World Politics - Europe [Archive]

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 12:16

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8112581.stm

The UK's Conservative MEPs have formed a new "anti-federalist" European Parliament bloc.

The new European Conservatives and Reformists Group includes 55 MEPs from across eight member states.

Leader David Cameron had vowed to take his MEPs out the centre-right European People's Party, saying its federalist views were against Tory policy.

Shadow Europe Minister Mark Francois said the move was an "important new development in European politics".

Biggest party

Mr Francois promised the new group would "make a strong case for a centre/centre-right but non-federalist future for the EU".

He said talks were continuing with other parties and he hoped more would join.

The 54 MEPs at the moment are:

* 26 British Conservative MEPs
* 15 Polish MEPs from the Law and Justice Party
* 9 Czech MEPs from the Civic Democratic Party
* 1 MEP from Belgium's Lijst Dedecker - Derk Jan Eppink, a Dutchman who is a former senior European Commission official
* 1 MEP from the Hungarian Democratic Forum - Lajos Bokros, a former finance minister
* 1 MEP from the Latvian National Independence Movement - Roberts Zile, a former finance and transport minister
* 1 MEP from the Dutch Christian Union - Peter van Dalen

They have all signed up to a declaration, originally negotiated in Prague (henceforth to be known as the Prague Declaration), setting out the aims and values of the new grouping, the text of which is as follows:

"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."

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 12:17

This is a very healthy development for the EU in my opinion, as it has long needed a mainstream opposition to EU federalism.

What do you think?

Louis VI the Fat

06-22-2009, 12:40

This is a very healthy development for the EU in my opinion, as it has long needed a mainstream opposition to EU federalism.

What do you think?I think the Polish members are those dreadful Kaczyński twins again.
I think the Belgian members are far-right
I think the Latvians are dangerously close to fascism
I think the Dutch are reactionary homophobes

The others seem to be run-of-the-mill rural, conservative, somewhat alarmist but mainstream parties.

Family, God and Fatherland seems to be what they all have in common. Best of luck to the British Conservatives. Remember: in the end, the only thing national parties have in common, is incompatible national narratives and interests. Pan-national national parties don't tend to last very long.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 12:50

On the subject of the perceived purity of the EUropean political blocks:

I think the Polish members are those dreadful Kaczyński twins again.
I think the Belgian members are far-right
I think the Latvians are dangerously close to fascism
I think the Dutch are reactionary homophobes

The others seem to be run-of-the-mill rural, conservative, somewhat alarmist but mainstream parties.

Family, God and Fatherland seems to be what they all have in common. Best of luck to the British Conservatives. Remember: in the end, the only thing national parties have in common, is incompatible national narratives and interests. Pan-national national parties don't tend to last very long.

Those EPP extremists and fascists in full:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/03/17/those_epp_extremists_and_fascists_in_full

José Manuel Barroso is cross because the Tories are leaving the Euro-fanatical European People's Party. Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard glosses the Commission President's remarks as follows:

"Why is Cameron linking up with fringe parties, some members of which have strange views on climate change, homosexuality and race?"

Hmm. Let's have a look at some of these "fringe parties", shall we? Here's the Deputy Speaker of the Polish Sejm rejoicing in a court's decision to deprive a lesbian mother of custody of her four-year-old daughter: "The court didn't bow to pressure from the aggressive homosexual lobby, which came to make a scene as usual".

Here's a blatantly homophobic poster from last the Italian general election ("Daddy and Papa? This isn't the family we want!")

Here's the first minister of Hesse calling for deportations: "We have too many criminal young foreigners... Germany has had a Christian and Western culture for centuries, and foreigners who don't stick to our rules don't belong here".

(Even more blatant, incidentally, was that party's slogan in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2000, when it campaigned against the proposed immigration of computer programmers from India with the slogan Kinder statt Inder: "Children rather than Indians".)

And let's not forget the Austrian party whose Secretary General recently called for the banning of burqas, adding: "If we allow consultations to be held in Turkish, we will one day become Turkish ourselves".

What do you reckon? Acceptable partners for the modern Cameronian Conservatives?

Well, here's the thing. All these parties are currently in the EPP. They are, respectively, the Polish Civic Platform, Forza Italia, the German CDU and the Austrian People's Party.

Now you might object that I am quoting them selectively. You might protest that every party has its share of cranks and bigots. You might argue that a quick Google would reveal similar dirt on pretty well any party in Europe. And you'd have a point.

But can you imagine what Labour and the BBC and the Guardian would be making of these remarks if they had come from parties whom the Tories want to join outside the EPP?

Actually, you don't have to imagine. Ten years, the same Paul Waugh, then working for The Independent, wrote several reports about how the Conservatives were about to link up with "Italian neo-fascists". The reports were unfounded: no one had the slightest intention of sitting with the Alleanza Nazionale (which is whom he meant): as if its fascist roots weren't enough to disqualify it, the party was also anti-American, corporatist and Euro-fanatical. Not that this stopped the Indy running pompous comment pieces about "Tory extremism", and filling its pages with pictures of Mussolini.

Well, guess what? The Alleanza Nazionale is now joining the EPP. I've been scouring the pages for the denunciations by all those who have spent the past decade raging against the rumours of a Conservative/Alleanza tie-up. At the very least, Paul himself, having made such a big deal out of it, ought to be congratulating David Cameron for walking out the EPP rather than allowing his MEPs to sit with "the heirs to Mussolini". Oddly, I can't find anything by him yet. I'm sure it's on its way.

There is a serious point here, and it has to do with double standards. Being pro-Brussels is somehow regarded as an inoculation against the possibility of extremism. You can't possibly be a bigot, reason Leftie commentators, if you want to give more powers to the EU. (Actually, plenty of fascists have been Euro-fanatics, from the 1930s to the present day.) Do try to be even-handed, guys. There are good and bad people who oppose the EU, and there are good and bad people who support it. Any party can be caricatured through selective quotation. But being against Euro-federalism doesn't ipso facto make anyone extreme.

Labour’s unsavory allies:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/05/labours-unsavory-allies-.html

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.

Democratic Society Party (Turkey)

Despite being outside the European Union, the Party of the European Socialists has awarded the Turkish Democratic Society Party associate membership of their party. According to the European Union Institute for Security Studies, it is an “obvious secret that [the Democratic Society Party] is connected to the PKK, the militant terrorist organisation headed up by Abdullah Öcalan. Following a KPP terrorist attack in October 2007, Labour’s very own David Miliband had the following to say: “The PKK is trying to destroy the Turkish government's efforts to improve the situation of people in the south east of the country, provoke conflict between Turkey and Iraq and damage regional stability... I call on the international community to be unequivocal in its condemnation of PKK terrorism and to support Turkey in restoring stability”.

Self-Defence of the Republic (Poland)

The Self-Defence of the Republic party claims to represent the interests of poor, agricultural workers against big business. It is more famous, however, for the erratic behaviour of its leader Andrzej Lepper, the recipient of two honorary degrees from the anti-Semitic Interregional Academy of Personnel Management which counts, amongst others, American white supremacist David Duke as an honorary professor. According to the BBC, his party anthem once featured the line "this land is your land, this land is my land [and] we won't let anyone punch us in the face" – somewhat unsurprising, given Lepper’s multiple convictions for assault. The Party of the European Socialists welcomed a Self-Defence MEP into their grouping in December 2004.

Giulietto Chiesa MEP (Italy)

A former communist party official and television journalist, Giulietto Chiesa has sat with the British Labour delegation in the Party of European Socialists since 2006. Over the past five years, his parliamentary activities have largely focussed around organising screenings in Parliamentary buildings of his 9/11 conspiracy theory film “Zero” which alleges that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile and that the Twin Towers were really detonated by explosives placed inside the building. Turning to other international events, Chiesa stated his opinion that “Russia did precisely what had to be done” during last year’s Georgia crisis.

Conservative MEPs will be in more respectable company outside the EPP:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/06/03/conservative_meps_will_be_in_more_respectable_company_outside_the_epp

What about smearing them by association?

Here is the resulting piece, which The Guardian inexplicably places on its front page. Apparently, a backbencher from PiS called Urszula Krupa co-signed a letter with a man called Jerzy Robert Nowak. Nowak, we learn, is a pundit on a Right-wing radio station. The report goes on: "The station is run by Tadeusz Rydzyk, a controversial clergyman who is viscerally anti-German, anti-Russian and anti-EU, peddling a daily diet of bigotry and paranoia which resonates powerfully with mainly elderly rural voters."

Got that? Person X, a backbencher, co-signed a letter with person Y, who is connected to person Z who has offensive views. Therefore person X's entire party must be unacceptable. Therefore the British Conservatives are little better than fascists themselves.

Grow up, for Heaven's sake! There isn't a political party in the world that can't be besmirched at fourth hand like this. If a Polish newspaper were to set out to blackguard any of the three British parties, they could come up with worse. Twenty minutes on Google would reveal all sorts of disagreeable remarks made by councillors or ex-candidates.

Why doesn't The Guardian apply the same test to the EPP parties - or, indeed, to Labour's allies in the Party of European Socialists? Because it lowers the bar for Euro-integrationists. Support for the Brussels system serves as a charmed amulet, warding off any possible accusation of extremism.

If you think I'm being unfair, consider this story. For ten years, Italy's Alleanza Nazionale has been described, not least by The Guardian, as "neo-fascist"; the very fact that the AN was outside as the EPP was presented as a reason to stay in. In fact, those of us who were campaigning to leave the EPP never entertained the slightest possibility of sitting with the AN. But this didn't prevent Euro-integrationists from fatuously citing the party whenever leaving the EPP was mooted: "Oh, so you'd rather join up with Mussolini, would you?"

Well, guess what? The "neo-fascists" have now been accepted by the EPP. Having spent years castigating the Conservatives for supposedly wanting to sit with that party, The Guardian is now attacking them for refusing to do so. Funny old world, eh?
do you know what Louis, i don't think your attempt to brand them as fringe lunatics holds much water, and your gut response is kind of predicable, as predicted here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/david_hughes/blog/2009/06/22/digging_for_dirt_on_david_camerons_new_euro_group

good luck with that glass house.......

Adrian II

06-22-2009, 12:54

Banquo's Ghost

06-22-2009, 13:02

It's what I predicted before the election. Just when they need the EU to counter a major economic crisis, the British are sending more Europhobes to Brussels in an attempt to sideline themselves. The new formation is going to be just another anti-tax party in disguise, and it is going to last just as long as all the others.

Mainstream my foot.

EDIT
'Racist flat earthers' made me laugh. Sorry Furunculus, the Daily Torygraph isn't very convincing.

Said perfectly without me having to lift a finger to write my own. Good show. :bow:

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 13:05

It's what I predicted before the election. Just when they need the EU to counter a major economic crisis, the British are sending more Europhobes to Brussels in an attempt to sideline themselves. The new formation is going to be just another anti-tax party in disguise, and it is going to last just as long as all the others.

Mainstream my foot.

EDIT
'Racist flat earthers' made me laugh. Sorry Furunculus, the Daily Torygraph isn't very convincing.

our wildly different opinions on the impact and relevance of this event only reinforces my conviction that EUro federalism cannot work without resorting to authoritarianism, necessary precisely because of the different cultural expectations on what national electorates expect from their society.

Fragony

06-22-2009, 13:07

The new formation is going to be just another anti-tax party in disguise

See that is how you counter a crisis, it looks just fine.

rasoforos

06-22-2009, 13:08

Louis VI the Fat

06-22-2009, 13:14

do you know what Louis,

your gut response is kind of predicableYes, it is somewehat predictable, isn't it? Hey, you and I will never agree on the EU. :wink:

Even so, I do hope that there will be some mainstream Eurosceptic party that takes care of your opinion. Euroscepticism is a perfectly reasonable and respectable opinion, and it is some sort of travesty that Eurosceptics have so much trouble finding a moderate voice.

Half of me hopes not, half of me does, that the British Conservatives attend to the Eurosceptic vote. I would prefer they didn't cave in, and retained their 'enlightened' view of British interest. However, things are the way they are. There is a large, consistently Europsceptic electorate in the UK. And it is simply not properly represented by mainstream British parties. (Because the EU is a money making machine for Britain's open, internationally orientated services economy and the Conservatives know it full well)

I should hope you will find yourself represented in the British and European parliaments.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 13:15

Two world wars should have taught us a valuable lesson about why we should unite...

...but we always end up with people like that.

If they do not like the EU that much they should not have tried to become MEP's for crying out loud. They add insult to injury by not having realistic agendas either...

i can't speak for you, but two world wars taught me to be wary of those with a burning desire to harness other cultures under a single unrepresentative political governance.

people like who, you have to remember that not everyone shares your enthusiasm for ever-deeper-union (read: gradual federal integration).

they join because we are already in the EU, and they hope (just like everyone else) to reform the monlith into something their national electorate can tolerate.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 13:20

Yes, it is somewehat predictable, isn't it? Hey, you and I will never agree on the EU. :wink:

Even so, I do hope that there will be some mainstream Eurosceptic party that takes care of your opinion. Euroscepticism is a perfectly reasonable and respectable opinion, and it is some sort of travesty that Eurosceptics have so much trouble finding a moderate voice.

Half of me hopes not, half of me does, that the British Conservatives attend to the Eurosceptic vote. I would prefer they didn't cave in, and retained their 'enlightened' view of British interest. However, things are the way they are. There is a large, consistently Europsceptic electorate in the UK. And it is simply not properly represented by mainstream British parties. (Because the EU is a money making machine for Britain's open, internationally orientated services economy and the Conservatives know it full well)

I should hope you will find yourself represented in the British and European parliaments.

no, probably not. :)

that is the nature of representative politics, so yes it is indeed marvelous that i find there to be a EU political grouping that is more representative of my views.

are you insinuating once again that were we to leave then the EU would revoke free-trade, as if it were some kind of enlightened gift to be bestowed by a benevolent EU, rather than the natural order of things?

cheers, me too.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 13:42

On the subject of the perceived purity of the EUropean dream, here is Timothy Garton-Ash misinforming the german public on britains attitudes to the EU:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,631359,00.html

SPIEGEL: Cameron is now trying to forge an alliance with Polish and Czech opponents of Europe in the European Parliament.

Garton Ash: Farce begets farce. Unfortunately, the man carelessly stated a position on the question of the European Parliament in 2005, when he was fighting for the leadership of the Conservatives. Aside from that, though, he learned an important lesson from Blair: Never commit to anything. But that's why he must now remain true to himself, and is thereby compromising the British Conservatives. Suddenly they're in bed with Latvian friends of the Waffen SS, Polish homophobes and Czech deniers of climate change.

Adrian II

06-22-2009, 14:04

our wildly different opinions on the impact and relevance of this event only reinforces my conviction that EUro federalism cannot work without resorting to authoritarianism, necessary precisely because of the different cultural expectations on what national electorates expect from their society.As non sequiturs go, this is a real beauty. Because you and I hold different opinions, Eurofederalism can only be authoritarian?

There is a 'Europe of states' embodied by the councils of ministers and heads of state and a 'Europe of the people' represented by the European parliament. The former is much stronger than the latter, it has regularly defeated and devoured the latter because the EP is pretty toothless. The Europe of states is the authoritarian Europe because it operates in secrecy and directs the European Commission which operates in secrecy as well. That's the Europe we're talking about. If we want to make it work properly it should be made accountable to the EP. That is the way forward. Withdrawal into one's little national shell is the way backward.

And the anti-tax platform in particular is stupid because for every euro a country invests in the EU it gets back six. At least 'we' do. If the British don't, they must be doing something wrong.

Consider this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/so-what-has-europe-ever-done-for-us-apart-from-441138.html), my good man. I particularly like number 50.

Meneldil

06-22-2009, 14:17

Yes, it is somewehat predictable, isn't it? Hey, you and I will never agree on the EU. :wink:

Even so, I do hope that there will be some mainstream Eurosceptic party that takes care of your opinion. Euroscepticism is a perfectly reasonable and respectable opinion, and it is some sort of travesty that Eurosceptics have so much trouble finding a moderate voice.

I should hope you will find yourself represented in the British and European parliaments.

Completely agreed. I find it kind of disturbing that most euroseptic parties/groups are always radicals. Neither the moderate left nor the moderate right achieved to give birth to a reasonable and respectable euroseptic movement.

I personnally think the EU has a damn lot of flaws (though I'm all for an european confederation or federation), but the debate about the EU is nothing but a white/black oversimplified manicheism. You either have to support the EU or be against it, and there's at the moment no middle-ground. Not a single shade of grey.

As for the party itself, I'm not surprised that Britishs and Poles form the largest part of it. I'm wondering why both countries begged so hard to enter the EU, but I'm also confident nobody could explain this.

Kralizec

06-22-2009, 14:19

Good for them, I suppose.

I wouldn't bet on this group making it to the next elections though.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 14:21

1. As non sequiturs go, this is a real beauty. Because you and I hold different opinions, Eurofederalism can only be authoritarian?

2. There is a 'Europe of states' embodied by the councils of ministers and heads of state and a 'Europe of the people' represented by the European parliament. The former is much stronger than the latter, it has regularly defeated and devoured the latter because the EP is pretty toothless. The Europe of states is the authoritarian Europe because it operates in secrecy and directs the European Commission which operates in secrecy as well. That's the Europe we're talking about. If we want to make it work properly it should be made accountable to the EP. That is the way forward. Withdrawal into one's little national shell is the way backward.

3. And the anti-tax platform in particular is stupid because for every euro a country invests in the EU it gets back six. At least 'we' do. If the British don't, they must be doing something wrong.

4. Consider this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/so-what-has-europe-ever-done-for-us-apart-from-441138.html), my good man. I particularly like number 50.

1. no, i'm telling you about my views which inform my opinion as to why the EU is best left as an informal free-trade bloc.

2. or the EU could just be a free-trade zone........... just an idea.

3. what do you mean by "anti-tax platform"?

4. legislation is best done at a level that retains its links to demos-cratos, which is the sovereign nation state.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 14:28

Completely agreed. I find it kind of disturbing that most euroseptic parties/groups are always radicals. Neither the moderate left nor the moderate right achieved to give birth to a reasonable and respectable euroseptic movement.

I personnally think the EU has a damn lot of flaws (though I'm all for an european confederation or federation), but the debate about the EU is nothing but a white/black oversimplified manicheism. You either have to support the EU or be against it, and there's at the moment no middle-ground. Not a single shade of grey.

As for the party itself, I'm not surprised that Britishs and Poles form the largest part of it. I'm wondering why both countries begged so hard to enter the EU, but I'm also confident nobody could explain this.

not radicals any more, the EPP in particular could not give birth to moderate (right-wing) EUro-skepticism because it is an explicitly pro-federal party.

this probably results from so many national electorates being left without a mainstream party that campaigns on a EUro-skeptic ticket.

i cannot speak for poland, but britain's choice results from its post-colonial/WW2/socialist hangover where the country perceived itself to be in a state of perpetual decline, and popularly dubbed as the "sick man of europe".

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 14:29

I wouldn't bet on this group making it to the next elections though.

you think so, why?

Louis VI the Fat

06-22-2009, 14:31

I cannot speak for poland, but britain's choice results from its post-colonial/WW2/socialist hangover where the country perceived itself to be in a state of perpetual decline, and popularly dubbed as the "sick man of europe".And it was, until, that is, the EU provided a new prospect for the UK. Which it grabbed with one hand while lashing out at it with the other.

A bit like Poland really.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 14:41

And it was, until, that is, the EU provided a new prospect for the UK. Which it grabbed with one hand while lashing out at it with the other.
we had free-trade with europe for over a decade before we joined the EEC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association

and we did not start to recover from economic malaise until the the early eighties, nearly a decade after we joined the EEC.

your position that the UK owes its prosperity to the EEC/EU is ridiculous, europe is atrade partner just like any other.

