Don't look at me, it's your son [Archive]

Rodion Romanovich

06-23-2007, 14:45

Contrary to what the twins think, WWI was not an international conspiracy with the sole aim of destroying Poland. It is insulting to the European ideals too.

Actually, there have been 6 conspiracies with the result being partitioning of Poland between foreign powers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_poland
The last being the partitioning conspiracy between Nazi Germany and the USSR. The Polish scepticism and mistrust towards Germany, Austria and Russia is a wound that will take long to heal. And the mistrust should IMO be respected rather than mocked.

One of the core aspects of the EU has been to turn belligerent relationships into fruitful partnerships. To build a new Europe. To smite the old ghosts of pathetic, petty nationalism, mistrust and national myths.

The EU is an attempt by European leaders to extend their power and move central power out of reach and comprehension of the average citizen, so that decisions are more difficult to question ("no WE didn't do it, the EU did :rolleyes: "). It's luckily still not a deliberate conspiracy, but a matter of several politicians out of selfish interests ending up all supporting the same goal - the EU dictatorship empire. The EU has - as demonstrated by this example - not worked to root out bad relationships, but to worsen existing mistrust and hatred. The EU is not the heritage of the peace-loving coal and steel union, and the practical EEC trade treaties between European countries where all countries cooperate of equal terms. No, the EU is a pure bueaureaucratical anti-democratic empire institution that threatens our democracy and the basis on which our societies are built upon. The large states such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain try to control the smaller nations as "primus inter pares", while the small nations are scared by threats to accept, instead of resisting and fighting for their justice. The EU is not removing nationalism, it is reinforcing it. Almost everywhere, people hate the European Empire and are willing to fight for independence from it. The longer the EU remains and the greater the efforts to remove all local differences in culture and way of life, the stronger the nationalistic feelings will grow, and when it comes to the point where it will be necessary to fight with arms for independence, we'll have a Europe more split than ever, with stronger and more dangerous nationalism than ever.

It is also entirely counter-productive.

I think Poland is doing the right thing, in trying to fight the injustice while it's still possible. The sooner the EU is partly or entirely dissolved, the less bloodshed there'll be for Europe in the coming century, I think. When the people of Europe finally managed to create peace in their continent, the greedy politicians now try to rob us all of the freedom, peace and justice by their creation of the EU dictatorship empire.

Rodion Romanovich

06-23-2007, 14:53

Poland has no right to demand anything, they only just joined.
Sides they're not near as wealthy as the West European countries.
So you wish to extend class society reppression to a political level? Are Poland to be in an dictatorship Empire where all decisions are made to weaken Poland because Poland has less right than others to have people listening to their opinions? How will Poland ever be able to make it out of a period of bad economy, if additional burden is laid upon her shoulders by removing from her all rights to have influence over the decisions which affect her? You say Poland newly joined is a reason for oppressing and silencing the Polish opinions. When will Poland have been in the EU long enough to be listened to and respected? And not oppressed like all other small countries in the EU? Have their situation gotten better over time? What happened to the promises they were given?

Big King Sanctaphrax

06-23-2007, 15:10

It's no more than right that Poland demands greater influence in the EU. Mandate should be based on population size, not on other arbitrary ideas.

Isn't this what the new voting system would have done?

Ser Clegane

06-23-2007, 16:15

Isn't this what the new voting system would have done?

Yes it would have.

Actually, AFAIK, Poland's weight would not even have been reduced with the proposed system but would have stayed pretty much the same. To my knowledge , what would have happened is that especially the four largest members would have gained significantly at the expense of the small countries (it is understandable though that there was resisttance against the four largest members piling up >50% of the votes.

Stig

06-23-2007, 16:47

So you wish to extend class society reppression to a political level? Are Poland to be in an dictatorship Empire where all decisions are made to weaken Poland because Poland has less right than others to have people listening to their opinions? How will Poland ever be able to make it out of a period of bad economy, if additional burden is laid upon her shoulders by removing from her all rights to have influence over the decisions which affect her? You say Poland newly joined is a reason for oppressing and silencing the Polish opinions. When will Poland have been in the EU long enough to be listened to and respected? And not oppressed like all other small countries in the EU? Have their situation gotten better over time? What happened to the promises they were given?

Don't twist my words.

Poland is new to the EU, they just joined. They are not near as prosperous and wealthy as the older EU countries. Why would they become the one of the most influential EU countries. Holland is small, but very wealthy, so they would have nothing to say?

Rodion Romanovich

06-23-2007, 18:08

Holland is large populationwise

Stig

06-23-2007, 18:08

16 million?

Ser Clegane

06-23-2007, 18:14

Just again for clarification, Legio - you think that Poland was right to reject the original proposal, yet:

mandate should be based on population size
which is the original proposal.

Is the quote a kind of typo?
If yes, what would be your proposal for what the voting weight should be based on.
If no, why do you agree Poland's resistance against the proposal?

Fragony

06-23-2007, 18:20

Holland is large populationwise

No, but we now have influence, with that cursed constitution we are a political midget, and we lose the only weapon we have, the veto. And we are practically financing the entire bloody thing. You know what is big populationwise? Turkey is big populationwise, when they are admitted under this constitution they are immediatly the biggest european player, bigger then Germany and France combined, oh geez why didn't we think of that before.

Marshal Murat

06-23-2007, 18:22

Do you already have the bicameral legislature where
1.House is regulated by size
2.Senate by membership (2 legislators per country)

The EU will soon be what the Articles of Confederation were.

Husar

06-23-2007, 18:40

Turkey is big populationwise, when they are admitted under this constitution they are immediatly the biggest european player, bigger then Germany and France combined, oh geez why didn't we think of that before.
According to wikipedia, Turkey has around 76 million people while Germany has 82 million, France has around 61 million, so if it's all about population size, we win.:2thumbsup:

Fragony

06-23-2007, 18:47

we win.:2thumbsup:

They breed ~;)

Ok was wrong about that one then. But it's still a major power, bigger then us at least. The Netherlands is a small country, we have always been. We became a nation despite being surrounded by the powers, and we still are. Being part of something this big scares the beejeezus out of me, I don't trust the other nations, we should look after ourselves. We are small and we should know that very very well.

Rodion Romanovich

06-23-2007, 20:51

Is the quote a kind of typo?
Population size on a per country basis isn't going to remain "votes per population size", because population size will change over time. Besides, there are other reasons for Poland to reject the treaty, as described above. As there are reasons for all others to reject the EU. :2thumbsup:

Rodion Romanovich

06-23-2007, 20:52

Do you already have the bicameral legislature where
1.House is regulated by size
2.Senate by membership (2 legislators per country)

The EU will soon be what the Articles of Confederation were.
:wall:

Rodion Romanovich

06-23-2007, 20:56

No, but we now have influence, with that cursed constitution we are a political midget, and we lose the only weapon we have, the veto.

You still have the oranjetank :wink:

The Netherlands is a small country, we have always been. We became a nation despite being surrounded by the powers, and we still are. Being part of something this big scares the beejeezus out of me, I don't trust the other nations, we should look after ourselves. We are small and we should know that very very well.

I agree! :2thumbsup:

Ser Clegane

06-23-2007, 22:14

Population size on a per country basis isn't going to remain "votes per population size", because population size will change over time. Besides, there are other reasons for Poland to reject the treaty, as described above. As there are reasons for all others to reject the EU. :2thumbsup:

However, the voting rights were the reason why Poland rejected the treaty, and a change of this made them eventually accept it.

So, please expand, what did you mean by "mandate should be based on population size"?

Husar

06-24-2007, 00:38

They breed ~;)
And then come over here.:eyebrows:

Tribesman

06-24-2007, 01:09

Aren't governments supposed to do that for their people?

But I digress. I don' like this "it's not a constitution, it's just another treaty" business, though Bertie hasn't been taken in and we're going to have a referrendum on it anyways.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
And I wonder if good old Bertie will repeat his old trick on referrendums that don't turn out the way he wants them:wall:

Brenus

06-24-2007, 20:30

“The longer the EU remains and the greater the efforts to remove all local differences in culture and way of life, the stronger the nationalistic feelings will grow, and when it comes to the point where it will be necessary to fight with arms for independence, we'll have a Europe more split than ever, with stronger and more dangerous nationalism than ever.” Give me a example of more than 60 years of peace within Europe in the last Centuries. You have to go back to the Roman Empire…
My uncle is the first generation that didn’t had to take weapons to fight against one our neighbours… My mother saw the WW2 as a child.
I voted NO to the Constitution but I won’t put on the EU all the blame for Local Politicians Decisions.
All National Parliaments have to agree for EU resolutions to be applied.

It is so much a dictatorship than Countries WANT to join… I wonder why? And I did appreciate to be able to work in Holland, and now in England. I do appreciate to travel without borders and passports within Europe. I do like that the banks stopped to steel my money thank to different currencies…
I don’t like Brussels wanted to ban the “Fromage au lait cru” (camember) under health issues. I don’t like the attempt to impose a Economical Model under the cover of a Constitution, a hymn or a flag. The flag is quiet ok, but the hymn… You imagine the French Partisan singing the Ode of Joyce in front of the firing Squads?

Adrian II

06-25-2007, 07:50

The Netherlands is a small country, we have always been. (..) Being part of something this big scares the beejeezus out of me, I don't trust the other nations, we should look after ourselves. We are small and we should know that very very well.That is an optical illusion which shows how far Dutchmen have lost track of their own position and history. The Neds survived because during most of their history they were part of some 'concert of nations' - even if they had to establish such a concert themselves, like they did in the late seventeenth century.
Face it Frag - we have always been someone else's buffer state. :laugh4:

Looking after ourselves means looking at the right conglomerate(s) to join and/or support.

Fragony

06-25-2007, 09:28

True for any country, most of all the small ones. Has little to do with giving the EU even more power over us.

Anyways, ceci n'est pas un constitution geez.

Great paintjob folks, Wilders = +1

Rodion Romanovich

06-25-2007, 09:55

Give me a example of more than 60 years of peace within Europe in the last Centuries.

For instance the time from ww2 up to the formation of the EU. Now again Imperial ambitions are coming back, and with it, war and instability. It can't be long until it all starts over again...

You have to go back to the Roman Empire…

The roman empire never had peace. Pax Romana was a period of outside wars as well as internal revolts against the repressive, murderous regime. Similarly, EU will not result in peace. The roman empire, the Napoleonic empire, the nazi empire, and the USSR empire didn't bring peace, so why would an EU built on the same principles?

It is so much a dictatorship than Countries WANT to join… I wonder why?

Who dares to be alone, when all join a massive, dictatorship pact that has shown to think it's better than all of it's neighbors? Did not all countries of Europe join Napoleon before his invasion of Russia? Now: was that a sign that Europeans loved this massmurderer and oppressor, or a sign of fear, and waiting for Napoleon's defeat before daring to truly turn at him? The people of the European countries waited until he had lost 500,000 men in Russia, until every man that could carry arms - peasant militia fighting alongside mercenaries and regular soldiers - united at Leipzig to fight the oppressor, and defeat him. In smaller/less powerful European countries, most of the pro EU propaganda in fact is fear propaganda of the form "if we don't join, we will stand alone and be subject to oppression from the EU".

And I did appreciate to be able to work in Holland, and now in England.

This was fully possible without EU

I do appreciate to travel without borders and passports within Europe.

Showing a passport takes less than 30 seconds. Besides, you still have to show passports most of the time when travelling within Europe. And if you didn't have to, it would simplify smuggling, terrorism and illegal immigration as well as undermine the safety of the average citizen.

I do like that the banks stopped to steel my money thank to different currencies…

You do realize, that the Euro means putting all eggs in the same basket? One economical crash, and ALL of Europe goes down. It'll be a massive economical disaster whose like hasn't been seen since the depression in America. :idea2: I wonder if that is good for political stability and peace?

