>I don't think it was presented that way originally. I recall reading and then later discussions here on the UT (or I think it was here on the UT) that the goal of the EU was to eventually become a world power equal to the U.S. politically, economically, and militarily. There were arguments that no, it was only economic and nothing else otherwise no country would agree to join. Not that it would be a bad thing necessarily, but it would have the potential of being a bad thing and not just for us but for the citizens of each of the member countries. No more autonomy when that all comes to pass. What then happens with the UN? Do we have the UN, the EU, NATO, et al...?

If the EU becomes a world power, who needs NATO?

>
>
>
>>>>>Are you translating from Dutch or was that expression in English? In English, especially since I have a US-centric view of the world and don't thing of the EU as a political entity, my first reaction to 'European minister of foreign affairs' is "Minister of Foreign Affairs for a European country"
>>>>
>>>>http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/67/index_en.htm
>>>
>>>Interesting and thank you. I had always felt that the EU was an extension of what we used to call the "Common Market." Apparantly, I have a great deal to learn (or unlearn).
>>
>>
>>Join the club. I thought the same thing. What I am hearing in this thread is the EU is in the process (ongoing) of moving well beyond economic issues.