Europe

[Furunculus]

That sounds just right for 1909, not for 2009.

why?

why should britain let fear of a changing world warp its mentality?

we have the second largest official defence budget

we have the joint fifth largest economy

our trade is split 50/50 between the EU and the rest of the world

we have security alliances with our neighbours and the major anglosphere powers


for what reason does britain need to be a part of a federated EU?

[Fragony]

The SP and the PVV are only against integration and "meddling from Brussels" if it doesn't suit their own agenda. Wilders said he would like to see something like the American 1st amendment to be adopted everywhere and I expect that they'll try to get something along those lines implemented now that they're in the EP, thus further limiting what national governments can do when it comes to free speech. If implemented, I'd expect Wilders to change his opinion as soon as he's told that it means he won't be allowed to ban the Qu'ran.

I don't understand you here, how would that limit national governments? Not clawing just asking.

[Furunculus]

I say let Denmark solve its own global recession crisis, and let Portugal solve their global recession crisis, and let us solve our global recession crisis.


Can you answer this question, Furunculus?
Why did the Conservative leadership itself only four years ago (rightly) call the Polish nationalists unappealing ragbag, only to get in bed with them now?
Don't just call TGA an idiot - show us why he is an idiot for raising this question.

we have transnational institutions to assist in transnational matters, there is no need for supra-national governance in any way for the global economy to function, and there is no desire for it either unless you are one of those people that gets sticky pants over the ideas of world government touted by sci-fi authors.

the conservative leadership (Timothy Kirkhope) did not call the polish nationists a ragbag, according to your own quote it was the MEP for NW england (Sir Robert Atkins), you are mistaken. he is an idiot for ignoring the contradiction of a right-wing EUro-skeptic party sitting in a right-wing euro-federalist bloc.

[Tribesman]

we have the second largest official defence budget

don't you mean 4th , after America China and errrrr.....France.
But don't worry you also spend a smaller proportion of your GDP on defence than France.
What you should be aiming for is defence spending like Ireland , that comes in as 147th in the world .
Or even better go for Icelands approach and spend absolutely nothing

we have the joint fifth largest economy

You have the 2nd largest external debt

[Furunculus]

don't you mean 4th , after America China and errrrr.....France.
But don't worry you also spend a smaller proportion of your GDP on defence than France.
What you should be aiming for is defence spending like Ireland , that comes in as 147th in the world .
Or even better go for Icelands approach and spend absolutely nothing

You have the 2nd largest external debt

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia. i did in fact state that in the original post, but i edited out precisely because i knew i could have so much fun with careless nitpickers, and guess who showed up.

and so what? i'm not saying its great, but times are tough you know and we have just had 12 years of labour throwing money up the wall.

[Adrian II]

we have transnational institutions to assist in transnational matters, there is no need for supra-national governance in any way [..]

Oh sure, the UN and the WTO are going to save us from the Chinese power bid, the Russian energy crunch, the credit crisis or a new oil shortage.

It's amazing. The Russian secret service is killing people in your country with polonium and Whitehall can't so much as say 'booh!' for fear of losing contracts and energy supplies. They would never pull off anything like it in the US. Gee, I wonder why that is?

I don't know what watered-down version of sovereignty you adhere to, but it doesn't mean much to the rest of the world.

[Fragony]

Oh sure, the UN and the WTO are going to save us from the Chinese power bid, the Russian energy crunch, the credit crisis or a new oil shortage.

It's amazing. The Russian secret service is killing people in your country with polonium and Whitehall can't so much as say 'booh!' for fear of losing contracts and energy supplies. They would never pull off anything like it in the US. Gee, I wonder why that is?

I don't know what watered-down version of sovereignty you adhere to, but it doesn't mean much to the rest of the world.

And how is the EU going to approach that, as in being more then just a trading block, as a political entity? EU can only react with economic sanctions so why would it have to be anything more then a trading block?

[Kralizec]

I don't understand you here, how would that limit national governments? Not clawing just asking.