Rodion Romanovich

06-25-2007, 09:56

That is an optical illusion which shows how far Dutchmen have lost track of their own position and history. The Neds survived because during most of their history they were part of some 'concert of nations' - even if they had to establish such a concert themselves, like they did in the late seventeenth century.
Face it Frag - we have always been someone else's buffer state. :laugh4:

Looking after ourselves means looking at the right conglomerate(s) to join and/or support.
The Netherlands were successful and survived because they allied with other states that were unprovokedly attacked by or forced into Empires. By fighting for independence alongside others who fought for independence and justice, the Netherlands survived, while the countries who allied with the expansive Empires disappeared.

Accepting an annexation into the anti-democratic EU dictatorship empire is mutually exclusive with maintaining independence.

Fragony

06-25-2007, 10:09

Carefull Legio, you are dangerously close to channelling hitler here :laugh4:

Rodion Romanovich

06-25-2007, 10:17

Huh? Didn't Hitler speak of forming a European Empire, whereas I'm arguing for the opposite? :inquisitive:

Tbh to give a complete picture, the Netherlands weren't always on the "good" side of course, but at least during the struggle for independence period it was of significant importance that they allied with others who DIDN'T want annexation and empires, as opposed to allying with nations who wanted this. ~:) I got a bit carried away in the last post :wink:

Fragony

06-25-2007, 10:26

Just mocking my leftist buddies who feel anything that might spark some hint of a breeze of nationalism is a decent in the heart of darkness that instantly warps one straight into Birkenau&co.

Geoffrey S

06-25-2007, 10:43

"EU dictatorship empire"? "Oppression from the EU"? The EU being built on the same principles as the USSR? I'm sorry Legio, but although I'm not a huge fan of some of the things going on in the EU various statements in your posts seem like little more than fearful hyperbole in the face of change to me.

Husar

06-25-2007, 11:05

Hitler didn't want a european state, he wanted a germanian state...
Comparing the EU with him is a bit off, but I think you know that yourselves.

Concerning the Netherland, I've always seen them as the little brother of the Reich.~:rolleyes:

Fragony

06-25-2007, 11:22

Concerning the Netherland, I've always seen them as the little brother of the Reich.~:rolleyes:

Ah very popular sentiment among our pipesmoking salonfahige intelwuectualz, what did we do this time?

Stig

06-25-2007, 11:44

You're wrong Husar, you are still our favourite enemy, and no believe me, Dutchmen don't liking Germans has nothing to do with any war. WE SHOULD HAVE WON IN '74!!!

Heh atleast we got our revenge:
http://www.scheisshollander.nl/images/Spuugincident.jpg
http://blogimages.seniorennet.be/wkenekvoetbal/138-f348b568cfe5fbcabb0c1b44c422782f.jpeg

Tristuskhan

06-25-2007, 12:05

For instance the time from ww2 up to the formation of the EU. Now again Imperial ambitions are coming back, and with it, war and instability. It can't be long until it all starts over again...

60 years of EU and 60 years after WW2, it's already 2065?:inquisitive: I'm in a good shape for an 90 years old man:laugh4: . And who is the Emperor? Sarko's grandson or Impress Angela the fifth? Did the Great European empire wage war against Switzerland? Let me open the window then... the frontline seems calm... the Swiss must have won, the Empire should not have sent the french divisions:oops: . And I should not have drunk so much yesterday -well, 58 years ago, if I believe you-, damn Lagavulin. The bottle is not empty: it's now aged 74, wonderful!

Hey Legio, good weed in Netherlands it seems, send me some, I'm a bit short of drugs those times.

Be serious, how can an empire exist when there is absolutely nothing political in the EU, just free trade and social dumping?

Anyway, since I slept for 58 years and woke up to do my officework this morning, I have to get back to the forests I manage: the stands I had regenerated 59 years ago must have grown and need clearings now. Anyone wants good oak?

Fragony

06-25-2007, 12:09

Be serious, how can an empire exist when there is absolutely nothing political in the EU, just free trade and social dumping?

Well we just removed the brake from this train.

Tristuskhan

06-25-2007, 12:15

Well we just removed the brake from this train.

What do you mean? There is still no political building of the EU! That's the reason why I voted NO for the referendum two years ago. Do you think the brits would have accepted any kind of political integration?

Fragony

06-25-2007, 12:25

InsaneApache

06-25-2007, 12:31

Indeed Frag.

Be serious, how can an empire exist when there is absolutely nothing political in the EU, just free trade and social dumping?

Is this an attempt at baiting? :inquisitive:

You must have missed it, what with the psychotropic drugs and all. There was a little thing this week called a 'tidying up' exercise. It entailed ignoring the democratic wishes of the public and steamrollering through the constitution amending treaty of the EU.

The EU is a political entity. :wall:

Tristuskhan

06-25-2007, 12:33

Because they democratically insist on moving back and forth. EU can do as it pleases now, even admit Turkey, and there is nothing we can do about it. Nice for the bigger players with big populations, potentially disastrous for us. Whatever is comming at us, we will just have to swallow what they give us.

:yes: Agreed for most, but do you think an average french as I am has more power than an average dutch as you are? EU build the current way is build only to please big financial companies.

Fragony

06-25-2007, 12:46

:yes: Agreed for most, but do you think an average french as I am has more power than an average dutch as you are? EU build the current way is build only to please big financial companies.

Well we can both only complain, they have basicly given theirselves a full mandate. At least Hitler had the decency to bomb Rotterdam when he wanted a united europe. Don't understand the english especially, all the trouble none of the rights.

Louis VI the Fat

06-25-2007, 13:24

What do you mean? There is still no political building of the EU! That's the reason why I voted NO for the referendum two years ago. Do you think the brits would have accepted any kind of political integration?No, the Brits will never agree to political integration. That's why we should've shoved the constitution down their throat two years ago, when Blair would've accepted it. We missed a historical opportunity with this no vote. :book:

Concerning the Netherland, I've always seen them as the little brother of the ReichYou can have trans-Rhenusia. Below the Rhine is our sphere of influence.

Strike For The South

06-25-2007, 14:25

Im soooooooooooooooooo lost

1. Did a Polish minster really complain that he'd have more people if they hadnt fought in WW2? ....Do Polish peolpe have elections or do the draw from a hat?

2. Is the EU going to become a nation state or will it be similar to NAFTA

3. Will it make it eaiser to travel for me?

4. Will it only be confined to Europe? Will the admisson of Turkey raise new questions for countries like Armenia Isreal Lebanon North Africa?

Rodion Romanovich

06-25-2007, 14:28

there is absolutely nothing political in the EU

As the others pointed out above, this is incorrect. If the EU hadn't gone to becoming a political entity, nobody would be complaining as there would be no growing oppression.

Louis VI the Fat

06-25-2007, 14:36

1. Did a Polish minster really complain that he'd have more people if they hadnt fought in WW2? ....Do Polish peolpe have elections or do the draw from a hat?
Yes.
Free elections.

2. Is the EU going to become a nation state or will it be similar to NAFTA
More NAFTA. It might take on confederate aspects in the distant future.

3. Will it make it eaiser to travel for me?
Yes. Even for non-EU citizens travel is much easier. There are no border-controls between Schengen states anymore. And the Euro saves you a lot of money. You don't need to exchange money all the time, or be stuck with loose change that you can't spend anywhere. Price transparancy, indirectly, works in the consumers favour to.

4. Will it only be confined to Europe? Will the admisson of Turkey raise new questions for countries like Armenia Isreal Lebanon North Africa?
Yes, Europe only for the foreseeable future. The question is, is Turkey Europe?
There is an interesting plan for a 'Mediterranean Union'. A set of treaties between the EU and the med countries, comparable to NAFTA.

Strike For The South

06-25-2007, 14:41

Thanks Big Lou ~:flirt:

Pannonian

06-25-2007, 14:44

That is an optical illusion which shows how far Dutchmen have lost track of their own position and history. The Neds survived because during most of their history they were part of some 'concert of nations' - even if they had to establish such a concert themselves, like they did in the late seventeenth century.
Face it Frag - we have always been someone else's buffer state. :laugh4:

Looking after ourselves means looking at the right conglomerate(s) to join and/or support.
Your situation isn't quite as bad as Belgium, who really gets it in the rear from Mr Geography. What is now Israel must still take the prize as the most warred-over piece of land in history, but Belgium must be the regional winner for Europe.

Husar

06-25-2007, 17:04

Ah very popular sentiment among our pipesmoking salonfahige intelwuectualz, what did we do this time?
Nothing, my statement was meant in a very friendly way since I like the Netherlands. Don't see why brother sounds bad, think of "Brothers in arms", "Band of Brothers" etc.:2thumbsup:

You're wrong Husar, you are still our favourite enemy, and no believe me, Dutchmen don't liking Germans has nothing to do with any war. WE SHOULD HAVE WON IN '74!!!
So I'm basically my own enemy since my dad is dutch and my mom is german?:dizzy2:

You can have trans-Rhenusia. Below the Rhine is our sphere of influence.
One day we will all be united in the United States of Europe and Eurasia, resistance is futile, brother Louis.
Our politicians are already working on it and even the polish cannot resist with their silly arguments.
The british imperials are still resisting I see but they will have to accept the futility of their resistance eventually.

Stig

06-25-2007, 17:08

So I'm basically my own enemy since my dad is dutch and my mom is german?
Aye

And ask your dad what went through his mind when he married a German ~D

Fragony

06-25-2007, 17:10

Nothing, my statement was meant in a very friendly way since I like the Netherlands. Don't see why brother sounds bad, think of "Brothers in arms", "Band of Brothers" etc.:2thumbsup: .

Brother sounds great, brother of the Reich slightly less so ~;)

Stig

06-25-2007, 17:16

Wir sind all Brüder

except on the day we play the Germans at football ~D

Fragony

06-25-2007, 17:23

HA we even like them even then, we secretly think very highly of our Teutonic neightbours but of course we will never tell them that. We just have to keep bashing them, otherwise the flemish will feel noticed.

Husar

06-25-2007, 17:59

Brother sounds great, brother of the Reich slightly less so ~;)
Before a certain austrian came to power here, this was a rather neutral term I think, just means empire and was in the name of this country for quite some time, Holy Roman Empire = Heiliges Römisches Reich, we were all part of it (even Louis) under Charlemagne, if only he were here to lead the EU.:laugh4:

Stig

06-25-2007, 18:09

Hah, the Frisians gave the Franks quite a hard time, marching on Dorestat and Aachen and the like

Husar

06-25-2007, 19:11

Why do you hate peace?
I'm trying to advocate pax EU here.:beam:

Maybe the problem lies in stapling democracies so we end up with more (corrupt)politicians than we want, a supreme ruler would solve that issue and there'd be only one guy to kill for a change.:clown:

I also agree with Louis that we need more NAFTA throwers.

Now what was the original issue about? I think we should work together and not against one another. I don't know how, yet, but feel free to post options, for me the EU was a good step into that direction.

Stig

06-25-2007, 19:18

Why do you hate peace?
It's boring
Europeans shouldn't like eachother

Louis VI the Fat

06-25-2007, 20:11

It's boring
Europeans shouldn't like eachotherWe invented footy for that, silly.

More seriously: actually, intense competition and fierce rivalry are often named as one of the root causes for Europe's rise to ascendency. A big central empire like China becomes lethargic, a continent of an endless amount of political entities battling each other to death is a much better Darwinistic environment for progress.
More specifically, a balance between exchange and competition was Europe's strength. Developing chariots, and genociding your neighbours with it is not that fruitfull in the long run. Developing stirrips, overwhelming one opponent with it only to face defeat again to the pikemen the next neighbour developed in return is.

Stig

06-25-2007, 20:17

We invented footy for that, silly.
That's what I mean ~D

Rodion Romanovich

06-25-2007, 22:07

I think we should work together and not against one another.
I agree, we should cooperate against the European dictatorship empire.

Rodion Romanovich

06-25-2007, 22:10

We invented footy for that, silly.

