constitution. And there is a popular perception that the EU is just a tool to benefit the special economic interests of France and Germany against the real interests of greater Europe.

Additionally, there are significant cultural differences between the UK and the continental countries. Individualism tends to be stronger in the UK, with less of a feeling of entitlement to government support. The UK population tends to be simultaneously suspicious of continental approaches, and much less xenophobic than the continental peoples. UK law, the evolving embodiment of the rules of its culture, is hugely different from the legal systems of the continent -- in the continent, every little thing has to be codified (resulting in unwieldy constitutions that are essentially legislation rather than the core principles from which law derives), and the law cannot evolve as it does in the courts of the UK. There are vastly different public ethos. So culturally, it is easy to see why people in the UK are reluctant to sign on to a continental-style constitution that they don't feel represents them.

Without UK ratification, the EU is in trouble. If the remaining countries ratify the constitution and try to ostracize the UK, they'll fail, because the border countries don't want an EU dominated by France and Germany. France and Germany might try to create their own smaller EU with allied countries, but that would just reinforce existing resentment against them.

What they'd have to do to preserve the EU is draft a whole new constitution that is acceptable to the UK population. The absolutlely overwhelming opposition to the present version in the UK has to tell them something. It's not just a result of demagoguery or misinformation -- it's a result of serious cultural, economic and legal contradictions that need to be resolved before the UK can see it in it's best interests to join the EU.

The forces that are keeping the UK out of the Europe are operating under jingoist 18th century notions of the nationstate. While it is true that England's economy has outpreformed France's, Italy's and Germany's, it certainly has not outperformed the EU as a whole; it might not even have outperformed the German economy if the richer western half of the country wasn't saddled with its eastern counterpart. Regardless, England stands a lot to lose from remaining at the periphery of europe; important manufacturing jobs are considering a move to the continent to avoid taxes and to benefit from a weaker/exporter friendly currency.

More importantly, England is losing a chance to shape the EU from within. They may chose to join the currency union or to ratify its constitution later on down the line, but by then Europe's identity will be less maleable.

Although there are big cultural differences between an englishman and a continental european, I don't think they any more insurmountable than the cultural differences between an englishman and an irishman. Or an andaluz and a bavarian. Or a sicilian and a dutch person.

[veeco]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

The UK population tends to be simultaneously suspicious of continental approaches, and much less xenophobic than the continental peoples.

I am sorry, but I couldn't let anything like this be said without saying anything. This is simply preposterous. I would say that the UK population is as xenophobic as some continental european countries. Pakistanis for instance are really not well integrated in the UK, and are frequently the target of slurs and denigration.

As in every country, the UK has its share of xenophobes, just as France, Germany, or others.

Further, trying to compare how much a country is xenophobic to another is simply not a very gracious thing to do, especially when you're not from any of the countries mentionned.

[scrapinpeg]

I'm not sure that's right. I think I read a news report recently where the typical person of middle-eastern descent in France thinks of himself as a Muslim first, an Arab second, and French third. Whereas such a person in England thinks of himself as a British citizen of Arab descent.

Based on my own experience, the French are much more "protective" of their "frenchness" in many ways, whereas the English are more likely to both adopt foreign things and to assimilate new arrivals.

[Teme]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

I think I read a news report recently where the typical person of middle-eastern descent in France thinks of himself as a Muslim first, an Arab second, and French third. Whereas such a person in England thinks of himself as a British citizen of Arab descent.

There are many other (and more plausible explanations) for this than <French xenophobia.
- British muslims come mostly from Indian subcontinent, and even if from predominantly muslim area still within great influence of other religions (mainly hinduism).
- French muslims come from North Africa (not Middle East ) where Islam has religious and cultural hegemony.
- The muslim population in France is twice as large as in Britain, and instead of 'muslim neighbourghoods' of tens of families tend to reside in 'muslim suburbs' of hundreds (or thousands) of families.
- Having the country of origin in close promixity, the muslims in France tend to have stronger ties 'to home' -- to the extent that some North Arfican states strive to yield influence over their citizen in France.
- larger proportion of Imams in France come from outside (even regarding the origin of majority of their gongregation) than in Britain.

Now, I could very well be outdated or outright wrong in this, but at least ten years ago it seemed that the the 'ethnic violence' in Britain was mostly against muslim minority, whereas in France it was by the muslim minority.