Kagemusha

06-22-2009, 14:43

Well the Finnish MEP is actually from the main governing party of Finland so he can hardly be counted as extremist. I dont understand the atmosphere when ever EU is talked about. As if it is somekind of sacred cow. It seems one should only hate it or love it and anykind of sensical talk about reforming it is out of the question when the opposing sides concentrate on labeling each other.:juggle2:

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 14:49

maybe now that there is a mainstream anti-federalist movement within the EU the debate on where the EU goes in future will be more reasonable too.

Kralizec

06-22-2009, 15:09

you think so, why?

I'm thinking that the similarities between the respective national parties are way to flimsy for them to coexist in a single group. The ChristianUnie from the Netherlands, aside from being homophobic, has generally leftist views on economy and immigration. The Polish Law and Justice Party could be described as reactionary, but I prefer the term "regressive" and "joke".
Of course the various national parties within the current EP groups differ from eachother, but there's enough overlap to warrant cooperation. That's not my impression with this new group.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 15:36

I'm thinking that the similarities between the respective national parties are way to flimsy for them to coexist in a single group. The ChristianUnie from the Netherlands, aside from being homophobic, has generally leftist views on economy and immigration. The Polish Law and Justice Party could be described as reactionary, but I prefer the term "regressive" and "joke".
Of course the various national parties within the current EP groups differ from eachother, but there's enough overlap to warrant cooperation. That's not my impression with this new group.

the examples above provide plenty of similar examples from within the other major block groupings........

and this group have agreed a set of binding principles which govern the party's platform, again linked above.

Fragony

06-22-2009, 15:40

I think Kraz is right it's cats fighting in a bag.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 16:07

i guess we'll have to wait and see.

Adrian II

06-22-2009, 16:09

[..] it is some sort of travesty that Eurosceptics have so much trouble finding a moderate voice.That's because it is a retrograde view. In fact the quip about 'racist flat-earthers' comes very close. What the racist part doesn't cover, the flat earth part does. One reason why such extremes are more likely to gain votes in nations like Britain and Poland is probably that those nations feel more aggrieved about past losses and present strategic insecurities. I am convinced that if the EU would support Poland more firmly every time it is being bullied by Russia this would go a long way toward appeasing Polish anti-EU sentiments. This would of course require a firmer and more united EU policy. Alas, as long as Germany and Italy appease Russia in the interest of their energy provision and France and Great Britain prefer to look the other way, we will never have such a policy.

Like I said, it's this 'Europe of the states' that never amounts to anything beyond the cumulative self-interest of its member states. A different make-up, centered on a Commission with parliamentary accountability, should bring much-needed change. I am sorry to disappoint our member from Finland who maintains that 'Europe' is like a sacred cow and you're either for or against it. I regard it as the only chance to preserve our values and way of life, but if we want it to be just that, it needs a lot of reforming.

Kralizec

06-22-2009, 16:34

The Tories aside, I think the main issue with "eurosceptic" politicians is that they always try to protray mainstream political parties as being essentially the same as soon as they're seated in the EP. Anyone with more than a cursory understanding of EU politics knows that this is not the case.

Even if they don't think that the EU should be abolished entirely, they advance ideas that would pretty much do just that in practice. For example, the Dutch Socialist Party thinks that Dutch judges should cast aside EU rules if they conflict with national legislation- they either have not thought this one through or are not honest enough to admit that they think there should be no EU regulation at all :wall:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-22-2009, 16:36

If the EU is to move foward the commission must be eliminated, the assumption that that corrupt body has a future in the EU is a Sacred Cow you seem to adhere to, Adrian.

The EU is already a federal state, but it has been done un-democratically because the EU is run by State, not people. That is the reason the British are upset, we have no control over the direction of this monstrosity.

When it comes to election time people vote on the party they think will best-run their country, the executive of that party then also controls the direction of the federal government. So long as State governments control the federation it will remain un-democratic and therefore abhorrent.

The entirity of the governing aparatus of the EU MUST be directly elected if the institution is to do anything other than self-destruct.

Fragony

06-22-2009, 16:41

ow nvm

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 16:47

for what i want of the EU a council of ministers is entirely suitable.

Fragony

06-22-2009, 17:04

Kagemusha

06-22-2009, 17:18

I am sorry to disappoint our member from Finland who maintains that 'Europe' is like a sacred cow and you're either for or against it. I regard it as the only chance to preserve our values and way of life, but if we want it to be just that, it needs a lot of reforming.

Well in that case, maybe our most elusive member from Netherlands should be more open about political alliances whom are actually trying to reform EU and not condemn them before they have not even proposed anything. Also stereotyping whole countries in the process does not help.

If we look at the last elections.Far right and populist parties gained more seats in the EU parliament. Maybe that should give a message that everything is not quite right in the glorious new States of Europe we are living in.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 17:25

hear hear. well put.

Adrian II

06-22-2009, 18:45

Well in that case, maybe our most elusive member from Netherlands should be more open about political alliances whom are actually trying to reform EU and not condemn them before they have not even proposed anything. Also stereotyping whole countries in the process does not help.

If we look at the last elections.Far right and populist parties gained more seats in the EU parliament. Maybe that should give a message that everything is not quite right in the glorious new States of Europe we are living in.Our member from Finland seems to have trouble reading. I already discussed the programme of the new formation, I offered a partial explanation for certain phenomena without stereotyping anyone, and I already stated that not all is glorious in the state of EU.

Mind you, the fact that far right parties gain seats could be a symptom of all sorts of things, including unresolved local issues that have nothing to do with Europe.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-22-2009, 19:27

Two world wars should have taught us a valuable lesson about why we should unite...

Kind of ironic, then, that the last one was started by someone who did want to "unite" Europe. :book:

But think of something else that the powerhouses of Europe have in common besides the European Union. I think you'll find that it is a much larger reason why we have peace.

Adrian II

06-22-2009, 19:47

Kind of ironic, then, that the last one was started by someone who did want to "unite" Europe. :book:Before we call it a Godwin, let me quote Timothy Garton Ash in an attempt to remain on topic:

How would you describe a British politician who prefers getting acquainted with the finer points of the history of the Waffen-SS in Latvia to maximising British influence with Barack Obama? An idiot? A madman? A nincompoop?

You only have to go back to the newspaper cuttings from 2005, when Cameron first announced his leadership clincher, to see the horrified response of Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in the European parliament, who is now charged with sewing together this ragbag. And ragbag is not my word but that of Sir Robert Atkins, the Conservative MEP for North West England, who in 2005 wrote to local Conservatives warning that the party would be left in "futile isolation", in the company of an "unappealing ragbag" of far-right, racist and Europhobic fringe parties. Tell us, Sir Robert, what would you call it now?

Kralizec

06-22-2009, 20:18

For example, the Dutch Socialist Party thinks that Dutch judges should cast aside EU rules if they conflict with national legislation- they either have not thought this one through or are not honest enough to admit that they think there should be no EU regulation at all

Say that 3 times out loud

There are a number of things that I don't want the EU to interfere with, but regulations that already exist should be respected. Otherwise, what's the point?

There were two cases over 40 years ago versus the Dutch and Italian governments when they raised import tarrifs and nationalized an energy company respectively - both were blatant violations of a treaty they signed voluntarily and of the regulations that resulted from it. If national governments were given unlimited freedom to abandon agreements they've previously entered, then the EU would be the useless institution it's often made out to be.

Beskar

06-22-2009, 20:57

I think federation system would be the best way to go, in the terms that each of the member states can deal with their own matters opposed to a centralised European dictatorship.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 23:40

Before we call it a Godwin, let me quote Timothy Garton Ash in an attempt to remain on topic:

How would you describe a British politician who prefers getting acquainted with the finer points of the history of the Waffen-SS in Latvia to maximising British influence with Barack Obama? An idiot? A madman? A nincompoop?

You only have to go back to the newspaper cuttings from 2005, when Cameron first announced his leadership clincher, to see the horrified response of Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in the European parliament, who is now charged with sewing together this ragbag. And ragbag is not my word but that of Sir Robert Atkins, the Conservative MEP for North West England, who in 2005 wrote to local Conservatives warning that the party would be left in "futile isolation", in the company of an "unappealing ragbag" of far-right, racist and Europhobic fringe parties. Tell us, Sir Robert, what would you call it now?
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.

Furunculus

06-22-2009, 23:46

I think federation system would be the best way to go, in the terms that each of the member states can deal with their own matters opposed to a centralised European dictatorship.

you mean like running your own financialo services regulation? the nature of a federation is that the federated parts retain power to govern only that which the central Gov't is not bothered about running.

why does britain need to be part of a federated europe?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 00:00

Fragony

06-23-2009, 00:49

There are a number of things that I don't want the EU to interfere with, but regulations that already exist should be respected. Otherwise, what's the point?

Yes, what's the point? The SP are a creepy bunch but I am on the barricades with them on this one.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-23-2009, 01:28

why does britain need to be part of a federated europe?

This is exactly the question I want answered. It is also the reason I want the autocratic Commission eliminated. Then the EP would have to at least try to justify it's existence.

Adrian II

06-23-2009, 07:38

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.I'm afraid you're the one who is out of touch with Garton Ash, that's all there is to it. The gentlemen is an acknowledged expert when it comes to European history and the inner workings of European power. You, with all due respect, are not.

Garton Ash is on the mark when he states the following:

The fact that Cameron insists on withdrawing from a grouping that includes the parties of the German chancellor, the French president and the Italian and Polish prime ministers sends to them all, and to Washington, this message: prepare for the British again to be the spoilers, the naysayers, the foot-draggers of Europe.

I suppose that he, unlike some people who have an all too rosy view of British Conservatism, remembers what Euroskeptic foot-dragging amounts to. For instance to the attitude of a prime minister who, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, wanted to block German reunification because in her opinion the Iron Curtain had been 'a system under which we've lived quite happily for forty years'. I kid you not. The EU completely bungled the the post-1989 situation because of such foot-dragging which exasperated not just President George Bush senior, but many countries east of the former curtain. I remember Jorge Semprun, the then Spanish culture minister, pulling out his hair in frustration during yet another fruitless 'conference' on European unification where the British and French (unde the equally stupid Mitterrand) blocked any progress, muttering: 'They're not unifying it, they're splitting it up further.'

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 08:31

that is irrelevant to TGA being the british voice in europe as so many european papers treat him (there is a der-spiegal example in this very thread, and he was der-spiegals voice of britain during the euro elections).

expert historian he might be, but he is also a muppet who has been captured by the pernicious ideology Transnational progressivism, and he quite simply does not represent british public opinion when he mouths off about EU politics to foreign pundits.

he is also quite simply very wrong when states that the new party will be a political irrelevance, because under proportional representation that is totally untrue.

and this dodges the fact that the EPP, just like TGA, does not represent the world-view of conservative politics, so it is utter stupidity for the cons to remain as a minor partner in a federalist party.

Adrian II

06-23-2009, 08:56

[..] he quite simply does not represent british public opinion when he mouths off about EU politics to foreign pundits.He doesn't claim to represent the British public at all. He couldn't, if only for the simple reason that British public opinion is divided.
he is also quite simply very wrong when states that the new party will be a political irrelevance, because under proportional representation that is totally untrue. and this dodges the fact that the EPP, just like TGA, does not represent the world-view of conservative politics, so it is utter stupidity for the cons to remain as a minor partner in a federalist party.And this is where you totally misunderstand European politics. As Garton Ash states, the Conservatives are trading real influence for so-called representation by a bunch of racist flat earthers. Where's the gain? They are side-lining themselves in the role of dodgers, blockers and naysayers. They might be able to decide some swing vote or other, but that's all.

Fragony

06-23-2009, 09:07

Where's the gain? They are side-lining themselves in the role of dodgers, blockers and naysayers. They might be able to decide some swing vote or other, but that's all.

Eurocrat lingo, the only way to go is forward and you better not be left behind. A lot of people don't like the EU and where it's going, because, well that. And that group of people will grow because of, well that, people don't like it when their -percieved or not- common sense is insulted.

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 09:44

He doesn't claim to represent the British public at all. He couldn't, if only for the simple reason that British public opinion is divided.

And this is where you totally misunderstand European politics. As Garton Ash states, the Conservatives are trading real influence for so-called representation by a bunch of racist flat earthers. Where's the gain? They are side-lining themselves in the role of dodgers, blockers and naysayers. They might be able to decide some swing vote or other, but that's all.

he is treated as the voice of british reason in foreign press.

PR is powerbrokering with minor factions proppping up coalitions in return for concessions, they will do as well now as before, and at least be standing on a platform that their voters want.

Adrian II

06-23-2009, 09:46

Eurocrat lingo, the only way to go is forward and you better not be left behind. A lot of people don't like the EU and where it's going, because, well that. And that group of people will grow because of, well that, people don't like it when their -percieved or not- common sense is insulted.Going forward with integration is not lingo, it is the way of today's world. The world is growing more complex and interdependent by the week and political integration at various levels is the only way to meet this challenge. You are welcome to hide in a cave, which is where isolationists belong anyway, but the rest of us should look and go forward in the sense I mentioned.

Fragony

06-23-2009, 10:04

Going forward with integration is not lingo, it is the way of today's world. The world is growing more complex and interdependent by the week and political integration at various levels is the only way to meet this challenge. You are welcome to hide in a cave, which is where isolationists belong anyway, but the rest of us should look and go forward in the sense I mentioned.

What challenge, the only challenge is what eurocrats have set out for theirselves. I don't like this leap of faith. Slapping an artificial entity on reality doesn't make reality any less complex. And then it happened, the incident on the Balkans. Europe is divided, but this time Europe has an army.

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 10:16

Going forward with integration is not lingo, it is the way of today's world. The world is growing more complex and interdependent by the week and political integration at various levels is the only way to meet this challenge. You are welcome to hide in a cave, which is where isolationists belong anyway, but the rest of us should look and go forward in the sense I mentioned.

why?

why is political integration necessary?

i can see that some might find it desirable, but it isn't in any way necessary now is it?

Fragony

06-23-2009, 10:19

why?

why is political integration necessary?

i can see that some might find it desirable, but it isn't in any way necessary.

Exactly, for eurocrats political integration has become the goal am sich. Why, uh, well because? It's good really trust me I'm a politician.

Adrian II

06-23-2009, 10:50

why?

why is political integration necessary?I just told you.

Because this world is unforgiving, my friends. I am amazed that I have to remind someone like Fragony of that; I am supposed to be the dreamer, remember.

How many times have the Americans asked us to pull our weight in international affairs? And how many times did we have to answer that all we had was a dead weight, a community of lazy, inward-looking shopkeepers. And yes, the Napoleon reference is intentional.

What challenge, the only challenge is what eurocrats have set out for theirselves.Oh haha, now Brussels is blamed for globalisation, Chinese expansion, the credit crunch, Pakistan's nuclear bomb and all the other challenges we face? Do you really think those challenges only exist in the minds of Brussels bureaucrats? This is getting weirder and weirder.

If this in indicative of the new formation in European politics, we should count ourselves lucky that they will be next year's wallpaper.

Kralizec

06-23-2009, 11:00

Yes, what's the point? The SP are a creepy bunch but I am on the barricades with them on this one.

If the SP, or any other party feels that the Netherlands shouldn't give a rats ass about European regulation then they ought to be consistent and say they intend to leave the EU entirely. Staying a member and acting as if you're not bound by past agreements (wich is pretty much what they're advocating) is like immigrating to a country and then breaking every law there whenever you feel like it.

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

That is not common sense - it's ignorance at best, and hypocricy at worst.

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 11:07

I just told you.

Because this world is unforgiving, my friends. I am amazed that I have to remind someone like Fragony of that; I am supposed to be the dreamer, remember.

How many times have the Americans asked us to pull our weight in international affairs? And how many times did we have to answer that all we had was a dead weight, a community of lazy, inward-looking shopkeepers. And yes, the Napoleon reference is intentional.

ah, so its fear that drives you, well that is your fear, not mine.

and america has asked the UK to pull its weight repeatedly, and the UK always does. again, not our problem.

if you are hoping that an EUSSR will give you the collective backbone to face the 21st century then it is a forlorn hope, that backbone is found in self-confident sovereign nation states, who if they are sensible work together when beneficial to achieve a common end.

so again, why is political integration necessary (for the UK)?

Fragony

06-23-2009, 11:14

Oh haha, now Brussels is blamed for globalisation, Chinese expansion, the credit crunch, Pakistan's nuclear bomb and all the other challenges we face? Do you really think those challenges only exist in the minds of Brussels bureaucrats? This is getting weirder and weirder.

Makes you think I do. The EU will never be more than economic cooperation. As a market it can pull some weight, and speak with one voice $$ but not as a political entity. As a political entity it can limit our freedoms though, and I don't write blank cheques.

Adrian II

06-23-2009, 11:15

[..] that backbone is found in self-confident sovereign nation states, who if they are sensible work together when beneficial to achieve a common end.That sounds just right for 1909, not for 2009.

And comparing my view of a democratic European Union to the USSR is just bad form, just like any silly comparison to Hitler who wanted to 'unite' Europe. It's flat-earthing of the sort that suits the Kaczyński brothers, not worthy of discussion.

Louis VI the Fat

06-23-2009, 11:21

Because this world is unforgiving, my friends. Are you suggesting that the energy crisis, the food crisis, the resource crisis, the financial crisis, the recession, the Chinese bid for global dominance, the instable and changing Islamic world, the environmental crisis - that all these threaten the stability of the spoiled Europeans more than EU national-communistic superstatism?

Gah! No wonder you think mainstream social-democrats, centrists and democrat right are normal, and the Latvian SS clan are the fruitcakes. Sheesh.

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

You only have to go back to the newspaper cuttings from 2005, when Cameron first announced his leadership clincher, to see the horrified response of Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in the European parliament, who is now charged with sewing together this ragbag. And ragbag is not my word but that of Sir Robert Atkins, the Conservative MEP for North West England, who in 2005 wrote to local Conservatives warning that the party would be left in "futile isolation", in the company of an "unappealing ragbag" of far-right, racist and Europhobic fringe parties. Tell us, Sir Robert, what would you call it now?Can you answer this question, Furunculus?

Why did the Conservative leadership itself only four years ago (rightly) call the Polish nationalists unappealing ragbag, only to get in bed with them now?

Don't just call TGA an idiot - show us why he is an idiot for raising this question.

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 11:25

That sounds just right for 1909, not for 2009.

why?

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

we have the second largest official defence budget

we have the joint fifth largest economy

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

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

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

Fragony

06-23-2009, 11:33

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

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

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 11:43

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

Can you answer this question, Furunculus?
Why did the Conservative leadership itself only four years ago (rightly) call the Polish nationalists unappealing ragbag, only to get in bed with them now?
Don't just call TGA an idiot - show us why he is an idiot for raising this question.
we have transnational institutions to assist in transnational matters, there is no need for supra-national governance in any way for the global economy to function, and there is no desire for it either unless you are one of those people that gets sticky pants over the ideas of world government touted by sci-fi authors.

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

Tribesman

06-23-2009, 11:48

we have the second largest official defence budget

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

we have the joint fifth largest economy

You have the 2nd largest external debt

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 12:03

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

You have the 2nd largest external debt

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia. i did in fact state that in the original post, but i edited out precisely because i knew i could have so much fun with careless nitpickers, and guess who showed up. :laugh4:

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

Adrian II

06-23-2009, 12:26

we have transnational institutions to assist in transnational matters, there is no need for supra-national governance in any way [..]Oh sure, the UN and the WTO are going to save us from the Chinese power bid, the Russian energy crunch, the credit crisis or a new oil shortage.

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

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

Fragony

06-23-2009, 12:46

Kralizec

06-23-2009, 12:56

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

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

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

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

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

Kagemusha

06-23-2009, 13:02

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

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

Meneldil

06-23-2009, 13:16

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

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 13:16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 13:18

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

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

Fragony

06-23-2009, 13:19

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

lol he was just setting a trap and it worked brilliantly, oh the squirming under his mighty boot :2thumbsup:

point = taken though.