More seriously: actually, intense competition and fierce rivalry are often named as one of the root causes for Europe's rise to ascendency. A big central empire like China becomes lethargic, a continent of an endless amount of political entities battling each other to death is a much better Darwinistic environment for progress.
More specifically, a balance between exchange and competition was Europe's strength. Developing chariots, and genociding your neighbours with it is not that fruitfull in the long run. Developing stirrips, overwhelming one opponent with it only to face defeat again to the pikemen the next neighbour developed in return is.
European countries have for the last 600 years mostly had policies of preventing any single nation from becoming too powerful and abusing that power. After ww2, it has finally become apparent to all that it thus doesn't pays off to be that expansive power seeking to dominate all, and we've had democratic elections to make sure the masses, who realize this, vote against aggressors. As a result we've had peace for 60 years. EU will break the power balance again, and thereby recreate the threat that has caused almost all wars in European history since the renaissance.

cegorach

06-26-2007, 08:50

Thanks for the invitation to the thread Louis.

There is a big difference between seeing after the best interests of your people and acting like it's 1939 during a 2007 EU summit. Poland has made an absolute fool of it itself, again. It is embarrassing.

I agree here. Everyone was stunned with that nonsense - it was worse tan in tabloids.

Their constant harrassing behaviour towards Germany has really not gone down well over here. It is insulting towards Germany, a country that has suffered tremendously from it's own past, and has been an outstanding democracy and European partner for sixty years now. It is insulting to other countries, who all suffered from the World Wars too.

True.

Contrary to what the twins think, WWI was not an international conspiracy with the sole aim of destroying Poland. It is insulting to the European ideals too. One of the core aspects of the EU has been to turn belligerent relationships into fruitful partnerships. To build a new Europe. To smite the old ghosts of pathetic, petty nationalism, mistrust and national myths.

PiS becomes more populistic losing its voters from the center and 'devouring' radical coalition partners such nonsense stupidities will pop up for the next two years once per 3-6 months, later they are gone.

It is also entirely counter-productive. Whenever Poland brings up a sincere grievance or request nobody takes it seriously.

That is exactly what I hate. They are destroying everything we have achived.
A band of incompetent idiots who can only use shouting and that in least useful way than it can be achived.

And did I mention, a tad hypocritical (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,2109562,00.html) too?

That was disgusting Louis. The journalist clearly has some issues and uses half-thruth and open lies.

I could say everything about this band of clowns (3 % in polls now) LPR, but they ARE NOT antisemitic because anti-semitism DOESN'T pay off. Maybe they are thinking differently, but I can't scan their brains to check. The author re-writes some most offending statements I have ever seen.

I could quote a dozen of Jewish leaders who would attack her accusations.

I really HATE this time - every dubious and negative statement is used against Poland, every piece of filth is poured and the worst thing is that people DO believe them.:thumbsdown:
It is shocking how the situation has changed from 2004-2005, but maybe the question should be
when in 2009 the government will change will the stupid accusations end ?

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It is so much a dictatorship than Countries WANT to join… I wonder why?
Who dares to be alone, when all join a massive, dictatorship pact that has shown to think it's better than all of it's neighbors? Did not all countries of Europe join Napoleon before his invasion of Russia? Now: was that a sign that Europeans loved this massmurderer and oppressor, or a sign of fear, and waiting for Napoleon's defeat before daring to truly turn at him? The people of the European countries waited until he had lost 500,000 men in Russia, until every man that could carry arms - peasant militia fighting alongside mercenaries and regular soldiers - united at Leipzig to fight the oppressor, and defeat him. In smaller/less powerful European countries, most of the pro EU propaganda in fact is fear propaganda of the form "if we don't join, we will stand alone and be subject to oppression from the EU".

You are forgetin the little fact that over 85 % of Poles are pro-european, that even includes that constitution thing.
Ironically half of the ruling coalition is eurosceptic (at least), but were elected when a number of people was still afraid of the EU.

Currently even them CANNOT afford anti-EU actions, only some sort of showing off - 'we are strong and do not bow' which some voters approve.

BTW Poles followed Napoleon and were loyal to the end - from 1797 to 1815 so hardly out of fear.
In general your analisis of ths person is very British are you from the UK ?

Stig

Poland has no right to demand anything, they only just joined.
Sides they're not near as wealthy as the West European countries.

First. 'Shut up and obey' doesn't work with us - many have tried, none won.

Two. The number of votes must be based on something - economy is in constant flux so it changes every year.

Currently we are after Spain when it comes to the economy - this year we have outgrown the Netherlands so only the other 5 larger countries are more wealthy than us.
In 5 years it will be different, in 10 even more.
Currently our economy grows at 7 % (this year, last 6 %, before 5 %) and with better gov. (which will come in 2009) it could be even 10 %, since we are not Zimbabwe, neither we posses any sizable amounts of oil and gas reaching such levels of growth is not easy.
Also there is no visable reason why our economy should not accelerate even more - for at least next 10 years.

Are you saying that the number of votes should be based on the size of economy ? So should be revised every 1-5 years I guess ?

Besides there is another factor too - ability to influence other countries which gives bigger or more skilled states far greater power than the votes might suggest. :yes:

Stig

06-26-2007, 09:13

Currently we are after Spain when it comes to the economy - this year we have outgrown the Netherlands so only the other 5 larger countries are more wealthy than us.
GDP per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita)

cegorach

06-26-2007, 14:08

GDP per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita)

List of European countries by GDP PPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_GDP_PPP)

Or are you suggesting to give LUXEMBURG the majority of votes ?:laugh4:

Stig

06-26-2007, 14:13

Actually those per capita are better. Poland might have a good GDP for the country, but it's per capita that counts imo.

Or are you suggesting to give LUXEMBURG the majority of votes ?
If I had the choice Poland or Luxembourg the answer would be easy

Adrian II

06-26-2007, 14:14

Population size, economy or seniority have nothing to do with this. If it had been up to the Polish people they would have been EU members long ago, and with their economy and society in much better shape. After all they didn't ask for 45 years of Soviet dominance.

Poland is a democracy and a legitimate EU member, so we will simply have to deal with anything they throw at us in the form of weird twins, Roman Catholic obscurantism and WWII histrionics. God knows other EU members such as France and Britain have behaved like insufferable kids in the past and we have dealt with them as well.

Our main aim should be that this Polish government is made aware that it is not acting in the best interest of its people. In two more years they will have a different government anyway. Our second aim should be to take a strong united stand against Russia as it attempts to intimidate its former client states. If we fail either of these aims, we will unnecessarily prolong the problem of Polish integration into the Union.

Andres

06-26-2007, 14:17

Can't we use a list where Belgium is situated above the Netherlands?

Oh, here it is: let's use this one... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita)

Adrian II

06-26-2007, 14:19

Can't we use a list where Belgium is situated above the Netherlands?

Oh, here it is: let's use this one... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita)Good grief, it is a miracle that those Czech trains ever run on time..

Stig

06-26-2007, 14:23

How come Holland is that low on your list Andres? Hell on my own I should be above Belgium ... no matter how high you can push it on your own.

Banquo's Ghost

06-26-2007, 15:20

Good grief, it is a miracle that those Czech trains ever run on time..

Actually, the Czech's position as number one is actually a cunning plan by the Irish to deflect attention. It isn't the Czechs who drink all that beer in their country, it's drunken Irish tourists on stag weekends to Prague.

:wink3:

Adrian II

06-26-2007, 16:11

It isn't the Czechs who drink all that beer in their country, it's drunken Irish tourists on stag weekends to Prague.:wink3:Which makes it an even bigger miracle that those Czech trains run on time. ~;)

cegorach

06-26-2007, 16:16

Here is a commentary from one of my most favourite satirical blogs

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/NewBitmapImage-9.jpg

some quotes:

The PM using the ace he had up his sleeve - ' Teutons, hitlerites...we will not talk to scums...**'

- under the 3rd photo.

'...since the PM could even cause cancelling polish membership in the EU it was decidet that it will be the president who will take part in the summit.(...) Still the PM tried to demolish the entire negotiations by starting a press conference in Warsaw. His remarks about hitlerite antrocities in Poland - 'even though it was nothing else but truth' - causily predictable results.
'I understand that Poland still cannot forgive us the 2nd WW, but remarks about villages burned to the ground by Teutonic knights is somehow too much...' - said Angela Merkel.

'The summit was saved by the president who impersonating Tinky-Winky defused the tension.'

'we decided that after all in 10 years if Law and Justice will still be alive it will be most likely in opposition so this way we will have something to use against the ruling cabinet..'

- not an exact translation, but that would involve far more than few lines of expaining.

** - he said something like this addressing people criticising the government.

Most of press comments do assume it was a success, but the style was terrible and pre-summit diplomacy was totally incompetent.

Stig

Actually those per capita are better. Poland might have a good GDP for the country, but it's per capita that counts imo.

I don't know where - in which one international organisation.

Quote:
Or are you suggesting to give LUXEMBURG the majority of votes ?

If I had the choice Poland or Luxembourg the answer would be easy

Ok. That explains everything. Thank you.

cegorach

06-26-2007, 16:19

Actually, the Czech's position as number one is actually a cunning plan by the Irish to deflect attention. It isn't the Czechs who drink all that beer in their country, it's drunken Irish tourists on stag weekends to Prague.

:wink3:

Unfortuanatelly the 'tourists' are moving to Kraków...:wall:

Husar

06-26-2007, 16:26

Tristuskhan

06-26-2007, 17:05

Actually those per capita are better. Poland might have a good GDP for the country, but it's per capita that counts imo.

Very nice idea... so one vote from Luxembourg should be worth seventeen from Romania? Sooo democratic it is... maybe we should do it inside our countries also: my yearly income beeing a bit less than 20000 euros my vote should count for... two thirds of a vote. What about you, Stig:beam: ?

Rodion Romanovich

06-26-2007, 17:30

Husar

06-26-2007, 20:01

Voting power should be judged by population, just like in any decent democracy your right to vote and the impact of your votr have nothing to do with how wealthy you are.

Andres

06-26-2007, 20:16

Voting power should be judged by population, just like in any decent democracy your right to vote and the impact of your votr have nothing to do with how wealthy you are.

Why don't we compromise and choose for a bicameral structure?

A parliament where number of members is related to population and a senate where you have 1 or 2 members per state and than you can start to divide the competences (or is the correct english term powers?), i.e. parliament will decide over matters A, B, C,... and senate over D, E, F. Important issues are to be dealt with by both chambers or need special majorities in both chambers?

An alternative solution would be to make the criteria on which you base the voting power related to the subject at hand.

Anyway, I'm afraid that the only solution for this problem will be a very complicated one.

And off course, we can also apply the Belgian system : organise a drinking contest and let the most absurd and hilarious proposition become law :inquisitive:

cegorach

06-27-2007, 07:47

Considering we have a 10% unemployment rate,we aren't that bad off I guess, burning polish villages does pay off after all.:dizzy2: :beam:

It's funny what your PM talks there cegorach and I agree that you should vote for someone else next time, meanwhile I will look upon him as representing at best a minority of Poles.:2thumbsup:

Actually when asked before the general elections 3/4 of Poles were against twins in both most important offices, that is why we had this puppet PM Marcinkiewicz before Kaczynski replaced him.

Now I think it was planned from the beginning
- win the elections (albait by 2-3 %),
- assign an amatour (though loyal) and PR master who will be controlled by Kaczynski,
- create the unpopular coalition because you need total controll and PO (larges opposition party now) won't back down enough,
- finally take the minor radical parties as partners, give them least important offices and blackmail the public opinion that you need the twin as PM and you really need so much power because the minor radicals are worse.

From last year it is only about that - kick the opposition, explore envy amongst some circles and don't touch economy (that would be suicidal) - PiS is moving towards open populism more and more leaving economy alone (because it will grow anyway) + attacks anyone criticising its in such way that its voters will be happy - 'yeah they need a lesson, kick them more !' - this sort of thing.

In two years we will see what will happen - the radical parties which got more votes thanks to EU accession aftershock (or hangover, or exhaustion) are almost non existent in polls - one of them the ultra-conservative LPR cancelled its last annual meeting because there were too FEW people in half of regional structures and its representative in Warsaw local elections (for a mayor) got 0,034 % of votes which was LESS than Gnomes and Morons (they are intentionally not serious) who got about 0,065 %...
This means that the votes will be collected most likely only by three biggest parties
nationalistic PiS, conservative-liberal PO and left-wing LiD ( coalition of left SLD, SDP and liberal Democrats) with radical LPR and Samoobrona + farmers PSL absorbed or destroyed by others.
Most likely PiS will finally eat LPR and Samoobrona with some 2-3 % most conservative (anti-abortion for example) voters left alone as side-effect, PO will ally with PSL merging completelly and LiD will collect left-wing voters.