There's an example right there in my post. The USA's first amdendmend reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It would mean that a national government wouldn't be able to outlaw the qu'ran for example, or that the German ban on swatsikas and whatnot would have to be lifted.

...wich is perfectly okay with me. But since Wilders wants to ban the Qu'ran and keep Mein Kampf permenantly out of circulation, he's an incredible dumbass and/or a hypocrite to have suggested anything of the sort. PVV politicians feel perfectly okay with all sorts of bans and restrictions on freedom as long as they don't affect them personally.

[Kagemusha]

So the main reason for federalisation is external threats? Economic matters can be solved within the monetary Union. If necessary i dont have anything against Pan European defense pact. If it is crisis management. EU already have several rapid deployment task forces created jointly by EU and with cooperation of also non EU countries like Norway.

So the problems of the current Union in the eyes of the federalist are that EU does not have a central government and united foreign policy? Have you thought about problems a large federal government governing hundreds of millions of people could create? Massive and bureocratic government does not appeal to me personally and in matter of fact is against the current trend of democracy, when the decesion making should be brought as near level to the population as possible. I will gladly trade off prestige in the eyes of superwpowers to efficient government. It is very simple to aknowledge that smaller organizations tend to be more efficient then massive ones. So when the current EU already secures the stability of smaller organisations to thrive. I dont see the need to create one colossal one.

[Meneldil]

Hence why the EU promotes regional organisations and extra-national regions. Something that a whole lot of countries is opposed to.

[Furunculus]

Oh sure, the UN and the WTO are going to save us from the Chinese power bid, the Russian energy crunch, the credit crisis or a new oil shortage.

It's amazing. The Russian secret service is killing people in your country with polonium and Whitehall can't so much as say 'booh!' for fear of losing contracts and energy supplies. They would never pull off anything like it in the US. Gee, I wonder why that is?

I don't know what watered-down version of sovereignty you adhere to, but it doesn't mean much to the rest of the world.

there's that fear again.

don't you worry me old mucka, china's not going anywhere near europe, russia's economy is a basket case dependent on mineral exports, and there will ALWAYS be economic crises of one variety or other regardless of EU superstates, just look at the spread in euro-bonds between the club-med and northern europe for but one example.

the UK makes a point of playing host to other countries dissidents (often foolishly), so we have to accept the consequences of meddling in the affairs of 'great' powers. the EU's problem is a lack of a common foriegn policy which is inherent in a group of 27 wildly different cultures, and britain's worldview is sufficiently different that i don't want it watered down into a 15% opinion strength.

No i imagine the concept of sovereignty is a diminished brand on the continent, the last 200 years would prove that adequately, but again that is not the UK's problem, we'll still be sitting high and dry on our little island the next time the continent turns into a bloodbath.

so again, why does britain need to be part of a federal europe.

[Furunculus]

Hence why the EU promotes regional organisations and extra-national regions. Something that a whole lot of countries is opposed to.

the EU however plays only lip service to the principle of subsidiarity.

[Fragony]

...wich is perfectly okay with me. But since Wilders wants to ban the Qu'ran and keep Mein Kampf permenantly out of circulation, he's an incredible dumbass and/or a hypocrite to have suggested anything of the sort. PVV politicians feel perfectly okay with all sorts of bans and restrictions on freedom as long as they don't affect them personally.

lol he was just setting a trap and it worked brilliantly, oh the squirming under his mighty boot

point = taken though.

[Meneldil]

the EU however plays only lip service to the principle of subsidiarity.

The EU recognizes this principle since 1986. You can even bring it in front of the ECJ if you think it's not being respected. The commission has to produce yearly a detailled account on the respect of subsidiarity for the EP.
Not to burst your bubble, but the principle of subsidiarity is in theory more guaranteed by the EU than by most European states (which doesn't mean much, I give you that, since most states don't give a rat's ass about the principle of subsidiarity).

