Europe

[Tribesman]

not like you haven't made a few, notably being unable to read the caveat at the top of the wiki page where you got you military expenditure figures detailing why it is difficult to compare nationally compiled figures.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I was being generous, many sources put Britain in 5th which is even further from the 2nd which you claimed it held.


what a surprise that in endless tedium of your nit-picking i made a mistake.

Errrrr...you started off making a mistake , then another mistake then another .
Everytime someone points out your mistakes you rather foolishly claim they are wrong and dig yourself a bigger hole

[Viking]

humanity naturally forms groups, and quite frankly they will be unlikely to unify as proponents of transnational progressivism before the arrival of the octo-squid invasion.

nationalism, in both its healthy and its unhealthy forms, is here to stay.

How do you link grouping to the necessity of nationalism? If there were no nations (but one), you'd end up with various forms of regionalism; but you wouldn't have wars otherwise local military/militias was/were formed. For this to happen, you'd need a serious cultural split.

There's a vast difference between saying world peace can be achieved tomorrow by signing a dozen of documents today, and that saying it is at all possible.

Why is a huge country like the USA firmly united, while a small country like Serbia recently split in two? It shows us that size does not matter for unity; identity on the other hand, does. Identities change as history goes; they are as fragile as words drawn in the sand at a beach.

[Kagemusha]

How do you link grouping to the necessity of nationalism? If there were no nations (but one), you'd end up with various forms of regionalism; but you wouldn't have wars otherwise local military/militias was/were formed. For this to happen, you'd need a serious cultural split.

There's a vast difference between saying world peace can be achieved tomorrow by signing a dozen of documents today, and that saying it is at all possible.

Why is a huge country like the USA firmly united, while a small country like Serbia recently split in two? It shows us that size does not matter for unity; identity on the other hand, does. Identities change as history goes; they are as fragile as words drawn in the sand at a beach.

US waged a terrible civil war that prevented it from splitting in two. The federalist argument seems to continuosly be that together we are stronger. Well if the target is to create as large federal state as possible. Why dont we all just apply to become states of the United States, which is a democratic federal state? Or is there some rational behind that idea, like that the US is too far, which smells like regionalism, or in other words nationalism.

[Beskar]

It is not regionalism, it is called geography. You unite the neighbours then spread outwards. So if it is started at several points around the world with the same aim. It spreads out until they reach each other geography wise then join together then, otherwise it comes too awkward and complicated and serve better as individual nations in association.

Like to mention that Meneldil has made some very good points, Tribesman, LittleGrizzley, Viking and others.

As a statement, I would like to mention that nationalism in its current form has only existed for 200 or so years, in the majority, with advancements such as the railway systems. There is a famous quote in regards to the formation of Italy, which would be applied to a creation of a European Federation. "We have made Italy, now to make Italians". I personally see humanity as a whole, so nationalism means nothing to me, it seems like an excuse to cause conflict and wars between those wanting more power. The best way is to destroy the divides and create a whole. Once that whole is created, people will look back in history into the past and think "Wow, I am glad we escaped those dark ages, remember when people died over scraps of lands causing the deaths of billions because people born on one scrap are better than those born on that scrap?"

[Viking]

US waged a terrible civil war that prevented it from splitting in two.

Yes, but I am of the understanding that there's a lot less chance of another civil war happening in the USA any time soon. At the same time, I do not believe that there is something to be "overcome" in order to achieve world peace. Rather, I think of it as something that is a very real possibility, but not something that humanity will necessarily end up with; and even if it does, it would by no means have to stay that way.


The federalist argument seems to continuosly be that together we are stronger. Well if the target is to create as large federal state as possible. Why dont we all just apply to become states of the United States, which is a democratic federal state? Or is there some rational behind that idea, like that the US is too far, which smells like regionalism, or in other words nationalism.

The previous paragraph should have made my current views a bit clearer, but I still want to specify that my personal views are not pro EU, or pro some whatever great federation. What matters to me, is individualism, and that a state should have as little control over its citizens as possible. This is a question I ponder alot over; it is hard to unite theory and reality..
Naturally, such a view would mean I oppose nationalism, warfare etc. It wouldn't necessarily mean that I am wishing the world should become one giant state, of some kind, ASAP; though of course, if this happened all voluntarily, and that the culture of the world was pretty much all the same in every country; the chances of war would near zero.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ahem.

I'm not a fan of spin-off shows. Only Frasier worked, IMO.

The re-runs of the Tribesy and Fragony Show are familiar wallpaper to our daily Org lives. But that's no reason to pilot the even less amusing Tribesman and Furunculus Go Large. The comedic formula of "nitipick, derision, nitpick, derision" wasn't even funny in the Thirties.

Nowadays there is scriptwriting of calibre. I suggest we try some.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Kagemusha]

It is not regionalism, it is called geography. You unite the neighbours then spread outwards. So if it is started at several points around the world with the same aim. It spreads out until they reach each other geography wise then join together then, otherwise it comes too awkward and complicated and serve better as individual nations in association.

Like to mention that Meneldil has made some very good points, Tribesman, LittleGrizzley, Viking and others.

As a statement, I would like to mention that nationalism in its current form has only existed for 200 or so years, in the majority, with advancements such as the railway systems. There is a famous quote in regards to the formation of Italy, which would be applied to a creation of a European Federation. "We have made Italy, now to make Italians". I personally see humanity as a whole, so nationalism means nothing to me, it seems like an excuse to cause conflict and wars between those wanting more power. The best way is to destroy the divides and create a whole. Once that whole is created, people will look back in history into the past and think "Wow, I am glad we escaped those dark ages, remember when people died over scraps of lands causing the deaths of billions because people born on one scrap are better than those born on that scrap?"

But didnt you in your earlier reply promote a goal that the world should be united under one rule? In the era of Globalism the distance to communicate between for example where i am and Spain or US is pretty much the same. Also i dont see much of a difference in the culture of Europe and US these days. In matter of fact some parts of Southern and Eastern European cultures feel more distant then the life style of US. So i in the end i see your explanation as pretty weak argument.

About Nationalism. Yes it is true. People have associated themselves as nationalities for only couple hundred years. But what they did before that was that in matter of fact they associated themselves in even smaller circles, like regions,tribes, cities, towns or villages. So in matter of fact they were more or less hostile to other people even closer then during national states.

[Beskar]

Also i dont see much of a difference in the culture of Europe and US these days. In matter of fact some parts of Southern and Eastern European cultures feel more distant then the life style of US. So i in the end i see your explanation as pretty weak argument.


Please realise, I am not advocating this for tomorrow (literally) and advocating it more like over the next decade or possibly longer or needed. You can't just jump into bed with it all, it happens in stages.

[Tribesman]

Nowadays there is scriptwriting of calibre. I suggest we try some.


Come on, if I really wanted to take the piss out of the detatchment from reality I would have gone with the Dutchman(and no Frag that song ain't directed your way this time)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Backroom etiquette evil national-communistic moderatocrats ban curved cucumbers from the News of the Weird thread.

I shall reply to Rabbit and Fragony here.




I didn't click Louis's linkIt says: 'Cucumbers do not have to be straight. There are grading rules, which were called for by representatives from the industry to enable buyers in one country to know what quality and quantity they would get when purchasing a box, unseen, from another country. Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications. The EU Single Market rules are identical to pre-existing standards set down both by the UN/OECD and the UK'.

The tabloids and the British press turned this into a deformed, crooked alternate reality. In their world, fruit classification and legally enforcable quality guarantees are about the prescription of the curvature of cucumbers.

Here's a thought: if there is, say, food and health safety regulation that prevents the use of rotten, black bananas from being processed into food anywhere in the European food chain, does that mean this is about 'bananas being the right shade of yellow'? No, of course not.
And neither are industry categories of product quality a prescription of the curvature of cucumbers. It distorts reality beyond recognition.
Here's what went into effect: Link under 'marketing standards' (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/policy/communication_en.htm)



We shall now return to 27 different sets of product categorization and regulation, instead of a single one, drastically complicating trade and benefitting only lawyers and pencil pushers at a national level and at firms engaging in transnational trade (i.e. all involved in the food business). Two hundred 'evil bureaucrats' in Bruxelles will be replaced by 5400 national bureacrats, plus 50000 bureaucrats at food processing companies trying to make sense of different regulation. Industry weeps (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/11/rule_change_bears_fruit.html). Well done.


whenever I do search for disgruntled manufacturers or exporters unhappy about a planned EU directive standardising their product, I often find that the majority are happy that there are Europe-wide rules, so they don't have to have legal teams and paperwork to meet 27 different national standards. Yes, as pesky as they may seem, and as much as they are blamed for everything that goes wrong, removing the referee does not, in fact, benefit either the sport or the players.

[Fragony]

Yeah having to throw away up to half of your production, excellent idea. And who buys black rotten banana's anyway.

'Cucumbers do not have to be straight. There are grading rules, which were called for by representatives from the industry to enable buyers in one country to know what quality and quantity they would get when purchasing a box, unseen, from another country. Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications.

olol. Sure we are reading the same thing?

[Louis VI the Fat]

who buys black rotten banana's anyway.You'd be surprised where they'd end up in without strictly enforced, proper regulation.

Where'd you rather eat: an outdoor food stand in Morocco, or in Sweden?

The difference is tight regulation. If there's one thing we need governments for, it's strict food quality regulation.

[Fragony]

Where'd you rather eat: an outdoor food stand in Morocco, or in Sweden?

The difference is tight regulation. If there's one thing we need governments for, it's strict food quality regulation.

Not knowing that a sandwich in north africa might cause you to go omg is enough to justify all these rules?

[LittleGrizzly]

Not knowing that a sandwich in north africa might cause you to go omg is enough to justify all these rules?

Thats the reason the sandwich in north africa will make you go omg and the sandwich in europe won't... rules...

[Fragony]

Not knowing that a sandwich in north africa might cause you to go omg is enough to justify all these rules?

Thats the reason the sandwich in north africa will make you go omg and the sandwich in europe won't... rules...

Being going on a trip lately? Ever been to like, Spain?

[LittleGrizzly]

Actually i think i misread your point anyway so ignore what i said....

But yeah been to Spain last march i think...

[Furunculus]

interesting article on how the german talking-heads are viewing their recent high-court ratification of lisbon, and how that will affect further federal integration:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,633736,00.html

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not knowing that a sandwich in north africa might cause you to go omg is enough to justify all these rules?

Thats the reason the sandwich in north africa will make you go omg and the sandwich in europe won't... rules...

Was food in Europe as dangerous as that from stands in North Africa before the EU set up a bunch of regulations?

Were the individual countries unable to make any rules themselves? Why did the EU have to set up another layer of regulation?

CR

[Beskar]

Was food in Europe as dangerous as that from stands in North Africa before the EU set up a bunch of regulations?

Were the individual countries unable to make any rules themselves? Why did the EU have to set up another layer of regulation?

CR


We shall now return to 27 different sets of product categorization and regulation, instead of a single one, drastically complicating trade and benefitting only lawyers and pencil pushers at a national level and at firms engaging in transnational trade (i.e. all involved in the food business). Two hundred 'evil bureaucrats' in Bruxelles will be replaced by 5400 national bureacrats, plus 50000 bureaucrats at food processing companies trying to make sense of different regulation.

Because having one-standardisation is obviously a bad thing right which actually removed regulation to a large degree and not adding just another layer?

I am not seeing how this whole food standard thing is actually bad, it is just retarded nationalism.

Oh yeah, that reminds me, did you know that the EU is making standardisation on phone-chargers to use the same ending? (mini-USB port, similar to those on digital cameras) Damn those evil European Bureaucrats, it is my consitutional right to have 23 different phone charger endings!

Here is the topic on this by Lemur - https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=118889

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because having one-standardisation is obviously a bad thing right which actually removed regulation to a large degree and not adding just another layer?

I am not seeing how this whole food standard thing is actually bad, it is just retarded nationalism.

Oh yeah, that reminds me, did you know that the EU is making standardisation on phone-chargers to use the same ending? (mini-USB port, similar to those on digital cameras) Damn those evil European Bureaucrats, it is my consitutional right to have 23 different phone charger endings!

Here is the topic on this by Lemur - https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=118889

Oh rubbish, it's not the same at all. Carrots are organic, not manufactured. It is very hard to make them grow a certain lenght, exact shape, or colour. EU regulation required that "ugly" vegitables not be sold for human consumption, including bendy cucumbers, straight bannaners etc. Granted, food standards are important but the standard should be freshness and manner of cultivation, not shape and colour!

Those rules actually endangered rare species because they are meant to look different (purple pottatoes), and therefore you can't sell them.

That, frankly, is idiotic buarocracy.

[Beskar]

Re-read this post again -


It says: 'Cucumbers do not have to be straight. There are grading rules, which were called for by representatives from the industry to enable buyers in one country to know what quality and quantity they would get when purchasing a box, unseen, from another country. Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications. The EU Single Market rules are identical to pre-existing standards set down both by the UN/OECD and the UK'.

The tabloids and the British press turned this into a deformed, crooked alternate reality. In their world, fruit classification and legally enforcable quality guarantees are about the prescription of the curvature of cucumbers.

Here's a thought: if there is, say, food and health safety regulation that prevents the use of rotten, black bananas from being processed into food anywhere in the European food chain, does that mean this is about 'bananas being the right shade of yellow'? No, of course not.
And neither are industry categories of product quality a prescription of the curvature of cucumbers. It distorts reality beyond recognition.
Here's what went into effect: Link under 'marketing standards' (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/policy/communication_en.htm)

Purple Potatoes for example, would simply be labelled "Purple Potatoes" as it is a different product. That is it.

Please stop preaching utter nonsense and stupidity from the Sun or Daily Mail. If you want to read anything right-wing inclined at least make it more respectable like the Telegraph or use other legitimate news sources such as the Guardian, The Independent or BBC news.

It is always embarrassing when foreigners know more about the issues then self-proclaimed locales.

[Adrian II]

Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications.Sorry Louis, but that's wrong.

The old rules did ban all fruits and veggies that did not conform to the regulations. Here is what the responsible Commissioner had to say:


12 Nov, 2008 - Rules governing the size and shape of fruit and vegetables will be consigned to history after European Union Member States today voted on Commission proposals to repeal specific marketing standards for 26 types of fruit and vegetables.
Daily News Alerts

The Commission's initiative to get rid of these standards is a major element in its ongoing efforts to streamline and simplify EU rules and cut red tape. For 10 types of fruit and vegetables, including apples, strawberries and tomatoes, marketing standards will remain in place. But even for these 10, Member States could for the first time allow shops to sell products that don't respect the standards, as long as they are labelled to distinguish them from 'extra', 'class I' and 'class II' fruit. In other words, the new rules will allow national authorities to permit the sale of all fruit and vegetables, regardless of their size and shape.

"This marks a new dawn for the curvy cucumber and the knobbly carrot," said Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. "It's a concrete example of our drive to cut unnecessary red tape. We simply don't need to regulate this sort of thing at EU level. It is far better to leave it to market operators. And in these days of high food prices and general economic difficulties, consumers should be able to choose from the widest range of products possible. It makes no sense to throw perfectly good products away, just because they are the 'wrong' shape."

Linky (http://www.flex-news-food.com/console/PageViewer.aspx?page=20425&str=European%20Union%20Fruit%20Vegetable)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Re-read this post again -



Purple Potatoes for example, would simply be labelled "Purple Potatoes" as it is a different product. That is it.

Please stop preaching utter nonsense and stupidity from the Sun or Daily Mail. If you want to read anything right-wing inclined at least make it more respectable like the Telegraph or use other legitimate news sources such as the Guardian, The Independent or BBC news.

It is always embarrassing when foreigners know more about the issues then self-proclaimed locales.

This from the man who thought the King of England was a vassal of the King of France, and that the Normans had an empire stretching to Antioch.

Look, there are two issues here.

1. Produce not meeting the EU's very strict criteria not being able to be sold comercially, and going to waste even though it is perfectly good.

2. It being illegal to sell unclassified goods. You see, in order to sell something in the EU, it has to have an EU approved standard. With rare varrieties, the EU simply doesn't bother to rate the product, it can't be graded and therefore can't be sold. This is particually a problem with obscure herbs, as HRH Prince Charles highlighted a couple of years ago, and that made BBC news, by the way.

As to the reading of the Papers, you should know I read the Telegraph, because I think the country is run by another country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

[Tribesman]

Those rules actually endangered rare species because they are meant to look different (purple pottatoes), and therefore you can't sell them.

Yeah right.
So which EU countries are the biggest producers of these purple praties for sale and consumption in the EU which they can't sell in the EU?
Which non EU countries are the biggest exporters of these purple spuds to the EU where they can't sell them?
If you want a purple potato go to a decent greengrocer

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah right.
So which EU countries are the biggest producers of these purple praties for sale and consumption in the EU which they can't sell in the EU?
Which non EU countries are the biggest exporters of these purple spuds to the EU where they can't sell them?
If you want a purple potato go to a decent greengrocer

I must be wrong then, far be it from me to argue with an Irishman about spuds.

[Beskar]

1)This from the man who thought the King of England was a vassal of the King of France
2) that the Normans had an empire stretching to Antioch.


Two seperate issues here.

1) I never said that, it was others in the thread that said that William was a Vassal of the King of France. In other words, you incorrectly attributed a statement to me.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Normans_possessions_12century-fr.png

Please fairly represent what I am saying.

[Adrian II]

I must be wrong then, far be it from me to argue with an Irishman about spuds.taters weren't regulated by Brussels to begin with.

The 36 regulated veggie and fruit products were: apricots, artichokes, asparagus, aubergines (eggplant), avocadoes, beans, Brussels sprouts, carrots, cauliflowers, cherries, courgettes (zucchini), cucumbers, cultivated mushrooms, garlic, hazelnuts in shell, headed cabbage, leeks, melons, onions, peas, plums, ribbed celery, spinach, walnuts in shell, water melons, chicory, apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes. Only the last ten remain regulated as before.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Two seperate issues here.

1) I never said that, it was others in the thread that said that William was a Vassal of the King of France. In other words, you incorrectly attributed a statement to me.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Normans_possessions_12century-fr.png

Please fairly represent what I am saying.

You're right, you actually thought Normandy was a seperate country to France. which is just as wrong.

Adrian: Yes, alright. I was trying to make a general point about what I see as absurd regulation and potattoes were the first tubar to come to mind to illustrate said point. As an aside, I can't find purple spuds for love nor money.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry Louis, but that's wrong.Europe ought to ban pesky reporters and their meddlesome ways.

[Beskar]

If no one can find purple spuds, it isn't Europe, it is called Market forces, aka, no one is buying them therefore they aren't sold, thus they aren't stocked.

Apply for them at your local supermarket or greengrocers or even the town market.

[Adrian II]

Europe ought to ban pesky reporters and their meddlesome ways.I know, I plead for it in my column every week. But somehow I have fallen into disrepute with the other leftist media that control this world, manipulate peoples' perceptions and force their slanted leftwing views on them.

In other words, nobody listens. ~:mecry:

[Louis VI the Fat]

nobody listens. ~:mecry:Then stop with your use of sources, original sources, refusal of hearsay and long attention span in a bid to get to the bottom of things, you amateur.

Aim for the holy grail of modern newspaper reporting: the column. Quick opinion over hard fact, custum build to fill the appetite of readers eager to get their existing opinion confirmed.

[Beskar]

Then stop using sources, original sources, hearsay and a long attention span in a bid to get to the bottom of things, you amateur.

Aim for the holy grail of modern newspaper reporting: the column. Quick opinion over hard fact, custum build to fill the appetite of readers eager to get their existing opinion confirmed.

Like telling everyone that if there is even a slight curve in a cucumber, it won't be sold forced on us by the evil EU?

[Tribesman]

taters weren't regulated by Brussels to begin with.
And you don't get subsidies or quotas for spuds

[Adrian II]

Then stop using sources, original sources, hearsay and a long attention span in a bid to get to the bottom of things, you amateur.Here I was thinking people wanted to be informed. How stoopid can you get? ~:mecry:

[Fragony]

http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/irish-commissioner-lisbon-treaty-slip/article-183563

"When the Irish people rejected the Lisbon treaty a year ago, the initial reactions ranged from one of shock to horror, to aghastness and temper and vexation," said McCreevy, the EU's internal market commissioner.

"On the other hand, I think all the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95% of countries would have been 'no' as well," McCreevy told a meeting of accountants in Dublin.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well that didn't last long:

A final update on the Tory woes for today - Edward McMillan-Scott has been booted out of the European Conservatives and Reformists group. Hardly a surprise, given that he trashed party discipline and has accused the group leader - Michal Kaminski - of a neo-fascist past. Mr Kaminski denies that and describes himself as a "convinced conservative, a convinced democrat". He says in his youth he was a member of an anti-communist group which - after he left - then became allied to the extreme right. Mr Kaminski described himself as a friend of Israel who has been attacked by members of the far right for being pro-Jewish.

So the day ends with the Tories no longer in control of their own group and a former Conservative leader stripped of the party whip and drummed out of the group. Who'd have thought it? Crazy days in Strasbourg! Yeah, who'd have thought, eh?

Best of luck to the others the coming years! :2thumbsup:
'Convinced conservatists'. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8145196.stm)



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


Also, the Icelandic parliament is voting about a future EU application as we speak. Oh please, oh please.
Despite their recent flirt with uncontrolled neo-liberalism that left the country bankrupt, Iceland is still a sober, sensible nation. It would make for a great addition. Give us another Luxembourg!

[Furunculus]

Well that didn't last long:
Yeah, who'd have thought, eh?