Meneldil

06-23-2009, 13:29

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

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

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 13:52

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

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

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

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

Louis VI the Fat

06-23-2009, 13:56

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

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

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

Tribesman

06-23-2009, 14:42

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia.
So what . Are you disputing the figures from HM treasury and the French dept. of defence?

we have just had 12 years of labour throwing money up the wall.
And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only throwing money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 14:43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fragony

06-23-2009, 14:58

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

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

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 15:00

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

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

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

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

Tribesman

06-23-2009, 15:16

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 15:20

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

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

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

good going.

Tribesman

06-23-2009, 15:45

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

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Wrong?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Look....
we have the second largest official defence budget

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

and the third tactic; where you shroud your comment in derisory smileys in a effort to make your point seem so obvious that no one else need look into the matter further.
It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 16:10

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Wrong?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Look....
No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

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

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

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

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

KukriKhan

06-23-2009, 16:38

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

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

LittleGrizzly

06-23-2009, 16:42

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

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 16:44

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

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

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 16:53

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

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

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

LittleGrizzly

06-23-2009, 17:02

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

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

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

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 17:07

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

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

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

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

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 17:26

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

Most people don't vote on a single issue. Established parties already have all of the money and resources. In many countries it is extremely difficult for minor parties to break through. And UKIP and the Conservatives are Eurosceptic parties.

When there is a single issue as important as this, you need a referendum and not an election. Germany especially needs to break with tradition and ask what the people want for once.

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

That wasn't my definition though, was it? And I believe states in America are still allowed to secede through a process, though someone will probably correct me if I am wrong.

Adrian II

06-23-2009, 17:41

The European Union is not necessary to ensure a greater influence on the world for the European nations. We once exercised great influence and power internationally, many of us still do, and we can do it again without unification.Soooo, we once dominated the seas, sciences and economy, we owned North America, large swaths of Asia and Africa, and we can do it again?

Teheee :clown:

Just on the off-chance that it's contageous, I'm out of this thread. :thinking:

Beskar

06-23-2009, 17:45

I can't think of hardly any con's to a European Federation as an idea itself, however, I can think of plenty about the way we are doing it at the moment.

So I am not opposed to the idea itself, just the way it is being done.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 17:51

Soooo, we once dominated the seas, sciences and economy, we owned North America, large swaths of Asia and Africa, and we can do it again?

We can once again dominate the seas, sciences, and economy. We already have fairly strong economies and sciences at least.

I can't think of hardly any con's to a European Federation as an idea itself, however, I can think of plenty about the way we are doing it at the moment.

There are plenty.

KukriKhan

06-23-2009, 17:52

That wasn't my definition though, was it? And I believe states in America are still allowed to secede through a process, though someone will probably correct me if I am wrong.

There is no provision for it in the US Constitution. So it's not that it's prohibited, it's that it's not specifically authorized. For the moment, barring new law, the US civil war set the precedent that "once in, never out".

Texas talk of secession is bravado, not plan.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 17:54

There are plenty.

Like what? Anything I can think of, the pro's outweigh the con's, if it is done correctly.

Kagemusha

06-23-2009, 18:15

Like what? Anything I can think of, the pro's outweigh the con's, if it is done correctly.

Like big government < small government. In this case colossal government replacing governments ranging from large to tiny.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 18:15

Like what? Anything I can think of, the pro's outweigh the con's, if it is done correctly.

This shows why we need more debate on the issue of European integration itself rather than just on the Treaties, I suppose.

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 18:43

we tried that in the "why britain needs the EU" thread, and look where that got us! :2thumbsup:

Beskar

06-23-2009, 18:58

Like big government < small government. In this case colossal government replacing governments ranging from large to tiny.

Depends on definition of "Big Government". The term is very wishywashy, you could say, just having one government in Brussels is far smaller than 20 odd different governments at once.

If you are talking about centralisation, then how much is centralised and what powers occur there? Usually, it would just be general foreign policy, etc.

Hypothetically speaking, is everyone having the same currency, the same plug sockets, the same road laws and various regularisation and standardisation a bad thing? If anything, it brings far more unity between the nations, the ability to walk into the country next door and knowing that there are pretty much the same exact laws and that you don't need to convert money, or needing to re-train or relearn things. Knowing that your plug for your laptop works without fiddling with millions of different changers just to load up totalwar.org. These are just the general populace benefits, there are masses of economical benefits to this as well.

There is another way of thinking about it as well. We can either join America, join Russia, join China, etc, or we can forge our own European Superpower, and when America tries to force us into pointless wars, we can just stick up our middle finger at them, instead of some nations (like Britain) being slave states to the American Empire.

Tribesman

06-23-2009, 19:19

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget
So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?
That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.

Kagemusha

06-23-2009, 19:36

Depends on definition of "Big Government". The term is very wishywashy, you could say, just having one government in Brussels is far smaller than 20 odd different governments at once.

If you are talking about centralisation, then how much is centralised and what powers occur there? Usually, it would just be general foreign policy, etc.

Hypothetically speaking, is everyone having the same currency, the same plug sockets, the same road laws and various regularisation and standardisation a bad thing? If anything, it brings far more unity between the nations, the ability to walk into the country next door and knowing that there are pretty much the same exact laws and that you don't need to convert money, or needing to re-train or relearn things. Knowing that your plug for your laptop works without fiddling with millions of different changers just to load up totalwar.org. These are just the general populace benefits, there are masses of economical benefits to this as well.

There is another way of thinking about it as well. We can either join America, join Russia, join China, etc, or we can forge our own European Superpower, and when America tries to force us into pointless wars, we can just stick up our middle finger at them, instead of some nations (like Britain) being slave states to the American Empire.

The problem is that for example how would you set up taxes for the central government, when the average incomes are dramatically different from country to country? Also how some central government could be aware of the special circumstances which can be found from all over Europe. The thing is that in Federal State we would only be creating another layer of government in the center, while the former National and regional governments would have to remain as the central government could not fill in to their role because lack of understanding of the regional conditions. We can create as many European standards we want without turning into a federal state. In matter of fact its happening right now.

Why exactly we have to forge our own superpower? In our current state we can defend ourselves and also project force and help outside the Europe. Why exactly we need to become a superpower? So instead of fighting each other like it was in the past, we could be able to enter or create global conflicts? Id rather live in peace then be a part of powerful superstate that has the need to project its power on the global scale, thank you.:yes:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 19:38

If you are talking about centralisation, then how much is centralised and what powers occur there? Usually, it would just be general foreign policy, etc.

Con #1.

Hypothetically speaking, is everyone having the same currency, the same plug sockets, the same road laws and various regularisation and standardisation a bad thing? If anything, it brings far more unity between the nations, the ability to walk into the country next door and knowing that there are pretty much the same exact laws and that you don't need to convert money, or needing to re-train or relearn things. Knowing that your plug for your laptop works without fiddling with millions of different changers just to load up totalwar.org.

That is a con in the long term and certainly not a "general populace benefit."

These are just the general populace benefits, there are masses of economical benefits to this as well.

Economic benefits should be free trade and no more. There are also the economic drawbacks to European unification to consider.

There is another way of thinking about it as well. We can either join America, join Russia, join China, etc, or we can forge our own European Superpower, and when America tries to force us into pointless wars, we can just stick up our middle finger at them, instead of some nations (like Britain) being slave states to the American Empire.

:laugh4:

No offence, but that is leftist hogwash.

Meneldil

06-23-2009, 19:58

That is a con in the long term and certainly not a "general populace benefit."

No offence, but that is irrational anti-EU righteous hogwash.

Edit: As I am curious, how is that a con in the long term ?

Edit2: As I am trully a curious person, I'm also wondering. How is that every anti-EU person keeps repeating that an european con/federation would lead to WWIII or to a bloodbath, knowing that WWI & II were caused by nationalistic feelings and century old-hatreds? For all I know, the EU is one of the best ways to fight nationalism (which has in any case disappeared from most of western Europe), and to create friendship between countries who usually cannot stand eachothers.
As examples, I'd show France and Germany (who were main/important protagonists during the 2 WW's), Bulgaria and Romania, the UK and Ireland.
Now, give me one good reason as to why the EU is going to cause WWIII.

For all I know, given historical examples, you, dear anti-EU crowd, are the main opponent to a lasting peace in Europe. YOU are underlining your supposed differences and specific cultures (lol), and thus promoting an outdated nationalism that caused more harm than good so far. YOU are teaming up with far-right nutjobs from all over the place to fight teh Evil European Empire of Death and protect an sovereignty that never existed in the first place.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 20:06

The problem is that for example how would you set up taxes for the central government, when the average incomes are dramatically different from country to country?

Edit: Haha! I found this question, i kept looking for it as I remembered reading it.

Basically, a unification would actually equalize all the incomes over Europe. If there was a European minimum wage with European tax laws it would mean on average, people would roughly be paid and taxed the same, this would cause areas to rapidly start charging the same sort of prices for things and it would increase the incomes from the worse-off in Europe to better and with them having more money, they also would be spending this in their areas, bringing economical growth and interest into areas. Other countries also wouldn't have problems selling stock in these poorer areas either, as they don't have to sell them at a loss in comparison to if they did in the far West of Europe.

Also how some central government could be aware of the special circumstances which can be found from all over Europe. The thing is that in Federal State we would only be creating another layer of government in the center, while the former National and regional governments would have to remain as the central government could not fill in to their role because lack of understanding of the regional conditions. We can create as many European standards we want without turning into a federal state. In matter of fact its happening right now.

Special Circumstances would simply be based on case-by-case basis. However, a federal government has different layers which handles issues on different stages, so majority of the bottom stage stuff doesn't even reach the top, unless it is really important as it is handled on that level.

Also, we wouldn't be creating another layer, if anything, that layer is already there as it is, and it would actually become far more streamlined, especially when each of the European areas are reconstructed to fit ideally into this system instead of the current piece-meal style system.

Regional conditions again are handled on a regional basis and if they are very important, the "top" will know.

Why exactly we have to forge our own superpower? In our current state we can defend ourselves and also project force and help outside the Europe. Why exactly we need to become a superpower? So instead of fighting each other like it was in the past, we could be able to enter or create global conflicts? Id rather live in peace then be a part of powerful superstate that has the need to project its power on the global scale, thank you.:yes:

Not really, none of the European nations are as powerful as they think they are. It is an arrogance that somehow all the European nations seem to think they are really all powerful. They are strong yes, but you imply that nations such as the Netherlands can go toe-on-toe against Russia or America or China or other real major powers. On the otherhand, the combined might of all the nations such as France, Britain, Germany, (the other european nations) all together would be a really powerful military force that would rival the likes of America. Also, "part of a powerful superstate that has the need to project its power" why are we members of NATO then, which is the powerful American Superstates need to project its power? Just saying.

Con #1.

Why is it? Europe would forge its own foreign policy, which stops slave states or states being pressured by the grander states into doing their will. As far as I am aware, it is only Britain which is the most warlike in Europe and that is only because of the "Special Relationship" with America.

That is a con in the long term and certainly not a "general populace benefit."

Why is it? You given no argument to support such a conclusion.

Economic benefits should be free trade and no more. There are also the economic drawbacks to European unification to consider.

What drawbacks? The benefits would be the free-trade zone, also free expansion into other areas of Europe which would increase business due to it being over a larger area. With standardisation, there would be more compatiability with technology. Also, it would be far easier to use the vast lands and resources of other nations for your business, so further economic expansion and technological advancement. What are the drawbacks compared to the situation now? If anything, the situation actually improves, not get worse.

:laugh4:

No offence, but that is leftist hogwash.

Actually, it is not left or right, it is simply counter-balance. Military tactics 101.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 20:20

For all I know, given historical examples, you, dear anti-EU crowd, are the main opponent to a lasting peace in Europe. YOU are underlining your supposed differences and specific cultures (lol), and thus promoting an outdated nationalism that caused more harm than good so far. YOU are teaming up with far-right nutjobs from all over the place to fight teh Evil European Empire of Death and protect an sovereignty that never existed in the first place.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

Hah, it does pretty much sum up majority of the opponents. They focus on things such as age old conflicts since the time of the Romans instead of a common-good.

Though, it brings me to another point, one thing I find really stupid are the idiots who keep going: "Bussels is going to steal our pints!!! instead of being a pint, it would be 500ml! even though it doesn't stop us from calling it a 'pint' we just want to keep a horrible measurement system just to be awkward." Yes, I am talking to you, the readers of the Sun newspaper, cut out the stupid arguments.

Oh, just for the record, pulling out of Europe would bring significant disadvantages which is why you don't find parties such as the "Conservatives" advocating it. The pro's really do outweigh the con's. The majority of the arguments are based on being awkard and halting progress. If they instead, tried to make Europe better by challenging the wrongs such as the method they are using, then good things might actually occur.

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 20:31

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?

not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression, but yes, that's exactly what i said too:

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

That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.
that is because you still haven't figured out that comparing national figures of what they consider to be their defence spending is not relevant, but i did try:

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

but to return to the core question; what is the point of your pointless (and incorrect) nit-picking, are you leading somewhere with this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 20:48

Hah, it does pretty much sum up majority of the opponents. They focus on things such as age old conflicts since the time of the Romans instead of a common-good.

Though, it brings me to another point, one thing I find really stupid are the idiots who keep going: "Bussels is going to steal our pints!!! instead of being a pint, it would be 500ml! even though it doesn't stop us from calling it a 'pint' we just want to keep a horrible measurement system just to be awkward." Yes, I am talking to you, the readers of the Sun newspaper, cut out the stupid arguments.

Oh, just for the record, pulling out of Europe would bring significant disadvantages which is why you don't find parties such as the "Conservatives" advocating it. The pro's really do outweigh the con's. The majority of the arguments are based on being awkard and halting progress. If they instead, tried to make Europe better by challenging the wrongs such as the method they are using, then good things might actually occur.
not really, it always comes back to the question of; why does britain need to do this? and i at least never hear a convincing answer.

my skepticism about how democratic a federal EU will be is informed by the base concept of what democracy is:

which is to say that you and I consent to be governed by the british government because the shared values, culture, and history will 'ensure' that those elected to govern in your name will do so in a manner that you can live with.
you elect a local politician based on his knowledge of your communities needs, and the assumption that because he is local he will fight to see those needs met.
your local politician then works with other broadly similar (read: british) politicians to govern the nation, which as Churchill agreed is the least bad form of governance yet devised.

it is a matter of trust, you don't lightly let convicted thieves operate tills in your shop, you don't let unvetted strangers run your kids play-group.

i don't have that confidence that the brussels collective will legislate/govern/arbitrate/negotiate in a manner that i am willing to be bound by, and lots of other people share that view too. and its not just brits, Louis would be horrified were it occur that les anglo-saxons had turned corsica into a tax-haven where french hedge fund managers could squirrel away money that should be spent on the hard working french citizen! i am dismayed that germany cuts energy deals with russia that result in pipelines going around former eastern-bloc countries and thus making them susceptible to extortion. finland doesn't like our closeness with america and refuses to join NATO. Norway sees the benefit of NATO but not much advantage in the political end of the EU. germany wouldn't trust an italian or a greek to be within a square mile of german economic policy.

every nation forms its collective values from their own shared history and culture, and none of that is bad in and of itself, but people get riled when views they do not hold to be of value are forced upon them by 'outsiders'. "it's one thing for my mother to tell me i drink too much, but who the hell does my milkman think he is to say such a thing!"

the natural answer to this lack of legitimacy is an increase in authoritarianism, as the only way to govern those who hold no loyalty to the governors. aka tryanny.

so when there is no need for britain to join a federated europe, and the only result is less representative government................ why do it?

Fragony

06-23-2009, 21:08

Now, give me one good reason as to why the EU is going to cause WWIII.

Because it's rebuilding the conditions.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 21:15

It really depends on this line of argument.
You don't need to have a car, but you probably must likely have one. Why is that? How is what you say a convincing argument to get a car? Why bother with a car when there is a Bus/Train. etc

The advantages of Europe are pretty much known and given, especially in the economic area and the majority of these are done. However, the problem starts when we talk from a political angle. There are many many advantages, in the age of globalisation as well, the world is getting smaller and smaller and what used to be big isn't so big anymore. The thing is, you have to remember, most of these arguments against Europe can be seen at a far more local level. You ever seen when for example, Blackpool and Preston are at Football? They are arch-rivals and if you say to them "Will you ever work with Preston?" those in Blackpool will say no. However, they are both in Lancashire and Lancashire has their rivalry with Yorkshire, dating back years and years to the big conflict known as the War of the Roses. However, they are both in England. Then on the bigger level, you got England versus Scotland and again, it all starts over again, then they are part of Britain. Then you got Britain versus France, then again, they are part of Europe.

So in this world of conflict, how is the conflict dealt with? It is done by looking at the bigger picture and working together, instead of fighting over the mundane differences. People have all sorts of identities, from their most local identity, to regional, to state, to nation and even to super nation. Instead of just fighting amongst ourselves, if we work together for the benefit of the whole, then wouldn't the world just be a better place then concentrating on ridiculous conflicts?

As for things like Defence. If all of Europe is under one military power, how strong would Europe be? We would be set for life, as it were, in terms of defence without having to worry about foreign powers and if anything, everyone in Europe would reduce their military spending and this spending can be spent on better things for everyone.

If you are saying "I dislike how this Europe is currently looking and the way it is being brought about and the style it is being done with" I will agree with you on this point entirely. However, this is a different argument to "Potential advantages and disadvantages of a Federal Europe"

In a way, we are already in a Federal Europe and a bad one at that. We could either attempt to work together to make it into a good Europe, or we could just fight over mundane arguments let idiots get away with making the Europe a place we don't want to be in. A divided enemy is easier to conquer.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 21:17

Because it's rebuilding the conditions.

You mean a right-wing nut case is in control of a Super Power?!? I hope the legacy of Bush Jr and Putin and Chairman of China put a stop to them!

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 21:30

1. The advantages of Europe are pretty much known and given, especially in the economic area and the majority of these are done. However, the problem starts when we talk from a political angle. There are many many advantages, in the age of globalisation as well, the world is getting smaller and smaller and what used to be big isn't so big anymore. The thing is, you have to remember, most of these arguments against Europe can be seen at a far more local level. You ever seen when for example, Blackpool and Preston are at Football? They are arch-rivals and if you say to them "Will you ever work with Preston?" those in Blackpool will say no. However, they are both in Lancashire and Lancashire has their rivalry with Yorkshire, dating back years and years to the big conflict known as the War of the Roses. However, they are both in England. Then on the bigger level, you got England versus Scotland and again, it all starts over again, then they are part of Britain. Then you got Britain versus France, then again, they are part of Europe.

2. So in this world of conflict, how is the conflict dealt with? It is done by looking at the bigger picture and working together, instead of fighting over the mundane differences. People have all sorts of identities, from their most local identity, to regional, to state, to nation and even to super nation. Instead of just fighting amongst ourselves, if we work together for the benefit of the whole, then wouldn't the world just be a better place then concentrating on ridiculous conflicts?

3. As for things like Defence. If all of Europe is under one military power, how strong would Europe be? We would be set for life, as it were, in terms of defence without having to worry about foreign powers and if anything, everyone in Europe would reduce their military spending and this spending can be spent on better things for everyone.

4. If you are saying "I dislike how this Europe is currently looking and the way it is being brought about and the style it is being done with" I will agree with you on this point entirely. However, this is a different argument to "Potential advantages and disadvantages of a Federal Europe"

5. In a way, we are already in a Federal Europe and a bad one at that. We could either attempt to work together to make it into a good Europe, or we could just fight over mundane arguments let idiots get away with making the Europe a place we don't want to be in. A divided enemy is easier to conquer.

1. so your answer to the levels of local, regional, and national repression would be to add yet another layer of federal repression?