All minor parties and organisationswill be thrown to garbage once agin or remain there ( e.g. those 20 little left-radical parties whichcan gather up to 200 people, semi-fascist NOP which cannot get a single place in even local elections and a dozen more organisations which are seen only during pre-election campaign - structurs such as NOP do not even get there...).

Perhaps it will be a valuable lesson to some - don't vote for populists, or at least for pure populism which doesn't offer anything else in the end.:smash:

Banquo's Ghost

06-27-2007, 08:59

Do you genuinely have a party called Gnomes and Morons? Do they have a satellite organisation in Ireland? :2thumbsup:

What am I saying? They're in power here...

Fragony

06-27-2007, 10:50

Isn't Germany getting a lot of love lately from the kamaradski's, now it is the same country like it was in the 1930/39 :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

In the meantime Germany has to midnight express a foolish german boy from a turkish 'jail' :laugh4: :laugh4:

Hope the guy isn't expandable in the Turkey muss eu-sein blitzkrieg.

Husar

06-27-2007, 11:27

In the meantime Germany has to midnight express a foolish german boy from a turkish 'jail' :laugh4: :laugh4:

Hope the guy isn't expandable in the Turkey muss eu-sein blitzkrieg.
Apparently a british woman was responsible for that because she didn't want him to be with her daughter(the daughter said nothing happened, yet he was arrested for sexual assault or so).
And Merkel doesn't want Turkey in the EU yet, so I guess if they do anything to him they can forget about that completely.

Louis VI the Fat

06-27-2007, 14:28

That was disgusting Louis.~;p

I really HATE this time - every dubious and negative statement is used against Poland, every piece of filth is poured and the worst thing is that people DO believe them.:thumbsdown: Yes, am I worried about this too. For my own sense of perspective and for public opinion at large. Am I, are we, still aware of the full story, with all its nuances and perspectives, or are we diabolising Poland because of incidents and some unfortunate aspects of it?

Poland has a ridiculous government, sure. But, does Poland still receive a fair press? Media often focuses on, and selects, news that confirms preconceived notions. That is, reporters are send to Gaza with the object of shooting pictures of 14 year olds throwing rocks at Israelis and being shot at in return. Not to go and find out what's going on. They are send to Romania for stories about orphans living in miserable conditions. To Poland, to gather stories about ultra-catholics frothing at the mouth over gay Teletubbies. They report about this not because this is the reality they see, but because this is (single overriding stereotypical aspect of) the reality they set out to see.

So these are the stories that ultimately get printed or broadcast. It is mostly not even a matter of deliberate misrepresentation. What happens, is that for example a board of editors sit down and decide to make a special issue about 'global re-emergence of religious fundamentalism'. Brainstorming about good subject matter for this, they think: 'aha! Poland! Ultra-catholicism!'
So they send a reporter to Poland. Not to investigate, but to confirm their preconceived notions. The task, the purpose of the reporter is to write a story about re-emerging religious fundamentalism. So where does he go to? Not to Warsaws thriving gay scene, but to small villages near Cracow, where he seeks out the local anti-semitic priest and some old, ultra-conservative peasant women. He goes there, because he expects this is where he'll find what he needs. He may even think he did some fine investigative journalism, seeing as how after some effort he found the exact right places and persons for the story he set out to write. This way, news is selected to repeat stereotypes. [/pointless poorly written rambling]

Is this still a fair representation of reality? Even if it is all true, does it paint a complete, or even correct picture? It's one of the reasons why I invited you to this thread. My verdict on Poland, and indeed many new member states is rather harsh, I noted, and I want you to prove me wrong.

Maybe another problem is that Poland is simply the new kid on the block. It has to elbow its way in into an existing complex set of relationships. This is bound to be a complicated process. Like the other newer member states, it has been essentially cut off from mainstream west European and EU developments for half a century. And unlike most other new members, Poland is of considerable size and weight, so much so, that the process of integration must work both ways.

Currently we are after Spain when it comes to the economy - this year we have outgrown the Netherlands so only the other 5 larger countries are more wealthy than us.
Currently our economy grows at 7 %
Also there is no visable reason why our economy should not accelerate even more - for at least next 10 years.Aye. See, this is why I don't understand why Poland displays so little self assuredness in international affairs. And no, indignation, a raised voice and ultra-nationalism is not a sign of self-assuredly seeing after your interests. Rather the opposite. What, I wonder, has Poland achieved for itself in recent years that it couldn't have by a more calm, self-assured approach?

(edit: oi, I really had to edit some failed sentences)

Louis VI the Fat

06-27-2007, 14:28

Brenus

06-27-2007, 18:51

“Poles followed Napoleon and were loyal to the end”: Yep and that gave us a Minister of Interior named Poniatowski, under Giscard… Thank you very much…
And the 1st Regiment de Cuirassiers (tanks/ cavalry) still has the title of “Royal Pologne” (so it was even before Napoleon) on its insigne…

Stig

06-27-2007, 19:02

Poles followed Napoleon and were loyal to the end
Doesn't matter. The Poles were also send in at Arnhem, where they made sure that most of 1st British Airborne could be saved, but still they were blamed for the failure of Market Garden.
It's just that there's a Western Europe, and Poland doesn't belong to that.

Ser Clegane

06-27-2007, 19:09

It's just that there's a Western Europe, and Poland doesn't belong to that.

I'd rather say "There's a Europe, and Poland certainly does belong to that"

EDIT: but could you please expand on the rationale behind your statement, Stig?

doc_bean

06-27-2007, 19:21

It's just that there's a Western Europe, and Poland doesn't belong to that.

It's not the Western European Union though. We wouldn't be able to include italy if it were, and germany barely qualifies (more central Europe already), Western Europe doesn't apply to scandinavia either, and Spain and Portugal are more southern Europe, so you'd be stuck with the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, w00t.

Stig

06-27-2007, 19:23

I mean Western Europe as in Western World (the old EU) ... sides on Scandinavia Norway isn't a member anyway

Ser Clegane

06-27-2007, 19:24

I mean Western Europe as in Western World (the old EU) ... sides on Scandinavia Norway isn't a member anyway
Why do you believe that Poland does not belong to it? The people in Poland seem to embrace the EU.

doc_bean

06-27-2007, 19:29

Poland has been an important part of Europe throughout history. I don't see how you can't count them in. Does that mean you don't accept any of the 'new' members ? Poland has been more important to European history than most of those...

Stig

06-27-2007, 20:04

Why do you believe that Poland does not belong to it? The people in Poland seem to embrace the EU.
It doesn't matter what Poland does. People here in Holland see them as intruders, as they were the enemy not long ago I think.
Since WW2 the Western EU has stood together, and people think of the eastern countries as intruders.

Take Turkey, what's wrong with that as a EU country?
Nothing, afterall the Ottoman Empire was a big part of Europe for a long time. But it is a muslim country and to far away from hard-core Europe.

Poland has been more important to European history than most of those...
It doesn't matter what Poland did 600 years ago, there was no Europe as there has been the last 60 years. It's what Poland did in the last 60 years. And 40 of those it has been our enemy.

Ser Clegane

06-27-2007, 20:11

It doesn't matter what Poland does. People here in Holland see them as intruders, as they were the enemy not long ago I think.
Since WW2 the Western EU has stood together, and people think of the eastern countries as intruders.
[...}
It's what Poland did in the last 60 years. And 40 of those it has been our enemy.
How about East Germany then? Or actually even West Germany considering WW2 - apparently the EU worked out quite OK with Germany as a member - in spite of being "the enemy" for decades (and not only an enemy by ideology but by action)

Stig

06-27-2007, 20:15

For some reason people decided to forgive Germany, plus it was one of the founder states, together with Holland, which never gives a damned. Italy it's former ally, Luxembourg (yeah Luxembourg) and France and Belgian.

And when I go after your reason of countries at war with Germany only the last two wouldn't like Germany.

doc_bean

06-27-2007, 21:07

It doesn't matter what Poland does. People here in Holland see them as intruders, as they were the enemy not long ago I think.

When were you at war with Poland ????

Since WW2 the Western EU has stood together, and people think of the eastern countries as intruders.

A strange sentiment and one I don't really feel here. Unless you're talking about immigration, but that isn't what this thread is about.

Take Turkey, what's wrong with that as a EU country?

Well, it's big, it's poor, boarders a lot of 'problematic' countries and has geographically only a tiny European part.

Nothing, afterall the Ottoman Empire was a big part of Europe for a long time.

Mostly as occupiers, that's like talking about Russia as if it still was the USSR.

But it is a muslim country and to far away from hard-core Europe.

I don't have a problem with those, or with Turkey joining in the long run (give it at least a decade or two though).

It doesn't matter what Poland did 600 years ago, there was no Europe as there has been the last 60 years. It's what Poland did in the last 60 years. And 40 of those it has been our enemy.

Poland isn't/wasn't the USSR, in fact, they seem to be rather upset about that whole communism thing. If any country should take the blame for that it should be Russia.

cegorach

06-28-2007, 09:03

Do you genuinely have a party called Gnomes and Morons? Do they have a satellite organisation in Ireland? :2thumbsup:

What am I saying? They're in power here...

It is a very old organisation - descendant of the famous Orange Alternative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Alternative)

Currently they appear from time to time to use elections and other events to either make jokes from radical parties or to support democratic movemenet in the area.

Louis VI the Fat

Maybe another problem is that Poland is simply the new kid on the block. It has to elbow its way in into an existing complex set of relationships. This is bound to be a complicated process. Like the other newer member states, it has been essentially cut off from mainstream west European and EU developments for half a century. And unlike most other new members, Poland is of considerable size and weight, so much so, that the process of integration must work both ways.

This is EXACTLY what I think.:beam: I believe the single reason behind that is that we are NOT known well so we have to build our position from the scratch. Very few people in the western europe actually care about anything happening 50 or so years ago, even less about anything older so you have it - we might have 1000 years long history which places us in western culture without a single doubt, but to some people we are new and 'eastern' - I was amazed how many times I had to explain that we use LATIN alphabet and even that we are CATHOLIC (despite John Paul II ...).

That is why every opinion now matters and the damage done by the current government will be hard to repair...

If we were in the EU a little longer everyone would see the current coalition as something of little consequnce which will pass, but now it CONFIRMS some worst opinions which do exist and resurface now. To such biased sources the present gov. is not an exception, but the truth about Poland..:wall:
It can be compared to the usual accusations fo antisemitism - which some people see as a RULE, not the EXCEPTION it really was - 1000 years of peaceful coexistence doesn't matter - isolated events here and there (often these even didn't happen at all) are used to smear my country, but we are living in the world where the USA are called totalitarian by some so I guess I should finally get used to mindless accusations and stupidity...:shame:

Quote:
Currently we are after Spain when it comes to the economy - this year we have outgrown the Netherlands so only the other 5 larger countries are more wealthy than us.
Currently our economy grows at 7 %
Also there is no visable reason why our economy should not accelerate even more - for at least next 10 years.
Aye. See, this is why I don't understand why Poland displays so little self assuredness in international affairs. And no, indignation, a raised voice and ultra-nationalism is not a sign of self-assuredly seeing after your interests. Rather the opposite. What, I wonder, has Poland achieved for itself in recent years that it couldn't have by a more calm, self-assured approach?

Because we have this complex of really bad luck. Patitions of XVIIIth century, Napoleon's defeat in 1812 (includes our 100 000 army), failed uprisings in the XIXth century, finally the independence saved in 1920 -, but here it goes again - economic war with Germany, Great Depression of 1929 and when you recover from it around 1937 you got Hitler and Stalin in 1939 and later you discover your so called allies left you alone... Finally when you beat Hitler you got Soviet 'guests' for next 45 years...