Best of luck to the others the coming years! :2thumbsup:
'Convinced conservatists'. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8145196.stm)



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


Also, the Icelandic parliament is voting about a future EU application as we speak. Oh please, oh please.
Despite their recent flirt with uncontrolled neo-liberalism that left the country bankrupt, Iceland is still a sober, sensible nation. It would make for a great addition. Give us another Luxembourg!

on the subject of ECR from Daniel Hannan:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003329/conservative-meps-elect-a-polish-leader/

British Conservatives can be proud today: ours is the first Group in the European Parliament to elect an MEP from an accession state as its leader. None of the Groups which drone on about their commitment to the European ideal can claim as much.

Michal Kaminski, of Poland’s Law and Justice Party, is my age. We went into politics at the same time, when we were in our mid-twenties. We each have two little girls of similar ages. We’re both conservatives: Euro-sceptics, free-marketeers and Atlanticists. But we might have spent our early lives on different planets. I grew up during the réveil national of the Thatcher years. Michal’s early life was spent in an occupied country. Every day, he lived with the moral shabbiness, the material squalor, the thousand petty lies of Jaruzelski-era Poland. When Michal was small, his father defected to Canada. They met once, in Michal’s teenage years, in Cuba – the only state to which they could both get visas. Michal’s father urged him to defect, but Michal replied that he wanted one day to sit as a conservative in a free Polish Sejm. A few years later, he did, although his father was sadly no longer alive to see it.

That such a man, having led such a life, should now lead our Group, does more for European unity than any number of federalist declarations. The Europe that Michal and I believe in is one united by the spread of freedom and democracy, by commerce, by the actions of independent citizens. This is a world away from the Europe they want in Brussels, united by rules and regulations, by institutions and bureaucracies, by anthems and flags.

When Michal made his first speech as an MEP, he hymned the praises of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, to the unfeigned horror of the EPP. He is, in short, the closest thing to a British Tory outside the Carlton Club.
In a sense, Michal’s election was accidental. It had originally been planned that he would take a parliamentary Vice-Presidency while a Briton became the first leader of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). But my erstwhile colleague Edward Macmillan-Scott decided to have a go at the Vice-Presidency himself, which upset all the calculations (Edward lost the Conservative Whip in consequence).

This left Michal in an embarrassing situation. He is well known in Poland as a long-standing advocate of the new conservative Group. Yet he had been denied office by a renegade British Tory.

At this stage, the two British candidates for the leadership, Timothy Kirkhope and Geoffrey Van Orden, displayed extraordinary magnanimity, withdrawing their candidacies in Michal’s favour.

I know that Timothy, in particular, has come in for some criticism from ConHome readers, a lot of it very unfair. His behaviour over this episode made the rest of us proud to be British Tories. It was hardly his fault that Edward Macmillan-Scott had decided to run. But an injury had been done to our Polish friends by a British Conservative, and he took it upon himself to make restitution by ceding the Group leadership. He put the interests of Conservatism above his own ambitions.
In a funny way, Macmillan-Scott has done us a great favour. No one can now argue that the ECR is a Tory front with a couple of minor parties added on for decoration. We have a leader who, while a sturdy Polish patriot, is also a committed Anglophile and Thatcherite. And the graciousness with which both Geoffrey and Timothy acted has created a mood common purpose among British Tory MEPs that I can’t remember in ten years. The best is yet to come.

On the latter, why does it mean so much to you that Iceland should join, but not Turkey?

[Louis VI the Fat]

on the subject of ECR from Daniel Hannan:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003329/conservative-meps-elect-a-polish-leader/Ah, Hannan. Always at the forefront of things. :laugh4:

Erm...the new president of the entire European Parliament is Polish. Which makes the chest-thumping about electing a Pole a bit moot.

More importantly...Hannan's man is a sidekick of the nutcase Kaczinski twins. So this should provide for years of entertainment to come: the Brits being led now by some extremist Pole.


Meanwhile, the European Parliament, unlike the British conservatives, is headed by a democratic Pole instead of a (former?) fascist anti-Semitic one.


Jerzy Buzek is in the centre-right European People's Party (EPP)

The first session of the new European Parliament in Strasbourg has been dominated by two issues: the election of Jerzy Buzek as its president and the arrival of the first far right MEPs from the UK.

Jerzy Buzek is the living embodiment of what many people think the European Union is all about.
He was born in Poland, in a border region which changed hands between Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany in the chaos of World War II.

He ended the war living and working in communist Poland - a regime that he eventually helped to bring down as a member of the anti-bureaucratic trade union Solidarity. Eventually, he became prime minister of Poland and now, aged 69, has been sworn in as the first president of the European Parliament from the former communist East.
It has been a remarkable journey for him and for Europe, the significance of which can perhaps best be judged by a line from Mr Buzek's speech of thanks.

"Once upon a time I hoped to be a member of the Polish Parliament, in a free Poland," he said.
"Today I have become the president of the European Parliament, something I could never have

[Furunculus]

Erm...the new president of the entire European Parliament is Polish. Which makes the chest-thumping about electing a Pole a bit moot.

More importantly...Hannan's man is a sidekick of the nutcase Kaczinski twins. So this should provide for years of entertainment to come: the Brits being led now by some extremist Pole.


Meanwhile, the European Parliament, unlike the British conservatives, is headed by a democratic Pole instead of a (former?) fascist anti-Semitic one.

yeah, i read that too.

Whatever, he sits on a platform I and the conservatives agree with, which is an anti-federal one unlike the EPP.

He is facist and anti-semitic, explain?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I haven't forgotten this thread, and when I have time I will reply to the responses to my last post.

[HoreTore]

If no one can find purple spuds, it isn't Europe, it is called Market forces, aka, no one is buying them therefore they aren't sold, thus they aren't stocked.

Uhm.....

Now, I may be thinking of a different shade of purple here, but.... One of the two most common potato versions here in Norway, is purple. At least what I would call purple.... Or maybe red or pink....

[Louis VI the Fat]

Whatever, he sits on a platform I and the conservatives agree with, which is an anti-federal one unlike the EPP.The conservatives lost out against the Polish radicals. The British conservatives are now led by a Pole whose views are best described as 'read Krook's posts'.

It is a complete laugh. An embarrasment to the UK conservatives. They are no longer in control of their own party.

They tried to get in bed with a pan-European nationalist alliance, against the better judgement of many in their ranks. The leader of the more doubtful part of the conservatives has now been ousted by the Poles. The other UK conservatives are towing the line and are prepared to be lackeys to their neo/post fascist continental overlords.

This was on day one of their new party. Well done.

Here is, of all papers, the Daily Torygraph:

Tory-MEPs-led-by-Pole-with-extremist-past.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/5837378/Tory-MEPs-led-by-Pole-with-extremist-past.html)


Tory MEPs 'led by Pole with extremist past'

David Cameron's Conservative MEPs have been forced to surrender the leadership of their new Eurosceptic group to a controversial Polish Right-winger who faces allegations that he has an extremist past. In order to prevent the European Conservative and Reformist group (ECR) falling apart on the first day of its existence, the Tories handed over its chairmanship to Michal Tomasz Kaminski, a senior figure in the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) and a close aide to Lech Kaczynski, Poland's Right-wing president.

Timothy Kirkhope, the leader of Conservative MEPs, was forced to drop his own plan, supported by the party leadership, to stand for the post after a Tory rebel beat Mr Kaminski in elections for the European Parliament's vice-presidency.
#
Related Articles

Cameron humbled as Tories lose leadership of EU bloc
Tory MEP Edward McMillan-Scott expelled as he stands against official candidate
Tory MEP voices 'real concern' over new European grouping

Edward McMillan-Scott was promptly expelled from the European Conservatives for defeating Mr Kaminski. Following the vote, furious Polish MEPs demanded control of ECR as compensation.
The situation is deeply embarrassing for the Tories.

Mr Kaminski will now be the public face of the new Conservative grouping as allegations that his political past has involved links to Right-wing extremists have surfaced. According to the office of the National Rebirth of Poland (NOP), a far-Right Polish party regarded by the US State Department as anti-Semitic, Mr Kaminski was a former student member. Mr Kaminski admitted to The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday that he had been an NOP member but only under Communism, "between 1987 and 1989". "It was a time I am very proud of, when at the age of 15, I decided to become a member of the underground against the Communist dictatorship. At the time this was a patriotic youth organisation not anti-Semitic or Nazi," he said.

[Louis VI the Fat]

To which I would like to add:

This is not only an embarrasment to the UK conservatives. It is a situation of concern for the whole of the UK.

One of the two largest political parties that represent UK interests in Europe, is now taken over by Polish nationalists.

Who will see to British interests in Brussles?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Mr Kaminski admitted to The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday that he had been an NOP member but only under Communism, "between 1987 and 1989". "It was a time I am very proud of, when at the age of 15, I decided to become a member of the underground against the Communist dictatorship. At the time this was a patriotic youth organisation not anti-Semitic or Nazi," he said.

Says it all, doesn't it? Let the man be, this is a big deal about nothing.

[Furunculus]

1. The conservatives lost out against the Polish radicals. The British conservatives are now led by a Pole whose views are best described as 'read Krook's posts'.

2. It is a complete laugh. An embarrasment to the UK conservatives. They are no longer in control of their own party.

3. They tried to get in bed with a pan-European nationalist alliance, against the better judgement of many in their ranks. The leader of the more doubtful part of the conservatives has now been ousted by the Poles. The other UK conservatives are towing the line and are prepared to be lackeys to their neo/post fascist continental overlords.

4. Here is, of all papers, the Daily Torygraph:

Tory-MEPs-led-by-Pole-with-extremist-past.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/5837378/Tory-MEPs-led-by-Pole-with-extremist-past.html)

1. what about krooks posts? were they in this thread, in response to what we are discussing here? is krook even a signed up member of NCU? would it matter if he was? has Kaminski ever stated the same things as krook? why bring krook into this?

2. it's teething troubles caused by an element of the conservative party that was against the change before it happened, the cons are better off with him out.

3. roflmao. they >got< into bed with an anti-federalist alliance, and a the actions of a stupid tory resulted in a pole leading the party, but so what, he's a member of that party and subscribed to views i can tolerate, unlike the EPP.

4. good article, nice to see the tory-graph refraining from varnishing the truth.

[Furunculus]

"It was a time I am very proud of, when at the age of 15, I decided to become a member of the underground against the Communist dictatorship. At the time this was a patriotic youth organisation not anti-Semitic or Nazi,"

Says it all, doesn't it? Let the man be, this is a big deal about nothing.
"Someone who has not lived his life under dictatorship should very careful of accusing people who were in the anti-communist underground. I was brave enough to raise the banner."

agreed EMFM, and i have a lot of sympathy with the above view, given that it is relevant to my own youth, and alien to most others.

[Furunculus]

To which I would like to add:

This is not only an embarrasment to the UK conservatives. It is a situation of concern for the whole of the UK.

One of the two largest political parties that represent UK interests in Europe, is now taken over by Polish nationalists.

Who will see to British interests in Brussles?

i'll decide what i find embarrassing thank you very much, and that was a notionally anti-federalist national party i supported sitting in a federalist european party.

good, i'm a british (civic) nationalist, so i find that more than palatable.

certainly not the EPP or the party labour sits within.

[Furunculus]

good article on the implications of the german constitutional ruling on lisbon, and how it may affect supra-national governance in future:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,636706,00.html


OPINION
The Future of European Democracy

By Thomas Darnstädt

Card-carrying Europeans reacted in dismay to a recent far-reaching ruling on the EU's Lisbon Treaty by Germany's Constitutional Court. But the judges have in fact done Europeans a huge service by tackling the issue of how democracy can work in the era of supranational institutions..................................

[rory_20_uk]

Well, it's only been running for over a decade and costing billions, but better late than never... :wall:

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

good article on the implications of the german constitutional ruling on lisbon, and how it may affect supra-national governance in future:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,636706,00.htmlA good article indeed on a splendid court decision. :thumbsup:

Needless to say, I was very happy that the German Constitutional Court ruled 'Lisbon' compatible with the German Constitution*. It was a tough hurdle to take. Even better was that the court also insisted on improving the democratic deficit. Bless the Germans and their obsession with democracy.

Lisbon plus the demand that the national parliament demands and accepts its European responsibility sounds like a winning ticket. Perhaps, the German ruling will be a stimulus for pro-EU Irishmen with doubts about the democratic workings of the EU. Much of which are now being adressed in Germany, worthy of study by other nations.


The Lisbon Treaty verdict is a massive appeal -- no, order -- to the people's representatives to finally engage with European issues. "A lot of work and little recognition," is how Bundestag member Gunther Krichbaum once described his work on the Bundestag's European Union committee, which he chairs. Is that all that Europe means for German democracy?

Card-carrying Europeans seem unanimous in the view that national legitimization of European decisions is impossible in the long run. A democracy consisting of 27 national parliaments would be too noisy, too slow and too nationalistic, they argue. But the Constitutional Court has neither ruled that political decisions by German government members who are on councils of ministers in Brussels need to be subject to approval by the Bundestag, nor ruled out further steps toward greater European integration. It is only trying to prevent the Bundestag from refusing to take responsibility for all these things.

* The German constitution, from 1949, states that Germany wants to be an equal member of a unified Europe which works towards world peace.

[Furunculus]

the establishment grinds into action to halt this damaging subversion of the cause:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100005218/accusing-euro-sceptics-of-anti-semitism-is-the-most-shameful-tactic-yet/




Critics of the European Conservatives and Reformists - the first bloc of mainstream parties in the European Parliament to oppose deeper integration - have reached a new and nauseating low. In their determination to malign the only serious Euro-sceptic opposition they have encountered in 50 years, they are accusing the ECR’s leader, Michał Kamiński, of anti-Semitism.

Never mind that Michał is a lifelong champion of human rights; never mind that he is a keen supporter of the European Jewish Congress and the European Friends of Israel; never mind that both his grandfathers fought the Nazis. He’s a Euro-sceptic - and that, in the eyes of his critics, justifies attacking him with any weapons available, including those banned by the Geneva Convention.

This is going to be a longer post than usual but, believe me, it’s important. The fact is that Euro-federalists are threatened by the ECR. Until now, they have enjoyed a doctrinal monopoly: every Group in the European Parliament, from the Communists to the Christian Democrats, favoured political union. Euro-enthusiasts fear that the ECR will break their cartel. No longer will a federal Europe appear inevitable; henceforth, it will be simply one among a series of competing ideas.

From the moment David Cameron announced that he planned to establish a souverainiste alliance, the palaeo-federalists started hurling clods of manure at him. If the Conservatives left the EPP, they insisted, they would end up with Right-wing extremists.

In fact, the ECR is more respectable than either of the two big blocs, the EPP or the Socialists. The EPP contains plenty of parties that are anti-gay, anti-gipsy, anti-immigrant or anti-American (see here). On the Socialist benches you will find Stalinist nostalgics, an old IRA man, and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (see here). And that’s not even counting this latest incident.

The ECR, by contrast, is moderate and restrained. Most of its MEPs are ex-ministers, economics professors, former IMF officials and the like. Five of its nine participating parties are in government in their home countries.

Unable to associate any serious scandals with the participating parties, Euro-enthusiasts tried to smear them by association. Person X, a member of one of the constituent parties, would be found to have co-written a letter with Person Y, who worked for a news organisation owned by Person Z, who had unsavoury views. (I’m not making this up. The Guardian ran precisely such a story as its splash on the eve of the European election: see here.) Of course, there isn’t a political party in the world you can’t traduce at fourth hand in this manner.

In order to sustain their campaign, these supposed pro-Europeans exploited differences in national political cultures in a way that was downright xenophobic. To get a sense of how tendentious their coverage has been, imagine it the other way around. Suppose a Polish newspaper set out to defame the British Tories. Suppose, further, that it did so by running stories about how about how the “anti-Catholic Conservative Party”, which had long opposed giving Roman Catholics the right to vote, supported annual demonstrations of sectarianism in which effigies of Catholics - sometimes of the Pope himself - were burned on bonfires while cheering mobs let off fireworks.

That, I’m afraid, is what (mutatis mutandis) some British newspapers are doing. How often have you read that our Latvian allies “attend commemorations of Waffen SS veterans”? In fact, Latvia holds an annual ceremony to honour all those who died fighting the Soviet Union. Some of the soldiers had indeed been conscripted - often against their will - into the German army. But the ceremony is for all who took up arms, and is attended by representatives of every party in Latvia except those that speak for the Russian minority. Let me repeat that: it is attended by every party in Latvia, from the Greens to the Christian Democrats. But, obviously, it would never do to criticise these other parties: they’re pro-Brussels, you see.

Which brings me to Michał Kamiński. I’ve written about Michał before. He’s an Anglophile and a free-marketeer, who learned English by listening to Margaret Thatcher’s speeches on the BBC World Service. He spent his teenage years in underground anti-Communist movement. His record has been consistently pro-America and pro-Israel, and he has been a defender of civic freedoms, political pluralism and religious toleration. Yet Michał is now being smeared on the preposterous grounds of being anti-Jewish.

Before turning to the substance of the allegations, it’s worth considering who is making them and why. Three pieces have appeared within the past 24 hours, all making a similar point: this one in The Independent by the Labour MP Denis Macshane; this in The Guardian by Tim Garton-Ash; and this in The New Statesman by James Macintyre. None of these authors would pretend to be disinterested. Denis Macshane is a thoroughly likeable sort: one of those rare pro-Europeans who genuinely knows about other countries. He is also, as he would be the first to own, a Euro-zealot, who has a particular bee in his bonnet about the Tories being “xenophobic“. I’ve never met Professor Garton Ash, but I read him every week. He’s plainly a clever and knowledgeable man - he must, for example, know how unfounded are his constant digs about David Cameron’s “Latvian legion”. But he wouldn’t pretend, either, to be impartial about European integration. James Macintyre is the only one of the three who is a journalist, and he is widely recognised as, first and foremost, a Labour spin-doctor: Guido has the full charge-sheet here.

Beyond some very nasty name-calling, the articles make three concrete accusations against Michał: that he was once a member of the National Revival of Poland (NOP); that he campaigned against offering an official apology for the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom - a particularly horrible atrocity, even by the standards of Nazi-occupied Poland; and, according to Denis Macshane, that “Kaminski was part of the European National Front under the leadership of the Italian fascist Roberto Fiore”.

The only one of these accusations with any basis in fact is the first. When Michał was 14 years old, he joined the first anti-Communist movement he found. This was a time when there was no open opposition, and all sorts of people, some of them very unsavoury, were thrown together in the struggle for national independence. When democracy came, the parties sorted themselves out along more recognisable ideological lines, and the NOP became a fully-fledged racist and anti-Jewish movement. But Michał had left by then: he walked out before his eighteenth birthday.

The second accusation, that Michał lined up with anti-Semites over the Jedwabne massacre, is a grotesque distortion. In 2001, the President, a former Communist, proposed to offer a national apology for the crime. Michał argued that collective guilt diminished individual guilt. If crimes were said to have been a product of their place and time, then the responsibility of the criminals who had chosen to commit them was reduced. The Jedwabne massacre, he said, was not an offence by “the Poles” against “the Jews”, but by some guilty people against some innocent people. The victims, too, had been Polish citizens, recognised as such by the government-in-exile, although declared stateless by the Nazis. Blame, in all such cases, should attach to the actual malefactors. If the Communists wanted to apologise for something for which they had in fact been responsible, he added, why not apologise for their anti-Semitic campaign of 1968?

Now you can argue back and forth about collective guilt. As a conservative, I dislike the notion of group identity and believe that we must all answer for our actions, though I can see a contrary argument. What is truly scandalous is to suggest that Michał made light of the enormity of what had happened, or sought to play down the shame of the Holocaust in Poland.

As for the third allegation, made only by Denis MacShane, that Michał was a member of the 0penly fascist European National Front, either Denis knows something that no one else does, or the Indy may soon need a good lawyer.

What is perhaps most disturbing about the whole saga is the casual bigotry displayed by Michał’s detractors. Underpinning much of the coverage is the matter-of-fact assumption that, if you scratch a Polish Catholic, you’ll probably find an anti-Semite. Which is odd, really, given that prejudice is what the critics are notionally complaining about. And which, more to the point, is nonsense. Michał’s party, Law and Justice, is opposed to all forms of religious or racial discrimination. His boss, President Kaczyński, was the first Polish head of state to attend a service in a synagogue, and has been described by the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz as “long a friend to the Jewish community”. (To be fair, Garton Ash’s piece acknowledges this.)

Indeed, Michał is more accustomed to being attacked for being too pro-Likud. (I shouldn’t be surprised if his critics switch to this line next: they don’t seem especially interested in consistency.) He has long campaigned for the interests of Polish Jews. I remember a local council in his constituency passing a resolution against him because he had faced up to a genuinely anti-Semitic Polish MEP.

Imagine how Michał must feel when he reads these articles in the newspapers of a nation he has long admired. Accusations of anti-Semitism should be made, as the Prayer Book says of matrimony, “reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly”. To brandish the charge about as part of a petty domestic quarrel is disgusting.

[Tribesman]

the establishment grinds into action to halt this damaging subversion of the cause:

So you have a none affiliated Britishconservative MEP writing a rebutal article about the Guardian to the claims about Kaminski being a fascist and anti-semite, then along comes another British conservative MEP who calls Kaminski a fascist and anti-semite.But its OK as the Polish press who support Kaminski say he isn't completely an anti-semite, he just uses it for political advantage on occasions.

[Furunculus]

that's about the size of it.

[Subotan]

Personally, I think it's great. This way, federalism can be achieved at a faster pace. That, combined with Germany's court decision should help to ensure a Federalised, Democratic Europe sooner rather than later.


timothy garton-ash is an idiot who is hopelessly out of touch with british public opinion, so beware the veracity of his pontificating on britains place in the EU.