2. it may surprise you to hear this, but europe has been getting just fine already without a federal state, because we already have free trade, multilateral agreements, regional forums etc.

3. the answer is already here, its called NATO and it binds north america with europe in collective defense, that is enough for me. particularly as a brit whose nation is on an island and has one of the worlds largest defence budgets.

4. no, it is the same question because we are on the road to ever deeper union to no net benefit to the UK.

5. agreed, but this is the whole fear thing again, i for one am not afraid, britain has all those bases covered quite adequately. individual nations on the continent may feel differently and i will cheer them on as they choose to integrate.

why do it?

Beskar

06-23-2009, 21:37

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 21:46

1. so your answer to the levels of local, regional, and national repression you would like to add yet another layer of federal repression?

That wasn't my point, my point is we should stop thinking so individualistic and think more on a whole. It is nothing to do with repression, it is to do with how people always have these imaginary arguments against those on the other side of the hill and we should stop doing the silliness of it all.

2. it may surprise you to hear this, but europe has been getting just fine already without a federal state, because we already have free trade, multilateral agreements, regional forums etc.

Why would that surprise me when I just said that? You got people arguing the Europe is the devil and its all bad, except all this stuff is benefiting us and going even more will benefit us all.

3. the answer is already hear, its called NATO and it binds north america with europe in collective defense, that is enough for me. particularly as a brit whose nation is on an island and has one of the worlds largest defence budgets.

We are an island with a great drain of a defence budget. You have nations such as Russia which are 20 times our size, and if they are having smaller defence budget than us, you must really have to think "possibly we are spending too much here".

4. no, it is the same question because we are on the road to ever deeper union to no net benefit to the UK.

There will be more gains for the Britain and while some nations will obviously initially benefit more in the beginning, when we are one, the point comes invalid anyway, as we are thinking more collectively.

Oh, on another note, I think we should get rid of nations anyway. So there wouldn't be an added burden.

1. we do, its called the European Community and involves many such worthy ideas as free trade, multilateral agreements, regional forums, etc.

2. i'm not arguing that europe is evil, i'm arguing that a federal eu is not in the spirit of demos-cratos, and will result in the peoples of europe getting LESS representative government.

3. no, we spend very little on the first duty of the nation state, about 2.2% of GDP (or 5% of government spending), as a proportion of government spending russia spends WAY more. and this doesn't negate the fact that security is taken care of already.

4. what benefit?

ah, another convert to transnational progressivism. you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 21:51

Edit: As I am curious, how is that a con in the long term ?

Making us all the same isn't a con? You're in favour of world government as well, I take it?

Edit2: As I am trully a curious person, I'm also wondering. How is that every anti-EU person keeps repeating that an european con/federation would lead to WWIII or to a bloodbath, knowing that WWI & II were caused by nationalistic feelings and century old-hatreds?

There is more than one way, depending how you look at it. You can say that "EU nationalism" is emerging, or is even established, and that could lead to it. You could also say that it won't work as all the European Union will cause in the long term is a resurgence in nationalist feeling and will bring the whole project down in flames. Finally, you could say that our current agreements, alliances, and NATO is enough to keep us together.

I firmly stand by the belief that it wasn't European unity that kept us from war after WWII, it was the Cold War and NATO. The EU hasn't given us peace, it has just taken credit for it.

For all I know, given historical examples, you, dear anti-EU crowd, are the main opponent to a lasting peace in Europe.

Yep, Hitler, Napoleon, they really must have been anti-European superstate types.

YOU are underlining your supposed differences and specific cultures (lol), and thus promoting an outdated nationalism that caused more harm than good so far.

Outdated? No.
Civic nationalism. Read.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

Apparently yes, you can.

Why is it? Europe would forge its own foreign policy, which stops slave states or states being pressured by the grander states into doing their will. As far as I am aware, it is only Britain which is the most warlike in Europe and that is only because of the "Special Relationship" with America.

Britain is an independent nation capable of making its own decisions. Your proposal takes away that decision power from Britain and gives it to Europe. You claim that America controls Europe when nothing could be further from the truth. Even if you were correct and America did control European nations, you are merely replacing one controller with another.

Why is it? You given no argument to support such a conclusion.

Partially explained above.

What drawbacks?

Blue and gold glasses off, Google on.

The benefits would be the free-trade zone

Got that already.

With standardisation, there would be more compatiability with technology.

At what cost?

What are the drawbacks compared to the situation now?

Lack of economic flexibility, lack of flexibility in regards to currency, lack of or too much of etc, etc.
Google. List is long.

Actually, it is not left or right, it is simply counter-balance. Military tactics 101.

Complete nonsense, the final paragraph you made was straight out of the left-wing and far-right anti-American playbook and you know it. Not to mention it is completely inaccurate.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 21:59

Even if you were correct and America did control European nations, you are merely replacing one controller with another.

One we didn't elect with one we did would be a obvious improvement.

Though, on another note, American Imperialism is pretty much a fact, backed up with statistics such as them having military bases in over 100 countries.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 22:22

One we didn't elect with one we did would be a obvious improvement.

Two things:

1) America doesn't control Britain. Or Europe. At all. A united Europe will control you by the very definition. That is a huge reason why I'm against the European Union. Right now (or at least before the whole unity mess began) I can (or could) choose to work with America or I can (could) choose to work with Europe, or I can (could) choose to do both. European unity takes that away, and the second your foreign policy goes your national sovereignty is gone. You are relegated to a dominion at best and a state at worst.

2) Who makes the real decisions in the European Union? The Parliament, or perhaps someone else?

Though, on another note, American Imperialism is pretty much a fact, backed up with statistics such as them having military bases in over 100 countries.

:laugh4:

My God, drivel is certainly not the weak point of the left.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 22:57

1) America doesn't control Britain. Or Europe. At all.

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

There isn't the countless references such as "Special Relationship" other musings.

2) Who makes the real decisions in the European Union? The Parliament, or perhaps someone else?

Now we just need the big lottery hand to come down from the sky and point going "or it could be you!"

My God, drivel is certainly not the weak point of the left.

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries

What on earth are you on about? It is fact, now get over yourself. If having military bases in other countries means nothing, insert every Godwin-ism in having a base in Britain.

Then again, what do you even know about Britain and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany

and yet you pretend that it means nothing?

I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

Furunculus

06-23-2009, 23:18

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

Then again, what do you even know about Britain and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
and yet you pretend that it means nothing?
I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?
had you considered the possibility that the powers that be deemed it to be in the UK's national interest to join america in those wars............................. no.

now that is foolish. we can unleash buckets of sunshine whenever we want. if we did so inappropriately then america would refuse to service our missiles which would render them inoperative within a year or two.
if they knew before hand then they could switch of the GPS forcing the missiles to rely on inertial navigation which would reduce accuracy from 30 feet to 100 feet.
none of which prevents the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent from fulfilling its purpose.

yes it means nothing, germany could ask america to remove those bases tomorrow, and at such point as leases expired those forces would be gone. and if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

do you define yourself by your fear of america?

Sarmatian

06-23-2009, 23:19

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries

Wow, I knew they had a lot but I didn't know they had that much. That means that they have bases in about 75% countries in the world... Are you sure about this? Is that source reliable?

LittleGrizzly

06-23-2009, 23:24

you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?

Wouldn't most new ideas do that, like free trade (back in the day) but thats not a bad one...

Unless were talking about Napoleon and Hitler, but i don't think i need to point out how they were slightly different.. or do i ?

Edit: I seem to remember some mildly successful union... Scotland and England might have been... did that go badly ?

America doesn't control Britain.

Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

A United Europe would control europe in the same way a United Britian would control Britian

Making us all the same isn't a con? You're in favour of world government as well, I take it?

When people all live under one goverment they are the same ?!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 23:26

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

There isn't the countless references such as "Special Relationship" other musings.

:wall:

Britain is a sovereign nation and made those choices of her own free will. It is as if you're comparing rape and consensual sex.

Now we just need the big lottery hand to come down from the sky and point going "or it could be you!"

The common person has a say in the European Union! How's that for a laugh...

What on earth are you on about? It is fact, now get over yourself.

American imperialism is only "fact" to a small segment of the population.

Then again, what do you even know about Britain

Evidently nothing, but seeing as I have another Brit agreeing with me who, according to polling, represents the majority of Britons, I fail to see your point.

and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany

and yet you pretend that it means nothing?

I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

Of course it has meaning, but is the meaning that America is colonizing us or controls us in any way, shape, or form? Of course not. Have you ever, maybe, considered that American bases are in many of those countries at the invitation of the government of that country or not asked to leave because of benefits they bring? Do you think that America having a base somewhere results in control of that state? Really?

Furunculus' post is also excellent reading material...

Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

Britain has a choice now. Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

When people all live under one goverment they are the same ?!

Oh, so people aren't, in fact, the same? Thank you.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 23:38

@Furunculus
UK's best national interest doesn't equal the best interest for its people. If I remember correctly, America apparently gave "incentives" to the nation for them to tag along at the cost of our lives.

"America to refuse to service our missiles" Why do we need America too? Does the Iran service our tanks?
"Switch off GPS" why not have our own GPS? Do the Russians use America's GPS too?
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose" It would really stop America, wouldn't? 'we won't give you the codes lalallala'

I mean, why bother with Europe, we already have our best buddy America telling us what to do anyway, I mean, any hope of sunshine away from American Imperialism is just simply evil. let's worship America. I mean, we don't even need a military, don't we have captain America to protect us all, they seem to have all their bases all over our lands, I mean, it's not like it's a Godwin-ism there.

Really, it is really amusing. Speak of a European Federation with democracy and elections... BOOOO!!! but speak of American Imperialism and look at them go to protect poor America's feelings and saying there is nothing wrong about it. Hypocrites.

@Sarmatian
According to this - http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/BSR_2007_Baseline.pdf
There are around 823 overseas bases, apparently.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 23:42

Hypocrites.

I'm getting the same feeling now that I get when I watch NDP or Die Linke rallies. Brief shock followed by uncontrollable laughter.

LittleGrizzly

06-23-2009, 23:43

Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

Oh, so people aren't, in fact, the same? Thank you.

And yet individual european goverments struggle on regardless, hell China has far far more people to look after, India too. They not even at most of euorpes level of development so it should be a cakewalk..

Beskar

06-23-2009, 23:49

Britain is a sovereign nation and made those choices of her own free will. It is as if you're comparing rape and consensual sex.

More like "I will lock you in my cellar if you don't have sex with me". Either play ball or your screwed in the really bad way.

The common person has a say in the European Union! How's that for a laugh...

Hahaha, they are fools aren't there? I mean, having a democracy in Europe, what idiots. Let's go to bed with America, we don't get a vote, but hey, who cares? Democracy is for whimps!

American imperialism is only "fact" to a small segment of the population.

Who is your local representative? Majority of people don't even know who their MP or even who their Mayor is. Just because some one doesn't know who their Mayor is, doesn't make the Mayor non-existent and not a fact.

Evidently nothing, but seeing as I have another Brit agreeing with me who, according to polling, represents the majority of Britons, I fail to see your point.

And a vast majority saying otherwise, but they just get ignored by you.

Of course it has meaning, but is the meaning that America is colonizing us or controls us in any way, shape, or form? Of course not.

LOL

Do you think that America having a base somewhere results in control of that state? Really?

We are in your country, patrolling with our army and set-up bases. No influence at all!

Furunculus' post is also excellent reading material...

A shame for you, all the points were actually proving my point...

Britain has a choice now. Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

That is a stupid comment. You imply we got a choice now when we don't, while under a federation where we actualyl have a say, we don't?

Beskar

06-23-2009, 23:50

I'm getting the same feeling now that I get when I watch NDP or Die Linke rallies. Brief shock followed by uncontrollable laughter.

I am getting the same feeling as watching Boris Johnson reading your posts. You have no clue what you are on about.

Beskar

06-23-2009, 23:52

Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

I am glad you see that blaring fact. I was starting the think people are going blind.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-23-2009, 23:57

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Of course Britain will have a part, but now Britain controls all of its foreign policy. Under Europe it will control less than a twentieth.

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

You realize that a unified Europe still won't have a say in America's decisions, right?

And yet individual european goverments struggle on regardless, hell China has far far more people to look after, India too. They not even at most of euorpes level of development so it should be a cakewalk..

Not the point.

More like "I will lock you in my cellar if you don't have sex with me". Either play ball or your screwed in the really bad way.

Right, because when Canada refused to go into Iraq America did...

...next to nothing aside from expressing some disappointment, actually. So no, you're wrong.

Hahaha, they are fools aren't there? I mean, having a democracy in Europe, what idiots. Let's go to bed with America, we don't get a vote, but hey, who cares? Democracy is for whimps!

:wall:

Have you read my previous two-ish posts?

Who is your local representative? Majority of people don't even know who their MP or even who their Mayor is. Just because some one doesn't know who their Mayor is, doesn't make the Mayor non-existent and not a fact.

Sorry, I should've said that American "imperialism" is only a "fact" to the usual anti-American leftist crowd which can't be bothered to look up actual facts.

And a vast majority saying otherwise, but they just get ignored by you.

:inquisitive: You would say that most Britons are pro-EU?

LOL

Sorry, America has no control over Germany.

We are in your country, patrolling with our army and set-up bases. No influence at all!

Hate to break it to you, but America does not run Germany. As Furunculus said...

yes it means nothing, germany could ask america to remove those bases tomorrow, and at such point as leases expired those forces would be gone. and if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

A shame for you, all the points were actually proving my point...

Mine wasn't the only post not comprehended then...

That is a stupid comment. You imply we got a choice now when we don't, while under a federation where we actualyl have a say, we don't?

:wall:

I'm not implying, I'm saying you get a choice now. You have a choice. Britain is not a satellite of America, it does not need to follow America, and it doesn't always follow America. Britain follows America in some areas through Britain's own choices. It has an option - it can say yes or no.

By your definition any ally of a more powerful nation is automatically a satellite of that nation or something.

Beskar

06-24-2009, 00:04

By your definition any ally of a more powerful nation is automatically a satellite of that nation or something.

How many foreign owned bases are there in America?
How many checks are in place to prevent American Military from taking action?

Answer: Zero

Except, the UK has both by America... I definitely see an Alliance of equals here...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-24-2009, 00:09

How many foreign owned bases are there in America?

Actually, there are foreign units stationed in America. But that is irrelevant, because when most of these bases were established, who was going to defend who?

How many checks are in place to prevent American Military from taking action?

NATO comes immediately to mind.

Except, the UK has both by America... I definitely see an Alliance of equals here...

Ask America to leave her bases if you want. You're aware, also, that America would come to the aid of Britain as Britain has come to the aid of America, right?

It is an alliance. America is more powerful than Britain, but Britain is no puppet of America.

LittleGrizzly

06-24-2009, 00:17

Of course Britain will have a part, but now Britain controls all of its foreign policy. Under Europe it will control less than a twentieth.

At the moment we have full control over this decision. Follow American policy or not. Under EU we would have control of less than a twentieth of actual policy making rather than full control over whether to follow a bigger countrys policy...

You realize that a unified Europe still won't have a say in America's decisions, right?

Its not a say in America's decisions i want, though we could much more easily persuade them to our views as a unified nation, or at the very least not be small states swayed easily by the much bigger states (USA or in future China)

Not the point.

So when you said "making us all the same is not a con ?" in response to medilil's pro EU post you didn't actually mean that a single european goverment would make us all the same ?

Beskar

06-24-2009, 00:19

Actually, there are foreign units stationed in America. But that is irrelevant, because when most of these bases were established, who was going to defend who?

Troops do visit America but there are no foreign bases on American soil. So my point still stands. Also, who will defend them from America? For some-one who apparently dislikes the idea of outsider control, you have no problems with foreign military bases all over your country.

NATO comes immediately to mind.

You mean the treaty which is basically controlled by America, which was created against the threat of the USSR? I see much resistance there from the American Satellite club.

It is an alliance. America is more powerful than Britain, but Britain is no puppet of America.

It is a puppet, it is pretty much a well known fact, hell, it's been in our own media enough times the cartoons of Blair and Bush for example. Blair will got the lapdog award from Bush himself.

Just google image search "Blair Bush" and you will see lots of results.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-24-2009, 00:27

At the moment we have full control over this decision. Follow American policy or not. Under EU we would have control of less than a twentieth of actual policy making rather than full control over whether to follow a bigger countrys policy...

You know full well that isn't the case.

Its not a say in America's decisions i want, though we could much more easily persuade them to our views as a unified nation, or at the very least not be small states swayed easily by the much bigger states (USA or in future China)

You don't have to be swayed, controlled, or unified.

So when you said "making us all the same is not a con ?" in response to medilil's pro EU post you didn't actually mean that a single european goverment would make us all the same ?

People aren't the same. I don't want to run the risk of us becoming the same.

Troops do visit America but there are no foreign bases on American soil. So my point still stands.

There are no bases as such, but there are foreign installations and forces stationed in America (by the way, America only has bases in 39 nations, not the 130 that you claimed).

Also, who will defend them from America? For some-one who apparently dislikes the idea of outsider control, you have no problems with foreign military bases all over your country.

I'm not actually a fan of the bases, but they don't intrude on our sovereignty because they are there on our perogative.

You mean the treaty which is basically controlled by America, which was created against the threat of the USSR? I see much resistance there from the American Satellite club.

Doesn't change the fact that we are in NATO out of our own free will. And America still doesn't dictate our foreign policy.

It is a puppet, it is pretty much a well known fact, hell, it's been in our own media enough times the cartoons of Blair and Bush for example. Blair will got the lapdog award from Bush himself.

Blair is not Britain. Britain had the choice to make.

You're ignoring the point. Britain has the sole and complete choice to make where it wants to go with foreign policy. Whether Britain wants to go with America or not is entirely Britain's decision. If Britain follows, it follows - but it was Britain's decision to follow if it did. In the EU, Britain simply wouldn't have this choice.

Beskar

06-24-2009, 00:30

There are no bases as such, but there are foreign installations and forces stationed in America (by the way, America only has bases in 39 nations, not the 130 that you claimed).

39 were listed, the rest come under "Other states" which is around 300 installations.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-24-2009, 00:33

In addition to my earlier post, many nations, from Britain to Canada, have had or have bases in Germany. America is by no means the only one. Also, today in Germany there are more former than current US Army bases.

Then there is Russia, which has military bases in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Ukraine and so on.

39 were listed, the rest come under "Other states" which is around 300 installations.

From your link:

The real property portfolio managed by the Department of Defense encompasses a worldwide footprint to include all 50 States, seven U.S. territories, and 39 foreign countries...

Tribesman

06-24-2009, 00:44

if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

Tell that to Fidel

not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression
Selectively quoting?
It was the full line, you claimed...we have the second largest official defence budget .....nothing misleading about what I wrote at all .
However your claim was just outright false, which would be a very misleading impression if it wasn't such obvious bollox.

LittleGrizzly

06-24-2009, 00:46

You know full well that isn't the case.

It pretty much is, we can make some small scale decisions on our own, maybe a bit more aid or aid for something specific. But in terms of real foriegn policy actions there's very little we can do by ourselves, this usually leaves us just going along with what America's doing... With the EU we could have a very meaningful foriegn policy, completely dictated in our terms rather than by a larger power...

Democracy FTW!

You don't have to be swayed, controlled, or unified.

No we don't, but we usually end up swayed, or controlled. So we may as well unify and control our own destiny rather than be swayed or controlled by outside powers..

People aren't the same. I don't want to run the risk of us becoming the same.

I agree with the first statement. The second statement is strange... what risk is there of us becoming the same if every single goverment in exisistance presides over people who are all different...

What about the EU goverment that doesn't exsist in a single goverment anywhere else in the world will make people the same ?!?

Whereas say the German goverment cleverly avoids making all Germans the same...

