[Travis]

If the US says "yes sir" to the UN, is it a sovereign nation any longer? Divided sovereignty is oxymoronic and if our government answers to the UN it will be placing itself in subjection to it.

Many nations in Europe have already given away their sovereignty to the EU through the back door of the economy. The nations that have switched to the euro no longer have total authority in printing and backing money. Great Britain has not done so and it is a very wise move on their part, not only because they would be putting themselves in subjection to the EU as well as somewhat of a position of sub ordinance to Germany (where the EU economy is centralized) but because the pound sterling is much more stable is worth much more than the euro.

These attempts at large international governments are undermining the sovereignty of nation states and the USA is in danger of losing its sovereignty if it submits to the UN. Interesting developments to be sure...

[Scott]

If the US says "yes sir" to the UN, is it a sovereign nation any longer?

I'd say yes, it's just using it's sovereignity in a diplomatic way, to maintain it's alliances and agreements.

I don't know if anyone really knows this, but the EU has recently been promoting a bill to have authority transferred to Brussels for foreign policy, health law, legal matters, and on and on.

Obviously, Britain is fighting it, but if the Franco-German alliance backs this, we may see the rest of Europe becoming in effect, one state, with powers devolved to regional parliaments.

Not a good thing, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it will apply more pressure to other groups of nations to come together, to provide them with the muscle to compete with the EU, or at least guarantee their safety.

Secondly, the EU is planning large expansions. This would lead to the EU having huge power on a worldwide scale, and the already brittle relations between the US and Europe wouldn't exactly get any better. The US doesn't seem to like competition.

Third, it could provoke greater Arab solidarity, which is precisely what we don't need in the present political climate.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally posted by Scott
I'd say yes, it's just using it's sovereignity in a diplomatic way, to maintain it's alliances and agreements.

I don't know if anyone really knows this, but the EU has recently been promoting a bill to have authority transferred to Brussels for foreign policy, health law, legal matters, and on and on.

My grandmother goes on about it constantly (we fought for the Belgians and French in two world wars and this is how they repay us...yadda yadda yadda). I don't like the looks of it, because the way that European Parliament is set up, the countries with the most seats get their say, and the others have to shut up and put up. And, as you pointed out, the French and Germans have more sway in the matter than anybody else. Europe's relations with eachother are prickly enough without having two countries run the show. It definately doesn't look good from here.

Speaking of expansions, Scott - last year, I read a bill tabled in Brussels that would induct a whole new group of nations (ie: Czech Republic, and a few other former Eastern Bloc nations) into the EU. Do you know if it was passed?

[Ridley's Own]

Several things...

1. The U.N. can't enforce it's decisions on a member country unless the Security Council authorizes a military intervention to do so. And, since we're one of 5 permanent members on the Security Council that can veto it, I doubt we'll ever be in that situation.

Something I find ironic, though, is that some of the very voices who are concerned about the UN taking over US soveriegnty are the very people who want to enforce UN soveriegnty on Iraq. Just a thought/

2. The EU is remarkably complex and to give a simple answer to any question on it is difficult to do. The EU has been trying to have a common foreign policy for years; it still hasn't happened, and isn't likely to happen. The Franco-German split in the EU is just one example.

There is such a thing as "pooled soveriegnty," and for things like the European Court of Justice, it tends to work well. On things like monetary policy and the common foreign policy, it doesn't work too well.

The European Parliament is not much more than a place to stall EU initiatives, incidentally. It can't initiate legislation, it can't veto the actions of the Council of Ministers or anything like that. The states themselves still have the bulk of decision-making power. I don't think anyone has lost too much of their soveriegnty.

3. The expansion bill hasn't been passed yet. Still waiting on 13 more EU nations.

[Travis]

Originally posted by Ridley's Own
Something I find ironic, though, is that some of the very voices who are concerned about the UN taking over US soveriegnty are the very people who want to enforce UN soveriegnty on Iraq. Just a thought/

Hopefully you aren't referring to me. I don't think the US or the UN has juristiction in Iraq. The only reason I think this conflict may be just is because our citizens are in danger of weapons of mass destruction. I am not in favor of interfering and changing the governmental system there.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by Travis
Hopefully you aren't referring to me.

No, not you in particular, for the reasons you stated in the reply. Its just a general irony I find, esp. in talk-radio sectors. Several of my anti-UN compatriots in my Poli-Sci classes are hankerin' for war and use the "we've got to enforce U.N. resolution" line quite frequently. Just an inconsitency I noticed in the talk.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally posted by Ridley's Own
The expansion bill hasn't been passed yet. Still waiting on 13 more EU nations.

I see. Thanks.

[fifsuperpod37]

Hopefully you aren't referring to me. I don't think the US or the UN has juristiction in Iraq. The only reason I think this conflict may be just is because our citizens are in danger of weapons of mass destruction. I am not in favor of interfering and changing the governmental system there.

In this case, the best way to protect ourselves is to remove the governmental system. To destroy Saddam's weapons and leave him in power merely delays him. He, not just his weapons, is a huge threat to our national security.

Its just a general irony I find, esp. in talk-radio sectors. Several of my anti-UN compatriots in my Poli-Sci classes are hankerin' for war and use the "we've got to enforce U.N. resolution" line quite frequently. Just an inconsitency I noticed in the talk

It's because of the UN's failures to do anything about Iraq that we dittohead types hate the UN. We are against the UN because it fails to do what is right. If the UN enforced a resolution against Iraq I know I would be more pleased with it. There is nothing inconsistent about asking the UN to not be inconsistent and pass resolutions without any intent to pass them.

[Scott]

3. The expansion bill hasn't been passed yet. Still waiting on 13 more EU nations.

Although, the other 13 nations will join up.

Governments usually bow to EU pressure, and when it goes to referendum, it simply gets retried until the "correct" result is obtained.