Well, he has spent the past 30 years studying European Politics, is a fellow of Oxford University and has written seven books; hardly symptoms of idiocy. And the fact that he is disagreeing with populists is probably another sign of intelligence. His latest article in the grauniad seems particularly relevant to this debate. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/29/david-cameron-european-parliament-conservatives)

I don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?

Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. The two centuries when they weren't? The 19th and the 20th, coincidentally the era when European/Western power was at it's zenith. What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples. The old European nation-state is obsolete, finished. We are seeing the emergence of the civilisation state, where entire cultures are unified into single borders, single economies and single millitaries.

Britain cannot compete on that kind of scale. Neither can France, Germany or Finland. However, should we put aside our differences and together to protect our interests at home in Europe and outside of it, maybe we can do something. We can't prevent Chindia's increasing relevance, but we can sure as Hell prevent our irrelevance.

[Adrian II]

Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. [..] What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples.I'll let you in on another bit of information. In every single century before the last, horsepower was the dominant factor in transport. These days it is the combustion engine. It may have triumphed for the longest time, but when its final day comes it will certainly not be replaced by the horse again. That's because there is no natural order of transport.

For similar reasons, which every reader can figure out for himself, there is no natural order of peoples. That's a historicist fallacy of the first order. By the way you are absolutely right that Europe should get organised (and get its house in order) in order to cope with the rise of new power blocks and changing relationships among the older ones.

Even so, all of this has little bearing on Furunculus' post, which seems to refute accusations that the ECR is a political trash can and particuarly that Michał Kamiński is a anti-semite. I haven't had time to look into this, but since I am committed by my earlier posts I will do so. I hope other will address the substance of his post as well.

[Kagemusha]

Personally, I think it's great. This way, federalism can be achieved at a faster pace. That, combined with Germany's court decision should help to ensure a Federalised, Democratic Europe sooner rather than later.



Well, he has spent the past 30 years studying European Politics, is a fellow of Oxford University and has written seven books; hardly symptoms of idiocy. And the fact that he is disagreeing with populists is probably another sign of intelligence. His latest article in the grauniad seems particularly relevant to this debate. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/29/david-cameron-european-parliament-conservatives)

I don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?

Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. The two centuries when they weren't? The 19th and the 20th, coincidentally the era when European/Western power was at it's zenith. What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples. The old European nation-state is obsolete, finished. We are seeing the emergence of the civilisation state, where entire cultures are unified into single borders, single economies and single millitaries.

Britain cannot compete on that kind of scale. Neither can France, Germany or Finland. However, should we put aside our differences and together to protect our interests at home in Europe and outside of it, maybe we can do something. We can't prevent Chindia's increasing relevance, but we can sure as Hell prevent our irrelevance.


I dont understand why only options should be either federal state or dismantling EU? The monetary Union will give prosperity to all of us in the long run. I would not mind a pan European defensive pact either, but in what do we exactly need a federal state? So we could feel more powerful?

[Subotan]

For similar reasons, which every reader can figure out for himself, there is no natural order of peoples.

Woah woah woah, you totally misinterpreted me. I was using "peoples" for poetic effect in place of the word "nation", and in no way shape or form do I think certain ethnic groups are superior to others

[Tribesman]

which seems to vainly attempt to refute accusations that the ECR is a political trash can and particuarly that Michał Kamiński is a anti-semite.
fixed

[Vladimir]

I'll let you in on another bit of information. In every single century before the last, horsepower was the dominant factor in transport. These days it is the combustion engine. It may have triumphed for the longest time, but when its final day comes it will certainly not be replaced by the horse again. That's because there is no natural order of transport.

*looks at feet*

*looks back at Adrian*

:inquisitive:

[Adrian II]

*looks at feet*

*looks back at Adrian*

:inquisitive:Looks at Vladimir's automobile. :idea2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I dont understand why only options should be either federal state or dismantling EU? The monetary Union will give prosperity to all of us in the long run. I would not mind a pan European defensive pact either, but in what do we exactly need a federal state? So we could feel more powerful?

The monetary union means we all rise or fall together. That's not better or worse, but it means individual nations are at the mercy of the fortunes of the whole. As to a defensive pact, we have NATO already.

[Kagemusha]

The monetary union means we all rise or fall together. That's not better or worse, but it means individual nations are at the mercy of the fortunes of the whole. As to a defensive pact, we have NATO already.

And you base your statement about monetary Union on what?

[Furunculus]

1. Personally, I think it's great. This way, federalism can be achieved at a faster pace. That, combined with Germany's court decision should help to ensure a Federalised, Democratic Europe sooner rather than later.

2. Well, he has spent the past 30 years studying European Politics, is a fellow of Oxford University and has written seven books; hardly symptoms of idiocy. And the fact that he is disagreeing with populists is probably another sign of intelligence. His latest article in the grauniad seems particularly relevant to this debate. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/29/david-cameron-european-parliament-conservatives)

3. I don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?

4. Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. The two centuries when they weren't? The 19th and the 20th, coincidentally the era when European/Western power was at it's zenith. What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples. The old European nation-state is obsolete, finished. We are seeing the emergence of the civilisation state, where entire cultures are unified into single borders, single economies and single millitaries.

5. Britain cannot compete on that kind of scale. Neither can France, Germany or Finland. However, should we put aside our differences and together to protect our interests at home in Europe and outside of it, maybe we can do something. We can't prevent Chindia's increasing relevance, but we can sure as Hell prevent our irrelevance.

1. I'm not quite sure i follow, the creation of an anti-federal right-wing bloc will make federalism faster? Perhaps by starting an honest debate for once within mainstream euro politics over whether the people actually want a federal europe......... you may be right, but the result could easily go the other way. As to the german ruling; i support it to, it makes a strong case for national oversight and involvement in european politics, and to whatever extent european politics exists I want to see the primacy of national parliaments.

2. No, he still is an idiot. He has not grasped after thirty years of 'study' that the demos do not feel loyalty and trust to a cratos which shares none of the history that creates the shared culture, social norms, and goals that allow trust to form and loyalty to be awarded.
"Cameron may have helped the Polish right, but he has not served Britain. A dubious rightwinger now heads conservatives in Europe. What on earth does the Tory leader think that he's doing?"
He is doing what he is supposed to; responding to his EUro-skeptic electorate by not housing his european political arm within a federalist euro political bloc. TGA is still trapped in a lefty mindset of distrust and fear; distrust of the irresponsible peoples within europe who will once again descend into blood and barbarism without a post nationalist political ideology, and fear that non-liberal ideologies will be storming the gates of illiberal europe unless they band together against america and asia. I don't have that distrust of people, and i don't have the fear of once again seeing my ideological champions dashed to the ground.

3. No, the whole concept is unecessary and inherently un-demos-cratos. I say this because I believe in the sovereign nation-state. 1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view. Therefore I trust this body of people act in a way that I generally approve of, and to produce a governing body that will act broadly in manner that I understand and accept. Therefore I am willing to be bound by their decisions, and thus is my acquiescence to the will of the state created. I am, in short, willing to suffer the consequence of my governments actions. I share no such empathy and common history with the continental nations, therefore I have no trust that they (the EU) will act in a manner that I approve of, and thus I do not acquiesce to be governed by the EU. In short, I am unwilling to suffer the consequence of the EU's actions conducted in my name. It will never be right that I should be governed by those I do not consider my 'family', hence I will never support the EU's political ambitions.
You know what, i'm pretty sure there are lots of people in europe who feel the same way about britain too, and that's okay, why should they want our free-booting capitalist ways interfering with their own political evolution.

4. Referring to #2, i don not fear that Britain won't be able to compete with the rising asian titans.
We are an innovating economy, our future wealth is tied to our ability to create value for others, not add value. That does not require a federal euope for Britain. Whether it requires a federal europe for France, Belgium et-al is a choice for them to make, not me.

5. Again with the fear, i'm not interested.

[Tribesman]

1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view.
Wow , what to say about that load of tripe?
I suppose Bollox will suffice.:yes:

[Furunculus]

try harder....

[Adrian II]

1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view.And how did it come about?

You may recall that in 1603 a certain James Stuart descended from Scotland to London to assume the throne of Great Britain. The personal union of Scotland with England and Ireland wasn't exactly a love affair, leading to the Bishops' Wars, a civil war in Scotland, the War of the Three Kingdoms, and to James' and Charles' own excesses (both father and son allowed themselves to be rules by adventurers like Buckingham and certain Spanish and French princesses). Yet this difficult episode brought the isles together.

I could point to similar episodes in the 'making' of Great Britain.

I could give you the Dutch successor to the British throne whose ascent (in 1689) marked the start of a prolonged period of growth for the nation, even though he himself was scorned by part of the British public on account of his religion and alien roots.

Or what about the ascent to the throne of a gentleman with the peculiarly un-British name of Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Kurfürst und Erzbannerträger des Heiligen Römischen Reiches ('George' to his friends)? He was ridiculed by his subjects, the Jacobites hated him, yet he turned out to be an enlightened ruler who helped to introduce cabinet government.

It's politics what brought yer isles together, my friend. And it's politics what'll bring Europe together. In what shape of form this will come about will be the subject of eternal discussion and dissent, but the principle, dictated by necessity as it was in early modern times, seems clear.

[Furunculus]

1. You may recall that in 1603 a certain James Stuart descended from Scotland to London to assume the throne of Great Britain. The personal union of Scotland with England and Ireland wasn't exactly a love affair, leading to the Bishops' Wars, a civil war in Scotland, the War of the Three Kingdoms, and to James' and Charles' own excesses (both father and son allowed themselves to be rules by adventurers like Buckingham and certain Spanish and French princesses). Yet this difficult episode brought the isles together.

2. I could give you the Dutch successor to the British throne whose ascent (in 1689) marked the start of a prolonged period of growth for the nation, even though he himself was scorned by part of the British public on account of his religion and alien roots.

3. Or what about the ascent to the throne of a gentleman with the peculiarly un-British name of Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Kurfürst und Erzbannerträger des Heiligen Römischen Reiches ('George' to his friends)? He was ridiculed by his subjects, the Jacobites hated him, yet he turned out to be an enlightened ruler who helped to introduce cabinet government.

4. It's politics what brought yer isles together, my friend. And it's politics what'll bring Europe together. In what shape of form this will come about will be the subject of eternal discussion and dissent, but the principle, dictated by necessity as it was in early modern times, seems clear.


1. Are you advocating war to forge a federal europe?

2. And, what does this tell us in the context of whether the British people in the 21st century want federal governance from europe...........?

3. And, what does this tell us in the context of whether the British people in the 21st century want federal governance from europe..........?

4. If you consider war an extension of politics by other means, then yes, politics did bring the British isles together, again, are you advocating war to forge a federal europe?

Two questions I ask myself about Britain's relationship to a future federal EU:
1) Is it necessary? (will Britain see a net benefit over and above that which it enjoys now) The answer is always - No
2) Is it desirable? (will representative governance suffer due to the disconnect between demos and cratos) The answer is always - Yes

So it is neither necessary nor desirable. It is that simple.

[Adrian II]

Are you advocating war to forge a federal europe?What gives you that idea?

I advocate politics. I think I made that quite clear.


And, what does this tell us in the context of whether the British people in the 21st century want federal governance from europe...........?It tells us that national unity is crafted by statesman, from above, by political and/or military means.

In hindsight such unity may seems 'natural', as it apparently does to you, but that's confusing cause and effect. Hence my reference to the personal union of 1603. Two peoples, separated by a history of bloody war and occuption, came to be united through political means.

And this union was a necessity, even if contemporary sources rarely reflect this insight. The British would have been totally marginalised between the Habsburg and Bourbon advances on the one hand and the increasing Dutch seapower on the other. They would have been a toy of the Spaniards and would probably have had a Catholic king forced on them, regelating them to the status of a Hapsburg province.

France was facing the same dilemma; a thoroughly divided nation had to be forged into a political and administrative unity (by Louis XIII and Richelieu) or it would have been reduced to the same status.

Political necessity once again appears to dictate a (larger and deeper) political union, this time on the scale of the EU.

[Furunculus]

what necessity?

[Kagemusha]

Nothing what so ever. Europe is not threatened military threats from anywhere and common economical politics need no federal state to be successful.

[Tribesman]

try harder....

No , bollox is quite sufficient .
Unless of course you can define what this mythical shared culture, social norms, values and world view you think Britons posses.

[Adrian II]

what necessity?We are in danger of running around in circles here. I already touched on the necessity earlier in the thread, and so did other posters.

[Furunculus]

No , bollox is quite sufficient .
Unless of course you can define what this mythical shared culture, social norms, values and world view you think Britons posses.

no it isn't, your statement is totally vacuous.

it is not a british thing, it is an every nation thing.

every nation state derives legitimacy from the fact it represents the will of its people.

if a government does not represent the will of its people it has not legitimacy.

try harder, please.

[Furunculus]

We are in danger of running around in circles here. I already touched on the necessity earlier in the thread, and so did other posters.

you described some reasons why the continent might like a larger federal presence, i believe i even touched on a few of them myself.

why does britain care?

[Tribesman]

every nation state derives legitimacy from the fact it represents the will of its people.

Bollox

if a government does not represent the will of its people it has not legitimacy.

So does the will of British people regarding the Iraq fiasco mean the governemt is illigitimate?
What about travellers?
Does a representation of the coilition against travellers represent the will of the people and would it be legitimate?
Honestly you are like a character off Little Britain who hasn't quite got the joke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9V-HtcQK8w
Wouild you prefer one of poor old Maggie faced with cultural differences to the small minded "It's British" thing .
OK Banquo if the previous reference is too discriminatory for this forum then understand that it only applies to a very very small section of a community that most of that community wish to distance themselves from

I understand your point, but the colloquialism used is, one believes, somewhat offensive to the community described. It is also more helpful to others in the discussion to have the more widely used, and less insulting term, employed for clarity. BG

[Furunculus]

Bollox

Does a representation of the coilition against travellers represent the will of the people and would it be legitimate?

Honestly you are like a character off Little Britain who hasn't quite got the joke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9V-HtcQK8w

Wouild you prefer one of poor old Maggie faced with cultural differences to the small minded "It's British" thing .


you might think so, i do not.

who/what are the knackers, and how are they relevant?

of what purpose is the video?

no, it isn't a british thing, its an every peoples thing, except for the muppets that go in for transnational progressivism.

[Tribesman]

of what purpose is the video?

Thank you, you demonstrate the point.


who/what are the travellers,
You Britians have a common culture and values , why don't you know?
Is it because your claims of commonality are bollox?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


no, it isn't a british thing, its an every peoples thing
Sop if its an evetry peopls thing then all the europeamns will have the same and you won't have any problem will you.
Hold on its a british thing , their 1000 years of culture bollox that you was on about. So the Irish with their 800 years of british culture bollox jut didn't get it ,leave aside al the covenaters jacobites and all that :daisy: , the SNP don't get it either , let alone the sonsof Glendowyer...and bugger me sideway but why were half the places in kernow last week flying the cross of St.Piran.

To paraphrase the head of your Royle family ..."shared cultural values, world view, morals,social norms...my arse"

[Louis VI the Fat]

the establishment grinds into action to halt this damaging subversion of the cause:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100005218/accusing-euro-sceptics-of-anti-semitism-is-the-most-shameful-tactic-yet/I would post a lengthy reply, but it would have to be enormous to do the topic justice. I started one, but deleted it after it still only scratched the surface yet started to go into all sorts of directions.
As it is, I am having many lengthy threads with Cegorach - whose absense I still deeply deplore - and Sarmatian, about Eastern Europe. And with several others as well. The acculturation, and the mutual attempt at understanding the different perspectives is fascinating, frustrating and glorious alike. I must unfortunately pass upon writing anything at great length here.

I just feel I should acknowledge that Hannan/you make a good point about cultural differences and the incorporation of new ones into a wider European perspective.

[Furunculus]

Sop if its an evetry peopls thing then all the europeamns will have the same and you won't have any problem will you.
Hold on its a british thing , their 1000 years of culture bollox that you was on about. So the Irish with their 800 years of british culture bollox jut didn't get it ,leave aside al the covenaters jacobites and all that :daisy: , the SNP don't get it either , let alone the sonsof Glendowyer...and bugger me sideway but why were half the places in kernow last week flying the cross of St.Piran.

To paraphrase the head of your Royle family ..."shared cultural values, world view, morals,social norms...my arse"

learn to read (and to spell), i said it is an every "peoples" thing, not an "everyone" thing.

[Furunculus]

I just feel I should acknowledge that Hannan/you make a good point about cultural differences and the incorporation of new ones into a wider European perspective.

i would be pleased to read your writings on the finer points of cultural differences, especially given we have just witnessed Tribesman state they do not exist, and can therefore have no possible bearing on whether the group can invest trust in the leader............

:)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

I would appreciate a little more discussion and somewhat fewer personal attacks, please.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Tribesman]

learn to read (and to spell),
Learn that your arguement is bollox.
Come on Furunculus give us your version of values, culture, social norms, world view and morals that are British and see how many of the British posters on this forum have different versions.

[Adrian II]

Come on Furunculus give us your version of values, culture, social norms, world view and morals that are British and see how many of the British posters on this forum have different versions.Wrong approach.

Give us your version of British values, culture, social norms, world view and morals and see ow many people from other countries adhere to them. Most of the western world hs become thoroughy middle-class in almost every respect.

I am a great fan of home exchanges. I have exchanged homes with Germans, Italians, Frenchmen and Poles. In every case, my counterparts had the same basic values that I have, and this applied to every neighbourhood where I came to live temporarily as well. Very instructive.

[Furunculus]

every nation has a broad world view that is shaped by their history.

the prudish brits recoil in horrified incomprehension that italy continues to vote berlusconi in as their leader.

the french maintain a deep suspicion of free booting anglo-saxon ways as well as 'their' foreign policy mechanisms (read: NATO).

the polish maintain a deep-seated fear of any neighbour that is bigger than them, which is why they respect defence alliances more than political alliances.

these few examples demonstrate different expectations, and obviously result from the shared history, culture and values of the peoples that exhibit these traits. it isn't rocket science.

i supported Britain's intervention in iraq, and i am glad Britain continues to provide military support to America, because i mostly agree with their view of the way the world should be, i doubt that any other large continental nations of old europe would show such willingness, and that is because they don't share so similar a world view. and that is fine, but don't expect me to rejoice at the prospect of governance from a group that strays further away from my own natural inclinations.

[Tribesman]

So you have just demnonstated that your world view which you claim British people share is completely at odds with the views of most Brits.
Well done:2thumbsup:

[Furunculus]

not at the time the war was launched:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=681:

Outside of Great Britain, the prospect of war in Iraq draws substantial # in many cases overwhelming # opposition. Among other U.S. allies, publics reject participating in a military coalition against Iraq by much wider margins. The Spanish oppose joining an allied military action against Iraq by more than six-to-one (81%-13%). Fewer than a quarter of Italians and Poles (17%, 21%) favor their governments joining the U.S. and other nations in taking military action against Iraq.

In Germany roughly a quarter (27%) favor military action, unchanged since November. In France, where just a third of respondents favored military action against Iraq in November, support for that option has dropped to 20%.

Support for military action was gauged in two ways. In Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland # the so-called "coalition of the willing" # respondents were asked whether they favored or opposed their country joining other allies in taking military action against Iraq. In France, Russia, Germany and Turkey # whose governments have ruled out such participation # respondents were asked their opinion of "the U.S. and other allies" using force against Iraq.

http://insidecostarica.com/dailynews/03/april/03/index.htm

UK public backing for Iraq war drops below 50 percent

British public support for the ongoing war in Iraq has fallen for the first time below 50 percent since the conflict broke out on March 20, according to a poll published by the Daily Mirror newspaper Thursday.

The GMTV poll showed that currently only 48 percent of the polled said they support war, while fewer than one in seven of them said they believe in U.S. President George W. Bush.

However, 78 percent of the polled said they do not want British troops brought home until the war is over, no matter how long it takes.

On Wednesday, a Daily Telegraph poll said 54 percent of Britons favored military action. But 56 percent feared Britain and the United States might get bogged down in a lengthy conflict.

British public support for the war on Iraq began to drop on Sunday when a survey found that Britons who believed it was right to take military action against Iraq went down to 54 percent from 59 percent on March 27, but higher than 50 percent on March 20, the day the war started.

The decline in public backing underlined a growing feeling among Britons that the war is "nothing like people felt they were led to expect," local analysts said.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=454

In France and Britain, support for a war to overthrow Saddam is lukewarm, with about as many supporting as opposing. In Germany and Italy on the other hand, sentiment is decidedly opposed with only 34 percent favoring and 57-59 percent opposing. In the U.S., Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction is considered a very important reason for a military operation by 81 percent (up from 77 percent) compared with 83 percent for linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. In contrast, all four of the European publics surveyed felt that Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction was the more important reason for war with Iraq: 67 to 55 percent in Britain, 49 to 45 percent in Italy, 57 to 44 percent in Germany, and 54 to 47 percent in France.

[Tribesman]

not at the time the war was launched:

Don't be silly, the preinvasion gallup poll for Britain (excluding NI) gave only 10% in favour of following the course that was taken.
!0% is not a majority opinion
Some nice data you posted there , more Brits said america was the problem than Germans did , and then the French had only half the German figure saying America was the problem . Though both France and Germany had more people than Britain saying Bush was the problem .

[Furunculus]

the data also shows:
1) that at the point the war was launched, there was a majority
2) this was quite opposite to most other large nations on the continent

if you choose to ignore the fact that different peoples have different goals and different methods of achieveing those goals, fine, i do not.

