Will Scott Peterson becme the latest OJ.....

[Cyrus]

"I'm far from convinced that the E.U. has been good for the individual European countries."

Well, it has been, sorry! It's not just that for the first time ever, Europe is at an extremely stable and peaceful condition. Peace is something deeply appreciated in war-weary Europe, my man. But all the economic indicators also show that the Union has been good to every E.U. country. Everyone is better for it. And the European citizens seem to agree as well -- they are all in favor of the general arrangement of the E.U. as the polls show.

Now, about "bureaucracy" : You misunderstood what I wrote.

I am not a fan of the slow, and indeed sometimes frustrating, process of the E.U. bureaucracy. I wrote that the tedious process of consensus is absolutely preferable to the "speed" and "efficiency" we would have if a single country, any country, was "leading" Europe -- as you accused France of wanting to. (Hint : No country can "lead" Europe on its own and they all know it.)

As to market efficiencies : It is obvious that you are not familiar at all with the E.U.'s workings and objectives ! The E.U. as a matter of fact is all about free enterprise. E.U. regulations and authorities are about enforcing a level playing field for the private sector. All the E.U.'s actions are pointed towards dismantling monopolies, privatising state-owned enterprises, liberalising intra-European trade, freeing up every country's market, unifying the tax & customs system across the borders, laying down trade barriers, promoting competition, and so on, and so forth. This is now by far the biggest market in the world and it has been firmly on the free enterprise road from the start. (It's just not on the same wavelength as the idiotic practices of the environmentally disastrous and socially unconscionable policies of the American Right. Sorry about that, George.)

You have a very inaccurate and facile picture of the European Union. It's now how you describe it at all! I think you mistake the defensive actions that the E.U. takes to protect its members from outside threats, for actions that also take place inside. Nope...

"France appears to be mired in the past, longing for glory-days."

Sorry, but you must be talking about Great Britain there. France has no military bases outside the country, as far as I remember, I mean not in places such as Cyprus, Gibraltar, etc, where the Union Jack still flies needlessly.
France has been behaving much more responsibly than the U.K. ever since the World War ended, with the exception of the 1956 Suez debacle.

"Add the rise of Islamism in France, and in many ways France is actually marching backwards."

The rise of Islamism in France is proportional precisely to the rise in Arabs coming into France as migrant workers. There is no rise of Islamism outside that sector of the population. Indigenous French are not suddenly starting to wear turbans! (If anything, the French are becoming more secular or atheistic.) Moreover, those Arab migrant workers are slowly but surely being absorbed by the advanced political culture of Europe. After one generation, their kids are rapping in street corners.

[MMMMMM]

Ok let's see...you've partially convinced me the E.U. is a good thing.

Now: the European market is the largest in the world, and they're well on their way. So they should eventually outstrip us in prosperity, growth and influence, right? I wouldn't bet on it. As long as they continue to encumber themselves with high taxes and socialism, they just won't be able to, because those are incredibly inefficient devices with profound influence.

As for France acting responsibly, again, I'm not talking about the last 50 years; I'm talking about much more recent times--say the last decade or so and especially very recently. And I don't believe the new French Arab population is assimilating nearly as well as you portray. Heck even in this country the so-called "moderate" Islamic organizations are generally anything but. Fundraising for terror groups is rife among Muslim charities. A recent keynote speaker at a university Muslim Student Association meeting told students they should listen to only the "true" Islamic teachings--not watered-down "moderate" Islam-- and when the students pressed him for an example of who to listen to, he finally said "Al-Mahajiroun." This advice was coming from a speaker from one of the most politically active Islamic organizations in the USA today and this organization is generally thought of as "moderate." In case you don't know, Al-Mahajiroun is a worldwide jihadist organization. I seriously doubt that Muslims in France are any more moderate than Muslims in the USA. Besides, part of Islamic creed is the goal of taking over the world by Islam--by force if necessary. There is a death penalty for conversion out of Islam (apostasy) and today many former Muslims have had to change their names and live underground or else be killed--yes, in Western countries. Traditions like these don't just assimilate away in one generation. If Islam didn't have such a huge following it would be classified as a cult not a religion. Islam has always been at war with the outside world--indeed the Islamic view is that there is the House of Peace (the world under Islamic rule) and the House of War (the world outside of Islam). It's true, as Samuel Huntington says, that "Islam has bloody borders." Of something like 30 regional wars or conflicts in the world recently (2 years ago might have been the time frame), 28 involved Muslim countries. It's not just a coincidence. You can look up the exact stats if you're so inclined. The Islamic worldview is irreconcilable with any and all other belief systems and also with no belief system. Assimilation and reform of Islam is going to be one of the biggest and most dangerous necessary processes humankind will ever face. And Islam is inherently, ideologically, less amenable to reform than was Christianity.

[Cyrus]

"The European market is the largest in the world, and they're well on their way. So they should eventually outstrip [the United States] in prosperity, growth and influence, right?"

No, I didn't say nor imply that. The size of the E.U. is just a fact. The Union's future depends on a lot of things but it should not be necessarily on a collision course with the rest of the world's economic powers. (Gradually, Japan will be partaking in a E.U.-like Asian zone. The developping African countries jostle around a Union with apartheid-free South Africa. The U.S. tries its own hand in the American continent version through NAFTA. Huddling together is the future and going it alone is the past : see what that spells for the unilateralism in American policy ! [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] )

"As long as [the European Union] continue to encumber themselves with high taxes and socialism, they just won't be able to [supass the USA], because those are incredibly inefficient devices with profound influence."

1. The E.U. does not have to surpass the U.S. in anything, economically-wise. This should be a "competition" about standards of living rather than abstract numbers such as GDP per capita. And, in terms of living standards, Europe is advancing very rapidly and soon, if not already, may surpass the U.S. (But I would be very satisfied if Europe would adopt more of the libertarian laws of the U.S. ! Ummm, before they are discarded by the U.S. that is. [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img] )

2. You are mistaking protectionist policies for "socialism". Those protectionist policies aim at protecting European industries, sectors or countries from undue or unfair outside competition and threats. As you very aptly put it, there is no real free trade in the world, just degrees of protectionism. And as to the benefits of protectionism, well, they can be dramatically good : Witness the emergence of high-tech industries in India and China, after decades of their governments tariffing away the competition and frustrating cut-price invasions. A success story, now feeding millions of workers, educated and not, and taking away jobs from American workers!

"Islam ... France.."

Those fanatical Muslims promoting terrorism inside France have at worst the impact the Black Panthers had during their heyday in the United States. The French gov't doesn't worry excessively about that threat, the E.U. doesn't either. Neither does Germany, with its three million Turkish immigrants. You would be interested to know that the European Union members have taken their own and very strong anti-terrorist measures much, much earlier than 9/11 (viz. Sengen Agreement) and those measures seem to be working very well.

Europeans are just not so easily overtaken with paranoia as the U.S. is. (Plus, the E.U. is not exposed to resentment, hatred and beligerence. ...Ah, the perils of being a superpower. [img]/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] )

"You've partially convinced me the E.U. is a good thing."

You should be absolutely convinced by now! What am I doing wrong? [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]