Haha, like in today's schools. There are no loosers, only last winners :D

By the way, I second Helmut Kohl.

And if you can give a nobel prize to EU, you may as well give it to dead people.

You simply can't, they thoroughly checked it though.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/

It's the LAW....

I think it would be nice to actually have the announcement here, as people usually like to open their mouth before doing some of the most basic research ;-)

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2012

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European Union (EU). The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.

In the inter-war years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a seventy-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.

In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined the EU. The introduction of democracy was a condition for their membership. The fall of the Berlin Wall made EU membership possible for several Central and Eastern European countries, thereby opening a new era in European history. The division between East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end; democracy has been strengthened; many ethnically-based national conflicts have been settled.

The admission of Croatia as a member next year, the opening of membership negotiations with Montenegro, and the granting of candidate status to Serbia all strengthen the process of reconciliation in the Balkans. In the past decade, the possibility of EU membership for Turkey has also advanced democracy and human rights in that country.

The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU’s most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.

The work of the EU represents "fraternity between nations", and amounts to a form of the "peace congresses" to which Alfred Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will.

Oslo, 12 October 2012

Personally, I think that the EU is an impressive feat that has done far more good than bad. And I think the EU is a far better and more important achievement than most of its citizens realize (which, in turn, makes me worry if they might actually squander it away if times get rough, so I can also understand that the EU needs positive publicity).

I wouldn't have given the EU the Nobel Prize for Peace though. I don't think the EU is _directly_ responsible for the period of peace that large parts of Europe are enjoying. I strongly doubt that we would have had a war in central Europe if the EU hadn't been founded. The EU is certainly a stabilizing factor and will contribute to making inner-European wars less likely in the future, but still, I would have given the prize to someone who has taken a more active role in creating peace.

What this decision shows, is that the Nobel Prize committee is _worried_ about the EU ...

Could you expand upon that statement please?

Haha.

Now, about that emocratic referendum on the Troika conditions...

- No

- No ?

- No.

- Uh, okay.

Well, the prize is usually awarded either to people who have done exceptional advances towards peace (like Arafat/Peres), or to people who needed a boost of public awareness (the Chinese dissident, or the Dalai Lama back then).

The EU has not made exceptional advances towards peace. In fact a durable peace was established before the EU was even thought of. The EU helped securing that peace, but that's not a process that usually warrants a Nobel Prize.

So, the Committee apparently felt that the EU needed a publicity boost. And it might, seeing how the lobbyism against it has increased lately. The impression that I'm getting is that the Committee was thinking "The EU is a remarkable achievement, which _also_ helps securing peace, but it's under threat, and this threat will probably increase in the years to come. Let's send it some help."

We asked the people about the introduction of a pan European constitution. What happened? A publicity campaign backed by a US millionaire brought it down.

Democracy is not achieved by having people judge about things they simply don't understand. But by electing people who you trust in doing these calls.


I disagree. The EU is the direct descendent of the "European Coal and Steel Community" which was the most successful peace initiative in history.

Saying the EU didn't do anything for peace is like saying Jogi Löw didn't do anything for German football because he never kicked a ball (after his pro-time, of course).

I can certainly understand some of the reasons for awarding the EU with this prize and think I can mostly agree with jamyskis and SimonG on this matter.

With overall respect to peace and balance in Europe since WWII, I believe the existence of NATO and the Soviet Union has played an important part, to put it lightly. Not without challenges, of course, but I believe things could have been far worse.

I suppose loss aversion will prevent the break up of the EU now.

Thanks, that's a plausible theory I think - I've long since stopped trying to figure out why some receive this award and others don't, though. Personally, I think EU has done more promoting peace than most people give them credit for, so I'm not opposed to this at all. It's a very difficult prize to award to anyone as there's almost always negative consequences being caused by it, regardless of who receives it.

Additionally, "we" (Norway) have already sent billions of € to EU countries to help out - even though we're not a member of EU, only of EEC - this is a lot cheaper. Maybe now we'll be able to afford all the "gold and green forests" we've been promised by our politicians.. =P

You've had oil. That doesn't count. It's like the IDDQD of nations ... ;-P. And you a topography designed for water power! Just not fair.

I think the necessity of NATO has hindered uniting Europe more than NATO has united Europe. As the EU has grown stronger (and of course the fall of the SU), the necessity of being either with NATO or against has lessened, making it possible to include former "enemies" into a united Europe.

That is correct. I guess it also brings up the question "What is Europe?". Russia? Georgia? Turkey? Morocco? Greenland?

I think for a lot of people it was hard to accept the former enemies as a part of Europe. Even though some countries like Czechoslovakia are a lot closer historically to the west than to the east.