[Tribesman]

if you choose to ignore the fact that different peoples have different goals and different methods of achieveing those goals, fine, i do not.
The problem there is that you are applying a very broad brush, one could really say that you are stereotyping people from your own nation and other nations according to your own prejudices.

[Furunculus]

fine, i accept that. it is a broad brush.

it is IMO relevant to consider this when i ask myself what Britain's place should be within federal EU, an argument i frame under the following questions:

1) Is it necessary? (will Britain see a net benefit over and above that which it enjoys now)
2) Is it desirable? (will representative governance suffer due to the disconnect between demos and cratos)

[Tribesman]

it is IMO relevant to consider this when i ask myself what Britain's place should be within federal EU, an argument i frame under the following questions
Yes but then you take your personal views and call them british as though you represent the mythical typical Brit.
That steroetyping is no more relevant than someone saying a typical Brit is the loud rude and obnoxious sunburnt drunken puke monster who they have seen lots of in european resorts.

[Furunculus]

i used an example that applied to me, an example of a UK government following a pro US policy which i supported, you spun that particular example out into a broader topic.

and i am discussing my views in a thread about UK political representation at a european level that better reflects my views, and apparently the symapthies of many other Brits.

anyway, lets get back on topic; what new scare stories are there about conservative MEP's feeling up kids whilst dressed in Nazi uniform..................?

[Tribesman]

i am discussing my views in a thread about UK political representation at a european level that better reflects my views, and apparently the symapthies of many other Brits.

No you are dressing up your personal views as representative of 1000 years of shared culture , since everyone takes their share in different ways it is in no way representive.
Even lokk at your link , a few fruitbats who want to go back to a stasge where Britian was screwed and further bankrupting itself. More young Britons would probably be in favour of free festivals than attemting to head east of Aden with a maintained military presence.
You are a relic of imperialism, there is no other way to describe you.

[Louis VI the Fat]

67 to 55 percent in Britain, 49 to 45 percent in Italy, 57 to 44 percent in Germany, and 54 to 47 percent in France. Lovely! I predict one will find, on pretty much any subject, these slight variations in national preferences. For me, these numbers are a clear indication not of the inviability, but of the viability of European co-operation.


Oh, Furunculus, you have such a monolithic views of nations. What's more, I think you project your own, slightly particularistic views on the whole of Britain. For or against the EU, I don't think you will find the UK turned into your imaginary 'Prussian' military machine anytime soon. Not all Britons agree to your militaristic view of the UK. I think you'll find that, say, improving waiting lists for healthcare is considered a more immediate concern to most Britons than paying five cents of taxes on every pound to fix some sort of non-existing defense crisis. To do what anyway? To go on a pan-Anglo crusade to colour the world pink again? People don't care about stuff like that anymore.


The EU is not all that totalitarian. You can still have your ashes, which nobody understands. And your Commonwealth games. And Britain will be slightly tilted more towards the US than most. And your pubs will continue to serve their horrid lukewarm beers. (Although...considering the rate at which they go bankrupt, perhaps not. I say stop wasting your time on obscure alarmist nationalist military sites and go save a pub, mate. That'll protect some real British traditions!)

[Furunculus]

No you are dressing up your personal views as representative of 1000 years of shared culture , since everyone takes their share in different ways it is in no way representative.

Even look at your link , a few fruitbats who want to go back to a stage where Britain was screwed and further bankrupting itself. More young Britons would probably be in favour of free festivals than attempting to head east of Aden with a maintained military presence.

You are a relic of imperialism, there is no other way to describe you.

there are a myriad of examples of 'national' inclination, three of which i gave above, for just one i suggest the prudish brits awed horror that italy continues to vote in, and approve of, berlusconi.

in that case i am a fruitbat too, for believing that the first duty of the sovereign nation state is the defence of the realm, and any government that apportions less than 5% of spending to Defence when we have spent the last fives years fighting two wars is grossly negligent of its duty to the British people. i have zero problems with the aims and ambitions of the UKNDA.

why, because i continue to believe in the nation state as the most viable form of representative governance, because i haven't fallen for the advanced cretinism that is transnational progressivism?

[Furunculus]

Lovely! I predict one will find, on pretty much any subject, these slight variations in national preferences. For me, these numbers are a clear indication not of the inviability, but of the viability of European co-operation.

Oh, Furunculus, you have such a monolithic views of nations. What's more, I think you project your own, slightly particularistic views on the whole of Britain. For or against the EU, I don't think you will find the UK turned into your imaginary 'Prussian' military machine anytime soon. Not all Britons agree to your militaristic view of the UK. I think you'll find that, say, improving waiting lists for healthcare is considered a more immediate concern to most Britons than paying five cents of taxes on every pound to fix some sort of non-existing defense crisis. To do what anyway? To go on a pan-Anglo crusade to colour the world pink again? People don't care about stuff like that anymore.

The EU is not all that totalitarian. You can still have your ashes, which nobody understands. And your Commonwealth games. And Britain will be slightly tilted more towards the US than most. And your pubs will continue to serve their horrid lukewarm beers. (Although...considering the rate at which they go bankrupt, perhaps not. I say stop wasting your time on obscure alarmist nationalist military sites and go save a pub, mate. That'll protect some real British traditions!)

i don't think a federal eu is nonviable, in fact i agree the figures support the view that a federal state can be forged, but the figures certainly fail my self imposed test #2 Is it desirable? (will representative governance suffer due to the disconnect between demos and cratos).

how are my views monolithic and particularistic? because you do realise that i have no desire to colour the world pink again, via a pan-anglo crusade or otherwise. nor too do i want a prussian military machine, britain has never gone in for massive armies when it has been given a choice, and i certainly don't want one now. i simply think that allocating less than 5% of Gov't spending on Defence WHILST we are at war is a dereliction of duty on the part of our government. we already spend a fortune on health and welfare, that is what the British people want, but because we spend so little on Defence is precisely the reason why we can afford to properly provision the first duty of the nation state without having significant impact on other departments. i do care about that stuff, and after twenty years of neglect you may be surprised to find that the Armed Forces are becoming more of a public priority again.

Louis, i know it won't bring on the end-of-times, but again it falls foul of test #1 Is it necessary? (will Britain see a net benefit over and above that which it enjoys now).
the UKNDA does a job i believe in, that is necessary only because it has been neglected by government for twenty years, i will both go to the pub and continue to support what they do. when the UK subscribes to a peacetime minimum defence spend of 2.5% of GDP i will be a happy bunny, and not before.

if there is a "yes" answer to either test #1 or test #2, then there is a case to weigh up the negative answer in balance to the positive, however if the answer to both questions is "no" then why bother pursuing the matter further?

[Vladimir]

Louis, i know it won't bring on the end-of-times, but again it falls foul of test #1 Is it necessary? (will Britain see a net benefit over and above that which it enjoys now).
the UKNDA does a job i believe in, that is necessary only because it has been neglected by government for twenty years, i will both go to the pub and continue to support what they do. when the UK subscribes to a peacetime minimum defence spend of 2.5% of GDP i will be a happy bunny, and not before.

It still baffles me how little European countries spend on defense.

What would happen if the Yankees did go home? Would Europe go back to its perpetual struggle to commit suicide, or would the increased defense costs force them to work together more?

[Furunculus]

It still baffles me how little European countries spend on defense.

What would happen if the Yankees did go home? Would Europe go back to its perpetual struggle to commit suicide, or would the increased defense costs force them to work together more?
well, it is obviously not everyone's priority and i don't presume to lecture other countries, but i believe it should be among Britain's priorities.

the NATO minimum is 2.0% of GDP, but not many NATO countries even bother with that much.

[Vladimir]

well, it is obviously not everyone's priority and i don't presume to lecture other countries, but i believe it should be among Britain's priorities.

the NATO minimum is 2.0% of GDP, but not many NATO countries even bother with that much.

I'm not lecturing anyone but if there were no U.S. forces in Europe, European defense needs would dramatically increase. You're citing NATO standards. I'm talking about national standards.

Does the presence of US forces in Europe help or hinder the creation of a unified Europe?

[Banquo's Ghost]

What would happen if the Yankees did go home? Would Europe go back to its perpetual struggle to commit suicide, or would the increased defense costs force them to work together more?

Well, I expect we'd spend a lot less on invading sovereign countries and insulting each other via translators and tabloid newspapers is a lot cheaper than tanks. :wink:

[Vladimir]

Well, I expect we'd spend a lot less on invading sovereign countries and insulting each other via translators and tabloid newspapers is a lot cheaper than tanks. :wink:

I understand your intent and hope that is true. However, my stomach turns when I think of the preceding centuries. Not that any of us are without sin, of course.

[Furunculus]

I'm not lecturing anyone but if there were no U.S. forces in Europe, European defense needs would dramatically increase. You're citing NATO standards. I'm talking about national standards.

Does the presence of US forces in Europe help or hinder the creation of a unified Europe?

i'm not suggesting you are, but nato countries could lecture other nato nations for not living up to their nato obligations.

who knows, who cares, it only matters to those to desire a unified europe.

[Vladimir]

who knows, who cares, it only matters to those to desire a unified europe.

People like me. Hopefully the union will occur slowly over the next 100 years or so. Too many people have tried to unify Europe with military force. Legislative force will fail as well. Integration, openness, and time will bring Europe together.

[Furunculus]

People like me. Hopefully the union will occur slowly over the next 100 years or so. Too many people have tried to unify Europe with military force. Legislative force will fail as well. Integration, openness, and time will bring Europe together.

sounds like a good result.

successful nations adapt and evolve to the situation around them, and who knows, in a hundred years time my two tests may have different answers, but for britain now and the near future there is no point in subsuming into dysfunctional federal europe.

[Samurai Waki]

Got to be a part of the problem if you want to be a part of the solution.

[Furunculus]

sounds catchy, does it actually apply to geo-politics in the specific situation of the UK and the EU?

[Tribesman]

in that case i am a fruitbat too, for believing that the first duty of the sovereign nation state is the defence of the realm, and any government that apportions less than 5% of spending to Defence when we have spent the last fives years fighting two wars is grossly negligent of its duty to the British people. i have zero problems with the aims and ambitions of the UKNDA.

Which nations spend more than 5%?

[Furunculus]

much easier to find comparative figures for defence spending by percentage of GDP, because nations use different proportions of GDP on annual spending.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

the UK is listed 70th, but that is based on 2005 figures when defence spending was around 2.4%, whereas in reality it is about 2.2% today, which given that government spending is ~44% of GDP means that defence represents ~5% of government spending.

[Tribesman]

So then which of those countries which make the magic number do you consider good examples for a soveriegn nation to immitate as its "first duty"?

[Furunculus]

So then which of those countries which make the magic number do you consider good examples for a soveriegn nation to immitate as its "first duty"?

i don't care what course other nations choose to pursue. :)

[Tribesman]

i don't care what course other nations choose to pursue.
But surely if they meet your criteria of what a soveriegn nation should do then you can pick one as an example for what you want your country to do.

[Beskar]

I remember when the BNP said to voters to support Denmark in the World Cup as they were the only ones with a all white team. Amusing when you think about it, as they are the British Nationalist Party.

[HoreTore]

I remember when the BNP said to voters to support Denmark in the World Cup as they were the only ones with a all white team. Amusing when you think about it, as they are the British Nationalist Party.

Lucky for them David Nielsen wasn't good enough to be on the team then....

[Furunculus]

I remember when the BNP said to voters to support Denmark in the World Cup as they were the only ones with a all white team. Amusing when you think about it, as they are the British Nationalist Party.

why do you mention this?

[Furunculus]

But surely if they meet your criteria of what a soveriegn nation should do then you can pick one as an example for what you want your country to do.

why?

its irrelevant to me personally for exactly the reason i stated above, and its irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[HoreTore]

why do you mention this?

Because it's a good example of just how ridiculous and petty the BNP is?

[Furunculus]

agreed, it is silly, but so is the monster raving loony party.

the key connecting fact between both of the above is that neither are relevant to this discussion.

[Furunculus]

on whether Kaminski is anti-semitic, and why Mcmillan-Scott was so keen to claim he was:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/5984879/Anti-Semitic-mudslinging-of-the-worst-kind.html

i am enjoying this, euro-politics has finally become relevant to me after nearly 20 years of total irrelevance, how sweet. :egypt:

[LittleGrizzly]

About your Iraq war figures...

Surely in Germany and France you would find some regions which have a much higher than the french average support for the Iraq war... and then regions in Britian and regions in America that had less support for the war than these exception to the rule French areas...

Surely we should swop the borders around a bit so the yanks and brits can adopt these pro iraq war areas and the french and germans can adopt these anti iraq war areas... as surely those shared views mean they could work together far better than the mess we have now where there are areas hugely against or for wars but are unable to choose for themselves as thier evil overlords in Paris, London, Berlin or Washington stole the choice for them...

You know who recoiled in horror when Bush was reelected, a majority in the liberal states in the union, surely this is unworkable for America in the same way it is unworkable for Britian to be in the same union as Italy when were horrified at thier selection ?

Also I have to bring up this shared values thing, im a brit and i share very few values with you... my values would be much closer to Louis, a frenchman, or Adrian (less so though i think), a dutchman, i do share quite a few of my values with Beskar and Jag, who are Brits. But if we are to talk about shared values between the two of us (me and you) they are very few and far between. They would be so basic (e.g. murder is bad) that they would be shared by the vast vast majority all across Europe... all of our shared values are shared across Europe...

[Furunculus]

Surely in Germany and France you would find some regions which have a much higher than the french average support for the Iraq war... and then regions in Britian and regions in America that had less support for the war than these exception to the rule French areas...

Surely we should swop the borders around a bit so the yanks and brits can adopt these pro iraq war areas and the french and germans can adopt these anti iraq war areas... as surely those shared views mean they could work together far better than the mess we have now where there are areas hugely against or for wars but are unable to choose for themselves as thier evil overlords in Paris, London, Berlin or Washington stole the choice for them...

You know who recoiled in horror when Bush was reelected, a majority in the liberal states in the union, surely this is unworkable for America in the same way it is unworkable for Britian to be in the same union as Italy when were horrified at thier selection ?

Also I have to bring up this shared values thing, im a brit and i share very few values with you... my values would be much closer to Louis, a frenchman, or Adrian (less so though i think), a dutchman, i do share quite a few of my values with Beskar and Jag, who are Brits. But if we are to talk about shared values between the two of us (me and you) they are very few and far between. They would be so basic (e.g. murder is bad) that they would be shared by the vast vast majority all across Europe... all of our shared values are shared across Europe...
You mean there is variation in this world of human beans, amazing.

I don't think that's a great idea, and i pretty sure few others in any of the above nations would go with it either.

You ask those same americans how willing they'd be to sign of for some utopian world government, i don't think they'd be willing.

Yes, I share very little in common with you either, and of course if you pick out individuals you can draw some striking contrasts. That isn't what we are talking about however.
Those figures stand.
Prudish Brits disbelief that Italians can continue to elect and support Berlusconi stands.
French resistance to what they perceive as free-wheeling anglo-saxon capitalism stands.
There are national trends that arise from shared history as a result of co-developed social and cultural practices.

[LittleGrizzly]

You ask those same americans how willing they'd be to sign of for some utopian world government, i don't think they'd be willing.

How about America having some kind of crazy far out goverment which covers places as diverse as Texas, Alaska Vermont and New York. Surely the way the recoil in horror at each others selections is the same way we recoil at horror at italy's selections for example.

Those figures stand.
Prudish Brits disbelief that Italians can continue to elect and support Berlusconi stands.
French resistance to what they perceive as free-wheeling anglo-saxon capitalism stands.
There are national trends that arise from shared history as a result of co-developed social and cultural practices.

Vermont, New york and a whole bunch of other states recoil in horror at the re-election of Bush

USA is still a workable nation

Most of Wales, Scotland and part of England recoils in horror when Margaret Thatcher is elected

UK is still a workable nation

And many other examples i can't think of

Though i suppose the best response may be...

You mean there is variation in this world of human beans, amazing.

It also happens inside country's that theres variation, but no downfall of society or the countrys... USA for example is a pretty successful country...

Yes, I share very little in common with you either, and of course if you pick out individuals you can draw some striking contrasts. That isn't what we are talking about however.

This is exactly what we are talking about, and it isn't only one individual who has views similar to me im sure there are thousands who have similar views to me and then probably thousands who have similar views to you.... and then far more people in positions in between us. Literally hundreds of different viewpoints... a similar spread to what there is in Europe...

[Furunculus]

what theme are you working at here?

are you trying to convince me that a federal europe is a 'viable' project? fine, i'm convinced.

are you trying to convince me that a federal europe is a desirable project? for who i'd ask? because i certainly don't find it desirable for britain.

you have done nothing to convince me that there are not national themes to the peoples of every nation, all you've done is state that everyone is different and that everyone is the same, no kidding sherlock.

but if i like the fact Britain is generally forgiving of Israel, then i can only be glad that we don't have the population of Gaza as UK residents.

[Tribesman]

what theme are you working at here?

Could it possibly be that the theme is your common values, heritage and outlook theory is bollox?

[Furunculus]

i do not see that demonstrated.

[Tribesman]

i do not see that demonstrated.
Really?
Does this fella share your cultural views?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaxX8IeNHIM&feature=related
OK thats not fair his family are originaly Prussian and spent a long time through the generations in the Royal Navy.
How about this bunch of home county boys, public and grammar school lot, surely you can't can't more British than that....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbwEWvHv41Y&feature=channel_page
Common views, values and outlook? ....as Jim from the Royle family says...."my arse"

[LittleGrizzly]

Im generally getting at what Tibesman mentioned... that the shared heritage values ect. are not really shared all that much and the ones that we do widely share are widely shared across Europe...

Im not arguing for the world goverment, its a long term goal of mine... but I think the world is too different at the moment, for example Gaza like you said....

[Furunculus]

Really?
Does this fella share your cultural views?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaxX8IeNHIM&feature=related
OK thats not fair his family are originaly Prussian and spent a long time through the generations in the Royal Navy.
How about this bunch of home county boys, public and grammar school lot, surely you can't can't more British than that....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbwEWvHv41Y&feature=channel_page
Common views, values and outlook? ....as Jim from the Royle family says...."my arse"

what a thoroughly irrelevant post, congrats.

[Furunculus]

Im generally getting at what Tibesman mentioned... that the shared heritage values ect. are not really shared all that much and the ones that we do widely share are widely shared across Europe...

Im not arguing for the world goverment, its a long term goal of mine... but I think the world is too different at the moment, for example Gaza like you said....

tribesman isn't getting at anything, he's just wittering inane nonsense as usual.

i just say that they are more shared by the individual nations, which makes them the proper forum of representative governance as we know it, aka liberal democracy.

[Sarmatian]

tribesman isn't getting at anything, he's just wittering inane nonsense as usual.

i just say that they are more shared by the individual nations, which makes them the proper forum of representative governance as we know it, aka liberal democracy.

The fact that half of the Brits on this forum don't agree with you and people from Germany Finland, Poland... do agree with you speaks volumes but you just refuse to listen. What you're talking about may have held more importance in the past, although even than we shared more than we cared to admit, we just somehow always managed to find the stuff we disagree in.

Clinging to vaguely defined shared national values in a world where a baby is born in China and a relative living in America can get the news quicker than a relative living two streets away from hospital is pointless.

[Tribesman]

what a thoroughly irrelevant post
You claimed that people from your country have a shared view .
Your view of that is bollox and you are unable to show anything to the contrary, even your earlier attempt with opinion polls undermined rather than reinforced your position.


tribesman isn't getting at anything, he's just wittering inane nonsense as usual.
I am really hurt by your cutting comments:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

But its OK , Grizz gets it

the shared heritage values ect. are not really shared all that much and the ones that we do widely share are widely shared across Europe...

Though just to humour you and your neo-imperialist view .
You previously have stated (I suppose as part of your UKNDA club) that you want a big old global super navy just like Greta Brittania used to have . Given that you cannot recruit enough sailors as it is for your much diminished fleet where are you going to find all these like minded people with shared values to fill the ships?

[Furunculus]

The fact that half of the Brits on this forum don't agree with you and people from Germany Finland, Poland... do agree with you speaks volumes but you just refuse to listen. What you're talking about may have held more importance in the past, although even than we shared more than we cared to admit, we just somehow always managed to find the stuff we disagree in.

Clinging to vaguely defined shared national values in a world where a baby is born in China and a relative living in America can get the news quicker than a relative living two streets away from hospital is pointless.

yes it does have less importance than the past, but the effect is not gone and neither it is irrelevant which is why nobody wants to give electorates referendums on europe, because they will all be treated as referendums on europe which won't turn out the 'desired' result.

the point being is the difference doesn't have to be large, it just has to be there for the UK to reject a place in a federal europe if there is no net benefit to be derived. you have no benefit and a greater distance between the demos and the cratos.

[Furunculus]

You claimed that people from your country have a shared view .
Your view of that is bollox and you are unable to show anything to the contrary, even your earlier attempt with opinion polls undermined rather than reinforced your position.

Though just to humour you and your neo-imperialist view .
You previously have stated (I suppose as part of your UKNDA club) that you want a big old global super navy just like Greta Brittania used to have . Given that you cannot recruit enough sailors as it is for your much diminished fleet where are you going to find all these like minded people with shared values to fill the ships?
you haven't challenged that point at all, there have been various for you to choose from, and the poll quite adequately showed the difference between one nation with public support for the war in question and other nations that did not have public support.

What neo-imperialist view, that the first duty of the sovereign nation state is the defence of the realm, explain how that is neo-imperialist?
What purpose does your second question actually have in this discussion? The fact that pay and conditions are poor may very well be the answer is kind of beside the point, the question is nothing but a distraction.