No wonder that during the XIXth century mystic romanticism we even hot an ideology of self-sacrifice as Poland 'Christ of the nations'...

So forgive me, but these wounds are and will be, will heal (already did to some), but can open again and with less-than-considerable recognition of our efforts in last 2 centuries Poland is quite... 'allergic' to unfair treatment.
At least half of the present cabinet thrive on this treatment, on betrayal of the West - real or imagined and either though most of Poles can take pride from our history it remains a terrible burden and invaluable lesson.
Because it is all who we really are - Chopin and Maria Curie-Sklodowska, Milosz and Walesa, Pilsudski and John Paul II, organic work of XIXth century and uprisings, Council of Four Lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Four_Lands) and Prometheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism), Zegota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBegota) and BOTH Warsaw uprisings, but also Jedwabne and Kielce pogrom, anti-intellectual purge of 1968 and ONR scums, szmalcownicy who sold Jews and Poles for money in the 2nd WW and 'loyalists' who bowed before tzars of Russia - it is all here, but I am afraid to quite many people the dark pages of our history are the real Poland outside or are a subject of amnesia in Poland.

I can say that both groups can create a nice couple - but perhaps could deal with their problems somewhere else than in the public...

Brenus

“Poles followed Napoleon and were loyal to the end”: Yep and that gave us a Minister of Interior named Poniatowski, under Giscard… Thank you very much…
And the 1st Regiment de Cuirassiers (tanks/ cavalry) still has the title of “Royal Pologne” (so it was even before Napoleon) on its insigne…

That was most likely formed in the XVIIIth century when many Poles were mercenaries fighting in other armies. Actually there were French mercenary units in Poland only a century earlier and I guess the only reason we do not have our 'French' regiments is that Poland got destroyed at least once after that.

Stig

Quote:
Poles followed Napoleon and were loyal to the end

Doesn't matter. The Poles were also send in at Arnhem, where they made sure that most of 1st British Airborne could be saved, but still they were blamed for the failure of Market Garden.
It's just that there's a Western Europe, and Poland doesn't belong to that.

And liberated a large part of Holland ( 1st Armoured Division), but it doesn't matter. The creacure called Western Europe wasn't born 60 years ago I am afraid.

It doesn't matter what Poland did 600 years ago, there was no Europe as there has been the last 60 years. It's what Poland did in the last 60 years. And 40 of those it has been our enemy.

Ehem... What ?

First we do not even discuss such remote past - unless you are saying that we are so alien that it does matter.
Second you might want to remember (because you know) how it happened that Poland got under Soviet 'protection'.
Third. Sure there were plans to invade Western Europe where Polish army was supposed to nuke and invade Denmark, northern Germany and the Netherlands, but even Soviets had huge doubts about polish loyalty in case of a conflict with sphere to which we BELONG together with (at least) Hungary, Czechs, Slovaks, Corats, Slovenians and Baltic nations.

For the God sake even one of our natonal uprisings (in 1831) sparked after rumours that polish soldiers will be used to fight the revolt in Belgium...

During our whole history we only fought countries from the east or literally from Asia with little conflicts with anyone else than Germany (few with Czechs and against the Spanish, British and Portuguese during Napoleonic period) or scandinavians.

I assume you know that too. Anyway I guess your vision of borders between cultures in Europe is based solely on the Iron Curtain - if so I have nothing to add.:thumbsdown:

It doesn't matter what Poland does. People here in Holland see them as intruders, as they were the enemy not long ago I think.
Since WW2 the Western EU has stood together, and people think of the eastern countries as intruders.

That is about cultural differences and immigration not about anything bigger. According to such definition the SINGLE event of history which matters is the Iron Curtain - isn't it ?
What about whole earlier history ?

doc_bean

Poland isn't/wasn't the USSR, in fact, they seem to be rather upset about that whole communism thing. If any country should take the blame for that it should be Russia.

Upset is a very mild expression. Even Stalin himself said it is impossible to implement communism in Poland. Our communist movememnt was probably the smallest in the whole Europe and they got beaten by everyone - the society (they declared that Poland should join the SU and leave all 'german' or 'russian' territories - more or less what Hitler with Stalin did in 1939), the government (after campaign of bombing in 1923) and ... the Soviets who virtually eliminated their members and dissolved the party in 1937.
Since 1943 when Stalin changed his mind - whole communist movement gathered whoever could they find - even ordinary criminals and after Poland was occupied and puppet government was created communism was a matter or convenience without real support as history of movememnts such as Solidarity proved.

If there is any ideology which simply doesn't fit Poland it is the communism, even nazism would be more probable...

Stig

06-28-2007, 09:24

When were you at war with Poland ????
Ever heard of the Cold War?
Poland was our enemy, no we weren't at war with them, but we treated anything east of West Germany as our enemies.

That is about cultural differences and immigration not about anything bigger. According to such definition the SINGLE event of history which matters is the Iron Curtain - isn't it ?
What about whole earlier history ?
We Dutch do not know your earlier history. Ask the average Dutchmen about Poland and he will mostlikely mention illegal workingstaff, good and cheap plumbers and maybe something about the fact that the Germans attacked it once, but don't ask for the date.
Most Dutchmen don't even know that the Poles sacrifised their own lives for the freedom of another country while they didn't have the change to liberate their own.
And this is the same for many countries.

Many people do not know Poland once beat the Teutonic Knights. Or that it's one of the older countries in Europe.
Hell I remember playing Age of Empires 2 as a young kid and coming across Poland in a campaign and what I thought was:
Was Poland already a country back then?
Many people don't know the history of Poland, and you can't blame them. Education about our own history is poor enough, you can't expect them to know that the Poles had a uprising in 1831.

Remember you get judged on your recent actions, not on something you did hunderds of years ago.
And remember that many people (the right wing, which is rather big) don't like Poles, as (to put it like they do (and I don't agree)): they come here and steal our jobs and money, only to return to Poland with it.

Fragony

06-28-2007, 09:38

I know Chopin :2thumbsup:

And I know what a lufka is :2thumbsup:

And I know of Danzig :laugh4:

doc_bean

06-28-2007, 09:40

Ever heard of the Cold War?
Poland was our enemy, no we weren't at war with them, but we treated anything east of West Germany as our enemies.

They were occupied territory. We screwed them (and the rest of eastern Europe) over big time at the end of WWII. They should be blaming us for what happened to them in the last 50-60years.

We Dutch do not know your earlier history. Ask the average Dutchmen about Poland and he will mostlikely mention illegal workingstaff, good and cheap plumbers and maybe something about the fact that the Germans attacked it once, but don't ask for the date.

Right, immigration, nothing to do with Poland's position in the EU or the country itself...

Stig

06-28-2007, 09:53

They were occupied territory. We screwed them (and the rest of eastern Europe) over big time at the end of WWII. They should be blaming us for what happened to them in the last 50-60years.
You know that, I know that. 90% of Holland (and the world) doesn't.
Remember not everyone knows as much as you do.

Right, immigration, nothing to do with Poland's position in the EU or the country itself...
Yeah so, most people aren't even interested in Europe as a whole.

Fragony

06-28-2007, 09:59

Well call me uninformed, why exactly do we need to take the blame?

doc_bean

06-28-2007, 10:04

Well call me uninformed, why exactly do we need to take the blame?

Well, it was worded a bit harshly as a response to Stig's post. Stig claimed they were our enemies when they we really victims 'we' just left for the Soviets to rule after the war while Western Europe could rebuild itself. In truth there was nothing we could have really done to save them from Soviet occupation, I guess.

Meneldil

06-28-2007, 10:09

See here what I mean? This conflict brings to the surface the fact that we European countries don't trust each other and therefore we all want the system that gives us more votes than the other systems. That we mistrust each other is something we all know and is in itself no problem, but when EU keeps bringing this to the surface again and again it only strengthens the sentiment of hatred, dangerous nationalism, mistrust and fear. Without an EU and with democracy all over Europe, we stand a good chance of maintaining peace for another 60 years. Now, that dream seems threatened.

Hum, personnally, I just want a voting system that grants each country a fair weight into EU, according to their demographical and economical importance, aswell as to their contribution to EU.

Previously, Germany had as much weight as France, UK and Italy. While I understand the reason behind this (3 of the founding fathers + the other big one), it's just plain silly that Germany, a much more populated and much wealthier country was stuck at 29 voices.
Furthermore, it was just as silly that Spain and Poland got 27 voices*, while being quite less populated than Fr, Ger, UK and It.

*hence why poland was against the treaty

As for the whole "EU dictatorship will bring war, we need democracy all over europe" speech, may I remind you that most european countries were democracies right after WWI ? That just did not prevent them from bashing their neighbours a few years later.
Was there any war between EU members ? AFAIK, no.
Do people living in EU are now ruled by dictators and murders, in the fear of gulags, secret police and what not ? I don't think so either.

Yeah, there are quite a lot of things that are really screwed up with EU (as pointed out, I just don't like the way the average european simply cannot do anything but accept what EU does*), but the whole "OMG, we're going right for WWIII" is just plain silly.

*though mind you, the same is true for any country. AFAIK, if your governement wants to do something, he'll do it, even if you don't agree.

Back to the topic, frankly, I have little respect for Poland. Poles might be nice people and all, but the twins constantly show us everything I dislike : social conservatism, nationalism, hatred based on century-old events, bigotry. Now, I'm wondering, why the hell don't they simply leave EU ? Seeing how they don't give a crap about what other people's opinion, they could simply say "Ok, we're tired, EU is teh sux, we leave, cya".
Oh yeah, the billions of € they('ll) receive might explain why they stay here.
That's quite a shame actually, I know our France and Poland have been friends for a while (until we told them to go to hell with Uncle Stalin), seeing how things turn out is kinda sad.

Fragony

06-28-2007, 10:09

Phew, not that uninformed after all

cegorach

06-28-2007, 10:23

Ever heard of the Cold War?
Poland was our enemy, no we weren't at war with them, but we treated anything east of West Germany as our enemies.

Except as said above that we were occupied country not allowed to conduct independent policy it cannot be treated seriously. During the 2nd WW Poland was in theory at war with Japan (our good friend), Hungary (our great friend) and Romania (our ally in 1939) - so all of them WERE our enemies.
Despite this such statement would be seen as ridiculous in Poland because even our resistance cooperated with them against Germany and we had no hostile actions against each other (on the contrary actually).
All right with Japan we had one pilot in China for some time (on holidays) who shot down at least 2 Japanese fighters, but that is all.

So if such definition fits here according to you Stig we indeed were Dutch enemy plotting to bring darkness to the the Netherlands.

We Dutch do not know your earlier history. Ask the average Dutchmen about Poland and he will mostlikely mention illegal workingstaff, good and cheap plumbers and maybe something about the fact that the Germans attacked it once, but don't ask for the date.
Most Dutchmen don't even know that the Poles sacrifised their own lives for the freedom of another country while they didn't have the change to liberate their own.
And this is the same for many countries.

My mistake. I still can't get used to this flaw in English language that you (singular) and you (plural) is spelled identically.
It was to YOU personally so not to the general population.

Remember you get judged on your recent actions, not on something you did hunderds of years ago.
And remember that many people (the right wing, which is rather big) don't like Poles, as (to put it like they do (and I don't agree)): they come here and steal our jobs and money, only to return to Poland with it.

At least do not stay...

In general you can't base your statement (about divisions in Europe) on Iron Curtain or ignorance.

Go Papua and ask local people what is the capital of for example Belgium - if you get the answer that it is Paris it will NOT make it real (at least not now...).

Fragony

And I know what a lufka is

So you are better here, because I don't know for sure, though I might find several possibilities including a small barrel.:laugh4:

Well call me uninformed, why exactly do we need to take the blame?

I agree, nothing.

Most of people here wouldn't know that the Netherlands were fighting during that war if it wasn't about Arnhem or our Armoured Division fighting there.
Blaming the Dutch would be like accusing the Finns or Danish...

