but after the first it is understandable. Keeping peace in Europe for over 60 years now and the integration of so many countries within the EU.

The point of the EU in the first place was to stop France and Germany from going to war with each other, especially over Alsache-Lorraine.

There has almost always been war in Europe involving some countries, historically. How much of the current peace is due to the EU, and due to the fact that the great powers in Europe (England, France, Germany, Italy) became democracies after World War II i don't know.

But all in all it is a fitting award i think.

with the exception of the USSR / Russia had free elections at least once post WW I, so the EC / EU seems to have worked better than other options.

IMHO the Marshall plan and the nuclear bomb probably has more to do with the peace than anything.

in one way or another and threatening nuclear war should any nation get out of line may have had something to do with it.

Look at how many EU nations participated in Iraq & Afghanistan. Hardly peaceful.

As to Iraq, there were only the following European countries with forces there as part of a multinational group, under US military control:
The UK (2004-20011), Poland (2004-2008); Italy, (2004-2006); Netherlands (2004-2005) & Spain (03/2004-04/2004, i.e.,1 month).

Oh, and I shouldn't forget the Czech Republic: Czech Republic — The original Czech contingent consisted of 300 troops and three civilians running a field hospital, operating under British command Multi-National Division (South-East) (Iraq). After 2006, the goal changed from training Iraqi police to providing Force Protection to Contingency Operation Base (Basrah Air Station) at the vehicle checkpoints. Two thirds of these soldiers were pulled out by late 2007, and 80 out of the remaining 100 were withdrawn in summer 2008[56] On October 1, 2008 it was announced that the remaining 17 Taji-based Czech troops, who were training Iraqi troops in the use of armoured vehicles, would be withdrawn in December, leaving five troops supporting the NATO Training Mission (NTM-I).[57] On December 4, a ceremony was held marking the end of the Czech mission.[58] One Czech soldier died in May 2003 from injuries sustained in a vehicle accident in Iraq., which had about 300 people running a hospital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

In Afganistan, the European troops were there as part of NATO, not the EU.

maybe not my first choice, but then seems good.

That the heads of Dan Hannan, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Farage and everyone at the Daily Telegraph will have exploded with rage at this announcement.

Schadenfreude at the British right wing aside, I can't help but think that it's actually not a good decision given what the EU is doing to Greece right now.

countries as stagnant socialist welfare states. And pissing them off is a Good Thing, too.

Of course, trading some national sovereignty for peace, middle class prosperity and freedom of movement since the middle of the 20th century was never high on the right wing agenda (here or there) to begin with nor is it likely to be in the future either.

in the middle of a huge economic crash caused by the filthy rich. I guess you can say the EU prevented a war and it has been a success. But I don't think those suffering under austerity will agree with the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

I thought it was the U.S., Britain and the Soviet Union who disarmed Germany. And maintained troops there for years as Germany -- at least in the West -- turned itself into essentially a pacifist country. And that the U.S. and to a lesser extent Britain paid for the defense of Europe with troops and money. The EU had nothing to do with it.

perhaps the laboratory at Los Alamos deserves a peace prize.

/also I have this rock that keeps away tigers. Maybe that isn't worth a peace prize but it has to be worth something.

You have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for not acting on your deeply-held opinions of all those foreigners, the Nobel Committee has announced today.

In recognition of not starting any world wars in over seventy years, the Nobel Peace Prize is going to everyone in the EU, and some are already proclaiming it to the be the proudest day of their lives.

“I’ve never won anything before,” said Simon Williams, a car mechanic from Basingstoke.

“Not even employee of the month, even though I’ve been here seven years and there’s only five of us on the payroll. So yes, this was a bit out of the blue.”

Read more: http://newsthump.com/2012/10/12/everyone-in-europe-adding-nobel-prize-winner-to-their-cv/#ixzz295FRaeq9

EU hates democracy, supports the oppression and killing of Palestinians and war against the 3rd world.

I've studied the history and law of the very democratic European Union at an Irish university. Your completely undocumented accusations/conclusions are so fact free as to be beyond bizarre. Given the EU's demonstrated history of setting provision of humanitarian aid, improved and equal standards of living for all citizens, and protection of ethnic minorities as prerequisites for membership to some very troubled Eastern European countries, I think the EU is the best hope to force an equitable two state solution on Israel and Palestine. Further, one poll showed 81% of Israelis want EU membership. This gives the EU tremendous leverage to push the peace process as a condition for membership.