[Gav]

And Scrapinpeg: British Muslims tend to think of themselves as Muslim then Arab (or Indian) then trailing in far behind British. Those in Scotland tend (in my experience) to put Scottish before British. Also there is a big difference between Hindu's (from India and they are most likely to be 3rd generation by now) and Hindu Asians. Hindu Asians are mose likely to think of themselves as british, but they are still Indian first.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Svidrigailov

The forces that are keeping the UK out of the Europe are operating under jingoist 18th century notions of the nationstate. While it is true that England's economy has outpreformed France's, Italy's and Germany's, it certainly has not outperformed the EU as a whole; it might not even have outperformed the German economy if the richer western half of the country wasn't saddled with its eastern counterpart. Regardless, England stands a lot to lose from remaining at the periphery of europe; important manufacturing jobs are considering a move to the continent to avoid taxes and to benefit from a weaker/exporter friendly currency.

More importantly, England is losing a chance to shape the EU from within. They may chose to join the currency union or to ratify its constitution later on down the line, but by then Europe's identity will be less maleable.

Although there are big cultural differences between an englishman and a continental european, I don't think they any more insurmountable than the cultural differences between an englishman and an irishman. Or an andaluz and a bavarian. Or a sicilian and a dutch person.

Other than your use of English and England to represent UK citizen and United Kingdom [respectively] I'd say you were largely correct.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

If I wanted the EU to be strong, I'd be more concerned by the UK's overwhelming resistance to ratifying the EU constitution. Blair wants to, but the population doesn't, and that's going to kill him next year.

It is understandable why the majority are expected to vote no in the UK. Its economy consistently outperforms those of Germany, France and Italy. It didn't adopt the Euro, and has done very well without it. So the UK doesn't really need to join the EU constitution. And there is a popular perception that the EU is just a tool to benefit the special economic interests of France and Germany against the real interests of greater Europe.

Additionally, there are significant cultural differences between the UK and the continental countries. Individualism tends to be stronger in the UK, with less of a feeling of entitlement to government support. The UK population tends to be simultaneously suspicious of continental approaches, and much less xenophobic than the continental peoples. UK law, the evolving embodiment of the rules of its culture, is hugely different from the legal systems of the continent -- in the continent, every little thing has to be codified (resulting in unwieldy constitutions that are essentially legislation rather than the core principles from which law derives), and the law cannot evolve as it does in the courts of the UK. There are vastly different public ethos. So culturally, it is easy to see why people in the UK are reluctant to sign on to a continental-style constitution that they don't feel represents them.

Without UK ratification, the EU is in trouble. If the remaining countries ratify the constitution and try to ostracize the UK, they'll fail, because the border countries don't want an EU dominated by France and Germany. France and Germany might try to create their own smaller EU with allied countries, but that would just reinforce existing resentment against them.

What they'd have to do to preserve the EU is draft a whole new constitution that is acceptable to the UK population. The absolutlely overwhelming opposition to the present version in the UK has to tell them something. It's not just a result of demagoguery or misinformation -- it's a result of serious cultural, economic and legal contradictions that need to be resolved before the UK can see it in it's best interests to join the EU.

I wonder; have you ever been to the UK?

The EU will do perfectly well whether we, in the UK, decide to join or not. The ojections to the UK constitution are based on an outmoded view of the UK which is largely whipped up by the tabloid press. On the other hand people are quite entitled to object to something which they see as dangerously federal [IMO].

[veeco]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

I'm not sure that's right. I think I read a news report recently where the typical person of middle-eastern descent in France thinks of himself as a Muslim first, an Arab second, and French third. Whereas such a person in England thinks of himself as a British citizen of Arab descent.

I'd like to see that article, if you can dig it out. I can certainly see that some portion of the Arabic population in France would feel this way, even though I can find example in my neighborhood right now that would contradict what's been said.

One thing to keep in mind also is that this doesn't necessarily mean that the French people are xenophobic. It might mean that integration is harder for the Arabic people in France in general, not because of xenophobia, but for other reasons (one of which being that a large part of the French-Arabic population comes from Algeria with which France has a troubled past, to say the least).

Based on my own experience, the French are much more "protective" of their "frenchness" in many ways, whereas the English are more likely to both adopt foreign things and to assimilate new arrivals.

I think assimilation is done differently in France and in the UK, but I think that both countries strive to assimilate their -- legal -- immigrants.

The best example one can think about is the laws about religious symbols in public schools that were passed recently in France. Someone from the UK or the US will find it preposterous, because they view secularity differently than French people do.

French people view secularity as something that has to be legislated so that every child at a public school should look the same no matter what religion they are from. The integration tries to make everyone who's French or emigrates to France to look "French" and become French. Which is to say, that the French value integration quite a bit and want kids at school to have no difference among them, the way they look etc.. You can argue it's a too idealistic position, but that's the way the French view these things. So in a way, yes it is protective of the "frenchness" of things if you wish, but it's the same for everyone and it applies to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike.