Beskar

06-24-2009, 00:48

Admittedly, I googled around and it mentioned different kinds of numbers, that one seemed constant.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-24-2009, 01:40

But in terms of real foriegn policy actions there's very little we can do by ourselves

But as a sovereign nation you can change that by yourselves. :idea2:

With the EU we could have a very meaningful foriegn policy, completely dictated in our terms rather than by a larger power...

No, your entire foreign policy will be dictated by a larger power - the EU. The point is that right now you have a choice whether you want to go with America or not, and under the EU you will have none.

No we don't, but we usually end up swayed, or controlled. So we may as well unify and control our own destiny rather than be swayed or controlled by outside powers..

Unification by definition is giving your destiny to someone else. Right now you can take whatever course you want as a sovereign nation. Under a common foreign policy you would have some influence, but no more than that.

Whereas say the German goverment cleverly avoids making all Germans the same...

It hasn't. But in most cases people value the nation over the region. For me, the nation is the ideal level, and anything above it is too much.

LittleGrizzly

06-24-2009, 02:14

But as a sovereign nation you can change that by yourselves.

I suppose technically your right, we could hypothetically set in motion policy now which in the future would result in us having the means to carry out major foriegn policy by ourselves. Realistically speaking your wrong, our heyday is behind is and unless things change direction the meaningul influence we can have on foriegn policy (small as it is) is only going to shrink

No, your entire foreign policy will be dictated by a larger power - the EU.

But we will be that larger power, or to be exact, a part of it. So we will be dictated to by the larger power of ourselves.Rather than the larger power of someone else. To follow your argument to its conclusion would imply that Scotland, England, Wales and Northenrn Ireland have thier own foriegn policy dictated to them, whereas the fact is they dictate thier foriegn policy in unison.

The point is that right now you have a choice whether you want to go with America or not, and under the EU you will have none.

The point actually is that right now we have 100% control of a yes/no choice to go along with what another major power is doing or not. Under the EU we will have less than 5% control of doing whatever we want...

To me less than 5% of whatever you want is a lot better than 100% of only going along with others if you want to...

And TBH the fact is alot of thinking on foriegn policy overlaps in Europe so its not as if Britian is going have its less than 5% against the other 95% all the time.

Unification by definition is giving your destiny to someone else.

So when a couple unify (or marriage as its called) do they both give away any decision making right to some mystical entity called marriage ?

Or does it merely mean there is now 2 people involved in the decision making process rather than just 1 ?

Right now you can take whatever course you want as a sovereign nation.

Technically we can do whatever we want, realistically speaking we can't. The actual situation is of much more concern to me that what we could hypothetically do by ourselves...

Under a common foreign policy you would have some influence, but no more than that.

As i have said, some influence over an independent foriegn policy is far better than complete authority over whether to go along with some other major powers plan...

It hasn't.

Your going to have to provide me a definition of what you mean by making Germans the same...

Our British goverment must be much better than i thought then... from region to region britian is different, cross the border from Wales into England and people will not tire of telling you how different the Welsh are to the English... this despite having the same goverment for hundreds of years...

Though in all honesty i think people worldwide are pretty similar, then there are slight differences even as you go from one village to a neighborouring village... if your worried about people being the same globalisation and the internet are your enemies, simply living under one goverment doesn't eradicate differences as shown by Britian. The internet and globalisation are doing far more work to make us one people... also American cultural influence... again a far bigger eradicator of our differences in europe than one goverment would be...

Unless you mean silly differences like different currencys or different plug sockets...

For me, the nation is the ideal level, and anything above it is too much.

What level is the nation level ?

The EU would be smaller (population wise at least) than India and China, are these not nations ?

What about America ? surely that is too big ?

Sarmatian

06-24-2009, 02:41

But as a sovereign nation you can change that by yourselves. :idea2:

Can you really? Let's take a not so hypothetical situation. Germany doesn't want Ukraine or Georgia in NATO, because of the simple fact that it will worsen relationship with Russia. Doesn't matter if it is right or wrong or if you agree with it or not personally with this German policy, this is a point where German government and American government disagree. Yet, America is pushing and inviting Ukraine and Georgia at NATO summits, having NATO exercises in Georgia and blah, blah. Naturally, this worsens German and Russian relationship, precisely what German government didn't want.

Europe wants alternative sources of natural gas and oil. Not just because of the political reasons but diversifying your suppliers base is always good. The only country in the vicinity with enough gas is Iran. Europe wants it, US says no. Instead Europe is forced to wait for the eventual Nabucco (which would be US sponsored and controlled), which might never happen as there aren't enough reliable sources of gas.

You may think it's all worth if it will keep America on your good side or that America deserves some leniency because they are investing so much in NATO or whatever but don't kid yourself. By being in NATO and by being dependent on American foreign policy, European countries already surrendered part of its sovereignty, which you treasure so much and are worried that EU will steal from you.

There are only two truly sovereign countries in the world - USA and China. Russia comes close, then come other bigger countries, like India. Then there's a decent gap and then larger European nations come into play. And with how things are developing in 21st century, that gap will become bigger and bigger.

No, your entire foreign policy will be dictated by a larger power - the EU. The point is that right now you have a choice whether you want to go with America or not, and under the EU you will have none.

That's true somewhat. Now you don't have a say in what will happen but you can agree or disagree, which will be duly noted and archived and it will still be happening, whether you like it or not. That's in the case of bigger European countries. In the case of smaller countries, even that is not true. Czech politicians openly admitted that the main reason Czech recognized Kosovo is immense pressure from the US. In the case of a strongly federal EU you will have less freedom to agree or disagree but you will have a say in what's gonna happen.

Beskar

06-24-2009, 03:25

Hypothetically, since the EU would be represented from all the nations, democracy dictates it would probably have to be like a 60% majority out of all of Europe for something to happen.

If you look recently, Europe as a whole has pretty much said "No" to wars (especially France and Germany) with like UK being the exception and a couple of other countries having to make a "contribution" or gets tons of flack from the USA.

So judging European foreign policy as a whole, Europe would probably very much end up being very to it-self while America runs around playing World Police.

Anyway, as I said, you could try to ensure Europe becomes the democratic paradise we want it to be, or sit in the a corner with fingers in our ears and go "lalalala" while the forces that don't want that make it so.

Incongruous

06-24-2009, 08:04

I just told you.

Because this world is unforgiving, my friends. I am amazed that I have to remind someone like Fragony of that; I am supposed to be the dreamer, remember.

How many times have the Americans asked us to pull our weight in international affairs? And how many times did we have to answer that all we had was a dead weight, a community of lazy, inward-looking shopkeepers. And yes, the Napoleon reference is intentional.

Unforgiving, as in lets follow the U.S and reign in any of those idiots in the developing world who pose any sort of threat to us? Yeah sounds great, looking foreward to more Afghan type adevntures then are we? Pulling "our" weight, and "international affairs" so that translates as commiting acts of agression and U.S foreign policy...

A nation of shopkeepers sounds good to me, better than a nation of peace keepers, at least.

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 08:20

@Furunculus
UK's best national interest doesn't equal the best interest for its people. If I remember correctly, America apparently gave "incentives" to the nation for them to tag along at the cost of our lives.
do you mean that america agreed to do things for us if we did things for them, wow, revolutionary!

@Furunculus"America to refuse to service our missiles" Why do we need America too? Does the Iran service our tanks?
"Switch off GPS" why not have our own GPS? Do the Russians use America's GPS too?
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose" It would really stop America, wouldn't? 'we won't give you the codes lalallala'

i don't know how to put this any other way, what you utter is utter nonsense.

the use of our strategic deterrent is operationally independant, thus is serves its purpose.

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 08:24

Tell that to Fidel

because germany = cuba, right?

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 08:39

Selectively quoting?
It was the full line, you claimed...we have the second largest official defence budget .....nothing misleading about what I wrote at all .
However your claim was just outright false, which would be a very misleading impression if it wasn't such obvious bollox.

for anyone else that is interested in a masterclass in pointless obfuscation that dodges every relevant issue in the debate with incorrect nit-picking, i give you Tribesman:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268767&postcount=61

why?

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

we have the second largest official defence budget

we have the joint fifth largest economy

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

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

for what reason does britain need to be a part of a federated EU?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268782&postcount=64

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

You have the 2nd largest external debt
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268794&postcount=65

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia. i did in fact state that in the original post, but i edited out precisely because i knew i could have so much fun with careless nitpickers, and guess who showed up. :laugh4:

and so what? i'm not saying its great, but times are tough you know and we have just had 12 years of labour throwing money up the wall.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268916&postcount=77

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

And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only throwing money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268928&postcount=80

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

again, so what? how does that relate to having a vast public debt which derives from annual additional public spending which amounts to £200+ billion each year since 97?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268934&postcount=81

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: somehow this is an adequate response to the issue of how defence budgets can be compared............
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268938&postcount=82

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

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

good going.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268955&postcount=83

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Wrong?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Look....
No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2268974&postcount=84

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

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

you're intelligent enough to debate very well on your own merits, you should try it sometime. :)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2269117&postcount=101

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?
That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2269189&postcount=107

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?
not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression, but yes, that's exactly what i said too:

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

That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.
that is because you still haven't figured out that comparing national figures of what they consider to be their defence spending is not relevant, but i did try:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but to return to the core question; what is the point of your pointless (and incorrect) nit-picking, are you leading somewhere with this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

truly awesome display there Tribesman.

you are either trolling for fun, or thoroughly deficient of understanding, either way I am happy for you to continue as long as you don't derail the thread, i am having quite enough fun as it is.

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 08:51

you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?
Wouldn't most new ideas do that, like free trade (back in the day) but thats not a bad one...
Edit: I seem to remember some mildly successful union... Scotland and England might have been... did that go badly ?

America doesn't control Britain.
Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

but WHY do it? why take this grand experiment with the welfare of the future world when there is zero need. i just cannot shake the impression that transnational progressivism is the very foolish.
free-trade does not equal political union, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
the two nations of england and scotland do not compare to the 27 nations of the EU.

Have you considered that i do not want to tell european nations what to do? equally i do not want them telling us what to do. i simply do not desire that control, and certainly not at the expense of watering down britains ability to choose her own course.

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 08:55

Unforgiving, as in lets follow the U.S and reign in any of those idiots in the developing world who pose any sort of threat to us? Yeah sounds great, looking foreward to more Afghan type adevntures then are we? Pulling "our" weight, and "international affairs" so that translates as commiting acts of agression and U.S foreign policy...

A nation of shopkeepers sounds good to me, better than a nation of peace keepers, at least.

i cannot escape the impression that those who argue here for being a counterweight to the US, collective force etc, combined clout in the face of china and russia, are doing so because they fear the future, and despise what they consider their underdog past.

what they don't realise is that europe doesn't punch at its weight because europe isn't prepared to throw a punch, and its adversaries know this. this is not the lack of a unified army, it is a lack of will-power.

Tribesman

06-24-2009, 09:05

truly awesome display there Tribesman.

Yeah it displays that you were talking bollox.

But hey you are still at it
Looky.....
because germany = cuba, right? ....more bollox.
Given what people have said about your warped views and how you form them it does appear that my comment the mods deleted was indeed spot on.

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 09:32

Yeah it displays that you were talking bollox.
But hey you are still at it

Given what people have said about your warped views and how you form them it does appear that my comment the mods deleted was indeed spot on.

whatever.

go pm it to me, i'm curious.

Tribesman

06-24-2009, 11:28

whatever.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

go pm it to me, i'm curious.
Curiouser and curiouser.
It was just that you would be found in company with a dormouse and a hare

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 11:32

and they deleted that, how strange.

Banquo's Ghost

06-24-2009, 11:51

Gentlemen,

May we return to an interesting debate, minus the personal acrimony? :inquisitive:

Thank you kindly

:bow:

LittleGrizzly

06-24-2009, 12:19

but WHY do it? why take this grand experiment with the welfare of the future world when there is zero need.

I wouldn't really say there is zero need. You could have said before the English Scottish union that its a grand experiment, it was. It worked wonderfully.

free-trade does not equal political union, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

I didn't suggest it was, I merely said at one time that was also a new idea, one that perhaps in some people's view flew in the face of recorded history. Democracy was another example of this... my point being an idea being new and not tried before doesn't make it nessecarily bad...

the two nations of england and scotland do not compare to the 27 nations of the EU.

I would say there are more similarities between mainland britian and western Europe than there where between Soctland and England...

Have you considered that i do not want to tell european nations what to do? equally i do not want them telling us what to do. i simply do not desire that control, and certainly not at the expense of watering down britains ability to choose her own course.

Have you considered that i would rather have some sort of control over a meaningful foriegn policy rather than simply having the choice to follow one of the larger powers foriegn policys. In the same way other people in Britian tell you what to do and you tell other people in Britian what to do just with Europe instead of just Britian..

If your problem is telling others what to do that is understandable but we would have far more control of foriegn policy as part of a meaningful foriegn power so in my opinion the being told what to do part is a moot point, we are already told what to do...

Beskar

06-24-2009, 12:59

do you mean that america agreed to do things for us if we did things for them, wow, revolutionary!

What on earth are you on about? That has absolutely no relation to my comment.

i don't know how to put this any other way, what you utter is base drivel, unreconstructed nonsense.

the use of our strategic deterrent is operationally independant, thus is serves its purpose.

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 13:43

the US cannot stop the UK launching missiles. it is operationally independent.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-24-2009, 16:24

What on earth are you on about? That has absolutely no relation to my comment.

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

They don't have the codes, they service the warheads. Were the US to remove that support the deterrent would remain viable for 14 months. Therefore the deterrent is Operationally independant. The US cannot stop the launch.

Kagemusha

06-24-2009, 16:44

Edit: Haha! I found this question, i kept looking for it as I remembered reading it.

Basically, a unification would actually equalize all the incomes over Europe. If there was a European minimum wage with European tax laws it would mean on average, people would roughly be paid and taxed the same, this would cause areas to rapidly start charging the same sort of prices for things and it would increase the incomes from the worse-off in Europe to better and with them having more money, they also would be spending this in their areas, bringing economical growth and interest into areas. Other countries also wouldn't have problems selling stock in these poorer areas either, as they don't have to sell them at a loss in comparison to if they did in the far West of Europe.

This sounds all nice and dandy.Just like pure socialism as a theory. So if you would set a European minimum vage, based on what would it be set. If you would set it based on the wages of some of the poorest countries of Europe, it would drag the wages down on the more better off countries, which would create misery in those countries, thus not a very good idea.
Would you set the minimum wage based on the richest countries. It could not be met simply in the poorer countries as the empoyers could not maintain business anymore. Basically this whole idea reeks socialism. That the European countries should give in and share all their wealth even. Well that is the antithesis of socialism. If everything would be shared evenly this evening between all people. The case would not be same anymore on the next morning.
I dont have anything against being a net payer in EU, in order to develop the poorer European countries, but i am not ready to drop my standard of living for the greater good of European federal state.

Special Circumstances would simply be based on case-by-case basis. However, a federal government has different layers which handles issues on different stages, so majority of the bottom stage stuff doesn't even reach the top, unless it is really important as it is handled on that level.

Also, we wouldn't be creating another layer, if anything, that layer is already there as it is, and it would actually become far more streamlined, especially when each of the European areas are reconstructed to fit ideally into this system instead of the current piece-meal style system.

Regional conditions again are handled on a regional basis and if they are very important, the "top" will know.

Again we are not living in perfect world. Larger the organisation. Less efficient it will become.

Not really, none of the European nations are as powerful as they think they are. It is an arrogance that somehow all the European nations seem to think they are really all powerful. They are strong yes, but you imply that nations such as the Netherlands can go toe-on-toe against Russia or America or China or other real major powers. On the otherhand, the combined might of all the nations such as France, Britain, Germany, (the other european nations) all together would be a really powerful military force that would rival the likes of America. Also, "part of a powerful superstate that has the need to project its power" why are we members of NATO then, which is the powerful American Superstates need to project its power? Just saying.

Again this can be accomplished without Federal state, just like it is currently handed via NATO. Remember that you are now trying to argue about pros of Federal State, not about if the whole EU is needed.

LittleGrizzly

06-24-2009, 16:54

This sounds all nice and dandy.Just like pure socialism as a theory. So if you would set a European minimum vage, based on what would it be set. If you would set it based on the wages of some of the poorest countries of Europe, it would drag the wages down on the more better off countries, which would create misery in those countries, thus not a very good idea.
Would you set the minimum wage based on the richest countries. It could not be met simply in the poorer countries as the empoyers could not maintain business anymore. Basically this whole idea reeks socialism. That the European countries should give in and share all their wealth even. Well that is the antithesis of socialism. If everything would be shared evenly this evening between all people. The case would not be same anymore.
I dont have anything against being a net payer in EU, in order to develop the poorer European countries, but i am not ready to drop my standard of living for the greater good of European federal state.

I don't see Beskars strategy working too well... at least in the short term... its more of a long to medium term strategy in my eyes...

Personally I wouldn't join all the countries up straight away, you can do it in gradual stages. At the moment we are investing in the poorer members of the EU (or just the poorer parts, I know that Wales gets a decent amount of european funding, or at least did) with this and increased integration we shall drag the rest of Europe up to the standards of England and France. It isn't just a loss for us us and a gain for the smaller economies, these countries contain scores of young people just ready to start paying taxes to support our ageing populations, this and the fact is alot of the poorer country's have a lot of potential to become quite rich countrys. We get them there more quickly and benefit from it....

I would certainly want more of an equality across Europe before we join into one country with a single minimum wage and the like...

Furunculus

06-24-2009, 16:59

do you recognise that a majority in this country categorically do not want to become part of a federated europe?

LittleGrizzly

06-24-2009, 17:57

Beskar

06-24-2009, 18:12

Kagemusha

06-24-2009, 19:01

If the Media started saying a federated Europe is the best thing since sliced bread, then the majority would support it. However, the media such as the Sun or the Daily Mail only print stupid things like "They want to turn us Metric! Burn them at stakes!". The best thing I loved was the whole Gurka's living in Britain, it was the only time I saw the Daily Mail running the headline "We oppose Foreigners not being allowed to come into Britain"

Also, what I said is a medium to long term solution in regards to wages, obviously uniting in a Federal Europe would go into stages and as LittleGrizzley said, any investment we make, we will get returns on.

My biggest objection, is Kagemusha trying to imply Socialism is a bad thing.

I am sorry Beskar but you misunderstood me, could be my less then perfect grammar causing that. I dont think socialism is bad thing, not at all.It is a beutiful theory, but does not work in practice. Im myself a supporter of mixed economy, so i respect social issues as a binding glue that keeps the society together. But i am not an idealist and cant support something that can only work as a theory.

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 00:10

do you recognise that a majority in this country categorically do not want to become part of a federated europe?

Can't say i have seen the figures but i would guess the majority would be in the no section, whats your point ?

just curious to see if you were keen on federalism regardless of what the majority of your comrades/compatriots might think?

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 00:14

If the Media started saying a federated Europe is the best thing since sliced bread, then the majority would support it. However, the media such as the Sun or the Daily Mail only print stupid things like "They want to turn us Metric! Burn them at stakes!". The best thing I loved was the whole Gurka's living in Britain, it was the only time I saw the Daily Mail running the headline "We oppose Foreigners not being allowed to come into Britain"

Also, what I said is a medium to long term solution in regards to wages, obviously uniting in a Federal Europe would go into stages and as LittleGrizzley said, any investment we make, we will get returns on.

My biggest objection, is Kagemusha trying to imply Socialism is a bad thing.

you realise that is a very telling trait of those in favour of progressive/lefty politics, the fact the the average man doesn't know what is good for him, and that your solution correctly applied, and given him time, will sway him from his erroneous ways on to the true path.

how about investing in britain/trading partners and getting returns on that? might be easier, will certainly be more effective.

it's not bad, it's just a little bit naive, you'll get over it. strangling puppies is bad.