Here are some facts as to Palestine-European relations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

EU position on Israeli issues

The EU has insisted that it will not recognise any changes to the 1967 borders other than those agreed between the parties. Israel's settlement program has therefore led to some tensions, and EU states consider these settlements illegal under international law.[8][9]

In 2008, during the French presidency of the Council, the European Union strived to increase cooperation with the US on Middle-Eastern issues, inter alia with a view to coordinating common pressures on Israel.[10]

The EU has also been highly critical of Israeli military actions in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, often referring to them as "disproportionate" and "excessive force" and calling for an immediate cease-fire. During Operation Defensive Shield, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for economic sanctions on Israel and an arms embargo on both parties. Following the Gaza War, the European Parliament endorsed the Goldstone Report. The EU has also been critical of Israel's Gaza blockade, referring to it as "collective punishment"

EU Position on Palestinian statehood

In July 2009, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana called for the United Nations to recognise the Palestinian state by a set deadline even if a settlement had not been reached: "The mediator has to set the timetable. If the parties are not able to stick to it, then a solution backed by the international community should ... be put on the table. After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution ... would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation."[11]

In December, the Council of the European Union endorsed a set of conclusions on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which forms the basis of present EU policy.[12] It reasserted the objective of a two-state solution, and stressed that the union "will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties." It recalled that the EU "has never recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem" and that the State of Palestine must have its capital in Jerusalem.[13]

A year later, in December 2010, the Council reiterated these conclusions and announced its readiness, when appropriate, to recognise a Palestinian state, but encouraged a return to negotiations.[14] Eight of its 27 member states have recognised the State of Palestine.

In 2011, the Palestinian government called on the EU to recognise the State of Palestine in a United Nations resolution scheduled for 20 September. EU member states grew divided over the issue. Some, including Spain, France and the United Kingdom, stating that they might recognise if talks did not progress, while others, including Germany and Italy, refused. Catherine Ashton said that the EU position would depend on the wording of the proposal.[15] At the end of August, Israel's defence minister Ehud Barak told Ashton that Israel was seeking to influence the wording: "It is very important that all the players come up with a text that will emphasise the quick return to negotiations, without an effort to impose pre-conditions on the sides."[16]

Did it condemn israel's Operation Cast Iron in 2008 as a war crime?? Did it recognise Hamas as the democratically elected govt representing the Palestiian people in 2006. What does EU say about locking up 1000's of Palestinians indefinitely without charge?? What is EU's punishment of Israel for its colonial expansion??

Let's see the "champions of peace" stop bilateral trade with Israel until Israel abides by international law.

You also demonstrate no knowledge of the EU's charter and treaties, the scope of its court's jurisdiction, etc., and basically conflate and confuse the EU with the United Nations, NATO, etc. And there is no binding international law, other than treaty law. None of the treaties to which the EU member states are party requires them/it to assume responsibility for the long-standing hostilities between Israel and Palestine.

A multi-stage effort is required to resolve the volatile dispute and is ongoing. In point of fact, in an Associated Press report, Hamas stated in May of this year it is holding back-channel discussions with 5 major member states of the EU.

"In the backchannel talks, Hamas is seeking assurances that European countries will recognize the outcome of future Palestinian elections, Hamdan said. It's not clear when such elections would be held, since they are linked to a stalled reconciliation agreement between Hamas and its main rival, Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/02/hamas-says-it-holding-talks-with-5-eu-countries/#ixzz295sGwDG4

So you, being the expert on Hamas, should be able to share with us what's happened to the stalled reconciliation agreement between Hamas and its main rival. And what is the source of this rivalry, anyway? Why don't you contribute some facts/links to the discussion. You pose questions with no (documented) answers.

From another source, the Jerusalem Post: "However, at an earlier press briefing on Monday, EU representative Christian Berger said there had been no change in the EU’s position regarding engagement with Hamas. Berger said there was another condition as well, and that was Hamas’s acceptance of the “principle of tolerance” and “rule of law.”

Berger, asked whether the current financial problems plaguing the EU could impact the amount of aid the EU gave to the Palestinians, said that the current budget was locked in until 2013. The EU, as an organization, currently provides the PA with about €500 million in annual aid, with another €500m. coming from the individual states. This is the EU’s largest per capita foreign aid contribution.

Berger said that much of the aid was going toward building Palestinian institutions for eventual statehood, and that if it appeared that the statehood was not in the offing, there would likely be questions about the continuation of that aid. However, he said,if there would be a diplomatic breakthrough and a Palestinian state would be created, EU support would probably increase to ensure its success.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176374

If the EU really want to make a difference, punitive action would be taken against Israel for their many violations against international law. Stop all bilaterial trade. They have put sanctions on iran for no good reason so what the problem with Israel??

You just cant accept the fact that Hamas as elected by the people. Just another example of how EU and US hate democracy. The aid should be going to the govt rather than the reactionary and corrupt PA. But this would be unacceptable to Israel and US. Obviously peace = war.