On the other hand, the UK and the US have a much different approach: IMO they don't value integration as much, and don't have any secular laws, except those that say that everyone is free to choose their religion. As a matter of fact, in the US, kids could go to school wearing large crosses, kippas or islamic veils, and they wouldn't have a problem. In the UK, I am not sure what the situation is at school, since I seem to recall that in the UK kids must wear a uniform going to school, and AFAIK, the UK has a lot more private schools that exist for members of a specific faith, but that doesn't put as much value on integration than the French system IMO. It does lead to a greater assimilation of the new arrivals, because they can join and stay within their own kind, but that's exactly the kind of things that the French integration model is trying to avoid...

Anyway, I am not sure I managed to get my point accross correctly, it's a difficult matter for me to explain, but having lived in the US and being of French nationality, I must say I am kind of caught in the middle myself. I view the positive and negative points of both models, and I'd like to think there is a middle ground that's more effective than both the French method and the US/UK method, but I haven't found it yet!

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Teme

There are many other (and more plausible explanations) for this than <French xenophobia. ... .

Hmm.. how recent are the immigrants? The most common mode of assimilation in the US is to be pretty completely assimilated by the end of the 2nd generation. Where I live we've got quite a few immigrant communities -- Vietnamese, Mexican, Korean, Indian, Japanese, Portugese, etc. The typical model seems to be...

First generation -- retains language and culture pretty much complete. Native language spoken at home, and slightly spoken outside the home for work, primarily). Lives in a neighborhood dominated by their native culture. Children of this generation go to public schools (usually), with some private schools (but teach primarily in english).

Second generation -- bilingual. Aware of culture and language, but not fully immersed in it, and does not observe faull cultural norms. Typically marries within the cultural group, but not always. Moves out of neighborhood dominated by cultural group, at least for long periods. Visits family in originating cultural nation, potentially for university or other education. Work and education primarily in english, and fully conversant and comfortable in main stream culture. Children of this generation are educated typically in public schools (usually) and taught almost exclusively in english.

Third generation -- rarely bilingual. Aware of background culture and language. Full assimilated.

Note that this process can take 40-60 years to complete...

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Gav

Other than your use of English and England to represent UK citizen and United Kingdom [respectively] I'd say you were largely correct.

I did not mean to slight any of the non-english nations in the UK. Especially scotland.

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Hmm.. how recent are the immigrants? The most common mode of assimilation in the US is to be pretty completely assimilated by the end of the 2nd generation. Where I live we've got quite a few immigrant communities -- Vietnamese, Mexican, Korean, Indian, Japanese, Portugese, etc. The typical model seems to be...

First generation -- retains language and culture pretty much complete. Native language spoken at home, and slightly spoken outside the home for work, primarily). Lives in a neighborhood dominated by their native culture. Children of this generation go to public schools (usually), with some private schools (but teach primarily in english).

Second generation -- bilingual. Aware of culture and language, but not fully immersed in it, and does not observe faull cultural norms. Typically marries within the cultural group, but not always. Moves out of neighborhood dominated by cultural group, at least for long periods. Visits family in originating cultural nation, potentially for university or other education. Work and education primarily in english, and fully conversant and comfortable in main stream culture. Children of this generation are educated typically in public schools (usually) and taught almost exclusively in english.

Third generation -- rarely bilingual. Aware of background culture and language. Full assimilated.

Note that this process can take 40-60 years to complete...

Maybe people in the USA get assimilated faster because people in the USA tend to move away from their families more frequently than in europe?

In europe, it seems like one is more likely to travel a lot, but stay have one's home close to where one was originally born...

[veeco]

Also, in the US, most immigrant communities are very far from their countries of origin, thus the ties are easier to break. I would think that for Mexicans for example, who leave much closer to their countries would keep a greater tie to their culture, for more generations, than immigrants from Asia, Europe and Africa. By being farther, the US can have a much tighter control over their borders and therefore make sure that illegals have a harder time getting in.

The fact that to get in the US for most countries except Canada and Mexico you need to fly in means that you need some money to get in. This means that the legal immigrants are usually better educated, and therefore more likely to integrate quickly, than say Morrocans or Algerian people who cross the borders freely into southern europe, using a short boat ride across the Gibraltar Straight and from there get anywhere within Europe.

These are really 2 different situations and they are quite hard to compare, really.

For instance, in California, where I used to live, I definitely felt that most Mexicans living there were still working lower wage jobs than other immigrants. I used to work in a software engineering