Beskar

06-25-2009, 00:47

you realise that is a very telling trait of those in favour of progressive/lefty politics, the fact the the average man doesn't know what is good for him, and that your solution correctly applied, and given him time, will sway him from his erroneous ways on to the true path.

It is an unfortunate fact that the average man doesn't know what is good for him, as they aren't taught or made to understand things. Simple education providing key skills such as critical thinking and how to research/come up with valid conclusions by itself will make the common man know what is good for them. If you noticed, I never biased that in any direction.

Also, it's not naive, it is rather people just being selfish. A trait from capitalism.

Also, I love how you labelled me as progressive. It is more of a compliment than an insult.

Incongruous

06-25-2009, 00:57

Indeed, how about investing in Britain?

The fact that Britain has lacked a leader for the past half century and has instead made do with politicians, means that the natural reaction towards yet more politicos, but this time foreigners, is bound to be negative.

What pro-Eu campaigners should be doing, is stop thinking about how best to bring up the poorer European countries to our standards, and instead looking at how to sort out the UK. By moving towards federation with what we have now, you are plotting its destruction.

The UK is a mess, I would also put it that the EU is a mess, the best thing to do is to stop and fix the problems. I would also put it that the best thing for the EU right now, is honesty and openess, allowing people to vote upon further integration is vital. Without referendums, the EU will be increasingly seen as a power hungry bunch of would be autocrats who hide behind legal wankery to get what they want. You will increasingly leave fair minded people by the way side, to be picked up by anti-EU parties.

The EU, is a long term goal, like fifty years or more, I'd say perhaps a century. You want it to work, start moving your efforts towards localised and national projects of investment. Be seen to be the ones who give, because at the moment you are seen as the ones who take and interfere with democracy.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-25-2009, 02:13

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-25-2009, 02:18

LittleGrizzly

06-25-2009, 02:36

KukriKhan

06-25-2009, 02:56

Seamus Fermanagh

06-25-2009, 03:08

Concur, Kukri. The older I become, the more I think up new questions and the more I realize I don't have the answers. Aside from a notably shorter refraction interval, the thing I envy the most in the young is their certainty.

I'm not all that thrilled with the increasing power of our OWN central government and would prefer some reversion to the states.

Beskar and the other EU centralists want one big happy state with adminstrative districts called France, Germany etc. Can't say as I favor that for Europe either, though ultimately its up to them not to me.

LittleGrizzly

06-25-2009, 03:09

Wow. How blatant and 'out there'.

And euro's wonder why yanks are suspicious. Beskar is a young guy. That he holds such thoughts and entertains them, tells me that the USSR didn't die , it simply got smarter, to wit: quit the shoe-banging at the UN, stop the economically-draining arms race with the US... just spread the word. The word of universal harmony. Directed by people who know what's good/best for the people.

I don't know if you missed the post or didn't know the source of the quote. Winston Churchill (fairly conservative and a big hater of communism) The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with your average voter. I don't think the view that people are generally un educated... or at least not very knowledagable on politics is a paticularly shocking one. I know for a fact that most of my friends are clueless about politics, admittedly most of these are about 18-20 but i find even as you go up the age groups there is a shocking lack of knowledge about politics... even in the intrested...

Seamus, out of interest would you prefer the states under one national goverment with more state rights, which is something like i would want in Europe. Or 50 seperate countrys with free trade agreements and occasional overlaps in policy where the states (now seperate countrys) work together ?

Incongruous

06-25-2009, 03:28

I don't know if you missed the post or didn't know the source of the quote. Winston Churchill (fairly conservative and a big hater of communism) The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with your average voter. I don't think the view that people are generally un educated... or at least not very knowledagable on politics is a paticularly shocking one. I know for a fact that most of my friends are clueless about politics, admittedly most of these are about 18-20 but i find even as you go up the age groups there is a shocking lack of knowledge about politics... even in the intrested...

Seamus, out of interest would you prefer the states under one national goverment with more state rights, which is something like i would want in Europe. Or 50 seperate countrys with free trade agreements and occasional overlaps in policy where the states (now seperate countrys) work together ?

So, the best thing is to sort out your own backyard before expanding it and then realising that it's just as bad.

If people are uninterested about politics now, why the heck will they take an interest in the maze of toss which comprises the EU. Instead of lambasting your fellow taxpayers and Britons for not knowing enough, seek a solution, if they do not know enough, help them know enough. Do not use their lack of knowledge as a weapon against them or as reason to disregard their what they firmly hold as their right to have a say. Doing anything else will merely anatgonise those people who view the EU through a mist of fear and apprehension.

Beskar

06-25-2009, 03:58

If I actually said my true beliefs then people here would simply dismiss them because they are far further down the pipe-line. The idea of minimising trade-discrepancy is classed as "Out there" and "long-term" at the moment.

However, I am going to raise up some points, which show some weird contridictions or a bias.

The UK is a mess, I would also put it that the EU is a mess, the best thing to do is to stop and fix the problems....

Apologise for cutting your vote short, but I hold the same opinion, Britain is a mess, the whole idea we even still have a monarch is stupid and backwards. The idea there are MP's who stated that the public should have no say in regards to Tax Payers money and even belief they are better than the people they are serving.

you say that the average man doesn't know what is good for him. What distinguishes you from the average man?

Want the really short answer? I voted. Yes, only 33% or so of the population voted in the MEP elections and even most of them went to a complete waste. By this fact alone, the average person doesn't even bother to vote, most likely has minimum or no interest in politics and simply don't even care. Such behaviour causes mass idiocies and allows the government to get away with signing things like the Lisbon treaty without countries even having a say in the matter. Majority of this general apathy is to do with the lack of democracy in the system.

The long story is that I believe I am different for reasons, that doesn't mean I am better, it just means I am different. Like a lawyer to a doctor to an accountant. They are different but one is not better than another as a whole.

That he holds such thoughts and entertains them, tells me that the USSR didn't die , it simply got smarter

You are confusing political ideology, as I am on the opposite side to the USSR. The USSR is a totalitarian regime which believes in complete centralisation and control. I believe the power should be in the hands of the people in direct democracy system and ministers/mp's/etc are merely elected civil servants who follow the will of the people and have no power as such themselves in a sense that it doesn't create a new class. Actually, if anything, the world is coming far more like the USSR, how many of your freedoms have been curbed in the "fight against terror" ? It is like the joke of "In Mother Russia, TV watches you" now, London is the CCTV capital of the world, it brings those Mother Russia jokes to reality. Except, I am advocating a change from that, however, I am being thrown in with the Status Quo opposed to my progressive policies which defends liberties and civil rights?

Beskar and the other EU centralists want one big happy state with adminstrative districts called France, Germany etc. Can't say as I favor that for Europe either, though ultimately its up to them not to me.

I have two answers for this.

The current system of employing this, I am against, it is a guise by elites in enslaving the populations further against the will of the people. The other answer is, it can be done right where people actually have more power from it.

It is wrong to envision empowering people? It is wrong to able throw a bunch of people into one pool and go "You support the idea of a European Federation, you want to recreate the USSR!" when my policies and beliefs are drastically different and instead of attempting to see it that way, it simply gets dismissed or ignored.

You have no right to dictate merely because you believe you know best. Such thinking has in the past led to mass burnings of heretics for the good of the Respublica Christiana.

I know! I mean, Martin Luther spoke against the Catholic Church and look now, we have these protestants. You have William Wilberforce, so sure of his convictions against the British Slave Trade, even when all these people were lining their pockets at the expense of captured-africans. Thanks to his dedication, it played a massive part in ending this suffering.

Please don't use stupid examples, I can pull out loads of good ones.

Beskar

06-25-2009, 04:14

Instead of lambasting your fellow taxpayers and Britons for not knowing enough, seek a solution, if they do not know enough, help them know enough. Do not use their lack of knowledge as a weapon against them or as reason to disregard their what they firmly hold as their right to have a say. Doing anything else will merely anatgonise those people who view the EU through a mist of fear and apprehension.

I already spoke about this, please look earlier. I recommended teaching critical thinking and how to get your own sources equipping a population with the tools to make the right choices. Also, you have to remember, talking about a Federal Europe is on a completely different time-scale, no one is saying they want it tomorrow, it simply won't work and I believe as you said, you need to deal with the backyard first.

If you want some direct answers now, how about reading this:

The biggest answer would be declaring a Consitutional Republic and creating a 5-state Federal Government of Scotland, Wales, North England, South England and Northern Ireland. Before you wonder, majority of this framework is already in place, it is just that the majority are held by unelected dangos. Using the Britain "at the top" in regards to issues that effect everything, the majority of the power is at the local level, the top is merely a bridge/framework holding everything together.

In elections, we will keep with a similar system of how MP's are elected now, but they play their part now in their areas and not in Westminster and anyone representing the areas such as North England, would have to be elected separately. The part of MP's are merely administrative function and elected people to do the job while majority of policy is done through Direct Democracy and using resources such as the Internet to engage the public more with policies. You create a system of transparency, luckily the Freedom of Information Act has done great work in this field, to prevent issues such as corruption arising. All essential infrastructural resources such as energy/gas should be re-nationalised, removing the idiocy Thatcher put in place and we work on attempting to get energy independence to prevent foreign powers such as Russian forcing its will like it does with the likes of the Ukraine on us.

As for tackling issues such as apathy and lack of political education, in schools, the main underlying policies would be taught along with key skills such as being able to verify and examine sources of information, using critical thinking skills and other things in order to equip a population of informed politically aware citizens. Other causes would start to disappear as people would see the effects of decisions and know they are being heard.

How about that for a short couple of paragraphs? Doesn't really sound as authoritarian as people accuse me of trying to suggest.

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 08:45

Der Spiegel analysis: They prefer to sit with facists than federalists:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,632033,00.html#ref=rss

Austrian People’s Party? Nope: they’re in the EPP. Gianfranco Fini’s “post-fascist” Alleanza Nazionale? Nope, EPP too.

i enjoy reading der speigel, it is interesting to get a german perspective, but really, what a load of rubbish!

CountArach

06-25-2009, 08:51

Der Spiegel analysis: They prefer to sit with facists than federalists:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2270495
What a very bizarre link :laugh4:

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 09:03

What a very bizarre link :laugh4:

sorry, vista updates slowed my quad-core computer to a crawl this morning, it was taking 60 seconds to scroll the screen down an inch with the middle mouse! and copy-n-paste picked up the wrong URL as a consequence. :dizzy2:

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 09:10

It is an unfortunate fact that the average man doesn't know what is good for him, as they aren't taught or made to understand things. Simple education providing key skills such as critical thinking and how to research/come up with valid conclusions by itself will make the common man know what is good for them. If you noticed, I never biased that in any direction.

Also, it's not naive, it is rather people just being selfish. A trait from capitalism.

Also, I love how you labelled me as progressive. It is more of a compliment than an insult.
a lot of people seem to disagree with your 'benign' authoritarianism:

I'll give you the same ultimatum as I gave Amelius Paulus - you say that the average man doesn't know what is good for him. What distinguishes you from the average man?

I once thought in the same authoritarian vein. I don't anymore. As much as you hold yourself apart from the common man, eventually you will grow to realise that you are similar to him. Perhaps you are even just like him. And whatever you think, you do not know what is best for him any more than he knows what is best for you.

You have no right to dictate merely because you believe you know best. Such thinking has in the past led to mass burnings of heretics for the good of the Respublica Christiana.

If you cannot make the case for the federalised EU, that is your failing. Thus far the basic arguement is that the Euopean nations cannot work together, so they need to be forced to work together.

It's a crap arguement.

Wow. How blatant and 'out there'.

And euro's wonder why yanks are suspicious. Beskar is a young guy. That he holds such thoughts and entertains them, tells me that the USSR didn't die , it simply got smarter, to wit: quit the shoe-banging at the UN, stop the economically-draining arms race with the US... just spread the word. The word of universal harmony. Directed by people who know what's good/best for the people.

Concur, Kukri. The older I become, the more I think up new questions and the more I realize I don't have the answers. Aside from a notably shorter refraction interval, the thing I envy the most in the young is their certainty.

I'm not all that thrilled with the increasing power of our OWN central government and would prefer some reversion to the states.

Beskar and the other EU centralists want one big happy state with adminstrative districts called France, Germany etc. Can't say as I favor that for Europe either, though ultimately its up to them not to me.

If people are uninterested about politics now, why the heck will they take an interest in the maze of toss which comprises the EU. Instead of lambasting your fellow taxpayers and Britons for not knowing enough, seek a solution, if they do not know enough, help them know enough. Do not use their lack of knowledge as a weapon against them or as reason to disregard their what they firmly hold as their right to have a say. Doing anything else will merely anatgonise those people who view the EU through a mist of fear and apprehension.

you realise that is a very telling trait of those in favour of progressive/lefty politics, the fact the the average man doesn't know what is good for him, and that your solution correctly applied, and given him time, will sway him from his erroneous ways on to the true path.
this is commonly known as age-acquired-cynicism, that accrues through a lifetime of witnessing well-intentioned busy bodies in government screw things up.
it tracks a similar path to those adults who start of as left-wing firebrands and end up as stolid conservatives.

maybe there is a correlation?

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 09:18

just curious to see if you were keen on federalism regardless of what the majority of your comrades/compatriots might think?

Well i don't know about you but i don't base my political views on what the majority of people want...
If the majority of Brits wanted trident scrapped and the defence budget shrunk would you change your views or would you stick with your views regardless of what the majority of people think...
If we are just going to base policy on majority rules we can do away with all this politics nonsense and just have referendums on every issue...
I gotta agree with Ame and Beskar to a point. I would say it is a whole lot more due to disinterest than stupidity though, i don't consider myself a great mind i am just intrested in politics... my mere interest puts me above a sizeable chunk of the population.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with your average voter. After reading Frunculus post you would assume that quote came from a socialist (or just a lefty) think again...
i think i phrased the question very ill, let me try again. the question i was trying to ask was whether you supported the current 'policy' of advancing with ever deeper union (read: federalism) regardless of whether you asked the electorate if this is what they want, and in spite of the fact that all 'anecdotal' evidence suggests they explicitly do not?

nice churchill quote, but i not sure you should read into it that he supported authoritarian tyranny because the population is too bovine to know what is good for them!

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 11:44

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

JFYI - everything you need to know about the independence of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent

Independence of Operation, not independence of acquisition:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/2005/07/BritainsNuclearArsenalControl.htm

"2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?

No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes,
procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was
being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such
circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?

No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons?

No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the
answer to your second question."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm

"80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

81. Sir Michael Quinlan told us that the UK's decision to choose independence of operation meant that "in the last resort, when the chips are down and we are scared, worried to the extreme, we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not".[67] He argued that the decision to fire is an independent, sovereign decision. The United States "can neither dictate that the [UK's] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor [can it] apply any veto-legal or physical-if HMG were to decide upon [its] use".[68]

82. Commodore Hare told us that "operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else". He told us that the United States does not have a "technical golden key" which can prevent the UK from using the system.[69]

83. The potential disadvantage of the UK decision to forego independence of acquisition is that "if, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in… great difficulty".[70] Commodore Hare told us that such a risk was, in reality, "very low" and that, ultimately, "one must balance that risk against the enormous cost benefits that we have in procuring an American system to house in our submarines. That should not be underestimated".[71]"

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-25-2009, 11:54

I know! I mean, Martin Luther spoke against the Catholic Church and look now, we have these protestants. You have William Wilberforce, so sure of his convictions against the British Slave Trade, even when all these people were lining their pockets at the expense of captured-africans. Thanks to his dedication, it played a massive part in ending this suffering.

Please don't use stupid examples, I can pull out loads of good ones.

I used very apt examples. Luthor had the backing of his local elite, as did Huss before he was betrayed, condemned and burned. Wilberforce was an MP, it took him decades to make his case, but he did. Conviction is no bad thing, trying to ram-rod others into your way of thinking by force is a very bad thing.

That is what the Roman Catholic Church tried to do, that is was the Oligarchs of the EU are trying to do. Interestingly, both were grand plans to unify Europe and both were vehemently resisted at the grass-roots level.

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 12:57

Beskar

06-25-2009, 15:14

a lot of people seem to disagree with your 'benign' authoritarianism:

What authoritarianism?

That is what the Roman Catholic Church tried to do, that is was the Oligarchs of the EU are trying to do. Interestingly, both were grand plans to unify Europe and both were vehemently resisted at the grass-roots level.

What forcing and ram-rodding?

Both of those are just pulled out the air and have nothing to do with what I have been saying.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-25-2009, 15:22

What authoritarianism?

What forcing and ram-rodding?

Both of those are just pulled out the air and have nothing to do with what I have been saying.

You keep using the "people don't know what's good for them" line. You favour further integration over the reform despite the fact that it is not what the majoriety want.

Louis VI the Fat

06-25-2009, 16:09

Some facts:

- The entire EU has only 25.000 employees. Or, the amount of a medium sized provincial town.
- The entire EU expenditure is less than 1% of Gross European Product.
- For every Euro invested in the EU, it is estimated that, on average, a country earns six Euros.

And euro's wonder why yanks are suspicious.

the USSR didn't die , it simply got smarter,

Directed by people who know what's good/best for the people.The 'EUSSR' celebrated ten years of relentless pursuit of internal market: free trade, harmonisation and an removal of national protectionism - some of it hidden or undeliberate.

Extra prosperity to the cumulated value of €877 billion over the last ten years has been
created. That means €5,700 per household on average.

Here's the national-communist EU experiment:
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/ec.europa.eu/internal_market/10years/docs/workingdoc/workingdoc_en.pdf

Beskar and the other EU centralists want one big happy state with adminstrative districts called France, Germany etc. Can't say as I favor that for Europe either, though ultimately its up to them not to me.The EU protects the sovereignity of European nations, while simultaneously reinvigorating cross-national regionalism.

That is, the best of two worlds. France and German sovereignity is protected, Strasbourg is open to both Germans and French to live and work in.
The same goes for 'Ireland'. Irish sovereignity is protected against infringment, while the isle of Ireland is open to all Irish and others.
Etcetera. Sheer, unmitigated genius.

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 16:12

What authoritarianism?

if you haven't figured it out from my response, and the five quotes above then attempting further enlightenment might be a tough assignment!

LittleGrizzly

06-25-2009, 16:19

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 16:20

Some facts:
- The entire EU has only 25.000 employees. Or, the amount of a medium sized provincial town.
- The entire EU expenditure is less than 1% of Gross European Product.
- For every Euro invested in the EU, it is estimated that, on average, a country earns six Euros.
- too many already, and doing to much
- and that is 1% wasted in large part
- you mean investing in advanced western free-trade nations (to those on the inside) results in economic growth, how novel

The 'EUSSR' celebrated ten years of relentless pursuit of internal market: free trade, harmonisation and an removal of national protectionism - some of it hidden or undeliberate.
I'm all for it, so why does the UK want ever deeper union (read: federalism) again?

The EU protects the sovereignity of European nations, while simultaneously reinvigorating cross-national regionalism.

I thought NATO protected the sovereignty of european nations?
It's great that the EU reinvigorates cross-national regionalism, but why does the UK want ever deeper union (read: federalism) again?

That is, the best of two worlds. France and German sovereignity is protected, Strasbourg is open to both Germans and French to live and work in.
The same goes for 'Ireland'. Irish sovereignity is protected against infringment, while the isle of Ireland is open to all Irish and others.
Etcetera. Sheer, unmitigated genius.
I've always known that a major raison-d'etre* of ever deeper union was to stop nasty things like having other nations soldiers marching all over your own, but why does the UK want ever deeper union (read: federalism) again?

* please forgive my atrocious French

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 16:39

i think i phrased the question very ill, let me try again. the question i was trying to ask was whether you supported the current 'policy' of advancing with ever deeper union (read: federalism) regardless of whether you asked the electorate if this is what they want, and in spite of the fact that all 'anecdotal' evidence suggests they explicitly do not?

nice churchill quote, but i not sure you should read into it that he supported authoritarian tyranny because the population is too bovine to know what is good for them!