[Furunculus]

The EU recognizes this principle since 1986. You can even bring it in front of the ECJ if you think it's not being respected. The commission has to produce yearly a detailled account on the respect of subsidiarity for the EP.

Not to burst your bubble, but the principle of subsidiarity is in theory more guaranteed by the EU than by most European states (which doesn't mean much, I give you that, since most states don't give a rat's ass about the principle of subsidiarity).

why then is the EU trying to acquire regulatory control to sovereign nations financial markets. to give but one example i would suggest the UK hedge-fund market.
why does europe want a common foreign policy, that is much better devolved to national governments.

that is fine, because there is a solid link between the governed (demos) and the governors (cratos) whereby the former agree to be ruled by the latter in their name............. because the bond of shared culture, history, and society permits a trust that the latter will act in accordance with the peoples wishes. that does not exist in europe as a polity, and if people like centralised government nationally then that is their choice.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No i imagine the concept of sovereignty is a diminished brand on the continent, that last 200 years would prove that adequately, but again that is not the UK's problem, we'll still be sitting high and dry on our little island the next time the continent turns into a bloodbath.

Sorry, Furunculus, but sometimes I feel like you and I live in alternative realities.

What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality.

Your Britain - militaristic, autarkic, autistic, impervious, closed and blind to diverging opinions - this UK you perceive to exist and wish to preserve, does not exist. And, even worse, if it would exist, it would resemble North Korea. Not the UK. Not even a sovereign UK, or a previous UK, or an idealised UK.

[Tribesman]

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia.

So what . Are you disputing the figures from HM treasury and the French dept. of defence?

we have just had 12 years of labour throwing money up the wall.

And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only throwing money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts

[Furunculus]

Sorry, Furunculus, but sometimes I feel like you and I live in alternative realities.

What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality.

Your Britain - militaristic, autarkic, autistic, impervious, closed and blind to diverging opinions - this UK you perceive to exist and wish to preserve, does not exist. And, even worse, if it would exist, it would resemble North Korea. Not the UK. Not even a sovereign UK, or a previous UK, or an idealised UK.

i was responding to adrian, specifically:

I don't know what watered-down version of sovereignty you adhere to, but it doesn't mean much to the rest of the world.

and speculating as to why the sovereignty to which i admire has so little-resonance in his world-view.

and quite the opposite, i perceive very readily that britain has historically been very open to the world, and has benefited from this immensely. i support the right of free movement within the EU, my girlfriend is polish, i am all for letting turkey into the EU. 'my' britain is not closed. by the same token the accusation of autarkism is ridiculous, i am the first person to shout for free trade, something which i rarely hear from your location. i simply have no wish to be governed by those who have no demos-cratos link to myself.

as to militaristic, yes i believe the first duty of the nation state is the provision of internal and external security, and thus a subject of budgetary prominence, however my choice would to be rebuild the navy, not create endless napoleonic regiments to conquer the 'heathens'. and oddly enough i get the impression that people here look to the EU from of fear of outsiders and the future, in which case it is their countries they should be badgering about defence spending.

but most importantly, what does this have to do with the question of whether britain needs to be a part of a federal europe.

[Fragony]

as to militaristic, yes i believe the first duty of the nation state is the provision of internal and external security, and thus a subject of budgetary prominence ] [ and oddly enough i get the impression that people hear look to the EU out of fear of outsiders and the future, in which case it is their countries they should be badgering about defence spending.

Quite right. And there is a reason we are in the Nato, there is absolutely no reason to be in the EU but trade. There is absolutely no reason to involve the EU in internal, which would be national, affairs. Even in it's current form it has managed to overrule our high court because they had doubts about a Somali refugee getting a fair trial, at our bloody high court ffs, you would expect that scared the crap out our politicians but no. More government is NEVER a good thing, ever.

[Furunculus]

So what . Are you disputing the figures from HM treasury and the French dept. of defence?