[Tribesman]

you haven't challenged that point at all, there have been various for you to choose from, and the poll quite adequately showed the difference between one nation with public support for the war in question and other nations that did not have public support.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
you mean the polls where the respondants in different countries were asked very different questions under entirely different circumstances ?
Yeah thats a good way to compare things. It adequately shows nothing.
Which is why you should have used the pre-war polls when no nation was already going to war and the peoples opinions all could be accurately gauged with the same question....but then of course the numbers would have been completely at odds with your claims wouldn't they.


What purpose does your second question actually have in this discussion?
If your views held true among the population there would be no problem filling the positions would there, there would also be no problem re-introducing conscription. Pay and conditions would mean very little as they would all think they are fulfilling the primary role of the soveriegn state

[Furunculus]

don't be so dramatic. why bring conscription into anything?

it's not needed
it's not useful
it's not wanted

pay and conditions explains a great deal, you have heard about that thing called overstretch have you not, if not then any brit on this forum will happily leave you better informed.

but again with the purposeless distraction that has nothing to do with european politics, why?

[Sarmatian]

but again with the purposeless distraction that has nothing to do with european politics, why?

Probably because you still hadn't explained exactly what those shared national values are. If they are so important, it shouldn't be so hard to define them and since you deem them so important, you must know exactly what they are. So, what I would like to know is:

1) Explanation/definition of shared British national values. Name some of them.

2) How exactly would a more federalised Europe infringe on said values

[Tribesman]

but again with the purposeless distraction that has nothing to do with european politics, why?
Because you are talking bollox and while being completely unable to show you have a point still insist you have a valid point.

[Furunculus]

Probably because you still hadn't explained exactly what those shared national values are. If they are so important, it shouldn't be so hard to define them and since you deem them so important, you must know exactly what they are. So, what I would like to know is:

1) Explanation/definition of shared British national values. Name some of them.

2) How exactly would a more federalised Europe infringe on said values

well to start:
1) Britain's prudish inability to vote in, and continue to support, a national leader like Berlusconi.
2) France's authoritarian desire to ban religious dress
3) Finland's perpetual mistrust of NATO resulting from Finlandisation
4) Ireland's desire to remain neutral regardless of justification
5) Rural Spain's bizarre tolerance for drunk driving that would be unacceptable in Britain and many other places
6) Russia's continued support of Serbia despite the fact the rest of the europe treats you as the 'aggressors'.

All of these things and many more define inescapable differences in national character, that results in different goals and a different value on achieving goals.

None of this is bad, it's just different, but national electorates expect their leaders to act in a way that 'they' approve of, so having a governing class that is more culturally removed from its electorate is always a negative thing.

This does not mean it's the end of the world, we'd get by with the odd uprising every now and then but it would mostly work, but on the other hand, why the hell should i support an idea that works against the first principle of demos-cratos when for Britain it provides no net benefit?

I do not make this judgment on behalf of other nations, merely Britain. Other nations (and peoples of those nations) may decide there is a net benefit for them to being part of a federal europe..................... good for them.

[Furunculus]

Because you are talking bollox and while being completely unable to show you have a point still insist you have a valid point.

no, you are asking irrelevant questions because you have nothing to add to a discussion on what effect, good or bad, the creation of a mainstream anti-federalist euro-bloc will have.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I agree with you, Furunculus! But then your fellow Briton Grizzly does not and I do. Which means that you are wrong. So I can't agree with you.

But if I disagree with you, it means that you are right, so I can't disagree either.

Which means that we have a paradox to trump Zeno. :wink:



Anyway, never mind the bollox. Not everything Furunculus writes is nonsense.
I can instantly tell when I am in Britain, or when I am in Sicily. One does not need to have a perfect, all-encompassing definition of national identity to claim that there is one. More important, is that national identities are seen for what they are. They are not monolithic, they are rather new, they are constructs, they are not exclusive, etcetera.
Europe is made up of many different identities, of which nationhood is only one. For example, Scotland is Calvinistic, together with the Netherlands and Geneva. France is Catholic, together with Belgium and Poland and Ireland. Catholic Ireland is Celtic, like much of calvinist Scotland and episcopalian Wales and Cornwall and catholic Brittany. Belgium shares a language with Calvinist Netherlands and Geneva and with Catholic France. And so on.

Nobody has 'Briton' as his sole identity. Every person has countless identities. 'British, Welsh, Londoner, Man Utd, protestant, Swedish father, aristocrat, gay, student, big city, ad infinitum'.

I must repeat Grizzly's statement: I really do have more in common with LG than with a 'Catholic, peasant, small-town, pensioner, pied-noir, reactionary, rugby-hating, etcetera'. Put me in a bar with him and Grizzly, and, if only Grizz would develop a taste in football, I'd rather spend my evening with the Grizz than with the Frenchman with whom I have absolutely nothing in common.


I do not want to abolish the national states. I want policy made at the level where it is most effective. That means some things must be done locally. Others at the state level. And others at the supra-national level.
For the supra-national level, I do not expect much from intensive co-operation with Syria and Burma. I do think co-operation with the UK, Spain, Hungary is viable. So let's do at this level (the EU) what is done most effectively at the supra-national level.

I know you love defense. I want defense done at the state level where it concerns national interests. I want defense done at the supra-national level where it concerns mutual and intertwined safety. I want to be in an intense alliance with other nations that share the most basic values. NATO suits me just fine in this regard. As with the EU, NATO doesn't undermine sovereignity, it protects it.
Lastly, I want to co-operate with all peaceful democracies across the globe. But since it is obvious that Japan has less security risks in common with France than Italy and the UK do, a closer pan-Atlantic alliance makes more sense.

I don't care for the bollox about Europe. I just want effictivity of policy making. Sticking with the defense theme, let Norway train polar troops, and Denmark build a navy, and Germany tanks. And then use these communally. This is more efficient than each trying to do all three itself. Yes, each one gives up the sovereign power of defending himself in all aspects. However, such is the beauty of the system, by giving up this full sovereignity, in the end their sovereignity is protected not only more efficiently, but more effectively.

[LittleGrizzly]

if only Grizz would develop a taste in football

:laugh4::laugh4:

[Furunculus]

1. I agree with you, Furunculus! But then your fellow Briton Grizzly does not and I do. Which means that you are wrong. So I can't agree with you.
But if I disagree with you, it means that you are right, so I can't disagree either.
Which means that we have a paradox to trump Zeno. :wink:

2. Anyway, never mind the bollox. Not everything Furunculus writes is nonsense.

3. I can instantly tell when I am in Britain, or when I am in Sicily. One does not need to have a perfect, all-encompassing definition of national identity to claim that there is one. More important, is that national identities are seen for what they are. They are not monolithic, they are rather new, they are constructs, they are not exclusive, etcetera.
Europe is made up of many different identities, of which nationhood is only one. For example, Scotland is Calvinistic, together with the Netherlands and Geneva. France is Catholic, together with Belgium and Poland and Ireland. Catholic Ireland is Celtic, like much of calvinist Scotland and episcopalian Wales and Cornwall and catholic Brittany. Belgium shares a language with Calvinist Netherlands and Geneva and with Catholic France. And so on.

4. Nobody has 'Briton' as his sole identity. Every person has countless identities. 'British, Welsh, Londoner, Man Utd, protestant, Swedish father, aristocrat, gay, student, big city, ad infinitum'.

5. I must repeat Grizzly's statement: I really do have more in common with LG than with a 'Catholic, peasant, small-town, pensioner, pied-noir, reactionary, rugby-hating, etcetera'. Put me in a bar with him and Grizzly, and, if only Grizz would develop a taste in football, I'd rather spend my evening with the Grizz than with the Frenchman with whom I have absolutely nothing in common.

6. I do not want to abolish the national states. I want policy made at the level where it is most effective. That means some things must be done locally. Others at the state level. And others at the supra-national level.
For the supra-national level, I do not expect much from intensive co-operation with Syria and Burma. I do think co-operation with the UK, Spain, Hungary is viable. So let's do at this level (the EU) what is done most effectively at the supra-national level.

7. I know you love defense. I want defense done at the state level where it concerns national interests. I want defense done at the supra-national level where it concerns mutual and intertwined safety. I want to be in an intense alliance with other nations that share the most basic values. NATO suits me just fine in this regard. As with the EU, NATO doesn't undermine sovereignity, it protects it.
Lastly, I want to co-operate with all peaceful democracies across the globe. But since it is obvious that Japan has less security risks in common with France than Italy and the UK do, a closer pan-Atlantic alliance makes more sense.

8. I don't care for the bollox about Europe. I just want effictivity of policy making. Sticking with the defense theme, let Norway train polar troops, and Denmark build a navy, and Germany tanks. And then use these communally. This is more efficient than each trying to do all three itself. Yes, each one gives up the sovereign power of defending himself in all aspects. However, such is the beauty of the system, by giving up this full sovereignity, in the end their sovereignity is protected not only more efficiently, but more effectively.

1. I'm delighted to hear you agree, you always did appear to be a sensible fellow. But don't worry about the paradox, there is none. If you define national 'themes' in terms of individuals as LG did then you will always be able to strike ridiculous and absurd contrasts. This is about 'peoples' as you both know and recognise. :)

2. Thanks

3. "One does not need to have a perfect, all-encompassing definition of national identity to claim that there is one." It is also impossible to fully define for exactly the reasons you give above, national 'themes' derive from a veritable soup of ideas and norms that reach far beyond simple ideas of national identity.

4. Absolutely agreed, you said it perfectly in #3. When i talk of national 'themes' both you and i recognise that we are talking about a complex hodgepodge which is composed of wildly different components from nation to nation depending on what various peoples hold to be important.

5. On an individual level any point on the spectrum of similarity-difference is achievable, but you agree that we are not referring to individuals when you talk in #3 of 'recognising' a culture upon entering it. LG may be surprised to learn I am with him completely on disliking footbag.

6. I agee with the sentiment entirely, it would appear that our disagreement over the EU is one of degrees rather than something fundamental. I am no statist, I would like all suitable power devolved to the lowest appropriate local level. I absolutely agree with the idea of working collaboratively at a supra-national level, where it is appropriate. I love trade agreements, I love free trade, I love geo-political summits where consensus on international matters can be hammered out. I simply feel that a federal EU attempts to take on responsibilities that will alienate itself from the national electorates by dint of those differences we both recognise above. Will British people deem it just for a British subject to be extradited and tried in a country that does does recognise habeus corpus? If the EU treats British citizens differently because of habeus corpus will that cause justifiable resentment in those countries that wish to try British people they suspect of being criminals because it is difficult to bring them to 'justice'? Should Britain be forced to reform its financial sector in a way that will make it less internationally competitive just because some europeans believe that in their view we are not acting as responsible world citizens with our free-wheeling capitalistic ways? Should France tolerate financial practices within the Euro-zone that will lead to instability causing social and economic hurt just because Britain wants to make a faster buck?

7. I agree with everything you say, except that a federal europe does not hurt national sovereignty. I want collective defence, I want co-operation and harmony from sensible consensus decision making, most importantly in our european backyard, but to a lesser degree throughout the world. I just don't see a federal europe as being necessary to achieve this.

8. As said earlier our disagreement is one of degrees, your sense of the level at which governance is appropriate to bring about the best outcome is different from mine, hence my rejection of a federal europe. You agree that there are these national 'themes' which affect how peoples perceive governance and define what they want from governance, but you clearly think it a less important factor than myself as you believe the nation-state level for governance is less efficient than one with more supra-national guidance. Thus is our divide on the role of europe defined, by a matter of degrees on a sliding scale of where governance is most appropriately applied.

[Furunculus]

On that note this xenophobic and nationalistic racist with militaristic and autarkic tendancies, is going to spend the next nine days chopping wood on the farm of his polish girlfriend. :beam:

Whilst he is doing this he will no doubt be building a hatred towards all foriegners, and planning to revive the empire so that fine upstanding whitey englishmen can properly supervise the peasant-like johnny-foreigner once again. :smash:

When I get back I expect to find either scintillating debate on how ECRG has collapsed, or deathly silence indicating that its motoring on quite successfully in obscurity.

Have fun. :egypt:

[Tribesman]

When I get back I expect to find either scintillating debate on how ECRG has collapsed, or deathly silence indicating that its motoring on quite successfully in obscurity.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It started collapsing as soon as it was formed. Fnland was a great start but now the Polish lot is going in favour of policies that are completey at odds with the stated aims of the group. It really says a lot when the chosen leader of the group is pushing in the opposite direction to the group.
Thats the problem with the lunatic fringe , they tend to come away at the seams very easily.

[Idaho]

The group are united in nothing but their own small self interest. Doomed as a doomed thing.

Not that any euro politician deserves more than a lynching.

[Tribesman]

Not that any euro politician deserves more than a lynching.

Hold on be fair.....

Not that any politician deserves more than a lynching. :2thumbsup:

[LittleGrizzly]

Typical Imperialist, off to a less developed country to pluder thier natural resources and make use of the locals ~;)

I don't hugely disagree with anything either of you (frunc and louis) there is a lot of common ground across Europe but then there are differences across the place to, you can somewhat feel the differences place to place even just in the people but then I don't think the differences are that much bigger across europe than they are across individual countrys...

Glad we could come to some kind of middle ground!

Ohh and I do like football, the reference was to my support of Man Utd whereas Louis supports some unimportant French team ~;)

[rvg]

E.U. needs someone to unify it. Someone like George W. Bush. Unknowingly, that man did more to unify the E.U. than any European politician.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think he did a lot for the Euro cause in Britian, I think some Brits generally see the UK as having 2 choices. 1) follow America 2) follow/lead/work with Europe.

I think 1) was the dominant philosphy for Britians until Bush's time, not that 2) is now dominant just 1) doesn't seem to have its lead anymore..

For now both 1 and 2 are unpopular...

This is based on my opinion of viewing events over the last few years rather than any statistics... so i could be wrong...

[Vladimir]

I think he did a lot for the Euro cause in Britian, I think some Brits generally see the UK as having 2 choices. 1) follow America 2) follow/lead/work with Europe.

I think 1) was the dominant philosphy for Britians until Bush's time, not that 2) is now dominant just 1) doesn't seem to have its lead anymore..

For now both 1 and 2 are unpopular...

This is based on my opinion of viewing events over the last few years rather than any statistics... so i could be wrong...

No, you are not wrong. This is the backroom. Everyone else is wrong. :2thumbsup:

[gaelic cowboy]

On the subject of the perceived purity of the EUropean political blocks:
Proinsias De Rossa MEP (Ireland)

Born Francis Ross, Proinsias De Rossa is PES MEP for the Dublin constituency and former member of the IRA. De Rossa was interned by the Irish government in the late 1950s for his involvement in the IRA’s border campaign – a campaign which caused the deaths of six British policemen.



While this is correct in the facts of his early career it is incorrret to state this is still De Rossa's pollitical motivation today.

He was interned as a member of the repulican movement at the time.

After the split between Official Sinn Fein and Provisonal Sinn Fein he took the Official side.

Official Sinn Fein then became the Workers Party which would have been a republican socialist movement calling for soviet still policies etc

A member of the Workers Party he eventually left to found a party called Democratic Left. This was due to tension between so called reformers and old style hardliners in the party.

Democratic Left later joined with the Labour Party.

De Rossa is essentially someone who had is own views evolve over the years to more centre left style politics from hard left socialism.

Far be it from me to defend him he is after all a member of the Labour Party which I dislike as a party but dont paint the poor man as some kind of terrorist when a simple wikipedia search could give a simple bio of the man.

Having said all this I feel that we need more Euro conservative groupings in order to create a more representative parliment just like our own societies at large.

[Furunculus]

The group are united in nothing but their own small self interest. Doomed as a doomed thing.



how nice, you guys reached the magic 400 post mark without me, congrats.

their shared platform is:


1. Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity.
2. Freedom of the individual, more personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability.
3. Sustainable, clean energy supply with an emphasis on energy security.
4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.
5. The sovereign integrity of the nation state, opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity.
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures.
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."

seems pretty good to me................

:)

[Furunculus]

While this is correct in the facts of his early career it is incorrret to state this is still De Rossa's pollitical motivation today.

He was interned as a member of the repulican movement at the time.

After the split between Official Sinn Fein and Provisonal Sinn Fein he took the Official side.

Official Sinn Fein then became the Workers Party which would have been a republican socialist movement calling for soviet still policies etc

A member of the Workers Party he eventually left to found a party called Democratic Left. This was due to tension between so called reformers and old style hardliners in the party.

Democratic Left later joined with the Labour Party.

De Rossa is essentially someone who had is own views evolve over the years to more centre left style politics from hard left socialism.

Far be it from me to defend him he is after all a member of the Labour Party which I dislike as a party but dont paint the poor man as some kind of terrorist when a simple wikipedia search could give a simple bio of the man.

Having said all this I feel that we need more Euro conservative groupings in order to create a more representative parliment just like our own societies at large.

fair enough, cheers.

sounds a similar case to people getting excited about latvian MP's.

[Furunculus]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It started collapsing as soon as it was formed. Fnland was a great start but now the Polish lot is going in favour of policies that are completey at odds with the stated aims of the group. It really says a lot when the chosen leader of the group is pushing in the opposite direction to the group.
Thats the problem with the lunatic fringe , they tend to come away at the seams very easily.

............................. and still not collapsed yet. gee, imagine that. :egypt:

[Furunculus]

Typical Imperialist, off to a less developed country to pluder thier natural resources and make use of the locals ~;)

I don't hugely disagree with anything either of you (frunc and louis) there is a lot of common ground across Europe but then there are differences across the place to, you can somewhat feel the differences place to place even just in the people but then I don't think the differences are that much bigger across europe than they are across individual countrys...

Glad we could come to some kind of middle ground!

Ohh and I do like football, the reference was to my support of Man Utd whereas Louis supports some unimportant French team ~;)

quite the opposite, i was un unpaid menial labourer of which i will give proof in the frontroom later on. :beam:

on a related note, having spent two days in southern poland and witnessing the divided society resulting from 500+ years of continental border carve-ups i have the following observations:

1. The EU is a very good thing, as so many border peoples of continental nations like poland are defined by their opposition to their neighbours, a divisive stand than is not conducive to harmony.

2. People realise this and thus the enthusiasm for the EU, i can even sympathise with the view of some that more EU (read: federation) = better chance for peace and harmony. This is not a popular view in poland, and i disagree with it anyway, but i can at least sympathise with it having seen the stark cultural divisions in the country surrounding and including Opolle.

3. This is still irrelevant to the UK. not the EU bit, for what the EU has been is fine, merely the federal future, as there simply doesn't exist the same tension.

[Louis VI the Fat]

1. The EU is a very good thing, as so many border peoples of continental nations [..] are defined by their opposition to their neighbours, a divisive stand than is not conducive to harmony.

2.

3. This is still irrelevant to the UK. Ah, so you've seen 'continental border peoples' firsthand. Did you spot any other game while there? The Big Five perhaps? Was there good bird-spotting?


Or, to put it differently, maybe I should discuss Britain, not the EU. Because I think you have some fantastical, non-existing Britain in your head. On which illusion you base your allergy to the EU. An illusory Britain. A monolitic, militaristic, colonising, massive world power at the heart of a globe-spanning Anglo-Empire.

May I be so bold as to stay with the safari theme and wonder if maybe during your youth in Malawi you developed these ideas? Read too much Cecil Rhodes perhaps? Stuck in a place where it is '1900' forever, with dreams of colony, Empire, queen Victoria?


The Empire is gone, mate. Your Britain does not exist. It is also commonly accepted among many Britons nowadays that the Europeans are closely related to the British. And may, in fact, be a member of the same species.

For example, the British Isles are full of border peoples. Just like in the rest of Europe. As a matter of fact, the UK is still emerging from a rather brutal civil war that lasted roughly until last decade. There is devolution everywhere. Frustration towards the SouthEast. Regional identities are on the rise.
There is Protestant vs Catholic, Celtic vs Anglo, Scotland vs England, the Irish question. These have been some of the 'divise stands not conducive to harmony' that have plagued your Isles for, oh let's say, the last one thousand years.
So 'irrelevant to the UK?' No, it is as relevant to Britain as it is elsewhere in Europe. Britain is not an island, it is full of divisions, and differs not from the rest of our continent in this regard.

[Tribesman]

May I be so bold as to stay with the safari theme and wonder if maybe during your youth in Malawi you developed these ideas? Read too much Cecil Rhodes perhaps? Stuck in a place where it is '1900' forever, with dreams of colony, Empire, queen Victoria?

Don't be so silly Louis, it would have to be pre 1900 because at that time a bunch of uppity Dutch farmers were making the mighty empire look pretty pathetic.

[Furunculus]

Don't be so silly Louis, it would have to be pre 1900 because at that time a bunch of uppity Dutch farmers were making the mighty empire look pretty pathetic.

^ valueless trolling non-contribution ^

[Tribesman]

^ valueless trolling non-contribution ^
Attacking your views is not valueless or trolling , your views of the mythical Britain exist only in your head .

[Furunculus]

1. The EU is a very good thing, as so many border peoples of continental nations like poland are defined by their opposition to their neighbours, a divisive stand than is not conducive to harmony.

2. People realise this and thus the enthusiasm for the EU, i can even sympathise with the view of some that more EU (read: federation) = better chance for peace and harmony. This is not a popular view in poland, and i disagree with it anyway, but i can at least sympathise with it having seen the stark cultural divisions in the country surrounding and including Opolle.

3. This is still irrelevant to the UK. not the EU bit, for what the EU has been is fine, merely the federal future, as there simply doesn't exist the same tension.
1. Ah, so you've seen 'continental border peoples' firsthand. Did you spot any other game while there? The Big Five perhaps? Was there good bird-spotting?