Now thats a better question, my answer is probably not, If the issue was a fairly close run thing possibly but anything over 60% against then no. Though there are some thing i would try to put through as prime minister whether the majority agreed or not, who wouldn't ?

Thats the beauty of the Churchill quote... and the one from Beskar, they don't rate your average voter but neither do they support Authoritarian tyranny!
i too support governments making the tough decisions that the herd aren't willing to make (it is the nature of any non-direct democracy), in all but one case:
when the government proposes to give the authority, that the citizens have loaned it on trust to act in their name, to a third party.
in that instance i want the government to ask the people: "hey guys, we know you expected us to rule you, but is it ok if we give that authority to some other bugger, i'm sure it will all be ok as they seem very nice?"

here's another churchill quote for you to chew on: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” and that demos-cratos, the link between the people and the power, is very important. and largely non-existant between nations because of the lack of shared values, and the perception of those shared values in others, which derive from a shared history, society and culture.

Tribesman

06-25-2009, 16:48

that would certainly seem to be the case.

20+ years ago participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU started in the high sixities percentage wise.

after 20+ years of creeping federalism, participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU sits in the low thirties.

correlation much?

Thats wierd , in your country voter turnout has remained around the same the euro elections and declined in the national elections.
Though 10 years ago Britain did get a one off big drop in turnout that would put them on the same level as the new eastern european countries this time round

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 16:58

Thats wierd , in your country voter turnout has remained around the same the euro elections and declined in the national elections.
Though 10 years ago Britain did get a one off big drop in turnout that would put them on the same level as the new eastern european countries this time round

i didn't state that it was, but maybe that reflects a perception among voters of the growing irrelevance of parliament in the face of ever greater divestitures of power to brussels?

that EU wide the proportion and enthusiasm of eu voters has declined by nearly a third is a sobering fact, the fact that within the UK it has never got much above one third is derisory.

Tribesman

06-25-2009, 17:08

that EU wide the proportion and enthusiasm of eu voters has declined by over 50% is a sobering fact,
You ain't very good with numbers are you

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 17:17

You ain't very good with numbers are you

i corrected that mistake three minutes before you post was made. is there any point to this pointless nitpicking?

LittleGrizzly

06-25-2009, 17:39

here's another churchill quote for you to chew on: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” and that demos-cratos, the link between the people and the power, is very important.

Well heres another thing me Beskar and Churchill can agree on, unless im reading Beskar wrong, he wants a democratic EU, I also want a democratic EU. So we all want the best form of goverment :)

largely non-existant between nations because of the lack of shared values, and the perception of those shared values in others, which derive from a shared history, society and culture.

So a democracy that hypothetically included England and Scotland as one nation would simply be unworkable because of the lack of shared values which derive from history, society and culture.

Or did the act of Union show that slight differences, such as those between the English and the Scottish, or for another example between the English and the French, aren't actually an impediment to those country's forming a democracy together ?

Kagemusha

06-25-2009, 18:22

Beskar

06-25-2009, 20:01

You keep using the "people don't know what's good for them" line. You favour further integration over the reform despite the fact that it is not what the majoriety want.

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? You are just seeing what you want to see.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-25-2009, 20:11

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? You are just seeing what you want to see.

I'm not the only one who views your posts in that way.

If there is a misrepresentation I think you are responsible for that.

Kralizec

06-25-2009, 20:17

And you believe that in the federal state these statistics would remain the same?:beam:

Rather then debating the merits of a (as of yet hypothetical) full-blown European states, let's approach this differently.

Can you list changes "forced" on your country by the EU that have effected you personally in a bad way?
Can you think of examples that the Lisbon treaties would add to that list?

Incongruous

06-25-2009, 20:46

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? You are just seeing what you want to see.

You have not been reading anyone elses either...

Indeed, have you even been reading your own?

I already spoke about this, please look earlier. I recommended teaching critical thinking and how to get your own sources equipping a population with the tools to make the right choices. Also, you have to remember, talking about a Federal Europe is on a completely different time-scale, no one is saying they want it tomorrow, it simply won't work and I believe as you said, you need to deal with the backyard first.

Sounds like a mess to me, I was thinking a proper, functioning publicly funded education system. You know, where teachers can actually teach because they have more than five text books to hand out to students who would rather not be there. You are taking it too far too fast, that is clear by the fact that most Britons do not want the Lisbon treaty ratified. Regardless of how sound their reasoning is, you will gave to listen to them sooner or later, sooner by giving them the referendum, or later by watching the enture edifice crumble due to the fatal lack of democratic process.

The biggest answer would be declaring a Consitutional Republic and creating a 5-state Federal Government of Scotland, Wales, North England, South England and Northern Ireland. Before you wonder, majority of this framework is already in place, it is just that the majority are held by unelected dangos. Using the Britain "at the top" in regards to issues that effect everything, the majority of the power is at the local level, the top is merely a bridge/framework holding everything together.

No it would not....:dizzy2:
Why on earth would being a Republic help? It would not, you would still end up having the same old tossers in power, plus you would have pissed off the large majority of the population who are pro-monarchy. The ability to use government at a more local level is possible now, its just that the idiots on top won't let it happen.

Beskar

06-25-2009, 22:32

I'm not the only one who views your posts in that way.

If there is a misrepresentation I think you are responsible for that.

Nope, it is the people who think supports of a Federal Europe = Authoritarian even when they are not even the same thing. I never even mentioned once for supporting the Lisbon treaty or even the current processes at work, except comments keep saying I do when I explicitly say I am not. Misrepresentation isn't a fault on my part, should I make it in size 6 lettering?

Why on earth would being a Republic help? It would not, you would still end up having the same old tossers in power, plus you would have pissed off the large majority of the population who are pro-monarchy. The ability to use government at a more local level is possible now, its just that the idiots on top won't let it happen.

It is a matter of principle and democracy. get rid of the un-democratic aspects of the system. Removing the impurities.

So now we are going from how to fix it to "the tossers on the top won't let it happen" ? These are two different arguments,

Tribesman

06-25-2009, 22:44

is there any point to this pointless nitpicking?

Yeah , you ain't very good with numbers and keep throwing them out even when they don't mean what you want them to mean.
So high 60s means low 60s and low 30s means low 40s

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 23:53

I used very apt examples. Luthor had the backing of his local elite, as did Huss before he was betrayed, condemned and burned. Wilberforce was an MP, it took him decades to make his case, but he did. Conviction is no bad thing, trying to ram-rod others into your way of thinking by force is a very bad thing.

That is what the Roman Catholic Church tried to do, that is was the Oligarchs of the EU are trying to do. Interestingly, both were grand plans to unify Europe and both were vehemently resisted at the grass-roots level.

that would certainly seem to be the case.

20+ years ago participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU started in the high sixities percentage wise.

after 20+ years of creeping federalism, participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU sits in the low thirties.

correlation much?

Thats wierd , in your country voter turnout has remained around the same the euro elections and declined in the national elections.
Though 10 years ago Britain did get a one off big drop in turnout that would put them on the same level as the new eastern european countries this time round

i didn't state that it was, but maybe that reflects a perception among voters of the growing irrelevance of parliament in the face of ever greater divestitures of power to brussels?

that EU wide the proportion and enthusiasm of eu voters has declined by >>>nearly a third<<< is a sobering fact, the fact that within the UK it has never got much above one third is derisory.

You ain't very good with numbers are you

i corrected that mistake three minutes before your post was made. is there any point to this pointless nitpicking?

Yeah , you ain't very good with numbers and keep throwing them out even when they don't mean what you want them to mean.
So high 60s means low 60s and low 30s means low 40s

keep nitpicking, you're making a great contribution to this discussion.

Furunculus

06-25-2009, 23:57

It is a matter of principle and democracy. get rid of the un-democratic aspects of the system. Removing the impurities.

So now we are going from how to fix it to "the tossers on the top won't let it happen" ? These are two different arguments,
those undemocratic aspects are what the people of this democracy want............................. or, is that just because they don't know what's best for them?

Beskar

06-26-2009, 00:08

Goes against fundamental values of any true democracy. It isn't a democracy is there is a monarch/dictator/any form of authoritarian leader. So the point is not valid.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 00:11

Goes against fundamental values of any true democracy. It isn't a democracy is there is a monarch/dictator/any form of authoritarian leader. So the point is not valid.

so the people get representative government when their needs meet your expectations of what is reasonable, and when they are being unereasonable they do not get that representative government.

dang those misguided proles, bring closer the glorious day when all work to the common good of the socialist paradise.

Beskar

06-26-2009, 00:14

What are you on about? I been speaking about direct democracy. The fundamental tenets of democracy is that everyone is equal. There are no divisions based on wealth, birth or other variables. Any elected official is merely an administrative puppet of the people, not a ruler of the people and the power remains with the people.

Or are you objecting against democracy?

Please, you are trying to make out I am authoritarian because I because in the people holding power not "those at the top" or "beaucrats" or "those of noble birth" etc. If anything, you are supporting authoritarianism by opposing policies and beliefs which are against them.

Tribesman

06-26-2009, 00:41

keep nitpicking, you're making a great contribution to this discussion.

Stop writing bollox then it won't be picked apart .
Your whole angle on the voting issue is so warped its laughable.
Leaving aside that your history was wrong and your numbers wrong just look at the ridiculous explanation you tried for the changes in voting trends.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-26-2009, 01:39

Goes against fundamental values of any true democracy. It isn't a democracy is there is a monarch/dictator/any form of authoritarian leader. So the point is not valid.

What if the leader is a paternalistic/maternalistic leader chosen by the country's legislature, and rules by the consent and endorsement of the people.

That is, after all, the constitutional position.

Incongruous

06-26-2009, 02:19

It is a matter of principle and democracy. get rid of the un-democratic aspects of the system. Removing the impurities.

So now we are going from how to fix it to "the tossers on the top won't let it happen" ? These are two different arguments,

:dizzy2:

The impurities? Are you serious?

You clearly havn't been reading what I wrote, very carefully. What you proposed was an erroneous replacement of the head of state and some half-baked poorly thought out idea of federation. Your idea of fixing it is bollox and I believe connected to your belief that the Lisbon treaty will help solve fundamental issues. You are changeing the decoration and glueing on glitter. I believe that improvemnt is possible within the current parliamentary system, but the problem is that we have no leaders, only politicians. Republican politicians would change nothing.

Any ratification of the Lisbon treaty (without a referendum) will doom pro-EU campaigners to be associated with anti-democratic tendencies, which will be seen as inherent within the EU.

In Britain, you will be seen to be allies of a dead Labour govt. and its wish to push through unwanted legislation before it finally falls. The pro-EU camp in Britain, would become far more unpopular than before. Regardess of how right you are, you would ruin yourselves.

The best thing to do, is nothing, at least in terms of further EU intergration. The UK is a mess, no one will believe that joining together with countries which are also messy, will make things better. It won't matter whether that assertion is right or not, it will be made.

Beskar

06-26-2009, 02:36

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? You are just seeing what you want to see.

You have not been reading anyone elses either...

Indeed, have you even been reading your own?

Nope, it is the people who think supports of a Federal Europe = Authoritarian even when they are not even the same thing. I never even mentioned once for supporting the Lisbon treaty or even the current processes at work, except comments keep saying I do when I explicitly say I am not. Misrepresentation isn't a fault on my part, should I make it in size 6 lettering?

Your idea of fixing it is bollox and I believe connected to your belief that the Lisbon treaty will help solve fundamental issues. You are changeing the decoration and glueing on glitter. I believe that improvemnt is possible within the current parliamentary system, but the problem is that we have no leaders, only politicians. Republican politicians would change nothing.

I do not want to repeat myself again. I already stated you are completely misrepresenting my views and I said explicitly I do not think much of the Lisbon treaty, except you just ignore that and state I have a belief in it.

Concept of Federal Europe =/= Lisbon Treaty.

There are other strawmans too, apparently holding an opinion means you want to put guns to peoples head. Then the idea of a larger community some how equals authoritarianism when I am strongly opposed to it. When I even say that authoritarian is bad, along with other concepts such as monarchy, I am now apparently the "bad one" again for speaking against authoritarianism by the same people who were saying I was an evil authoratarian.

Really, cut the nonsense out.

seireikhaan

06-26-2009, 03:03

Beskar

06-26-2009, 03:13

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-26-2009, 03:19

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?:inquisitive:

LittleGrizzly

06-26-2009, 03:31

Question(s) for EU federalists- What's really the ultimate goal of all this? What is the objective of further expansion of the EU? What would be provided by a Euro super state that the current states cannot already provide, given their currently is already near total freedom of trade and movement?

The best parts of it lie in our ability to influence the world, and in turn be less influenced by it (this could be a negative thing in some aspects but a few of the worlds rising powers are far less democratic and human rights concerned than EU states, so mostly a positive.) For example if China was heavily invested in a small eastern European state they may be much more positive to whatever China proposes even if its wrong and against public opinion, whereas this state as part of a bigger European state would have the power to match whatever negative effect China could try to put on it, so China wouldn't bother trying.

Or for an exsisting example check out the Eastern European country's that joined the Iraq war, many did so out of American pressure rather than a willingness to do so, i remember hearing that some didn't even let the public know they were supporting the war...

Another good example would be Russia, i heard differing arguments as to why they cut the gas supply (it may have been for good reason) but if they were to try such a thing with an EU state, they would be sorry. Russians seem pretty pragmatic so i don't think they would even try to mess with such an entity...
And outside of the foriegn policy advantages

Of course as Beskar mentioned as one political union we could work together far more effectively, we can also invest in the eastern european states which have a lot of potential and reap the rewards as they reach western European levels...

And to concentrate on something other than foriegn policy, our own space program, I think the EU has a space program (nothing much) but it would be far easier to organise one more at the American level if we were together as one country. As it is, any money which goes towards an EU space program would be probably be classed as money the EU wastes by the sceptics...

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?

Yes, we will force democracy and human rights on them through persuasion, diplomacy and with an economic carrot and stick. Far more effectively than a bunch of individual nations who have various disagreements or who are bribed into cooperation by larger powers can. We can the larger power bribing and cajouling people into doing the right thing.

China invidually can ride roughshod over some over the poorer EU states (probably some of the bigger ones to, or at least soon) would you want them able to bribe support the same way America was able to do over Iraq, not in my backyard!

Beskar

06-26-2009, 03:37

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?:inquisitive:

The opposite. Band together to prevent the other inflicting its will on it. If Europe does become the true democratic state as well, it will influence others int he world to adopt the same/similar as the people will want it.

seireikhaan

06-26-2009, 03:55

The opposite. Band together to prevent the other inflicting its will on it. If Europe does become the true democratic state as well, it will influence others int he world to adopt the same/similar as the people will want it.
That is quite faulty. A united Europe will not cease conflict, no more than a united Spain, or Britain, or Germany, or Soviet Union did. It merely changes whom the combatants will be. When Spain was united, it looked beyond its borders. When Britain was united, it looked beyond its borders. When Germany was united, it looked beyond its borders. When the USSR was united, it looked beyond its borders. When America finally hit the Pacific solidly, it looked beyond its borders.

All which can cease conflicts is mutually assured destruction.

Beskar

06-26-2009, 04:04

It will get to a point that everything is under one-power. Best to make sure it is as democratic as possible.

LittleGrizzly

06-26-2009, 04:13

I don't think you can really make that assertion, if you look at fairly modern history things have become more seperated, British empire, Yugoslavia ect.

Outside of the EU and maybe China extending its control over Taiwan and Hong Kong...

Edit: On the other hand things like globalisation, cheap air travel and the internet is making the world a much smaller place. I don't think you can assert so surely that things are going to be all under one power, i think you could call it quite likely though...

Beskar

06-26-2009, 04:16

I am not implying it is any time soon, but it will most likely happen eventually. By the current rate of things, it is developing in a way against the interests of the people as a whole.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 08:11

Stop writing bollox then it won't be picked apart .
Your whole angle on the voting issue is so warped its laughable.
Leaving aside that your history was wrong and your numbers wrong just look at the ridiculous explanation you tried for the changes in voting trends.

what history was wrong?
what numbers were wrong? (are we still pushing the defence figures Tribesman?)
what is wrong with my posited explanation with voting trends?

Tribesman

06-26-2009, 09:06

what history was wrong?
what numbers were wrong? (are we still pushing the defence figures Tribesman?)

No not still on about the 2nd means 4th figures , this is about the history of the votes and the invented figures and trends you used.

what is wrong with my posited explanation with voting trends?
It starts to fall apart with even the briefest examination , then when you really look it becomes obvious that the explanation is nothing but bollox.

This ....

What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality.
...really sums it up as an overall explanation of your approach to a wide range of issues.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 09:42

No not still on about the 2nd means 4th figures ,

this is about the history of the votes and the invented figures and trends you used.

It starts to fall apart with even the briefest examination , then when you really look it becomes obvious that the explanation is nothing but bollox.

This (louis quote i believe) really sums it up as an overall explanation of your approach to a wide range of issues.
good, because you were wrong.

have voting figures not declined from sixties to forties in the past 20 years, and is that not a decline of a third?

why does it fall apart? frankly no one can say categorically why voting in UK national elections has declined so dramatically, that which i positied has been mentioned as a possible reason that is no more or less credible than any other. why is it incredible that voters lose interest in their politicians as a direct relationship to the trend of politicians goving away the powers that let them affect the lives of their electorate?

that is what you believe, and i don't hold many flattering opinions about you opinions either................ so what?

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 09:45

It will get to a point that everything is under one-power. Best to make sure it is as democratic as possible.

ah, so the justification is that because science fictions world government is inevitable, best we get started quick so we have Ian M Banks benign utopia rather than David Wingroves authoritarian dystopia?

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 09:57

Holy moley, there's some "energetic" discussion on this.

Question(s) for UK Euro skeptics- How "free" is the UK right now? With each passing election, how much has the domestic situation for individuals improved? Has the more local, elected gov't not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7887540.stm) banned Geert Wilders, amongst others, from entering the country? Has the local, elected gov't not (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece) authorized unwarranted computer hacking? Has the local, elected gov't not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm) not put up a camera network over society itself?

Would a European gov't be more authoritarian and secretive because it would be someone ruling from Paris or Brussels instead of the current splendid (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5616515/MPs-win-fight-to-keep-expenses-claims-censored.html) lot?

the answer is that a non-federated britain is gradually making itself less free, minute by minute.
all the above are correct and reprehensible, though many are symptoms of a centralising government that cares more for collective welfare rather than individual liberty. most importantly, they are mistakes made within my family that i feel i can make a difference against.

yes. in my opinion this is an inevitable result of moving the cratos further away from the demos, and severing the link that allows both groups the trust the other.
an electorate that watches its masters enact policy that is inimical to the will of the people will grow resentful and contemptuous, especially when they are so far removed from the centre of power, and such a small function of that power, that they see themselves powerless to change things via the democratic process.
a ruling class that enacts policy over a multitude of differnt social and cultural electorate groups must know that it cannot please everyone, (and will in fact please no-one in its compromises) will learn to harden themselves against voter opinion, especially when there is no local link that allows them to empathise with 'their' electorate, and the electorate is so massive and fractured that their can never be effective opposition to individual acts.
it is not that these problems do not occur in national government, merely that they will be greatly magnified on a federal level if we take as disparate a group as the electorates of the 27 eu nations.

