European Union

European Union, I am not aware of all of the implications for different countries who are members, or wish to be members, of the EU. I do know that in the UK there are very strong views as to membership. Many MPs and UK voters think that a referendum should be held in relation to ratifying proposed changes to EU regulations.

Is it possible for counties to have a choice, in all regards except one, as to the type of membership they to apply for? My suggestions as to suitable headings are listed below.

1/ Defence. Membership under this heading is essential. If a country wishes to become a member of the EU they must agree to comply with all of the obligations in relation to defence.

The following sections are not in any particular order and countries are free to choose, the list is not exhaustive.
2/ Economic. Under this heading a country must convert to the Euro and comply with all rules relating, specifically, to EU economics.
3/ Immigration.
4/ Health.
5/ Human Rights.
6/ Law.
7/ Agriculture and commercial fishing.

Two years or so ago the German Chancellor Angela Merkal, in a discussion about the EU, came out with words that approximated in meaning to stating that there had not been a war in Europe for 50 years.

During WW Two I think there were countless barbarous acts, both on an individual basis as well as on a much larger scale involving whole units or even armies. I have seen estimates of more than 50 million deaths during that war, this is an incredible number to contemplate.

I spent approx three and a half years in the British army, some of that time during WW Two but I did not see any action as such. I find it difficult to understand how some people can manifest
hate over generations. However I recall that when Yugoslavia broke up a friend said to me "Fred, they are fighting over something that happened fourteen hundred years ago".

I do not hate German or Japanese people, I can understand people who witnessed brutal acts, or whose close relatives or friends were killed, not finding it easy to forget. But generation after generation nursing a grudge is not, for me, so easy to understand.

If the EU prevents a war between member states or member states stand shoulder to shoulder with each other in resisting aggression then that alone, in my opinion, justifies the existence of the EU.

In my previous blog to this I put some ideas forward regarding "protectionism", I feel that the EU could well be a "grouping" such as I suggested and should consider if their best interests would be served by embracing, openly, some form of protectionism. Non EU member countries could well be members of such a bloc. To me it is glaringly obvious that a major watershed moment has already dawned, particularly for developed countries, and that the rule book for providing gainful employment for their populations has to be completely rewritten, and agreed to, by members of the developed countries. It could well transpire that some developed
countries could feel that their best interests would be served by becoming a member of a different trading bloc to which they previously belonged, and in which they traditionally operated.

If the playing field of world economies has to be levelled out it is essential that some form of control is maintained over the bulldozer drivers. This control must be exercised by governments driven by the desire, to make the world, in the long term, a better place. This can be done by generating and harnessing the "goodness" of people, there has to be a better driving force than greed.

Frederick W Gilling 29/08/2009