Welcome to DU, by the way. I hope you enjoy the election.

Last edited Fri Oct 12, 2012, 08:59 AM - Edit history (1)

European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso blames US banks for eurozone crisis at G20 summit
"The opening of the G20 summit in Mexico has been overshadowed by comments from European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso that US banks are ultimately to blame for the eurozone crisis.
As European leaders come under intense pressure to resolve the sovereign debt crisis, Mr Barroso told a Canadian journalist Europe had not come to the resort town of Los Cabos to receive 'lessons'.

'Frankly, we are not here to receive lessons in terms of democracy or in terms of how to handle the economy,' he said in answer to a question on why North Americans should help the EU.

'This crisis was not originated in Europe; seeing as you mention North America, this crisis originated in North America and much of our financial sector was contaminated by, how can I put it, unorthodox practices, from some sectors of the financial market.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/902494-eu-chief-barroso-blames-us-banks-for-eurozone-crisis-at-g20-summit#ixzz295IGO3SX

And more from the Nobel prize committee link in the OP:

"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.

"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."

Member states must vote to accept or reject EU membership, as well as subsequent rewritings of the EU constitution. Majority of member states do this via their parliaments of elected representatives; others hold referendums of the popular vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm

1975: UK embraces Europe in referendum
British voters have backed the UK's continued membership of the European Economic Community by a large majority in the country's first nationwide referendum.

Just over 67% of voters supported the Labour government's campaign to stay in the EEC, or Common Market, despite several cabinet ministers having come out in favour of British withdrawal.

The result was later hailed by Prime Minister Harold Wilson as a "historic decision". Britain under Prime Minister Edward Heath had joined the EEC in January 1973 when the Treaty of Rome was signed.

Labour's general election manifesto of October 1974 committed Labour to allow people the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the Common Market on renegotiated terms, or leave it entirely.
In the run-up to the referendum the prime minister announced that the government had decided to recommend a "yes" vote. But it emerged that the cabinet had split, with seven of its 23 members seeking withdrawal.
_______________________________
And then yet another UK referendum in 1996.

In 1996 billionaire businessman Sir James Goldsmith, who was against the 1995 Maastricht Treaty, set up the Referendum Party to campaign for a referendum on the European Union.

He spent £20m on the 1997 general election campaign but only managed to achieve 3% of the vote.
_______________________________________
The history of the EU and its predecessors is extemely complex and I can't give a 3 credit college course on it here. In 2005, various EU treaties were combined and modified to form a European Constitution. It had to be ratified by all 25 member countries to go into effect. Popular referendums were held in 9 member states, including the Netherlands and France, and 55% of French voters and 61 % of Dutch voters rejected it. Turnouts were an incredible 70% in France and 62% in the Netherlands. So that particular version of the EU Constitution was DOA.

TMI I know, but my point is that the people always voted on the EU, whether directly, or one step removed through their elected officials.

Nations voted for what was called the Common Market - a trading partnership between nations.

What we have now is a central law making factory in Brussels and Frankfurt that most Europeans never voted. A president of the EU NOBODY who isn't a European politician ever voted for. Fiscal regulations, even a single European currency that most of the nations now have never voted for. I have lived in Europe most my life and I can tell you it is corrupt, it isn't what the people want and there is a huge amount of resentment, especially as across the Euro zone, tax payers are paying to bail out Greece and other nations that have been irresponsible with their finances.

(and, of course, "the Common Market" was never an official name). If you have lived in Europe for most of your life, you haven't been paying attention.

It's been called the European Union since 1993, so the referenda to join in the 3 that joined in 1995, and the 9 of the 10 nations that joined in 2004, were all concerned with the post-Maastricht Union, which introduced the process to create the euro, among many other things. So, of the 21 states that have joined since 1973, 12 had referenda to join the EU. Those that joined before 1993 joined the European Economic Community, but that was more than just a 'trading partnership' - it had things like the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Schengen Agreement was made during it.

You say "it isn't what the people want"; but if you ask the Greek people if they want to remain in it, they say "yes". So do most Germans, and most people in most member countries. Even in the Eurosceptic UK, it's not clear a referendum on leaving would get passed.

Accept you are wrong, instead of trying to find bits of information to attempt to prove you are right.

No, 'bits of information' have succeeded in proving I'm right. You have just given your opinion about how much you like the European Union; and you have concluded, incorrectly, that someone who doesn't dislike it as much as you do is 'wrong' about facts, where you have actually avoided stating facts.

and collect the monetary prize. Now now.. .no need to thank me. I'm just doing my duty.