Usually the British get most of the blame. In early 1990s it was even possible to got beaten (because of the 2nd WW betrayal) if you were English - interesting but Welsh or Scots were not in any danger - now it only can happen (rarely) if an Englishman says that 'we saved Poland during the 2nd WW' in rather less civilised company...
In early 90s it would be a suicide.:yes:

Meneldil

Back to the topic, frankly, I have little respect for Poland. Poles might be nice people and all, but the twins constantly show us everything I dislike : social conservatism, nationalism, hatred based on century-old events, bigotry. Now, I'm wondering, why the hell don't they simply leave EU ? Seeing how they don't give a crap about what other people's opinion, they could simply say "Ok, we're tired, EU is teh sux, we leave, cya".
Oh yeah, the billions of € they('ll) receive might explain why they stay here.
That's quite a shame actually, I know our France and Poland have been friends for a while (until we told them to go to hell with Uncle Stalin), seeing how things turn out is kinda sad.

Because 85 % of Poles are infavour of the EU ? They could start killing people with a shotgun just as well...

About former friendship. I must admit that when I was young I really liked France - something to do with Napoleon I guess nad my grandfather.
But I have grown out of this and I am convinced that from any alliances/friendships we have made in history that with France was a total (except Napoleon) failure.
It is not because of Chirac, but I simply have much greater knowledge now. Although I agree it is quite sad...

Fragony

06-28-2007, 10:30

I agree, nothing.

//puts back wallet

Stig

06-28-2007, 10:33

so all of them WERE our enemies.
Yup, I know and that's why people had problems with them joining the EU.

It was to YOU personally so not to the general population.
I know, and here I'm not speaking as myself. I can't be bothered with Poland or the EU as a whole. I'm speaking as if I'm part of the general population, and you can't expect them to know what some Poles did 400 years ago.

In general you can't base your statement (about divisions in Europe) on Iron Curtain or ignorance.
Yes I can, as it's the truth.

About former friendship. I must admit that when I was young I really liked France - something to do with Napoleon I guess nad my grandfather.
But I have grown out of this and I am convinced that from any alliances/friendships we have made in history that with France was a total (except Napoleon) failure.
It is not because of Chirac, but I simply have much greater knowledge now. Although I agree it is quite sad...
You don't like France for some guy who lived 200 years ago?
That's just sad, he's dead now, France has changed.

Rodion Romanovich

06-28-2007, 10:38

Hum, personnally, I just want a voting system that grants each country a fair weight into EU, according to their demographical and economical importance, aswell as to their contribution to EU.

The problem is, no matter the voting system, the people in the member countries have no influence as they don't have any right of electing the members of the EU Commission and Council, who have all the legislative and effective power. This is, by definition, dictatorship.

may I remind you that most european countries were democracies right after WWI ? That just did not prevent them from bashing their neighbours a few years later.

The European countries were nominally democracies, but dictatorships at heart. And there was a tendency very similar to the whole EU thing: creating massive Unions everywhere, most notably in the case of Grossdeutschland that tried to "unite" Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Alsass-Lorraine and the Polish north coast, and polarize this "union" against non-members.

Was there any war between EU members ? AFAIK, no.

EU has not existed in its current form for more than 12 or even as little as 3 years, as it was in 1995 and 2004 that EU became a European-Empire dicatorship project, as opposed to a loose union working for peace and not a bunch of maniacs seeking to control everything from strawberry and banana sizes to whether countries are allowed to fight alcoholism/drug usage to other internal matters such as how to deal with crime.

Do people living in EU are now ruled by dictators and murders, in the fear of gulags, secret police and what not ? I don't think so either.

Now, did most Germans fear the nazi dictatorship in 1933, or did it take until around 1941 before it was feared?

is just plain silly.

You may hold this opinion, but you don't sound credible as long as you give no motivation for it.

Back to the topic, frankly, I have little respect for Poland.

This is the problem. Poland will always be seen by many in western Europe as an inferior nation that should be thankful for being "saved" by western European countries by being allowed into the EU. Poland, on the other hand, doesn't want to remain Europe's source of trafficking women and low-cost workers. Bear in mind that western Europe did nothing for Poland from 1939 to this day, not just ww2 but 5 other conspiracies to share Poland, then letting USSR take half of Poland after the VE day in ww2, then letting Poland be occupied by the USSR, then using Poland as a source of underpaid workers and sex slaves brought to western Europe by trafficking. Poland deserves more respect than that.

Now, I'm wondering, why the hell don't they simply leave EU ? Seeing how they don't give a crap about what other people's opinion, they could simply say "Ok, we're tired, EU is teh sux, we leave, cya".

They can't. As EU grows in size and power, being the only one to remain outside it is dangerous. Thus countries are left no choice but to join the EU and try to reform it from the inside. Some parts of the EU work actively to give non-EU members economical disadvantages, to make sure it isn't possible anymore to be part of only the trade treaties such as EEC, but also try to force nations to submit to the anti-democratic political parts of the EU.

However, the lack of democracy in the Commission and Council unfortunately means there isn't much chance of affecting EU from within either. What is needed is that either the EU is reformed from within - which seems impossible with both the current and the suggested replacement constitutions, or that a large pact of nations together form an alternative pact and have the courage and strength to together leave the EU. However, this would suddenly mean we would have created two sides that are against each other, and a good prerequisite for war. In short, the way the EU is run right now, the people of the European countries have only two possible future scenarios: a European dictatorship empire with civil wars, or a large risk of war between two large coalitions.

Oh yeah, the billions of € they('ll) receive might explain why they stay here.

Indeed, this is another example of how the EU tries to make nations that aren't part of the EU disadvantaged compared to members, to force them into the union. Before the entry of a number of East European states with weak economies, a clear majority wanted to weaken the EU and were generally against the Empire building. Now, a number of nations with populations thankful for free money temporarily turns this into a majority. That's what allows the EU dictatorship from continuing to grow and gather more and more power and become more and more centralized. Admitting these East European countries into the EU was a big mistake, as it has now undermined the chances of democracy, and removed the chances of putting a maximum limit to the level of centralization in the EU. As it is now, centralization and movement of powers from national governments towards the non-democratic Commission and Council continues in an unrestricted manner. The national governments will soon be reduced to provincial governments in terms of power and importance, and will only nominally remain sovereign governments that only as an illusion still controls their countries. Say hello to Rome version II, and goodbye to democracy.

doc_bean

06-28-2007, 11:28

The problem is, no matter the voting system, the people in the member countries have no influence as they don't have any right of electing the members of the EU Commission and Council, who have all the legislative and effective power. This is, by definition, dictatorship.

No, it's a staged (layered ? don't know the real English word for it) form of democracy, many presidential systems work that way (Turkey, and the original US system, for example).

I fear the EU parliament more than I fear the commision, most of those have done a good job over the alst 50years, it's the parliament that tends to come up up with all those proposals that make people whine.

There is such a thing as too much 'democracy', otherwise we might as well start voting for legislation the way we vote for the next Pop Idol.

Strike For The South

06-28-2007, 14:24

Europe is very interesting:dizzy2: Continue this is fascinating

Louis VI the Fat

06-28-2007, 14:37

An article appeared recently in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (15 March 2007) on the occasion of German Chancellor Andrea Merkel’s planned visit to Poland and in light of the increasing tension between the two countries regarding historical issues. The author of this article, a professor of Polish and Ukrainian studies at the European University Viadrina, wrote: “For many years, misunderstandings and accusations have plagued the relationship between Germany and Poland…” The effects of these misunderstandings and accusations function on a number of levels, from high politics to handball matches (as was the example in the article). While it is of course important to combat problems on all levels (including dispelling simple myths and stereotypes about Polish car thieves) in order to help normalize relations between Germans and Poles, there are very serious historical issues which need to be confronted if the long and arduous process of reconciliation begun in the nineties between the two countries is to continue.

The author of the article feels that at this point the escalating situation threatens not only the political relationship between Germany and Poland, but also the future of EU integration and the creation of a European Constitution as well. The fact that many of the new member states in the European Union are not only seen but are also treated as “second class citizens” just adds fuel to the still-smoldering embers that remain in the ashes of World War II – causing “old” problems to flare in the face of new ones. But this is not surprising as many scholars have long argued that the debates over history and memory between the old member states of the EU and the acceding ones needed to be thoroughly played out before the new members joined the Union where the “fraternal atmosphere” of the bodies of the EU would make it more difficult to negotiate these histories. The illusion that these problems would somehow dissipate with increasing European integration has proven false. Quite to the contrary, the “old” issues seem not to be fading with the passing of time, but to be taking on new forms and growing in importance.

In both Germany and Poland, (as well as elsewhere in Europe) historical themes are being used as ammunition in political campaigns, bringing battles of history and memory into the arena of politics where contentious issues have an even greater chance of being distorted and manipulated to serve political purposes. A politician’s flippant use of past instances of injustice or violence as accusatory and pejorative cannon fodder leads only to the proliferation of many of the same myths historians and other academics have long been trying to dispel. Not only are these myths being perpetuated by the politicians, but political rallying cries for confessions of guilt for past crimes obscure the fact that so many of these past crimes have been and are currently being dealt with by academics in the respective country. The author of the article points out for example that many German politicians are currently calling on Poland to admit the unjust way the ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland even though Polish historians have long been working under this premise. This particular issue is much too complex to discuss here, but its presence in political discourse and the discussion about Polish-German relations in general shows the ever-increasing gap between the academic and political realms when it comes to the “shared histories” of countries in Europe today.

And another article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,489510,00.html) that deals more specifically and in-depth with the topic of this thread.

Rodion Romanovich

06-28-2007, 15:23

No, it's a staged (layered ? don't know the real English word for it) form of democracy
There's absolutely zero people's influence over the Comission and Council, it's not democracy, not even democracy with some cognomen, no more than you can argue a dictatorship rule is democratic because if the ruler doesn't give at least some degree of bread and circuses the people will revolt and kill him.

cegorach

06-28-2007, 15:59

Stig

Quote:
so all of them WERE our enemies.
Yup, I know and that's why people had problems with them joining the EU.

I doubt anyone reminded Hungary or Romania the fact they were Germany's allies just like noone said something similar about Finland or did ?

Quote:
It was to YOU personally so not to the general population.
I know, and here I'm not speaking as myself. I can't be bothered with Poland or the EU as a whole. I'm speaking as if I'm part of the general population, and you can't expect them to know what some Poles did 400 years ago.

I am afraid the general ppulation doesn't write historical books, teaches about history or writes for newspapers about Poland. It all requires a certain level of knowledge and it all shapes the general opinion too.

Quote:
In general you can't base your statement (about divisions in Europe) on Iron Curtain or ignorance.
Yes I can, as it's the truth.

Ok. Great if someone is ignorant he/she is right I believe ?

Anyway just your statement (or of 'general population' ) doesn't sever links with the rest of Europe and unless you PROVE that we are more different than for example Portugal or Ireland there is no point about making such statements.

Quote:
About former friendship. I must admit that when I was young I really liked France - something to do with Napoleon I guess nad my grandfather.
But I have grown out of this and I am convinced that from any alliances/friendships we have made in history that with France was a total (except Napoleon) failure.
It is not because of Chirac, but I simply have much greater knowledge now. Although I agree it is quite sad...
You don't like France for some guy who lived 200 years ago?
That's just sad, he's dead now, France has changed.

Read again.:wall: :wall: :wall:

I ask for nothing more than reading with understanding.

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

This is the problem. Poland will always be seen by many in western Europe as an inferior nation that should be thankful for being "saved" by western European countries by being allowed into the EU. Poland, on the other hand, doesn't want to remain Europe's source of trafficking women and low-cost workers. Bear in mind that western Europe did nothing for Poland from 1939 to this day, not just ww2 but 5 other conspiracies to share Poland, then letting USSR take half of Poland after the VE day in ww2, then letting Poland be occupied by the USSR, then using Poland as a source of underpaid workers and sex slaves brought to western Europe by trafficking. Poland deserves more respect than that.

Great. I remind you that Portugal, Spain, Ireland etc were also source of 'underpaid workers', though I haven't heard about sex slaves from that countries (maybe hairy spanish women are more common than I expected). In neither sense or area it really means nothing.
In Poland Ukrainians, Belorussians and Russians are these 'underpaid workers' and probably 'sex slaves' but none is seen as something intentional - neither with Spain, Portugal, Ireland or Poland or Ukraine, Belorus and Russia.