2. Or, to put it differently, maybe I should discuss Britain, not the EU. Because I think you have some fantastical, non-existing Britain in your head. On which illusion you base your allergy to the EU. An illusory Britain. A monolitic, militaristic, colonising, massive world power at the heart of a globe-spanning Anglo-Empire.

3. May I be so bold as to stay with the safari theme and wonder if maybe during your youth in Malawi you developed these ideas? Read too much Cecil Rhodes perhaps? Stuck in a place where it is '1900' forever, with dreams of colony, Empire, queen Victoria?

4. The Empire is gone, mate. Your Britain does not exist. It is also commonly accepted among many Britons nowadays that the Europeans are closely related to the British. And may, in fact, be a member of the same species.

5. For example, the British Isles are full of border peoples. Just like in the rest of Europe. As a matter of fact, the UK is still emerging from a rather brutal civil war that lasted roughly until last decade. There is devolution everywhere. Frustration towards the SouthEast. Regional identities are on the rise.
There is Protestant vs Catholic, Celtic vs Anglo, Scotland vs England, the Irish question. These have been some of the 'divise stands not conducive to harmony' that have plagued your Isles for, oh let's say, the last one thousand years.
So 'irrelevant to the UK?' No, it is as relevant to Britain as it is elsewhere in Europe. Britain is not an island, it is full of divisions, and differs not from the rest of our continent in this regard.

1. The big five?

2. Louis, i gave a very reasoned response to your previous post before i left on holiday, quite where you have this idea of me i do not know.

3. No my time in africa led me to appreciate that living under tyranny is a bad thing, and that if you want to really help africa then give africans the skills to manage the own affairs and access to our markets rather than heaping gift-aid toys upon them whilst keeping them locked in their own little economic cage.

4. I know this Louis, and i don't regret it. I also appreciate that you too are a human being, just like the rest of johnny foreigner, after all i am going out with one, however, as discussed with you in my previous response i believe that for britain the nation state remains the most advantageous pinnacle of governance.

5. There is devolution everywhere, hey i hadn't noticed, and you are obviously oblivious to the fact that i am a fan of de-centralisation. How does a federal EU improve this situation for the UK? The relevance to the border 'peoples' of continental europe is that hopefully the festering sores of the 20th century resulting from bloody conquest being repeatedly thrust upon them will hopefully not be revisited in the 21st century, something that has been refreshingly absent from the UK for some hundreds of years.

[Louis VI the Fat]

1. The big five? Oooh! Now you dissapoint me, you silly colonial, Cecil Rhodes is turning in his grave! The 'Big Five': Lion, Leopard, Rhinoceros, Buffalo, Elephant. (I think it was...)

I picked up on that back when I dated one of you colonials deep in the heart of Africa. So funny, a bit of retro-Britain in the heart of the dark continent. Tea at four, cricket in the afternoon, and a stiff upper lip maintained throughout, no matter what hardship was thrown at them by the harsh climate, the natives, or pesky me.


After re-reading my previous post, I think that my wording left a lot to be desired. Ligh-hearted irony was the intention, not harsh sarcasm. Sorry.

In Eastern Europe, division along etnic/religious/linguistic/historical lines is more pronounced than in the western part. This, I think, you got a taste of in Poland. Within in the west, I really do not think there is all that much difference between sectarianism in the British Isles or in Belgium, Spain or elsewhere. Whether the EU is a solution to many ancient plagues of Europe is a matter of debate. I myself, of course, think it is.
What is more seldomly argued however, is that sectarianism is 'irrelevant' to the British Isles or Britain itself. It can be witnessed from the Old Firm down to the twentienth century history of the Emerald Isle.

[Furunculus]

Oooh! Now you dissapoint me, you silly colonial, Cecil Rhodes is turning in his grave! The 'Big Five': Lion, Leopard, Rhinoceros, Buffalo, Elephant. (I think it was...)

I picked up on that back when I dated one of you colonials deep in the heart of Africa. So funny, a bit of retro-Britain in the heart of the dark continent. Tea at four, cricket in the afternoon, and a stiff upper lip maintained throughout, no matter what hardship was thrown at them by the harsh climate, the natives, or pesky me.

After re-reading my previous post, I think that my wording left a lot to be desired. Light-hearted irony was the intention, not harsh sarcasm. Sorry.

In Eastern Europe, division along etnic/religious/linguistic/historical lines is more pronounced than in the western part. This, I think, you got a taste of in Poland. Within in the west, I really do not think there is all that much difference between sectarianism in the British Isles or in Belgium, Spain or elsewhere. Whether the EU is a solution to many ancient plagues of Europe is a matter of debate. I myself, of course, think it is.
What is more seldomly argued however, is that sectarianism is 'irrelevant' to the British Isles or Britain itself. It can be witnessed from the Old Firm down to the twentienth century history of the Emerald Isle.

Ah, my hunting experience is exclusively British & Polish, my bad.

The bit of Malawi where i lived was specifically designed to replicate a 1920's public school, which was more than a little odd to the hippy generation of teachers that worked there in the 80's. However, it was far from being a piece of little-england-in-spain expat mentality, rather it was a place of intense learning that turned kids who'd never seen a toilet into the future generation of of educated and professional administrators. When we arrived the school was taught by a faculty that 95% white english, today it is 95% black Malawian. That is REAL development success created by my father of which he is rightly proud. A bit OT i know, but since you brought it up my african past i thought i should enlighten you.

NP.

I accept the point about NI, but it is the exception rather than the rule.
More importantly, much of the discord i have witnessed in places like Poland results from war between nations, which is precisely why bonding transnational institutions like the EU are such a good idea, and why a federal EU may have more appeal, however this has historically not been a problem for Britain, so there is less of an impetus for ever-deeper-union.

[Tribesman]

What it is to be British....

"Firebombing is not a British method. A brick through the window is a British method, but firebombing is not a way of showing displeasure," ....
wierd eh , but that crowd are big on defence of the soveriegn realm and values of a shared culture created by 1000 years of history.

[Furunculus]

que?

[Tribesman]

que?
Oh sorry , its just quoting some British politician in the news today.
A politician who is from a party who has strange views of Britian which are not too different from your own ...it does demonstrate that you are not alone in your mythical approach to what Britain is ...rather similar views to Europe too.

[Furunculus]

don't beat about the bush tribesman, who, where, when, and preferably a link so i can have a look for myself before i respond to your cryptic comments.............

[Tribesman]

Pat Richardson from the land of the east saxons

[Furunculus]

explain yourself tribesman:

how am i similar to a BNP candidate?
exactly what views do we explicitly share on what britain is and how it came to be?
are you insinuating that i am racist?

[Beskar]

I think he was saying you shared the same mythical views about Britain that the BNP try to generate.

Britain pretty much has two choices. Stick with Europe or become a State of America. Being honest, I prefer the first option.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Britain pretty much has two choices. Stick with Europe or become a State of America. Being honest, I prefer the first option.

Sorry, but it doesn't. People aren't even considering the possibility of trying to fix their own problems and become powerful for themselves again. You don't need a lot of land to be powerful, even if it helps. But you can stay powerful and free. You do not have to join America or Europe.

That being said, if push came to shove, I'd take America. If Europe ever unifies into a single country, that is where I'm going.

[Beskar]

You don't need land, you need resources, Britain's industry is effectively a service economy, it has no real economy, it is selling cheap products like mobile phones which are programmed to stop working after a period of time.

The alternative for Britain is to become like a Switzerland-style country and completely withdraw from many foreign affairs.

If Britain wants to remain as a real major power, it would be best occur in a union bloc with either America or Europe and union blocs work best when working together for the most part, thus Britain losing its sovereignty would be the price to pay for greater rewards. However, in either an American bloc or a European, it would still have a voice in the policies and politics, together with others.

[Furunculus]

I think he was saying you shared the same mythical views about Britain that the BNP try to generate.

Britain pretty much has two choices. Stick with Europe or become a State of America. Being honest, I prefer the first option.

nothing has been generated, it exists, and it exists for every nation not just this 'mythical' britain.

why does Britain only have two choices, at what point did this become a necessity for Britain to have to join one or the other?

[Furunculus]

Sorry, but it doesn't. People aren't even considering the possibility of trying to fix their own problems and become powerful for themselves again. You don't need a lot of land to be powerful, even if it helps. But you can stay powerful and free. You do not have to join America or Europe.

That being said, if push came to shove, I'd take America. If Europe ever unifies into a single country, that is where I'm going.

what he said.

[Furunculus]

You don't need land, you need resources, Britain's industry is effectively a service economy, it has no real economy, it is selling cheap products like mobile phones which are programmed to stop working after a period of time.

The alternative for Britain is to become like a Switzerland-style country and completely withdraw from many foreign affairs.

If Britain wants to remain as a real major power, it would be best occur in a union bloc with either America or Europe and union blocs work best when working together for the most part, thus Britain losing its sovereignty would be the price to pay for greater rewards. However, in either an American bloc or a European, it would still have a voice in the policies and politics, together with others.

he didn't say you need land, and what is wrong with a service economy?

why is the Britains only alternative to become fortress Switzerland? this is the whole lets-huddle-together-out-of-fear-of-the-big-bad-world argument again, i simply don't have that fear.

ah, there is a real argument; how much do you gain versus how much do you lose.......... having seen how ineffective europe is i have come to the conclusion they we are better off out of any federal union........... which in no way indicates that i do not want an EFTA style agreement.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The bit of Malawi where i lived was specifically designed to replicate a 1920's public school, which was more than a little odd to the hippy generation of teachers that worked there in the 80's. However, it was far from being a piece of little-england-in-spain expat mentality, rather it was a place of intense learning that turned kids who'd never seen a toilet into the future generation of of educated and professional administrators. When we arrived the school was taught by a faculty that 95% white english, today it is 95% black Malawian. That is REAL development success created by my father of which he is rightly proud. A bit OT i know, but since you brought it up my african past i thought i should enlighten you.The British presence in Africa has had many benefits. A blessing as often as a curse.


Here's hoping the British Conservatives will be as succesful in educating and civilizing the Polish and Latvian natives! (And please not the other way round...)

[Beskar]

and what is wrong with a service economy?

The fact you will feel the worse economic troubles if you only rely on it and during emergencies, you get sunk.

[gaelic cowboy]

The British presence in Africa has had many benefits. A blessing as often as a curse.


Here's hoping the British Conservatives will be as succesful in educating and civilizing the Polish and Latvian natives! (And please not the other way round...)

I am so glad you came here to civilise me NOT


Hm.. this is hard to reply, because it is a vast majority of things, yet, there is basically nothing good with a service economy, thus is it easier to ask "What is right with a service economy".

Whats wrong with a service economy absolutely nothing my boy whats wrong with a manufacturing economy same answer this theory that certain economies are somehow better or holier or differant is silly.

Far as I can tell goods or time are sold and someone else pays to avail of it its not a service economy its just the economy.

Your statement the their is nothing good with a service economy smacks of the fad in thinking that has sprung up now when Britain and the US is down the ladder a bit.

You cant export you way to wealth you can try but all that happens is your economy becomes dependant on someone else's economy you effectively become a parasite.

Parasite's cannot live without a host for long if you wish to grow your economy then you must spend money on goods and services which are 7 times out of ten going to be goods in your own economy.

While export economis like Germany are well able to contine good growth they do not try to really grow because no one spends and no one can easily set up a small business. This situation is perfectly fine if your people are fine with a certain standard of living but the excess money goes somewhere it doesnt stay in the bundesbank thats the nature of the system.

.

[gaelic cowboy]

The fact you will feel the worse economic troubles if you only rely on it and during emergencies, you get sunk.


The same could be said of depending on service led economies to buy your goods there recessions put manufacturers out of business

[Beskar]

Service economies are parasite economies. They cannot survive without the resources from other nations. All they do is import stuff from aboard, sell it to the consumer and their jobs are selling that produce. There is no manufacture, those you can bring money in from selling to others, there is no agriculture, so again, you cannot sell to others. It is a self-imploding economy, recycling money in the system.

Germany for example, has its own economy made up of manufacture, agriculture and service, thus, they are in a far superior situation.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Germany for example, has its own economy made up of manufacture, agriculture and service, thus, they are in a far superior situation.

So Germany can stand alone and doesn't need the European Union. Excellent, and goodbye. :2thumbsup:

[Beskar]

Nationalism sucks.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nationalism sucks.

Then supranationalism would, by definition, suck even more.

[Furunculus]

Service economies are parasite economies. They cannot survive without the resources from other nations. All they do is import stuff from aboard, sell it to the consumer and their jobs are selling that produce. There is no manufacture, those you can bring money in from selling to others, there is no agriculture, so again, you cannot sell to others. It is a self-imploding economy, recycling money in the system.

Germany for example, has its own economy made up of manufacture, agriculture and service, thus, they are in a far superior situation.

we could not operate a manufacturing economy that would sustain our current standard of living, one works to ones competitive advantage, not the other way around.

germany also got hammered when its exports suddenly weren't wanted any more, try reading der spiegel sometime, they have been howling about it for 9 months now.

[gaelic cowboy]

When I was in secondary school we learned a simple idea on the economy in our social geography class it was all about how the economy was divided into three sections these are

1 Primary Industry- Mining, Farming, Fishing, Forestry effectively anything to do with natural resources like coal or beef etc

2 Secondary Industry- Manufacturing of these natural resources in to products like chairs or petrol or clothes.

3 Tertiary Industry- Tourism, Service's like cleaning Shops that sell the goods from the primary and secondary area.

No economy not even the mighty US of A cannot specialise in only one of these areas a balance is required.

A modern balanced economy contains elements of all three however that does not mean the economy is one third primary one third secondary and one third tertiary.

At the primary stage the resources are unrefined so relatively cheap at the secondary they are refined into useful products so value is added and then they are used during the tertiary stage.
For example beef from a farm processed at the factory and eaten at the roadside cafe in a steak and chips feed.

This adding of value means that the more stage's you add the more value you gain which of course means that the third stage in any country is a bigger chunck of a nations economy.

People seem to be forgetting that all exports from a country are really to pay for a countries imports.
In the long having no imports will be just as bad as only exporting.

[gaelic cowboy]

Germany for example, has its own economy made up of manufacture, agriculture and service, thus, they are in a far superior situation.

It has all three elements yes but its service section is woefully underdeveloped.

This has a knock on into the real economy of the world and germany.

To make money someone else must buy the products.

German Banks have billions sitting around that need a use enter the Anglo-Saxon economies who invested it in various stuff.

This relationship while everything is growing is great for all concerned but has spectaculary busted now.

However now that no one is borrowing german money I would hazard a guess that german banks while not exposed to property have seen profits dive massively.

The reality is the world is now our economy not our tiny flyspeck self contained sections of it interdependence has benefits and drawbacks but its here and we have to like it or lump.

[Beskar]

Then supranationalism would, by definition, suck even more.

Actually, what "sucks" in the example is how people refuse change based on things which logically aren't sensible. As the world gets smaller, aspects need to get bigger for stability. However, if they get too big, it falls apart. (cue: empires)

Obviously, as it gets bigger, it needs to be on the right principles and concepts and system.

There will be a time when a global union arrives, however, that is not yet. Only time this will be forced to occur if we were suddenly attacked by an off-world threat.

You are correct that "supranationalism" by definition would also suck, if people are just hung up on something infeasible.

[Beskar]

When I was in secondary school we learned a simple idea on the economy in our social geography class it was all about how the economy was divided into three sections these are

1 Primary Industry- Mining, Farming, Fishing, Forestry effectively anything to do with natural resources like coal or beef etc

2 Secondary Industry- Manufacturing of these natural resources in to products like chairs or petrol or clothes.

3 Tertiary Industry- Tourism, Service's like cleaning Shops that sell the goods from the primary and secondary area.

No economy not even the mighty US of A cannot specialise in only one of these areas a balance is required.

A modern balanced economy contains elements of all three however that does not mean the economy is one third primary one third secondary and one third tertiary.

At the primary stage the resources are unrefined so relatively cheap at the secondary they are refined into useful products so value is added and then they are used during the tertiary stage.
For example beef from a farm processed at the factory and eaten at the roadside cafe in a steak and chips feed.

This adding of value means that the more stage's you add the more value you gain which of course means that the third stage in any country is a bigger chunck of a nations economy.

People seem to be forgetting that all exports from a country are really to pay for a countries imports.
In the long having no imports will be just as bad as only exporting.

Indeed, however, when all your economy is just importing...

What I was advocating was a balanced economy.

[Furunculus]

we surprisingly have a similar amount of manufacturing (~17% iirc) to france as a component of the economy.

[Beskar]

I can't really think of any real manufacture out of BAE Systems, so it is surprising. (other than cars/biscuits/chocolate/usual stuff)

edit: Haha, I checked on wikipedia and it said that it was dominated by BAE and cars.

[Furunculus]

Is this where the whole show collapses?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100008876/euro-sceptic-meps-hold-our-inaugural-conference/



The European Conservatives and Reformists have altered the dynamic of the European Parliament. For the first time, there is a sizeable Group, made up largely of governing parties, that opposes deeper integration. All of a sudden, federalists find themselves dealing with an Opposition.

Last night, José Manuel Durão Barroso, the Commission President, came to ask for our support in his job reapplication, making a point of meeting the ECR before anyone else. British MEPs were able to cross-examine him at length and in detail, in a way we could never have done within the EPP (we pressed him, in particular, about this wretched proposal).

Today, we are in Prague with our Czech allies, the ODS. I spent a few moments away from the meeting to visit the Old Jewish Cemetery, which houses the remains of Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the Maharal of Prague. Rabbi Loew is credited with having built a golem: a clay mannikin that he magically brought to life. Golems, in many of the legends, begin as servants, but end up dominating or crushing their creators. I think the storytellers were trying to tell us something about how bureaucracies behave.

Our guest speaker was Mark Francois, the brilliant shadow Europe minister. Mark is the Sam Gamgee of politics: people sometimes underestimate him, but he has a quiet toughness that borders on heroism, as he displayed when setting up the ECR. He is now battling just as stoutly to ensure that we get a referendum on the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty. I know that a lot of people who comment on this blog are sceptical about the prospect of getting a vote on the treaty under the Tories. Then again, they tended to be the same people who were sceptical about the establishment of the ECR.

I am increasingly confident that Britain will get its referendum. I’m not in a position to explain why at this stage, but our hand is stronger than is generally supposed. I know this won’t do for some of my readers, but I’m afraid that, for now, you’ll just have to take my word for it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Barroso, the Commission President, came to ask for our support in his job reapplication, making a point of meeting the ECR before anyone else. British MEPs were able to cross-examine him at length and in detail, in a way we could never have done
It does not suffice to get all your EU information from a single activist.

It is not owing to the presence of a unification of the nationalists-populists-opportunists that the role of the European Parliament is enlarged. It is EU policy to have an increased role for the EP.

I thought you / Hannan / the nationalists were against more prerogatives for the EP? After all, this increased power to the EP is a precise goal of and reason for Lisbon. :smash:

[Tribesman]

It does not suffice to get all your EU information from a single activist.

I can't think why


I am increasingly confident that Britain will get its referendum. I’m not in a position to explain why at this stage, but our hand is stronger than is generally supposed.
So that would be a vote on a treaty that the country has already agreed to, passed through all its countries needed legislative processes and finally been given the Royal assent and deposited to the EU as a treaty ratified by Britain.
It must indeed be a very strange strong hand and it is not surprising that he is unable to explain:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Furunculus]

It does not suffice to get all your EU information from a single activist.

It is not owing to the presence of a unification of the nationalists-populists-opportunists that the role of the European Parliament is enlarged. It is EU policy to have an increased role for the EP.

I thought you / Hannan / the nationalists were against more prerogatives for the EP? After all, this increased power to the EP is a precise goal of and reason for Lisbon. :smash:

its just me that wants the EU crippled and stunted to nothing more than the commission, MEP's in the parliament may well take a different view, regardless of the EU they want.

[Furunculus]

I can't think why


So that would be a vote on a treaty that the country has already agreed to, passed through all its countries needed legislative processes and finally been given the Royal assent and deposited to the EU as a treaty ratified by Britain.
It must indeed be a very strange strong hand and it is not surprising that he is unable to explain:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

to my (limited) knowledge, the treaty has to be ratified by all before it comes into force, and regardless, the joy of sovereign nation states is that they can do what they like, and no sitting government has the ability to bind future governments to its decisions.

[Tribesman]

to my (limited) knowledge, the treaty has to be ratified by all before it comes into force
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

Hannan talks about a referendum to ratify the treaty by Britain , it is already ratified by Britain.


the joy of sovereign nation states is that they can do what they like, and no sitting government has the ability to bind future governments to its decisions.
Unless of course the treaties they have signed stipulate that the treaty is valid and has unlimited validity and will remain valid.
Since Hannan obviously can't be talking about a vote on Britains ratification of Lisbon as the ratification by Britain is complete(though maybe he is just really confused), then perhaps he is talking about a referendum on reversing the ascession treaty and Britain leaving the EU.
That should be fun as the ascession is by its own terms unlimited and for Britain to make a move to leave would require a completely new treaty which would have to be written and approved by all member states.....and they would also have to rewrite and re-approve all other ascession treaties and have all the governments approve....which would require a nice new EU constitution that all the countries would have to ratify.

So here comes the important question .
Is Hannan absolutely clueless or just incredibly stupid?
And what does the answer say about his supporters?

[Furunculus]

so you're telling me we're stuck in there forever, sounds a bit like an endless prison sentence, all the more reason to break out.

personally i think you're logic is faulty, and the solution does not need to be as dramatic as you think.