Beskar

06-26-2009, 11:17

the answer is that a non-federated britain is gradually making itself less free, minute by minute.
all the above are correct and reprehensible, though many are symptoms of a centralising government that cares more for collective welfare rather than individual liberty. most importantly, they are mistakes made within my family that i feel i can make a difference against.

yes. in my opinion this is an inevitable result of moving the cratos further away from the demos, and severing the link that allows both groups the trust the other.
an electorate that watches its masters enact policy that is inimical to the will of the people will grow resentful and contemptuous, especially when they are so far removed from the centre of power, and such a small function of that power, that they see themselves powerless to change things via the democratic process.
a ruling class that enacts policy over a multitude of differnt social and cultural electorate groups must know that it cannot please everyone, (and will in fact please no-one in its compromises) will learn to harden themselves against voter opinion, especially when there is no local link that allows them to empathise with 'their' electorate, and the electorate is so massive and fractured that their can never be effective opposition to individual acts.
it is not that these problems do not occur in national government, merely that they will be greatly magnified on a federal level if we take as disparate a group as the electorates of the 27 eu nations.

The whole idea of a federal system is that there are power on different levels and that power isn't centralised. You touch on other issues which is basically the failure of the representative democracy system hence, the best way forward is to continue to evolve opposed to just "sitting still" as voter apathy and disillusionment grows as the people don't have the power to make the changes that need to be done, especially with those "representing us" are merely representing just themselves. This would only increase if the same flaws are taken to a greater level, in a sense, in would just turn into the US system with countries (Britain, French, Germany) having state rights (California, Texas, Florida) with a powerful centralised federal body.

However, the drawbacks and failures of a representitive system are completely separate from the drawbacks or idea of a Europe unity. The problem is only there or possibly remain there if things that are the issue don't change.

The curse of a Constitutional Monarchy like there is in Britain, is that we are supporting a bunch of people on a completely different class who are just born into power, regardless of who they are. This is against the ethos and spirit of equality which is the advancement of the political power. The problem is with this hybrid system, is that it really proposes doing what needs to be done because people hate change, especially the older generation. You heard examples of people who comment "In my youth, I was radical, now I simply don't care" the thing is, this is made to sound like change and wanting change is a bad aspect, in fact, wanting change is the best aspect, the willingness to constantly change, improve, get better, it is the underlying principle in science and technological advancement. You have the older generation still wondering "What is with these damn computers?" while now they are absolutely everywhere.

Just on another note, comparing community like a family in a way, is a very bad idea, mainly because of family roles such as mother and father, really complicate matters opposed to a bunch of equally entitled and individual members working together.

Beskar

06-26-2009, 11:24

ah, so the justification is that because science fictions world government is inevitable, best we get started quick so we have Ian M Banks benign utopia rather than David Wingroves authoritarian dystopia?

Just saying "science fiction" just makes your point invalid as it means you do not know your history or what history is being made. It isn't Europe that is coming together, there is also things such as NAFTA which will eventually be taking a similar route. Did you even know they wrote a new American constitution in the 1970's? It wasn't put into place, but you could probably find it laying about.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 11:31

1. the best way forward is to continue to evolve opposed to just "sitting still" as voter apathy and disillusionment grows as the people don't have the power to make the changes that need to be done, especially with those "representing us" are merely representing just themselves.

2. The curse of a Constitutional Monarchy like there is in Britain, is that we are supporting a bunch of people on a completely different class who are just born into power, regardless of who they are. This is against the ethos and spirit of equality which is the advancement of the political power. The problem is with this hybrid system, is that it really proposes doing what needs to be done because people hate change, especially the older generation. You heard examples of people who comment "In my youth, I was radical, now I simply don't care" the thing is, this is made to sound like change and wanting change is a bad aspect, in fact, wanting change is the best aspect, the willingness to constantly change, improve, get better, it is the underlying principle in science and technological advancement. You have the older generation still wondering "What is with these damn computers?" while now they are absolutely everywhere.

3. Just on another note, comparing community like a family in a way, is a very bad idea, mainly because of family roles such as mother and father, really complicate matters opposed to a bunch of equally entitled and individual members working together.

1. agreed, one of the joys of an umwritten constitution is that the UK is able to adapt very quickly, however I believe that evolving in the direction of a federal europe would be a retrograde step.

2. i don't agree, it may seem daft to you but i recognise that it works and works as well or better than any other system, most importantly it is perceived to work by the majority in this country, even if that majority does include conservative old people. this country is their too, indeed more theirs than ours.

3. yes its a flawed analogy, but it works for me in the sense that i am trying to convey the concept of trust being given to those who you know, and know to hold views that you believe will lead to acceptable decisions which may later impact on yourself, and that you know this because of a shared history.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 11:33

Just saying "science fiction" just makes your point invalid as it means you do not know your history or what history is being made.

It isn't Europe that is coming together, there is also things such as NAFTA which will eventually be taking a similar route.

Did you even know they wrote a new American constitution in the 1970's? It wasn't put into place, but you could probably find it laying about.

you might think so.

last time i checked NAFTA wasn't a political confederation, it was a free-trade bloc. sounds great.

why do you mention this, is it because you think i am against change? i'm not against change, i am against foolish change.

Beskar

06-26-2009, 12:07

last time i checked NAFTA wasn't a political confederation, it was a free-trade bloc. sounds great.

So was Europe at first, how did that turn out?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-26-2009, 12:15

So was Europe at first, how did that turn out?

Authoritarian and undemocratic. Europe was always meant to be a federal project, that has been admitted a few times by the French and Germans. At the same time, integration has always proceeded at a fairly even pace.

This is largely because Eurocrats see federalism as both desireable and inevitable. It is not necessarily either.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 12:16

So was Europe at first, how did that turn out?

i don't think that NAFTA arose from the ashes of WW2 as a project chiefly architected to prevent WW3 by its two biggest cheer leaders (the guilty conscience and unwilling host), via the method of ever deeper union.

so i'm not really sure where you are going with this?
i don't believe that free-trade blocs like NAFTA are bad.
i don't believe regional forums like ASEAN are bad.
i don't believe collective defense pacts like NATO are bad.

i do think that Britain, on balance, will be worse off within in a federal europe.
i do think that governance in Britain will become less representative in a federal europe.

Kagemusha

06-26-2009, 12:38

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

So basically you are promoting European Nationalism to replace nationalism of individual countries.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 13:27

Merkel in Washington yesterday:
"The Europeans have grown closer together," she said. Often, she went on, Europeans are considered to be somewhat complicated, but that is a misconception. "We have understood that we need to speak with a single voice. We are 500 million people and that is a weight that cannot be ignored."

We have, certainly grown closer together, isn't it nice.
I am not aware that "we" understand that we need to speak with a single voice.
500m people cannot be ignored, ah, there is that fear again.

rory_20_uk

06-26-2009, 13:49

What voice was that?

We can't even agree on one language - the farce of the parliament with something like 5 core languages and then translators to translate these into all the little ones...
To be fair, the most strident voice has been generalised dissatisfaction against the EU whenever it has been allowed to be voiced (although to be fair the politicians have ensured that this is as infrequent as possible and like true lawyers they try to only ask questions when they know the answer).

~:smoking:

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 14:06

the economists view on the new right-wing anti-federalist party:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13919296

Eurochums

Jun 25th 2009 | BRUSSELS
From The Economist print edition
The Tories’ new allies are a motley crew

NOT fascists, but not obvious soul mates either: that is a fair summary of the politicians invited on June 22nd to join Britain’s Conservatives in a new grouping in the European Parliament. Most are nationalists or social conservatives whose views hardly chime with the moderate messages pushed by David Cameron at home. How did this happen?

Mr Cameron promised, during his campaign to become Tory leader, to leave the main centre-right grouping, the European People’s Party (EPP), and found a new one committed to free trade and opposition to a federal Europe. In these cynical times, it is tempting to cheer him merely for keeping his word.

The new “European Conservatives and Reformists Group” consists of 56 MEPs from nine countries, 26 of them British Conservatives. Tories say that staying in the EPP was inconsistent with campaigning at home to defend British sovereignty. They have a point: the EPP is dominated by federalists. They are also right that no grouping is entirely wholesome. The socialist group, in which Britain’s Labour Party sits, heaves with ex-communists from the east. The EPP, for its part, is home to post-fascists from Italy.

The Tories point out that their key allies, Law and Justice in Poland (with 15 MEPs) and the Czech Civic Democrats (with nine), were until recently parties of government. They scoff, with reason, at suggestions that Mr Cameron would be ostracised by EPP stalwarts such as Nicolas Sarkozy of France or Angela Merkel of Germany were he to become prime minister. And perhaps their more exotic allies were forced on the Tories by rules that require at least 25 MEPs from seven countries to form a parliamentary group entitled to extra funding and access to senior parliamentary posts.

But critics also have a point. The Tories did not control who sat with them in the EPP; in founding a new group, they invite closer scrutiny of their allies. That scrutiny reveals a muddled picture. Mr Cameron has managed to avoid the extreme right, but he has broken with large mainstream parties.

In Poland, the governing centre-right party is the Civic Platform. To the far right sit fringe politicians with openly anti-Semitic views. Mr Cameron’s allies are in the middle, with wrong-headed opinions on gays and capital punishment. In Belgium, the Christian Democrats belong to the EPP. Mr Cameron has nothing to do with the anti-immigrant parties on the far right, but his allies are from the Lijst Dedecker, a populist outfit that wants independence for Dutch-speaking Flanders. In the Netherlands too, the largest party, the Christian Democrats, is in the EPP. Mr Cameron has eschewed the anti-Islamist Geert Wilders but his partners are from the tiny Christian Union, which favours government guided by biblical commandments. And the Tories’ sole Latvian chum is a mild-mannered economist, a wing of whose party annually honours Latvians who fought with the Waffen SS against Soviet forces.

Mr Cameron’s real problem is structural. Europe makes even centrist voters cross in Britain, yet centrists on the continent are overwhelmingly pro-EU. So to find allies who share their Euroscepticism, Tories have to seek out populists and angry nationalists. Mr Cameron’s new band of allies may be a symptom of Britain’s strained relationship with Europe rather than a solution to it.

Beskar

06-26-2009, 14:24

So basically you are promoting European Nationalism to replace nationalism of individual countries.

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. :pimp: (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-26-2009, 15:08

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. :pimp: (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

Won't work without strenuous social engineering (which invarriable fails itself). It is human nature to identify with a group, in the UK we have a plethora of national and regional groups. Wales, a nation of 3 million is divided both regionally and linguistically. Regionally, it breaks down into four or five groups just among the Welsh, then you have the English-speaking Welsh and the English immigrants. Wales has been politically united with England for over 500 years, and there is still bordernline racism and xenophobia between the two.

What you are proposing is a "Grand Plan" with a "Great objective", such has never been achieved without suffering and bloodshed. Just leave people alone, let them live in their own countries, raise children (or sheep if you're Welsh), grow old and die happy.

rory_20_uk

06-26-2009, 15:16

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. :pimp: (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

Hopeless:

Families are divided, until an Outsider interferes. Neighbours are divided, until the Town tries to do something. Towns are divided until the county gets involved. Counties have little in common, until the region makes demands. Regions are so large they are very disparate, until the Central Government tries to do something. Countries are utterly divided, until threatened by something else, and so on.

The only thing that will unite Humanity to a common goal is something else: only green and other will bind black and white, rich and poor and the varying nations.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 15:36

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. :pimp: (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

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.

LittleGrizzly

06-26-2009, 16:04

Wales, a nation of 3 million is divided both regionally and linguistically. Regionally, it breaks down into four or five groups just among the Welsh, then you have the English-speaking Welsh and the English immigrants. Wales has been politically united with England for over 500 years, and there is still bordernline racism and xenophobia between the two.

I would say the main divide among the actual Welsh would be North and South, outside of that it is just petty local rivalries. I can support the notion that there is borderline racism and xenophobia between the two, being half English half Welsh and having gone to both English and Welsh schools. I am regularly told Welsh football fans support two countrys, Wales and whoever England are playing.

I see much more hate and dislike between England and the smaller nations of Britian than i see between England and any other nation in Europe. In fact taking this into account, maybe Britian is actually unworkable ?

That doesn't seem right though, as Britian seems to work fairly well as one nation, despite our vast differences culturally and historically the joining of Britian resulted in us doing far far better than the seperate small nations managed on thier own. Europe would just be an extension of this but with less hatred and rivalry between the nations, or at least in the case of the British nations. You wouldn't hear the Germans or the French say they support two national teams thier own and whoever England are playing, so i can only assume a political union with France and Germany for example would be much more workable than Britian, seen as Britian functions pretty well i can only assume the union would also....

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 16:11

I see much more hate and dislike between England and the smaller nations of Britian than i see between England and any other nation in Europe. In fact taking this into account, maybe Britian is actually unworkable ?

That doesn't seem right though, as Britian seems to work fairly well as one nation, despite our vast differences culturally and historically the joining of Britian resulted in us doing far far better than the seperate small nations managed on thier own. Europe would just be an extension of this but with less hatred and rivalry between the nations, or at least in the case of the British nations. You wouldn't hear the Germans or the French say they support two national teams thier own and whoever England are playing, so i can only assume a political union with France and Germany for example would be much more workable than Britian, seen as Britian functions pretty well i can only assume the union would also....
maybe that is because britain already is a 'federation', thus the tensions are there and still there after 300+ years of forced marriage, in which case; how much worse would the tension be in the electorates of a 27 nation federation who have not had 300 years to acclimatise to their new reality?

if you first statement is incorrect, then it rather invalidates the second.

LittleGrizzly

06-26-2009, 16:24

maybe that is because britain already is a 'federation', thus the tensions are there and still there after 300+ years of forced marriage, in which case; how much worse would the tension be in the electorates of a 27 nation federation who have not had 300 years to acclimatise to their new reality?

But it was not always so, Scotland and England are the easier example to work with. England and Scotland hatred for each other at the time could probably have only been matched by the French rivalry with England. Yet do you know what happened after Scotland and England joined together. It worked BRILLIANTLY! Scotland and England underwent an enlightenment an industrial revolution. The joining of this decent sized world power and this rather small one forged one of the biggest empires the world has ever seen. Unmatched progress in science, economic theory and a whole bunch of other things!

So that covers the success, now onto the rivalry. Do you seriously think the rivalry exsists simply because were together under one country, the rivalry is due to England being much bigger than the smaller country's around it. Tell me where is the Welsh Scottish hatred of each other, they similarly have been forced together as England and Scotland have....

And tell me, Why would France have the same jealousy issues as Wales and Scotland have ? its a more comparable sized nation to England. So if you can make a Union between awkardly different sized powers which have huge grudges against each other (Britian) than the political union between Britian and mainland European powers is a cakewalk in comparison.

Edit: Alot of the rivalry exsists in Britian because England owned these countrys at various times, outside of 1066 the french have never owned the English in any recent times, and without going back hundreds and hundreds of years we haven't ruled the French either. The previous ownership and conquering is the cause of the rivalries...

What tensions between France and England. I can gaurentee i got far more abuse for being Welsh in England and English in Wales then i would have for being British on the mainland...

This to me tells me that a union between the british powers is less workable than a union between european ones, seen as our british union works so well the european one would work even better...

Tribesman

06-26-2009, 16:27

good, because you were wrong.

Really?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

have voting figures not declined from sixties to forties in the past 20 years, and is that not a decline of a third?

Errr, I dont know how to break it to ya , but that ain't what you claimed .

why does it fall apart? frankly no one can say categorically why voting in UK national elections has declined so dramatically, that which i positied has been mentioned as a possible reason that is no more or less credible than any other.
It lacks credibilty because it does not hold water.
Other european EU nations have had similar declines in turnout for national elections, so have other european non-EU nations as have other western nations.

Then trying to corelate that to EU elections is just ridiculous , some states have declined in turnout, others have increased . Some have fluctated wildly and some have remained pretty stable.
Your attempt was to try and take a huge pile of different things and link them when they cannot be linked , and what was even funnier is that you took as your prime example a case that does the opposite of what you initially claimed.
So...
What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality. :2thumbsup:

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 16:30

oh, your still here then.

ah yes, i said thirties not forties.

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

sorry.

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.

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 16:32

It lacks credibilty because it does not hold water.
Other european EU nations have had similar declines in turnout for national elections, so have other european non-EU nations as have other western nations.

Then trying to corelate that to EU elections is just ridiculous , some states have declined in turnout, others have increased . Some have fluctated wildly and some have remained pretty stable.
Your attempt was to try and take a huge pile of different things and link them when they cannot be linked , and what was even funnier is that you took as your prime example a case that does the opposite of what you initially claimed.
So...
What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality. :2thumbsup:
not that i am claiming it to be the sole reason for the decline in voter turnout, i disagree that it's irrelevant however, but i invite you to come up with some more likely reasons, be >useful< to this thread you grumpy old bear................

Furunculus

06-26-2009, 16:45

But it was not always so, Scotland and England are the easier example to work with. England and Scotland hatred for each other at the time could probably have only been matched by the French rivalry with England. Yet do you know what happened after Scotland and England joined together. It worked BRILLIANTLY! Scotland and England underwent an enlightenment an industrial revolution. The joining of this decent sized world power and this rather small one forged one of the biggest empires the world has ever seen. Unmatched progress in science, economic theory and a whole bunch of other things!

i think the success of the act of union had a lot to do with the ability to export our internal contradictions via the rise of a worldwide trading empire, at a time when it was ok to subjugate other nations.

Meneldil

06-26-2009, 17:45

Making us all the same isn't a con? You're in favour of world government as well, I take it?
Obviously, having the same plug sockets, the same currency and the same road laws while put down the great german culture, so different from the neighbouring dutch, austrian, danish or french cultures. What a shame, trully. German philosophers won't be allowed to think and write books as long as they don't abandon their german citizenship and join the ever more widespread great European Unique Citizenship (which grant them more rights). Movies won't be allowed to be labeled german movies, but rather 'Eurosoc movies from Euro-region B'. And the list goes on.

There is more than one way, depending how you look at it. You can say that "EU nationalism" is emerging, or is even established, and that could lead to it. You could also say that it won't work as all the European Union will cause in the long term is a resurgence in nationalist feeling and will bring the whole project down in flames. Finally, you could say that our current agreements, alliances, and NATO is enough to keep us together.
I firmly stand by the belief that it wasn't European unity that kept us from war after WWII, it was the Cold War and NATO. The EU hasn't given us peace, it has just taken credit for it.
That's your belief, you're entitled to it. I'm entitled to disagree with it.
Now, a few things.
A long lasting peace in Europe is something that has never be seen before. This long lasting peace saw the developement of an increasing european integration. This obviously -as you pointed out- doesn't mean that 'Peace is caused by european integration', but it sure as heck would mean that 'european integration doesn't cause war', which is the current rally cry of anti-EU people.

Yep, Hitler, Napoleon, they really must have been anti-European superstate types.

Come on, you can do better than this. Are you actually comparing the EU to the 3rd Reich?
AFAIK, neither Hitler nor Napoleon wanted to set up an European superstate. But heh, if it makes you happy to think otherwise :2thumbsup:

Outdated? No.
Civic nationalism. Read.
There's no such thing as civic or ethnic nationalism. Most nationalism is in fact a mish-mash of both ideas.
So, there we go. The theory that there would be a civic and an ethnic nationalism is kind of regarded as a bunch of outdated mumbo-jumbo since the late 80's. Read.

Mind you, you're entitled to refer to a theory that is widely considered as inherently wrong by now. I'd just like to point out that countries that claimed to promote a civic nationalism (France, the US, Greece in its very first years) were by no means more pacific or more stable than others.
So yeah, nationalism is outdated and appeals only to a few right-wing embittered people. Patriotism is a whole other topic.

Because it's rebuilding the conditions.

Such as? Sounds like a lot of irrational anti-EU tough talk.

European unity takes that away, and the second your foreign policy goes your national sovereignty is gone.
National sovereignty never existed and never will. A country always have to plan his moves according to global economy, is rivals, his friends and so on. The idea that all internal and foreign policy political power is in the hands of a state is just plain wrong.
Right now, a lot of european countries plan their foreign policy moves altogether (though they often also disagree). Do you feel it on a day to day basis? Do you complain and feel outraged that your sacred nation is being violated everytime Sarkozy and Merkel make a speech together regarding any foreign policy issue?