I understand that you wanted to use a powerful, spectacular - provided by words 'underpaid' and 'sex' - arguments, but as you said 'Poland deserves more respect' so does this discussion.

Working abroad is a normal thing untill wages will reach certain level and I see nothing wrong with that.
Sure it would be great to see our allies keep their part of the deal in 1939-45, to receive Marshall Plan's funds etc, but that is a different story.

Stig

06-28-2007, 16:16

I doubt anyone reminded Hungary or Romania the fact they were Germany's allies just like noone said something similar about Finland or did ?
I'm not replying to that, take your nationalism elsewhere

I am afraid the general ppulation doesn't write historical books, teaches about history or writes for newspapers about Poland. It all requires a certain level of knowledge and it all shapes the general opinion too.
Still the good thing about a democracy is is that the general population gets a say in things. Referendums.

Nationalist! Gah!

cegorach

06-28-2007, 16:49

And another article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,489510,00.html) that deals more specifically and in-depth with the topic of this thread.

The article should be 2 times longer, for that I would give it 3.50 from 1 to 6.

I don't know why
- 'Wprost' (which always uses controversial covers) is shon as the primary proof.
- why the idiotic proposal to remove Gombrowicz, Kafka, Goethe (and couple of other respected writers) is described as a proposal that provoked an outcry even among the Poles.
- what about this 'even' ? First the proposal was criticised by everyone (include the PM, president, Culture Ministry etc. Two. Education is divided into three parts - in three offices, only one by the Education Ministry.
- LPR shouldn't be called far-right in GERMANY - this would surely make worng impression amongst the readers. They are ultra-conservative, but word far-right should be spared for fascist/racist/nazis etc and such are not present.
- Poland looks too much like some agriculture/cheap labour economy which growth is funded by the EU for example in 5 years 2/3 maybe 3/4 of LCD monitors/TV sets in the EU will be produced in Poland and much of our export is from high tech branches.

In general they treat some things which were only SPOKEN as REAL actions - usually there is something and after 2-3 days of criticism it is abandoned or later destroyed during voting in the parliament such as in case of abortion which actually was discussed in early 90s, but facing abyss LPR decided to play this card losing as usual, but taking some attention.
The coalition likes to use words, usually harsh or stupid without little responsibility, the PM is especially noted for his careless use of statements as if during a bloody tea party at aunt Irene :thumbsdown:. LPR is especially noted for such behaviour as a party - they won't lose any reputation because they don't have any to start with.

So I would wait a moment before commenting cerain issues or simply to follow the particular affair to its end otherwise something only mentoned is shown as a FACT.
Also too many statements are taken out of context with this square root for example which was opposition proposal and got backing from most parties apparently with exception of radical coalition partners and its purpose WASN'T diminishing Germany's position for the sake of it which would be strong anyway, sadly the gov. make a joke of it with its useless talking and incompetence prior and during the summit.

And I just LOVED this one - the issue with chosing F16.
Eurofighters were simply too expensive to start with and the text almost suggests that the additional 'german' money were spent on american airplanes :

He put €1 billion on the table, according to a diplomat. A few days later, Poland confirmed that it wasn't quite so needy after all: Warsaw placed an order for US fighter jets totaling €3.5 billion. Adding insult to injury, the Poles rejected a competing bid for the European designed and produced Eurofighter.
Yeah these ungreateful Poles down with them !:whip:
As if the deal was a matter of negotiations and consultation for at least 5-6 years earlier.:wall:

cegorach

06-28-2007, 16:58

you - Ever heard of the Cold War?
Poland was our enemy, no we weren't at war with them, but we treated anything east of West Germany as our enemies.

me - Except as said above that we were occupied country not allowed to conduct independent policy it cannot be treated seriously. During the 2nd WW Poland was in theory at war with Japan (our good friend), Hungary (our great friend) and Romania (our ally in 1939) - so all of them WERE our enemies.Despite this such statement would be seen as ridiculous in Poland...you -Yup, I know and that's why people had problems with them joining the EU.me - I doubt anyone reminded Hungary or Romania the fact they were Germany's allies just like noone said something similar about Finland or did ?

I'm not replying to that, take your nationalism elsewhere

Nationalist! Gah!

ONE BIG GAH to that.:wall:

It only proves you can receive insults here very easily.:juggle2:

*** I used numerous quotes because it has to be shown as simply as possible.

Petrus

06-28-2007, 17:00

Eastern europe followed a different way between WWII and the fall of USSR.
This caused things such as nationalism to remain very strong in its negative parts – i.e. warmongering – in those areas while in the same time they diluted and lost most of their stinking in western Europe.

The fall of USSR increased this and turned the populations towards ancient Europe values that had naturally decreased with integration such as religiousness.

The politic of the union is made of compromises as it admits that common good in the long term can involve the losing of a specific interest in the short term. This sense of compromise is totally incompatible with the ultra nationalism, fanaticism and demagogy that grew in eastern Europe after soviet union’s falling.

But things cool down and evolve even in eastern Europe so I think those countries will be – and for most they already are – euro compatible with the time.
The rejection they suffer from western european opinions is also decreasing as everyone takes the habit of seeing them, just like this happened with the uk and this will only be a problem if peoples choose to follow demagogues on this way.
The difference between eastern and western European countries is relatively small and I do not think it will take much longer to integrate an ex communist country that it took for an ex fascist country such as Spain, or an underdeveloped one such as Greece.

Anyhow, they belong to Europe just like western countries and I do not see any rational reason not to accept them among us.

Rodion Romanovich

06-28-2007, 18:23

...
You highlighted the sentence that summarized the point of my post, yet seem to have failed to realize that that was the main point. The parallel discussions in this very thread are good examples of exactly what I mean: there's a lack of proper respect for Poland, and Poland stands little chance of affecting much within the EU while this remains. Believing anything else is unrealistic. Poland's entry into the EU isn't charity from the previous members, they use it as a tool to gain benefits for themselves, or so they believe. Just like Napoleon used the Duchy of Warsaw as a temporary tool for his own purposes, and not as any charity. Any positive outcome for Poland that may have come from that cooperation was random, not Napoleon's intention.

In fact, it's this naive belief in the EU that in my opinion undermines the respect for Poland. The current leader's sound scepticism towards the EU and its intentions, however, is giving me more respect for Poland than ever, even if several of his other actions undermines my respect for him as a person. To be honest: when the short term effects of a diplomatic offer seem to good to be true, lack of scepticism is a sign of naiveity IMO.

InsaneApache

06-30-2007, 09:26

Looks like the 'Thompson' twins are having a ball of a time.

A deal on Europe’s future, stitched together at last week’s bad-tempered summit, began to unravel yesterday after the intervention of the EU’s most unpredictable leader.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2007561.ece

However this line from the EU is priceless....

The European Commission responded furiously. “This was clearly settled at the European Council last week,” a spokesman said. “A mandate is a mandate and a deal is a deal. Now it is time for IGC to finish its job.”

They don't say that when their arrogant proposals are rejected by voters do they? No. They say the voters got it wrong and we'll implement anyway. A perfect example of the hubris present at the heart of the EU.

:no: :shame: :wall:

Kralizec

07-01-2007, 13:16

I mean Western Europe as in Western World (the old EU) ... sides on Scandinavia Norway isn't a member anyway

Greece and Cyprus don't belong to what I think of when I hear "western Europe" but I never hear anybody having a problem with them (well, except Jorg Haider)

The most important reason why a lot of people were against eastern expansion of the EU is because of their wallet, anything else is just trivial.

There's absolutely zero people's influence over the Comission and Council, it's not democracy, not even democracy with some cognomen, no more than you can argue a dictatorship rule is democratic because if the ruler doesn't give at least some degree of bread and circuses the people will revolt and kill him.

Legio, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Watchman

07-01-2007, 13:38

Isn't that normal among "Eurosceptics" ? (I prefer to call them EUphobes myself, given the idee fixe tendencies...)

Fragony

07-01-2007, 14:15

Isn't that normal among "Eurosceptics" ? (I prefer to call them EUphobes myself, given the idee fixe tendencies...)

Don't you think that's a bit arrogant, or are you above that? There are many good reasons to be against europe. Typical leftist arrogance, agree or you are stoopid :no:

Watchman

07-01-2007, 14:29

Kralizec

07-01-2007, 14:33

Don't you think that's a bit arrogant, or are you above that? There are many good reasons to be against europe.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the EU as it is, but I don't see why we should refuse eastern European countries acces into the folly...er, fold ~;) if they want to and answer to the listed criteria (human rights, corruption etc)
Wich is why I'm on the other hand against Turkey's entry, at least for the foreseeable future.

Fragony

07-01-2007, 14:38

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

^--roflcopter

Hear that InsaneApache? Watchman thinks you are a narrow minded idiot, and he can know, he studies political science (here we call it marxism)

Don't trip over your beard Watchman :book:

Fragony

07-01-2007, 14:45

Wich is why I'm on the other hand against Turkey's entry, at least for the foreseeable future.

Why do you hate turks?

Hey Watchman, here's another one who completily misses point.

Watchman

07-01-2007, 14:58

Marxism has been pretty passé in the academic circles around here for a while now, you know. It was pretty pop (in a rather vulgarized Soviet-style version anyway) among the student-radical wonks some three or four decades back, but once those grew up a bit that fell by the wayside. Marx is read mostly for his insights on Industrial Revolution era "smokestack capitalism" and as a study on historical materialism these days, and rarely as primary source.

And yes, as far as I'm concerned people who can't tell the difference between something actually tracing back to the EU, and something quite due to local circumstances and decisions that gets pinned on the EU by local politicos only too eager to externalize the blame, are idiots. Or willing to swallow easy populist explanations to complex issues if those happen to mesh with their prejudices, which IMO amounts to the same thing.

Fragony

07-01-2007, 15:16

Marxism has been pretty passé in the academic circles around here for a while now, you know. It was pretty pop (in a rather vulgarized Soviet-style version anyway) among the student-radical wonks some three or four decades back, but once those grew up a bit that fell by the wayside. Marx is read mostly for his insights on Industrial Revolution era "smokestack capitalism" and as a study on historical materialism these days, and rarely as primary source.

Oh maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And yes, as far as I'm concerned people who can't tell the difference between something actually tracing back to the EU, and something quite due to local circumstances and decisions that gets pinned on the EU by local politicos only too eager to externalize the blame, are idiots. Or willing to swallow easy populist explanations to complex issues if those happen to mesh with their prejudices, which IMO amounts to the same thing.

Easy populist explanations, like this --> Isn't that normal among "Eurosceptics" ? (I prefer to call them EUphobes myself, given the idee fixe tendencies...)?

prejudices....populists......easy explanations............. You are a Kremlinswatcher's wet dream.

Watchman

07-01-2007, 15:36

Should I presume I should, in the future, point out obvious sarcasm for your benefit ?

And if you don't know what icthyologists do, please don't start talking about camels. It's silly.

Fragony

07-01-2007, 15:41

Should I presume I should, in the future, point out obvious sarcasm for your benefit ?

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Man this would be more fun if they didn't pwn theirselves :no:

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 17:55

Legio, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Simply saying "you're wrong noob" doesn't make you right, or very credible either for that part. Everybody knows there's no voting for the Commission and Council, thus no democracy. Our only way of affecting the decisions of the Commission and Council are by violent overthrowal, i.e. the very definition of dictatorship, especially when the centralization of the EU increase and the national (soon provincial) governments loose all real power.

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 17:57

It's really based more on what I've seen of the ones around here. Quite frankly their arguments mostly come across as paranoid raving, and more often than not bark up the completely wrong tree to boot.