[Tribesman]

personally i think you're logic is faulty, and the solution does not need to be as dramatic as you think.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Think of it as a simple business contract, but a business contract that is sewn up very thoroughly.
It is very very hard to get out of a tight contract and you have to pay a hefty charge to all parties to attempt to invalidate it.
But there is an option, the only option really as there is no other method to invalidate the contract.
What you have to do is give all the constituant parts of the UK independence, then negotiate how each independent entity will remove itself from its obligations of inherited binding treaties.....but you will still need the agreement of all the EU countries.
That should be fun as the Welsh, six counties and Scots all benefit greatly from the EU and the cornish seperatists are really clamouring after EU money so you will have the little Englanders all by themselves trying to get a unanimous descision on something that most other groups don't want.

[Furunculus]

if the goal is worthwhile then it's worthwhile pursuing.

regardless of your conjecture on doomsday scenarios, i am still delighted to have the cons as part of a euro-bloc that subscribes to the following:


CONSCIOUS OF THE URGENT NEED TO REFORM THE EU ON THE BASIS OF EUROREALISM, OPENNESS, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY, IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR NATIONS AND CONCENTRATES ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY, GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS, THE EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVES AND REFORMISTS GROUP SHARES THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:

1. Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity.
2. Freedom of the individual, more personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability.
3. Sustainable, clean energy supply with an emphasis on energy security.
4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.
5. The sovereign integrity of the nation state, opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity.
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures.
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small.

[Tribesman]

Well that does it , you just know that when polticians start talking about the family being the bedrock they are going to be caught with a male prostitute in a drug fueled orgy

[Furunculus]

oooh, something juicy? has hannan been caught in flagrante delicto?

[Furunculus]

Well that does it , you just know that when polticians start talking about the family being the bedrock they are going to be caught with a male prostitute in a drug fueled orgy
oooh, something juicy? has hannan been caught in flagrante delicto?
oh, so nothing then.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

back on topic, a pretty good article on the ambitions and achievements of the EUropean project:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6180958/What-is-this-place-called-Europe.html


What is this place called Europe?
The nature of British sovereignty will be altered if the new structure and powers of the European Union are approved next month by an Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.


By Adrian Michaels
Published: 7:15AM BST 14 Sep 2009
European flags; What is this place called Europe?
What started in the 1950s as a six-country grouping bound by reformed trade rules is now a 27-member bureaucracy

Over the next two weeks, Telegraph writers and contributors will examine whether the EU works, what Britain gets out of it and what sort of a relationship we want with the peoples and cultures of Europe.

Adrian Michaels begins by assessing the EU’s health and worth as its 27 members combat recession and square up to the might of China and the US .

When it comes to thinking about the European Union, compare what a Briton could have done on a whim one September morning in 1949 with what might seize your fancy 60 years later.

However much you may dislike budget airlines, you can, for the cost of an inexpensive dinner, head out instantly to Tallinn, or Faro, or Krakow or any one of dozens of European cities. You don’t need to wait days or weeks while applying for a visa. If you have some euros left over and travel to the 16-country eurozone, you won’t have to organise currency exchanges. And if Aarhus, or Bucharest, or Dortmund takes your fancy, you can settle down and start working. Or buy a house. Or fall in love. You can move, with relatively little difficulty, from one country at peace to another, from the shores of the Atlantic to the upper reaches of the Baltic and out to the Black Sea. Technological and amorous advances aside, all this has been made possible by the grand European integration project, formed out of the smoking ruins of the most devastating war in our history. It probably exceeds the wildest dreams of its founders.

The EU, which we use today as shorthand for the union and its predecessor incarnations, has its critics. What started in the 1950s as a six-country grouping bound by reformed trade rules is now accused by many of being an interfering 27-member bureaucracy led by an elite that is out of touch with the wishes of millions of Europeans.

Unemployment is climbing steeply and growth has stumbled badly. There is a crisis in the market capitalism that has been championed by the EU for decades. Ageing populations are leading us towards disaster in our tax and social security systems, and there is growing resentment of an accumulation of powers in Brussels, of further enlargement and immigration.

People are asking what being "European" means, and what the EU should stand for in a global system increasingly influenced by the newly powerful, such as China and India.

For much of its history, those have been easy questions to answer. The EU stood for peace and prosperity. Dismantled trade restrictions and freedom of movement have vastly increased economic activity and wellbeing; and the countries of western Europe have not been at war with each other for decades, meaning the EU must be judged to have succeeded in its most important task.

In 1943, Jean Monnet, the French statesman with the greatest claim to be the EU’s founding father, declared, in the midst of war: "There will be no peace in Europe if the states rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection ... The countries of Europe are not strong enough individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples…[They] must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make them into a common economic unit."

And so it has come to pass, up to a point, though it has not meant peace throughout Europe. Conflict has raged in the Balkans and the countries of central and eastern Europe have not been calm until relatively recently. Georgia and Russia went to war, briefly, only last year.

But peace in the West is itself very rare. Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European studies at Oxford University, says it is "unique. Without precedent. So long as there’s been a Europe there’s been fighting."

Some argue that peace has been more a result of the existence of the Nato military alliance, which came into being in 1949. But the point is impossible to prove, as neither Nato nor the EU has existed without the other. Supporters of the EU point out that Brussels has given us – in Mr Garton Ash’s words - "a massive conflict resolution mechanism". In spite of the terrible failure to prevent conflict just outside its borders, in places such as Kosovo, war is virtually unthinkable between EU member states; the principle is established that we sort out our divisions, often at tedious length, around a table.

This is potentially a great selling point for the EU as the world grapples with the big multilateral issues of our day such as climate change and nuclear proliferation. Mario Monti, a former European commissioner, now president of Milan’s Bocconi University, says the EU’s founders might be disappointed at the lack of political union that has so far been forged between members.

"On the other hand," he says, "the recipe put in place by the founding fathers has proven prophetic as the world moves to globalisation. The Monnet method of co-ordinated governance is really the name of the game in the world now."

José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, who hopes to be reappointed shortly by members of the European Parliament, writes in his recent manifesto: "The European Union has had almost 60 years as a laboratory for cross-border supranational co-operation, making it a natural champion of global governance."

He says that we feel every day the EU’s experience and quiet diplomacy. His office has, for example, been writing, unheralded, large parts of the communiqués and agreements associated with G20 summits.

But inventing a system isn’t the same as running it. England gave football and cricket to the rest of the world, but it still gets beaten regularly at both. And there are plenty of countries such as China and Russia who do not in any case subscribe to a continuous global pow-wow.

"In a world of giants, we need the scale that only the EU brings," says Mr Garton Ash. But, he adds: "I see little evidence that the rest of the world is moving towards a series of versions of the European Union. There is limited co-operation…and great big nation states who regard postmodern shared sovereignty as anachronistic."

The Brussels co-operative can look wasteful, argumentative and slow. And when China and the US hold bilateral summits, they underline that the EU seems to be losing importance, an odd position for 27 countries that together bind 500 million people in the world’s largest economy.

Membership of the euro has probably saved some countries such as Ireland from bankruptcy, but Europe’s countries have nonetheless been hammered in the global downturn. Unemployment in Spain is heading for 20 per cent. The Latvian economy has been shrinking at an annualised rate of 19 per cent. Meanwhile, it seems for now that many other countries such as the US will emerge from economic crisis faster, and more robustly, than the EU 27.

Bruegel, the respected Brussels-based think-tank, suggested recently: "There is now a distinct possibility that this crisis will be remembered as the occasion when Europe irretrievably lost ground, both economically and politically.

"Economically, there is a risk that…the crisis will result in a spiral of near-stagnation, rising public debt and declining innovation performance. Politically, the European Union is at risk of being blamed for having fostered a liberalisation agenda in the past rather than being praised for having promoted a co-ordinated response to the crisis when it struck."

Millions of Europeans clearly have little interest or faith in what is happening in Brussels. Turnout for the European parliamentary elections this year was a woeful record low of 43 per cent. That represents a failure as much for Eurosceptics, who have failed to raise a significant dissenting vote, as for Europhiles.

Matters may have been different in the years after the Second World War, but many in Europe have lost the appetite for bold, integrating initiatives. Instead, they are aghast at a Brussels elite they think is spending taxes without accountability and taking the EU in a centralised, federal direction that they have not approved. That is a feeling that in Britain really started to take root with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, the single currency and the Commission presidency of Jacques Delors, he of the thoroughly rude headlines in The Sun.

Yet the EU’s budget is small, just 1 per cent of the combined gross wealth of the countries in the union. And there have been sensible reforms in recent years of such deserved targets as the Common Agricultural Policy. The EU says its court of auditors gave the 2007 books a "completely clean bill of health" for the first time.

Multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund or World Trade Organisation are in any case not built with the mass approval of millions of people. Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, says: "I don’t think European integration has ever been driven by the will of the people…. Sceptics are right to say it is driven by elites, but the EU is not built in contradiction to the wishes of the people." And, he adds: "The EU is not as unpopular in other countries as it is in Britain."

While Britons often see Brussels as a hyper-regulated impediment to free markets, others in Europe view it as the opposite – a dismantler of trade barriers and a thorn in the side of protectionist governments.

The economic crisis saw the authority of Brussels seriously weakened as governments took unilateral action to save their countries’ banks, car companies and jobs. Now, with deficits at record levels, the stability pacts that have kept budgetary discipline relatively tight in the eurozone are in disarray. Brussels will also have to move stridently to reimpose its right to set competition policy in a new era of vastly increased state intervention and ownership.

This is the biggest challenge for some. Mr Monti says: "The crisis has delegitimised the market economy [because some elements of capitalism have lost credibility in many countries]. There must be a new deal on how to integrate social policies without violating single market rules."

In spite of these potentially fatal injuries, countries outside the EU are still anxious to join, presumably because they see the prosperity it has conferred on members in better times. Over the next few years we could see an EU that includes Turkey, Iceland, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine, and a eurozone that will steadily increase in size.

The EU long ago realised that its structures and rules on decision-making would have to change to reflect its great size. It is now near to implementing the Lisbon Treaty – the latest of many revamps since the Treaties of Rome in 1957.

Its defenders say that Lisbon could lead to a big improvement in the way the EU is represented on global issues, and its provisions may enhance the legitimacy and accountability of the EU’s institutions. But critics see it as taking the EU further down a centralised road at precisely the moment when a furious and real debate is raging about whether we are better together or apart.

In the UK, the Labour government has been attacked for supporting Lisbon. Its critics – some forever fearful that Brussels is a conspiracy run counter to Albion’s interests by an alliance of French and German federalists – say it is giving the country a written constitution by the backdoor.

Lisbon will probably go through if the Irish reverse an earlier rejection of it in a referendum next month. That, too, gives sceptics cause to tear out their hair. The Irish have already voted no. How can it be that they just keep voting until Brussels has the answer it wants?

For its supporters, Lisbon goes some way towards addressing the complaints of sceptics. It grants more legislative power to the EU’s parliament, which may help its distant members to connect with voters.

Crucially, the treaty puts in place someone who may be considered a European president as well as a powerful European foreign minister, and a diplomatic service. It ends the crazy carousel of the six-month rotating presidency. When the EU sits down to talk with India or China or the US, it will no longer have to start building relationships from scratch every six months because the French have given way to the Czechs, who have given way to the Swedes.

The Conservative Party, which seems likely to win the next general election, houses a considerable group of sceptics who have pledged to fight Lisbon given the chance. This is of immense importance to the EU’s future, but as the party moves towards its conference – only three days after the Irish vote – it is still giving confused signals about whether it, too, will order a referendum on Europe.

Communication is also arguably Brussels’ biggest failing. If the union is to survive and prosper this century, it needs to find an inspiring message in the manner of Winston Churchill’s speech in Zurich in 1946: "The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause."

Belief in that common cause is wavering in important places. For the Conservative Party, the Irish in their referendum and everyone else, the question is how the interests of Europe’s small nations will be best served in Mr Garton Ash’s "world of giants".

"In terms of European history," he says, "this is the best Europe we’ve ever had. It’s an extraordinary achievement. The challenge is to defend our own interests in a world increasingly dominated by non-western powers."


the thing that gets me, is how TGH extrapolates from the success of 50 years of trade and harmonisation that the answer to europes problems in the 21st century is federalisation.

"In terms of European history," he says, "this is the best Europe we’ve ever had. It’s an extraordinary achievement. The challenge is to defend our own interests in a world increasingly dominated by non-western powers."

he would argue that it is necessary to defend our interests, and while smaller nations within the EU may indeed feel that way, it just doesn't appear to be a problem or a relevant prescription for the UK.

[Tribesman]

Membership of the euro has probably saved some countries such as Ireland from bankruptcy, but Europe’s countries have nonetheless been hammered in the global downturn. Unemployment in Spain is heading for 20 per cent. The Latvian economy has been shrinking at an annualised rate of 19 per cent. Meanwhile, it seems for now that many other countries such as the US will emerge from economic crisis faster, and more robustly, than the EU 27.

Thats funny, since since many EU countries never went into recession and several of those countries that did go into recession have already emerged how can they be emerging slower than the US

[Furunculus]

the text you quote would appear to be a projection, whereas you refer to the past.

[Tribesman]

the text you quote would appear to be a projection, whereas you refer to the past.
So the article is rubbish as it was out of date before it was published.
Though to make it even funnier most of the countries the lunatic fringe you support held up as great examples of soveriegn nations leading the way to economic growth are those countries that have actually been screwed up the most in the global downturn.

[Furunculus]

So the article is rubbish as it was out of date before it was published.

Though to make it even funnier most of the countries the lunatic fringe you support held up as great examples of soveriegn nations leading the way to economic growth are those countries that have actually been screwed up the most in the global downturn.

No, judging from the way it was written it would appear to be a forecast.

Given that the UK/US/Iceland/Ireland had a large reliance on banking, and banking got a hammering in the recession, this is evidence of what with regards to the EU?
If we were part of a federal EU the UK would magically be protected from banking crises?
Or would we no longer need banking because we were part of a federal EU?
What are you saying?

[Husar]

No, judging from the way it was written it would appear to be a forecast.

I think the point Tribes is making is that you cannot say a country will take longer to recover when it already has recovered...thus the forecast would be rubbish...

[Tribesman]

No, judging from the way it was written it would appear to be a forecast.

In which case its an even worse piece of writing.


I think the point Tribes is making is that you cannot say a country will take longer to recover when it already has recovered...thus the forecast would be rubbish...

Plus of course many EU countries didn't even go into reccession so its starting on a false premise then forcasting stuff that is already known to not be true.
Its crap.

[Furunculus]

I think the point Tribes is making is that you cannot say a country will take longer to recover when it already has recovered...thus the forecast would be rubbish...

none of the countries that have been in recession have recovered yet, how quickly they recover and how sustained this recovery is wll be a measure of its "robustness" if i read the author correctly.

e.g. there has been a bottoming out, and a minor upturn in growth, will this trend strenghten and accelerate or will there be a W shaped recession where initial confidence is nothing more than the temporary effect of lay-offs and inventory clear out.

[Furunculus]

Plus of course many EU countries didn't even go into reccession so its starting on a false premise then forcasting stuff that is already known to not be true.
Its crap.

i believe he refers to the EU27 as a bloc.

[gaelic cowboy]

England will never pull out of the EU this forum is based on several games where Englands entire strategy for most of its existence is the preventation of a single european block dominating central europe.

While this may seem to be a little alarmist it is still a factor in geoplolitics

[Jolt]

Over the next few years we could see an EU that includes Turkey, Iceland, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine, and a eurozone that will steadily increase in size.


:laugh4:

Of course, over the next few decades, we could see an EU that includes Russia, China, Japan, Australia, Korea and India.

:laugh4:

This article made my day.

[gaelic cowboy]

Its obvious the EU has moved far enough east the ancient Catholic/Orthodox border is its limit which means that everyone who should be in it is, the exceptions are Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

There are one or two countries in the EU who should not be in it like Greece Bulgaria etc. However because of there strategic importance there obviously in.

Turkey wont make it because Europe's borders both culturally geographically and pollitically end the other side of the Bosphorus.

[Sarmatian]

I don't understand why some of you guys say article is crap. Until it got to recession bit, it identified correctly some of the problems that need to be addressed.


Its obvious the EU has moved far enough east the ancient Catholic/Orthodox border is its limit which means that everyone who should be in it is, the exceptions are Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

There are one or two countries in the EU who should not be in it like Greece Bulgaria etc. However because of there strategic importance there obviously in.

Turkey wont make it because Europe's borders both culturally geographically and pollitically end the other side of the Bosphorus.

Why is "the ancient Catholic/Orthodox border" its limit? Did you give this some thought or it was the first thing that came to mind?

[gaelic cowboy]

Why is "the ancient Catholic/Orthodox border" its limit? Did you give this some thought or it was the first thing that came to mind?

Actually lots of stuff has been wrote on it by people I will google around later if you require it.

But this man wrote a lot on it

The Clash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations)

Mainly I say it beacause its a physical fact europes border ends at the polish border

Europes border (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_of_europe.shtml#religions)

The old Orthodox Catholic border which is now better termed Eastern Orthodoxy/Western Christian shows a map where the blue purple is the europe area versus the orthodox pink red area which is the east area but not Asia.

One more reason is most the people the other side of that line dont want to be in europe or the EU there are exceptions Greece is the big one but that does not disprove it.

The fact is that border have to have a start somewhere and the border between those two areas has been a constant feature for a good thousand years now.

Most likely many more countries in the orthodox orbit will be absorbed into the western remit over the coming years. This will continue to annoy the Current holder of top dog on that side of the fence which is Russia eventually the border will probably be the Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic countries thats as long as Russia does not manage to reorient the political elite in Kiev this may or may not be happening now we will just have to wait and see.

I am not saying that war is inevitable or that we cant understand each other I just believe that one side looks at the same thing but see a differant hue or shading.

Also more expansion anytime soon is most likely completely unworkable the ordianary man in the street and the elites are more and more singing from the same sheet we will likely see only a small bit of expansion. If no one wants it on this side it wont happen fact

[Furunculus]

:laugh4:

Of course, over the next few decades, we could see an EU that includes Russia, China, Japan, Australia, Korea and India.

:laugh4:

This article made my day.

i said that............? :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

none of the countries that have been in recession have recovered yet,
The claim was that countries in the EU would not emerge as fast as the US, leaving aside that some countries in the EU didn't go into recession at all, the fact remains that some of those countries that did have already emerged so they can't be slower than the US as it still hasn't emerged.


i believe he refers to the EU27 as a bloc.
Which is why he is talking rubbish, he is taking a few individual members and using them as a measure while ignoring other members entirely as well as the whole block.
Take whichever measure you want . The euro bloc or the 27 both have had different rates of fall and different rates of recovery(or for fun you could even do the large country small country measures) . But whichever way you look at it both the euro crowd and the 27 are posting better rates of growth than the US, though not as good as Japan , but if you want to compare a single country like Japan rather than a federal state then perhaps France and Germany are better measures.

[Furunculus]

England will never pull out of the EU this forum is based on several games where Englands entire strategy for most of its existence is the preventation of a single european block dominating central europe.

While this may seem to be a little alarmist it is still a factor in geoplolitics

you may well be right in your prognosis, but your diagnosis is absolutely correct, even today.

[Furunculus]

Its obvious the EU has moved far enough east the ancient Catholic/Orthodox border is its limit which means that everyone who should be in it is, the exceptions are Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

There are one or two countries in the EU who should not be in it like Greece Bulgaria etc. However because of there strategic importance there obviously in.

Turkey wont make it because Europe's borders both culturally geographically and pollitically end the other side of the Bosphorus.

i wasn't aware that the EU was an ethnic happy party............!?!?

and if strategic importance is the ultimate arbiter then Turkey absolutely should be in.

[Furunculus]

I don't understand why some of you guys say article is crap. Until it got to recession bit, it identified correctly some of the problems that need to be addressed.

Why is "the ancient Catholic/Orthodox border" its limit? Did you give this some thought or it was the first thing that came to mind?

because it keeps tribesman's blood pressure down when he can vent regularly.

quite agreed.

[Furunculus]

The claim was that countries in the EU would not emerge as fast as the US, leaving aside that some countries in the EU didn't go into recession at all, the fact remains that some of those countries that did have already emerged so they can't be slower than the US as it still hasn't emerged.

Which is why he is talking rubbish, he is taking a few individual members and using them as a measure while ignoring other members entirely as well as the whole block.
Take whichever measure you want . The euro bloc or the 27 both have had different rates of fall and different rates of recovery(or for fun you could even do the large country small country measures) . But whichever way you look at it both the euro crowd and the 27 are posting better rates of growth than the US, though not as good as Japan , but if you want to compare a single country like Japan rather than a federal state then perhaps France and Germany are better measures.

but will it continue.

hey, i don't disagree that his forecast is by definition contentious, i just didn't choose to write off the rest of the article.

[Jolt]

i said that............? :inquisitive:

No, the article did. Thus why I did put "this article made my day". :beam:

[Sarmatian]

Actually lots of stuff has been wrote on it by people I will google around later if you require it.

But this man wrote a lot on it

The Clash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations)

Mainly I say it beacause its a physical fact europes border ends at the polish border

:inquisitive: ???

Obviously we learned different geography...



The old Orthodox Catholic border which is now better termed Eastern Orthodoxy/Western Christian shows a map where the blue purple is the europe area versus the orthodox pink red area which is the east area but not Asia.

So, it's something in between, not Europe and not Asia... Forever stuck in limbo... Zwischenlaender... Herr Bismarck, there's a call for you in your office.



One more reason is most the people the other side of that line dont want to be in europe or the EU there are exceptions Greece is the big one but that does not disprove it.