Half of the prizes lately are PR stunts. If it's not for individuals and NGOs who do real grassroots work and could use the money, if it's to pretend an influence on politicians and the powerful, it's corrupt. They've made corrupt choices pretty much every other year.

Next year just give it to the Pentagon.

Hope there is some celebrating going on!

I guess I should get that movie...I never saw it...

It's just opening tonight, but look for it when you get back home. Actually tonight is also the opening night of the Abbey Theatre's production of his black comedy, The Beauty Queen of Leenane. Funny that though he was born in London and lived in England most of his life, he is considered by many to be Ireland's most important living playwright.
Safe travels!

MissHoneychurch

Me thinks Jageland have been pondering to a job in Brussels when he is asked to go off as chairman of the Nobel Comitee..... But hey, not the worst candidate to get the nobel prize after all...

But I am glad we are still on the outside of EU, it is less hurting for Norway in the horrible downturn Europe have had for many years now, than if we was on the inside of the thing... I voted no in 1994, and Will vote against it, again if it ever comes up... I doubt it Will it for a while, first the dust have to settle before our government want to challenge status que again.. It was rather devastating last time they tried to get us in to the then, brand new EU treaty...

But we pay a arm and a leg as it is, for the pleasure of trading with EU....

Diclotican

the German people never got asked if they want to join or not. And now we pay and take the heat for that as well.

I have to say though that I am pro Europe. I enjoy being able to viist France or Italy without having to exchange currencies for example. Sure, the EU has some points I am not happy with. But all together I am for it.

MissHoneychurch

I agree, it is a genius thing for Europe, where you can travel to each other and not have to change the valuta to where you are when you leave your own country to go visit others - It is the first time in ages, maybe even since the romans hold fort in most of Europe, that is happening..

The problems is that not everyone in Eu, have the economy to get a stable currency, the Euro is sitting on very strict rules, and everyone who disobey the rules, get fines, rather hefty by the way.. For Greece, Spain Portugal and Italy it looks like it have been the same as a nuclear disaster of sorts.... And they will be punished harshly as Specially the germans and the french doesn't accept any fooling around - or the fact that your economy is not up to the task put forward by the central bank..

And some members of EU, are not even in the currency - as their economy is far to "small" to support the strict rules to deficit and so one..

But in all, for some nations, EU works, for others, it is more troublesome - and for some like Norway, I believe it is better to stay outside for the time being - as EU do have a rather lengthy level of troubles that have to be solved out, before we might decide to joint it in the future.. As it is now, I suspect most Norwegians is rather happy we doesn't elected us into EU... We still have a degree of independence to do as we want - and I suspect that is very important for most Norwegians - even though we trade and following a lot of the rules set by EU in our trade agreement with EU.. I believe we have vetoed once since we accepted the new trade agreement after 1994... But that mostly because it was strictly against our constitution, and therefore wrong to accept.. And we got a free pass there - but also a strict warning about "play it our way, or the high way"... Most Swedes regret that they woted themself into EU. But they are kind of stuck into EU, but I doubt Sweden wil get out of the EU anytime soon.. What to replease EU with?..

If we are to believe the ones who is for EU, it is okay to get out of EU, if the country choose to do it - but I suspect if Germany was to leave EU, the whole concept of EU would fall to pieces, as the whole idea behind the Steel and Coal tractat in the 1950s was to bind West Germany to a treaty where it would be almost impossible to make another war out of... It would have been like cutting Italy and Rome out of the roman Empire in 100 AD, and let the other parts govern them self.. I doesn't worked then - and I suspect it would work rather bad now.... Germany is by its own history kind of stuck in EU... And EU stuck with Germany...

But as a consept, for Europe, to have a central bank, and to have a single currency, it is absolutely genious, no doubt about it.. And by the way, you CAN use Euro in Norway too.. Even though I suspect it is smart to change some of your money to norwigian kroner too, if you want to leave the bigger city's out to the countryside..

Diclotican

Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front, said the Nobel committee has to “come down from their ivory tower and see what is going on on the ground. They should measure the suffering of the people and see the growing revolt.”

Dutch populist lawmaker Geert Wilders scoffed: “Nobel prize for the EU. At a time (when) Brussels and all of Europe is collapsing in misery. What next?”

Nigel Farage, head of the U.K. Independence Party — which wants Britain to withdraw from the union — called Friday’s peace prize “an absolute disgrace.”

“First Al Gore, then Obama, now this. Parody is redundant,” tweeted Daniel Hannan, a euroskeptic European lawmaker — yes, such things exist — from Britain’s Conservative Party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ig-nobel-award-european-unions-many-detractors-deride-peace-prize-decision/2012/10/12/28b954ac-1475-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html

Not too surprising that the far-right would not be too happy about any good news for the EU.

Kudos.