And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only spunking money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Does set of figures X include:
> operational expenses
> attrition replacement
> equipment procurement
> R&D projects
> Intelligence apparatus
Then you must ask yourself if figures for nation Y include the same, and they mostly do not.
For example while the Gendarmerie are under the control of the Interior Ministry I believe they are funded from the Defence budget.
So official figures published from their respective nations have little merit for comparative purposes, which is why i went to the trouble of getting the figures pulished by the IISS in the 2008 publication of The Military Balance.

again, so what? how does that relate to having a vast public debt which derives from annual additional public spending which amounts to £200+ billion each year since 97?

[Tribesman]

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them

[Furunculus]

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them

ah, the second rule of tribesman debating; obfuscate in a cloud of nonsense the fact that you picked out point to argue about that was totally irrelevant to the argument in question, and was wrong to boot.

[edit] and the third tactic; where you shroud your comment in derisory smileys in a effort to make your point seem so obvious that no one else need look into the matter further. [/edit]

good going.

[Tribesman]

ah, the second rule of tribesman debating; obfuscate in a cloud of nonsense the fact that you picked out point to argue about that was totally irrelevant to the argument in question, and was wrong to boot.

Wrong?
Look....

we have the second largest official defence budget

No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

and the third tactic; where you shroud your comment in derisory smileys in a effort to make your point seem so obvious that no one else need look into the matter further.

It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

[Furunculus]

Wrong?
Look....
No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget, so its not a little bit under or over the UK and france, it is probably about 30% higher, if not even higher.

really Tribesman, you do yourself no favours, as surely i am not the only one to notice that the majority of your debating style is to spout ridiculous and irrelevant nonsense, and smothered in smileys, in the hope that no-one looks to deeply at your 'response'.

you're intelligent enough to debate very well on your own merits, you should try it sometime. :)

[KukriKhan]

Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

Is there any country, anywhere, where this is not true?

[LittleGrizzly]

Costa Rica would be one.... leading the way with military budgets...

[Furunculus]

and....................................... back on topic.

on what effect will be seen, or not seen, now that there is a mainstream anti-federalist party?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The European Union is not necessary to ensure a greater influence on the world for the European nations. We once exercised great influence and power internationally, many of us still do, and we can do it again without unification. Ironically, unification seems to be a quick-fix solution to an individual "problem." The challenges of the modern world can be dealt with just as efficiently by the nations, at least the most powerful ones, as by the Union as a whole.

Forcing unification without holding referendums, against the will of the people, is not the action of a democratic state and is just one thing that justifies comparison to the USSR. Naturally the European Union is not in entirely the same category, but if these habits continue who are we to say that it won't be?

What is wrong with being the "foot-draggers of Europe?" I take it you also have a problem with a Parliament having an opposition or a populace dissenting on anything that the government does? Come off it. Opposing something you disagree with, something that your populace disagrees with, does not make you a bad person. The pro-unification crowd can mock and scoff all they like at the "foot-draggers of Europe," but it does not change the fact that they are both necessary and fufilling their democratic purpose - a lesson the European Union could do well to learn from.

[LittleGrizzly]

Forcing unification without holding referendums, against the will of the people, is not the action of a democratic state and is just one thing that justifies comparison to the USSR.

All member states still have national elections, if the issue was important as some make it out to be people would have voted in euro sceptic politicians whether there were mainstream parties representing that view or not...

The people of the USSR had no choice whether to remain part of the USSR, seen as individual states aren't allowed to secede by your definition of calling the EU USSR i could call the USA the USSR right ?

[Furunculus]

Forcing unification without holding referendums, against the will of the people, is not the action of a democratic state and is just one thing that justifies comparison to the USSR.

All member states still have national elections, if the issue was important as some make it out to be people would have voted in euro sceptic politicians whether there were mainstream parties representing that view or not...

if the mainstream parties continue to ignore the will of the electorate, then we all may very well find that parties like UKIP do just fine at the next elections, the recent euro-elections should be seen as warning shot across the bows.

in this light the conservative move to create an anti-federal bloc within the EU is very important.