Actually, judging by polls and surveys, a vast majority people on the other side of the border do want to be in EU. I don't know where you get your info



The fact is that border have to have a start somewhere and the border between those two areas has been a constant feature for a good thousand years now.

In a modern Europe where all states are secular, where there's supposed to be freedom of religion, where there's a growing number of agnostics and atheists, where religion is having smaller and smaller effect on everyday life, not to mention political decision making, you want to draw a border based on religion??? Actually, not even based on religion, but on different subgroups of the same religion...

[Furunculus]

No, the article did. Thus why I did put "this article made my day". :beam:

you quoted me as saying that, but point understood.

[Jolt]

:inquisitive: ???

Obviously we learned different geography...



So, it's something in between, not Europe and not Asia... Forever stuck in limbo... Zwischenlaender... Herr Bismarck, there's a call for you in your office.



Actually, judging by polls and surveys, a vast majority people on the other side of the border do want to be in EU. I don't know where you get your info



In a modern Europe where all states are secular, where there's supposed to be freedom of religion, where there's a growing number of agnostics and atheists, where religion is having smaller and smaller effect on everyday life, not to mention political decision making, you want to draw a border based on religion??? Actually, not even based on religion, but on different subgroups of the same religion...

You see, in the end, the entire world is actually Europe. Only that there is Catholic Europe, which is the first 1st Europe, then Orthodox Europe which is the second Europe. Orthodox europe extends all the way to Vladivostok. Then there is Muslim Europe, which goes to Senegal and Sudan, but goes through the water from Pakistan to Bangladesh and from there to Malasya, ending in the Phillipinnes. That one is the third Europe. Then we have the Hindu Europe. Then the Confucian Europe, then the Shinto Europe. Then the African Europe. Then the Germanic Europe, which is North America and the Latin Europe, which is Central and Southern America. Then we have the final Europe which is the Pacific Europe, which englobes all Pacific island in one final Europe. These countries will be the last to be integrated in gaelic's European Union. You see, deep down it all makes sense. You just can't admit it.

[Furunculus]

you forget Protestant Europe, or is that because we whinge so much about europe you arbitrarily removed us from the equation?

[Jolt]

Protestants are just Catholics who don't admit to being Catholics. We reserve the right to include you in Catholic Europe as is. :*

[Sarmatian]

^
*points finger at Furunculus and goes... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2JRz8kzmZY)*

[Furunculus]

lol, i'm not religious either way, but i'm glad the UK broke away from that papist influence, for exactly the same reason i am against a federalising EU; it interferes with representative sovereign democracy. ;)

[Furunculus]

Another article from the telegraphs Britain in Europe series:


There's no alternative to the EU – Britain has to make the best of it
Tony Blair had a theory that the British people like to knock the EU around the ring, but expect their governments to behave more soberly.

Sir Stephen Wall
Published: 7:45AM BST 15 Sep 2009

Some of our fellow Europeans, who still carry the scars of bruising encounters with the British, might beg to differ. But Tony Blair put his finger on an abiding aspect of Britain’s relationship with her EU partners and with the EU’s institutions: faced with loss of great-power status, had there been an alternative to joining the European Community, Britain would almost certainly have taken it.

One after another, British governments have had to come to terms with the implications of the harsh truth that there is no viable alternative. In particular, we have always been ill at ease with the powers of the institutions of the organisation, especially the European Commission and the European Court.

The EU is abidingly unpopular in Britain and, generally, governments find it easier to “sell” Europe at home by proclaiming victory in negotiation rather than admitting to the inevitability of compromises. Margaret Thatcher saw power-hungry institutions in Brussels as a threat, and she had a point. But, while the relative power of the key players in the EU changes, each British government in turn has to come to terms with the fact that the basic institutional structure is not going to change and that it is, indeed essential to the success of the enterprise. International organisations that depend on consensus of all the members find it hard to take decisions. The EU has a complex but effective structure to prevent paralysis and to balance out power between large and small countries. Even Margaret Thatcher accepted that a single, competitive, liberal European market could only be achieved by more majority voting and the powers that that implied for the European institutions.

Our difficulties have been about both institutions and policies. For years, the dominant policy of the EU was the Common Agricultural Policy (the CAP) made by de Gaulle to suit French national interests. The price that Britain had to pay for being allowed by France to join the EEC was acceptance of the CAP and its funding – an arrangement that placed an excessive financial burden on Britain and led to a renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s membership, which occupied the first 10 years of our membership. The British budget rebate won by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 survives, and remains a source of friction, to this day just as, to this day, Britain embodies a liberal, non-protectionist view of Europe which is shared by some, but by no means all, of our partners.

How to achieve the right balance between the advantages that come from common policies, and the constraint on national freedom that comes from those same policies, is an issue for every British government. Each in turn has had to find a way of reconciling our concerns about national sovereignty, our abiding desire for a special relationship with the United States and our perception of our national interest with the inescapable reality that we have to be engaged and active members of the EU if we want to make policy and not simply be at the receiving end of policies made by others. Gordon Brown is but the latest example of a British political leader who has discovered the need, in the national interest, to make a success of our EU membership.

There has thus been greater continuity in the European policy of successive British governments than the political parties would care to admit. When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, what the new government said about Europe was much more positive than the rhetoric of its predecessor. But the policy stance it took in concluding the Amsterdam Treaty negotiation in its first weeks in office was little different, except on social policy.

A Conservative government after the next election is pledged to try to return social and employment legislation to national control. For that to be achieved by treaty change would require the agreement of 26 other states. And no concession would be made to Britain without us giving something in return. Would we, as other EU members might well demand, give up our budget rebate in exchange? The rebate is worth £3 billion a year.

For decisions still requiring unanimity the key to success, as Margaret Thatcher showed over the budget rebate, is to have leverage. Nine out of ten member states regarded the British demand for a rebate as totally unacceptable. But the same nine out of ten also wanted desperately to raise the ceiling on the amount of money the EEC could spend. And they could not do that without Britain’s consent. Did Margaret Thatcher hold the EEC to ransom? Yes. Did it work? Yes.

But she also knew that you cannot fight on too many fronts and that you have to know when to settle. In any case, the reality of EU negotiating life is that, for the vast majority of day-to-day legislation, decided by majority vote among the member states, and with the power to decide shared with the European Parliament, alliance-building and deal making are essential. That does not mean that Britain is a soft touch. We have a reputation for being, if not ruthless, then certainly relentless. Any British leader also has to calculate that Britain needs energy and climate security, cooperative European peacekeeping in areas where peace and stability matter to us, advantageous trade deals with countries such as the US who are ruthless negotiators, as well as the commercial advantages that continue to come from the harmonious management of the European single market.

And to achieve those things requires a judicious balance between amicable cooperation, and robust negotiation, with our European partners. Every prime minister has to make his or her own judgment of where that balance is to be struck. Each one, so far, has found it necessary to test the limits, but none has tested them to destruction. That, I think, is what Tony Blair meant.

Sir Stephen Wall

Sir Stephen Wall was Europe adviser to Tony Blair and is a former head of the European Secretariat in the Cabinet Office


ah yes, that question of leverage, no wonder Brussels is moving to get Irelands vote out of the way before an incoming tory government can create havoc.

so likely, the battle will be more difficult, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting to remove social financial and employment legislation from EU control.

[Tribesman]

ah yes, that question of leverage, no wonder Brussels is moving to get Irelands vote out of the way before an incoming tory government can create havoc.

The irony there is that the torys create havoc within the tory party whenever it comes to anything to do with europe. It was the pro-EU tories that helped screw Thatcher and the anti-EU ones that helped screw major. Even now the tory leadership are flat out contradicting each other on Europe.

[Furunculus]

The irony there is that the torys create havoc within the tory party whenever it comes to anything to do with europe. It was the pro-EU tories that helped screw Thatcher and the anti-EU ones that helped screw major. Even now the tory leadership are flat out contradicting each other on Europe.

sure its a troublesome question, but at least the party has the intellectual independence to debate the matter, rather than the hollow group think demonstrated by the lib-dems and labour.

[Furunculus]

Tribesman was right; turns out its hard work achieving something worthwhile:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100010153/its-hard-work-outside-the-epp-but-worth-it/


It's hard work outside the EPP, but worth it

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: September 16th, 2009

“Be careful what you wish for, Hannan!” bellowed my German friend. “You wanted your new Group, and look at you now! Ha!”

My friend - a Euro-zealot even by the standards of Christian Democrat MEPs - had found me at my desk at 10.30 last night, struggling with EU patenting regulations. He is not a man much given to laughter, but the situation evidently delighted him, and his body quivered with pleasure. “So! Now you are having to work, I see! Ha ha!”

It’s true. When the Tories were in the EPP, we had remarkably little to do. The federalists tended to treat us as mad relatives, to be hidden away in the attic when visitors came. The EPP staff mistrusted and resented us. Key decisions were made in our absence.

Now, all of a sudden, we are running things. Our staff are working for us rather than against us. We are dictating policy instead of constantly demanding exemptions. We are negotiating independently in every committee instead of having to plead with a federalist EPP spokesman to take account of our position.

As my German chum says, it means an awful lot of extra work. I find myself spending hours on the details of copyright rules and intellectual property: frightfully important stuff, although there is no way of making it interesting enough to blog about. At the same time, I am fighting a long and gruelling campaign of attrition against this dreadful idea. Almost every Conservative MEP has more to do than before.

But you know what? It’s worth it. For the first time, the European Parliament has something in the character of an Official Opposition. The other Groups have to deal with us directly, rather than through the EPP. The federalist cartel has been broken. Indeed, some of the members of the larger groups are beginning to cast wistful glances in our direction. I’ll offer a pound to a euro that we finish this parliamentary term with more members than we started it.

And shall I tell you the funniest thing? We’re getting on better than ever with the EPP. They have tapped the stone from their shoe - which is a relief from the stone’s point of view as well as the foot’s. I know that Labour-supporting media are doing their best to discredit the ECR. But they’re doing it for a reason: they understand the extent to which our new Group threatens the superstate project. That objective is worth any number of late nights.


here's a counter bet to those who believe that the ECR will collapse in the next year, hannan reckons the parliament will conclude with the ECR having new members.

out of the two i would place my money on hannan rather than the doomsayers here. ;)

[gaelic cowboy]

:inquisitive: ???

Obviously we learned different geography...

Ever heard of Social Geography




So, it's something in between, not Europe and not Asia... Forever stuck in limbo... Zwischenlaender... Herr Bismarck, there's a call for you in your office.

Who said they were in Limbo there is a vast area of commonality between the people of Russia and parts of the Balkans etc you make it sound like I want to put sanctions on them.




Actually, judging by polls and surveys, a vast majority people on the other side of the border do want to be in EU. I don't know where you get your info

Which country



In a modern Europe where all states are secular, where there's supposed to be freedom of religion, where there's a growing number of agnostics and atheists, where religion is having smaller and smaller effect on everyday life, not to mention political decision making, you want to draw a border based on religion??? Actually, not even based on religion, but on different subgroups of the same religion...


No I dont want to do it but it is already there my good man we can talk all day about been colour blind or open to other religons but the limit of the EU is where it is now.

Do you maybe think an agnostic from Ireland is the same as one from further east do they think the same I doubt it.

Division and subdivision is a reality of everyday life not something imposed we do it ourselves I only say we acknowledge this and then conduct our affairs in a business like and couteous manner.

From now on the EU's only expansion point will be the Balkans because of the wars that happened there. As a result most of these countries will be absorbed to prevent future conflict which might draw in the EU.

My real point in all this is Turkey in my view does not qualify and further east brings problems with Russia which are best avoided

[gaelic cowboy]

To get back to the topic in hand I am surprised that more Tory people are not banging the drum trying to get Ireland to reject the Lisbon Treaty if we vote yes then Britian does not have a say in lots of things it must be pooled together.

I would have thought this would have enraged the Tories greatly how dare and Irishman decide our fate in October:beam:

[Furunculus]

given that this tory is fond of the sovereign nation state he doesn't feel he has a leg to stand on by making foolish statements condemning the people of another nation for deciding what is an internal matter.

he is also objective enough to realise that Britain's dependency on Ireland to dodge the bullet is Britain's own fault.

I would cheer Ireland on if they voted against once more, for the obvious benefit it would bring Britain.
I would encourage Ireland to vote against it.
But I certainly won't blame them or hold it against them if they vote Yes.

[gaelic cowboy]

There trying to scare everyone now of course with lies on the YES side and the NO is telling lies too its a big laugh if it wasnt so serious.

I think it may fail again the people are really angry at the goverment here and its not a good time for any goverment to be asking people to vote on summit.

I am voting Yes in case your interested like I did last time not because I believe in a federal europe but because we in this country are like a passenger on a train we can get off at the next station by voting No but we cannot get out of the station cos the door is locked.

[Tribesman]

I am voting no because the treaty is bollox just like it was last time.


we in this country are like a passenger on a train we can get off at the next station by voting No but we cannot get out of the station cos the door is locked.
We can if they cut a new key , but they can't be arsed to redo the crap they drew up.

[Furunculus]

i love just a little bit more Tribesman. :clown:

[Sarmatian]

Ever heard of Social Geography

So which is, physical fact or social geography?

Anyway, what's so socially different between Poles and Ukrainians that Poles are European socially and Ukrainians aren't?




Who said they were in Limbo there is a vast area of commonality between the people of Russia and parts of the Balkans etc you make it sound like I want to put sanctions on them.


As is between people of the Balkans and people of the rest of Europe, what's your point?



Which country

Take your pick - Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey... And usually we're not just talking about a majority, but a vast majority, like 60-90%...


No I dont want to do it but it is already there my good man we can talk all day about been colour blind or open to other religons but the limit of the EU is where it is now.

If you say so...


Do you maybe think an agnostic from Ireland is the same as one from further east do they think the same I doubt it.

Yeah, you're right, agnostics from Ireland are radically different from everyone else. :dizzy2:



Division and subdivision is a reality of everyday life not something imposed we do it ourselves I only say we acknowledge this and then conduct our affairs in a business like and couteous manner.

From now on the EU's only expansion point will be the Balkans because of the wars that happened there. As a result most of these countries will be absorbed to prevent future conflict which might draw in the EU.

My real point in all this is Turkey in my view does not qualify and further east brings problems with Russia which are best avoided

I don't think that Russia has a problem with EU expansion but with NATO expansion. I've never heard Russia putting pressure on anyone not to join EU...

[gaelic cowboy]

I only said what I feel that expansion has reached a limit anymore will be to the Southeast one has only to read European papers to see the problems more and more expansion bring.

I have just tried to present an idea that maybe if we didn't try to pretend we can expand forever without thought then things might be better off in the long run.

Croatia Serbia and the other parts of the Balkans were already mentioned in my posts as being taken in but not because of commonality of belief in liberal democracy but because of past events and big strategic concerns both military and economic.

I also never said people in say Serbia had nothing in common with me just more in common with each other and with say someone from Bulgaria. As an Irish man from a farming background I have more in common with a Bostonian who works in a brokerage firm than someone from a farming background from say France.

However much we would like too we should never ignore difference between people that can be just as deadly as trying to suppress difference.

On the Russia point they most certainly do have a problem with EU expansion they are fully aware that time is on the side of the EU that oil and gas will only last so long and naturally it must be continually bought in order for them to be able to influence European politics.

Greater integration of political economic and military circles in europe will eventually mean by say 2050 an old rich europe will live beside a Russia who to use a phrase from home has eaten all the sweeties and now has none left.

Discord and disunity are the strategic concerns of Russia in Europe as I already stated about England in a much earlier post. Ensuring a disunited Europe helps ensure Russia is safe behind a cordon of satellites like Belarus etc they are now feverishly trying to reorient both the Ukraine and Georgia to there sphere they may pull it off and if they do things will likely cool off. That is not much comfort to the countries involved but hey as someone from a small country I am used to being a plaything for the great powers we may not like it but it is a fact my country pretends to be neutral when were anything but neutral.

[gaelic cowboy]

I am voting no because the treaty is bollox just like it was last time.


We can if they cut a new key , but they can't be arsed to redo the crap they drew up.

It most certainly is bollix and as usual is presented as so important its almost a sacrament of faith.

If there were clearly laid out procedures for leaving things like the Euro or even the EU if there was a list we could look at of the REAL consequences of a NO then I might change my mind but there is no such list.

That makes me wary were only a small country we cant afford to be mavericks when the decision has been made by the big boys at the table yesterday.

I have no intention of voting no and allowing them to create some two speed Europe. For two speed read France and Germany trying to run the show if we let them they will try it. Open borders and all that are what Ireland is about etc etc I am not about to close them.

Therefore I will hold my nose and vote yes as DeValera said it is but a formula of words.

[Sarmatian]

...snip...




All of that was heard before. 150 years ago Europe ended on Landstrasse (Vienna), 30 years ago it ended with Berlin, 20 years ago it ended on the German-Polish border and now it ends on eastern Polish border. And every time it "moved", there were people who talked about cultural differences and social barriers.

If I showed you a day in the life of a Pole and a day in the life of a Russian, you wouldn't know which is which (unless one of them is Krook), because there are no cultural differences. There are minor differences sure, like there's between a Norwegian and a Portuguese or an Italian and Irish.

What you are doing is mistaking political issues and disagreements for cultural and social differences.

[gaelic cowboy]

All of that was heard before. 150 years ago Europe ended on Landstrasse (Vienna), 30 years ago it ended with Berlin, 20 years ago it ended on the German-Polish border and now it ends on eastern Polish border. And every time it "moved", there were people who talked about cultural differences and social barriers.

If I showed you a day in the life of a Pole and a day in the life of a Russian, you wouldn't know which is which (unless one of them is Krook), because there are no cultural differences. There are minor differences sure, like there's between a Norwegian and a Portuguese or an Italian and Irish.

What you are doing is mistaking political issues and disagreements for cultural and social differences.

I have no doubt it was heard before do you think it maybe needed time before everyone was ready for it what if union comes too early for some places what then what do you do.

Politics is informed and formed by cultural and social difference because the politicians we pick come from whatever culture nurtured them and us.

If instead you follow my path it happens more organically and easily maybe one day the EU will stretch from Iceland to the Berring straits encompassing every country but I seriously doubt it

By the way aren't you seriously ignoring the reality of why they said it ended at Germany back then wasn't there a little thing called the Soviet Union around then 30 years ago.

[Tribesman]

If there were clearly laid out procedures for leaving things like the Euro or even the EU if there was a list we could look at of the REAL consequences of a NO then I might change my mind but there is no such list.

Because the only consequence is that things stay the same until they draw up a new bill it does suggest that you have been buying some of that crap the scum in the dail have been selling.


I have no intention of voting no and allowing them to create some two speed Europe.
You really have swallowed the crap they are spreading. Creating a two speed europe would need another new treaty which would have to be ratified by all the countries and guess what ....it would need another Irish referenda:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Therefore I will hold my nose and vote yes as DeValera said it is but a formula of words.
Dev always was a prick wasn't he.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because the only consequence is that things stay the same until they draw up a new bill it does suggest that you have been buying some of that crap the scum in the dail have been selling.


You really have swallowed the crap they are spreading. Creating a two speed europe would need another new treaty which would have to be ratified by all the countries and guess what ....it would need another Irish referenda:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Yeah prob but I aint putting my neck on the line to find out its a bit like those fellas in Flanders "Over the top chaps were right behind you"



Dev always was a prick wasn't he.

Well Dev prob hanged as many IRA men as the Brits did during WW2.

I nearly choked on me tea there watching Ferris and Simon Coveney on RTE news arguing about the minimun wage and if it would be reduced if we ratify Lisbon.

As far as I can see you read an Irish paper there all afraid on numerous things like tax, wages etc etc and you read say various wire services from a european perspective and they say the opposite.

One side those who are against it says the treaty is too liberal in its economic side and the other says it too socialist they cant be both right course they could be both wrong.

[Tribesman]

Well Dev prob hanged as many IRA men as the Brits did during WW2.

Errrrr...it was 2 wasn't it, executed for murder.

[gaelic cowboy]

Errrrr...it was 2 wasn't it, executed for murder.

Maybe I am thinking of arrests or summit

[Furunculus]

Discord and disunity are the strategic concerns of Russia in Europe as I already stated about England in a much earlier post. Ensuring a disunited Europe helps ensure Russia is safe behind a cordon of satellites like Belarus etc they are now feverishly trying to reorient both the Ukraine and Georgia to there sphere they may pull it off and if they do things will likely cool off. That is not much comfort to the countries involved but hey as someone from a small country I am used to being a plaything for the great powers we may not like it but it is a fact my country pretends to be neutral when were anything but neutral.

what's with this fedaralise out-of-fear business anyway.

russia is dead as a strategic threat.

[Furunculus]

It most certainly is bollix and as usual is presented as so important its almost a sacrament of faith.

If there were clearly laid out procedures for leaving things like the Euro or even the EU if there was a list we could look at of the REAL consequences of a NO then I might change my mind but there is no such list.

That makes me wary were only a small country we cant afford to be mavericks when the decision has been made by the big boys at the table yesterday.

I have no intention of voting no and allowing them to create some two speed Europe. For two speed read France and Germany trying to run the show if we let them they will try it. Open borders and all that are what Ireland is about etc etc I am not about to close them.

Therefore I will hold my nose and vote yes as DeValera said it is but a formula of words.

why not fight for the europe you want, rather than the europe you fear.

if ireland ditched the treaty again then you would have britain and most of new europe backing you up against any reprisals.

lets face it, most of the cash ireland was going to get instructural funds is spent already, eastern europe and the balkans is the focus now.

[gaelic cowboy]

what's with this fedaralise out-of-fear business anyway.

russia is dead as a strategic threat.

I didnt say we should federalise I said they fear we might