Plus I'm not such a generous person as to not call narrow-minded idiots such.
The pro-EU people remind me a lot of the naiveity of Neville Chamberlain in 1939: "Peace in our time"... Yeah right :smoking: Being completely uncritical and unsuspecting of something that is so dangerous, is naive. It's also similar to the communists in Europe, believing in the nice words about solidarity and peace etc., which only turned out to be a way of justifying Stalin's dictatorship. There are many similarities here: under the name of good things, a dictatorship constitution is developed. And the same type of naive people as back in the days of USSR and the Nazis, give them their full support. Remember: Hitler seemed like a very nice guy until the Enabling Act had made him dictator, and Stalin's first 5 years in power brought great prosperity to the USSR. If you let a dictatorship develop while it's pretending to act in the interest of the people, you will realize too late that it is only interested to please itself. There's no need to create dictatorship - the ability to do things the people hate - unless you wish to be able to do things that are against the people. If you want to support solidarity, be against communist dictatorship (but support democratic socialism). If you want to support peace in Europe, be against European dictatorship (but support democracy and defensive cooperation).

InsaneApache

07-01-2007, 18:20

I heard it Frag. and I shall ignore it. :juggle2:

Anyway now that Godwins Law has been invoked, I shall leave the discussion to those that are more able than I to understand it.

Fragony

07-01-2007, 18:22

The pro-EU people remind me a lot of the naiveity of Neville Chamberlain in 1939: "Peace in our time"... Yeah right :smoking: Being completely uncritical and unsuspecting of something that is so dangerous, is naive.

Why do you hate reason? ~;)

Exactly, I couldn't agree more. If it becomes something else then it is now, which probably won't happen but it can, every system needs a killswitch. Watchman may be right that I am a narrowminded idiot EU-phobic, why shouldn't I be. I fear everything I cannot control, yet can control me.

Ser Clegane

07-01-2007, 18:58

Simply saying "you're wrong noob" doesn't make you right, or very credible either for that part. Everybody knows there's no voting for the Commission and Council, thus no democracy. Our only way of affecting the decisions of the Commission and Council are by violent overthrowal, i.e. the very definition of dictatorship, especially when the centralization of the EU increase and the national (soon provincial) governments loose all real power.

The Council of the EU is composed of ministers of the individual administrations of the member states.
I don't know in which EU member state you live, but where I come from the people actually can influence the government.
Therefore, while the Councul of the EU is one layer removed from direct democracy, calling it a "dictatorship" that can only be influenced by "violent overthrowal" is pure hyperbole, that either willingly or due to lack of understanding gives a false representation of the real situation.
Taking your logic, most if not all governments of the individual EU members are dictatorships as well as e.g., ministers of an administration are not directly elected ny the people but are appointed.

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 20:03

The Council of the EU is composed of ministers of the individual administrations of the member states.
I don't know in which EU member state you live, but where I come from the people actually can influence the government.
Therefore, while the Councul of the EU is one layer removed from direct democracy, calling it a "dictatorship" that can only be influenced by "violent overthrowal" is pure hyperbole, that either willingly or due to lack of understanding gives a false representation of the real situation.
Taking your logic, most if not all governments of the individual EU members are dictatorships as well as e.g., ministers of an administration are not directly elected ny the people but are appointed.
Perhaps you remember the "Sovjets" in the USSR, through which the people had OH SO MUCH control over the affairs of the Communist administration.

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 20:05

Why do you hate reason? ~;)

Exactly, I couldn't agree more. If it becomes something else then it is now, which probably won't happen but it can, every system needs a killswitch. Watchman may be right that I am a narrowminded idiot EU-phobic, why shouldn't I be. I fear everything I cannot control, yet can control me.
Indeed, instead of discussing a direction of movement, the EU should discuss what the end goal lies, or they will keep moving past the point of sensibility to the point of extremism, as all ideologies before them. The first thing the EU should ever have discussed back in Maastricht, was where to put the limits on centralization and revoking of democracy and independence of the member countries, and clearly define what the EU was intended to be. However, the size and curvature of bananas seems far more important at the moment :laugh4:

Ser Clegane

07-01-2007, 20:09

Perhaps you remember the "Sovjets" in the USSR, through which the people had OH SO MUCH control over the affairs of the Communist administration.
Sorry - I do not see any parallels here - please expand, instead of just throwing in unrelated emotional buzzwords.

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 20:15

Sorry - I do not see any parallels here - please expand, instead of just throwing in unrelated emotional buzzwords.
Quite simple parallel: both are institutions used to give an emotional sense of democracy while in reality there is none. Letting people vote for something with no real influence, and not having any voting to the influential institutions, is dictatorship. Dictatorship is always dictatorship, whether disguised or not.

Ser Clegane

07-01-2007, 20:20

Quite simple parallel: both are institutions used to give an emotional sense of democracy while in reality there is none. Letting people vote for something with no real influence, and not having any voting to the influential institutions, is dictatorship. Dictatorship is always dictatorship, whether disguised or not.
I already described the elements of democracy in the Council that is composed of representatives of democratically elected governments (a point you simply ignored).
So - would you consider the individual EU member states to be democracies or not?

Watchman

07-01-2007, 20:26

However, the size and curvature of bananas seems far more important at the moment :laugh4:Very funny. You forgot the size of strawberries by the way.

Another thing you forgot is that AFAIK just about the biggest fans of these absurd-on-superficial-examination agricultural directives are the very farmers themselves...

And what Ser said. Indirect democracy was still democracy the last time I checked.

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 20:27

I already described the elements of democracy in the Council that is composed of representatives of democratically elected governments (a point you simply ignored).
So - would you consider the individual EU member states to be democracies or not?
This would be the same as having no elections to your national government, but let you vote only for who in your village should become a candidate for maybe being part of the government that has power over your country.

This adds another level of indirection in the power hierarchy, and mathematically provably reduces the influence of each citizen both in individual issues, and in the choice of persons to rule the country so significantly that it's practically a dictatorship.

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 20:29

And what Ser said. Indirect democracy was still democracy the last time I checked.
So you think it's democracy to elect the party that gets to elect the persons who get to elect the persons who may get elected to hold one 20th of the power? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Ser Clegane

07-01-2007, 20:42

This adds another level of indirection in the power hierarchy, and mathematically provably reduces the influence of each citizen both in individual issues, and in the choice of persons to rule the country so significantly that it's practically a dictatorship.

The first (bold) part is in line with what I said (the EU as such is certainly less democratic as its individual members by the addition of a alyer) - in the second part you are making quite a leap, asserting that the addition of this level makes the difference between what contitutes a democratically elected administration and a dictatorship.
I do not see any arguments that would justify making such a leap (the "mathematical probability" is just a buzzword in this context)

but let you vote only for who in your village should become a candidate for maybe being part of the government that has power over your country.
You know - actually that's what is happening in a lot of EU member states. The citizens elect a Parliament, consisting of people from each "village" or actually a larger area. These representatives then "elect" the executive.

Watchman

07-01-2007, 20:42

So you think it's democracy to elect the party that gets to elect the persons who get to elect the persons who may get elected to hold one 20th of the power? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
That's multi-tiered representative democracy for you. Forgot that most of the time "the persons you elected who elect the persons" do so from among the selfsame persons you voted in the first place, did you ? Certainly I've seen the names of our EU reps in the diverse parties' election lists...

Brenus

07-01-2007, 21:11

“So you think it's democracy to elect the party that gets to elect the persons who get to elect the persons who may get elected to hold one 20th of the power?” Looks like the USA system there. It is called indirect representation… :inquisitive:

Watchman

07-01-2007, 21:15

See now why I tend to call it "EUphobia" ? It's not like there weren't real enough problems with the whole shebang, but that kind of - in those circles apparently rather common, if empirical evidence from Eyeball mk.I is to be trusted - reasoning can hardly be called rational.

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 22:15

Yeah yeah, let's stop being naziphobes and stalinistphobes as well. After all if we all had just submitted to them we would have had peace, would we not :dizzy: "Multitiered representative democracy" is the most ridiculous word for dictatorship I've heard since "enabling act" and "Великая Октябрьская социалистическая революция". Why not call the sovjets system in the USSR a "context-divided representational democracy"?

Kralizec

07-01-2007, 22:26

Legio, the Council is an intergovermental institution and the Commission is the executive top of the EU- most national systems don't allow direct voting on that either. The European Parliament, while still not comparable to anational parliament, has sawn an increase over her influence in legislation and has in the past forced Commissions to resign and to be redrawn. Not everything that comes out of the EU smells like daisies but making comparisons with the USSR is delirious. Get a grip.

Watchman

07-01-2007, 22:26

Legio my man, pointlessly dragging the skeletons of Hitler and the USSR out of the closet to try and draw vague nonexistent parallels is not only transparent emotional appeal covering up lack of solid points and, as arguments go, weak as a six-year-old little sister with a flu, but also pretty much proving my point...

Let's try actually rational arguments shall we ?

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 22:30

Perhaps rational arguments are possible, when you dictatorship-lovers point out how the citizens have any influence whatsover in the current system. As it is now, all you have done is to make up another word for "dictatorship". This has happened too many times before in history: always a new word for dictatorship and a new not yet tarnished word for dictator. "No no I'm not your dictator, I'm your driver!" "No no it's not dictatorship it's multi-layered representative of representative of representative of representative democracy". "No no we're not trying to make a dictatorship, we're trying to defend justice and freedom". If they want to take away my democracy, they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. If they want to bring back pre-revolutions Europe, then I'll promise to bring back the guilliotinne as well.

Hiding a danger from your eyes doesn't make it go away
https://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ostrichlm7.jpg

Watchman

07-01-2007, 22:35

Your definitions of "democracy" and "dictatorship" are so narrow and wide respectively as to be quite useless analytically, you know.

And who exactly is this supposed "dictator" anyway ? Any names you could give ?

Rodion Romanovich

07-01-2007, 22:44

Your definitions of "democracy" and "dictatorship" are so narrow and wide respectively as to be quite useless analytically, you know.

Please give your oh so perfect definition of democracy and dictatorship then. I don't call electing the party that gets to elect the persons who get to elect the persons who may get elected to hold one 20th of the power a democracy. I exert more influence by jumping up and down on the spot, perhaps it will cause shock waves through earth that will shake around a politician's head a bit so that he changes his mind on some issue.

And who exactly is this supposed "dictator" anyway ? Any names you could give ?
Can you give a single name to who ruled nazi Germany? I can't. There is no such thing as a country ruled by a single person. With dictatorship, we refer to nations where the people have no influence over the politics other than through violence, may it be ruled officially by a small group (oligarchy), or officially by only a single person but inofficially by a group (such as nazi germany, officially led by Hitler alone but inofficially together with others such as Heydrich, Goring, Himmler etc).

The danger in this case also isn't the particular leader (as you try to change subject to - nice Red Herring fallacy attempt), but the danger of accepting an anti-democratic constitution. Hitler wasn't perceived as very dangerous before he became dictator. Therefore, people didn't fear his removal of democracy. This was, as we know, a major fallacy. Accepting a dictatorship constitution, no matter how nice the first candidate to hold that position seems, is to open a Pandora's box which will cost millions of lives to close again. Either that nice person who seemed so worthy to hold all power turns out to be a maniac, or his profession will soon be taken over by a madman. Decreasing democracy is a fast process, it can be done in a matter of 20 years. Fighting for democracy and equalite, liberte and fraternite takes centuries. To give up what so many of our ancestors died for, is a ruthless way of dishonoring our ancestors, and of bringing blood over our children.

Watchman

07-01-2007, 23:09

Main Entry: dic·ta·tor·ship
Pronunciation: dik-'tA-t&r-"ship, 'dik-"
Function: noun
1 : the office of dictator
2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy -- C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges Look no further than Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/). You seem to be confusing "dictatorship", which pretty much per definition requires a clear "front man" (the dictator), with other similar concepts like authoritarian (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/authoritarian), totalitarian (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/totalitarian) or autocratic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/autocracy) governement...

I suggest paying particular attention to the definition 1b of democracy in this context, incidentally.

Louis VI the Fat

07-01-2007, 23:27

The article should be 2 times longer, for that I would give it 3.50 from 1 to 6.Oh, I mostly posted the link because the article gives a good description of the troubles in Polish-German relations, not so much because it represents my opinion per se.

You'll be pleased to know that in my quest to find out 'Wass will der Pole', I reverted to reading Norman Davies. :book:

Perhaps rational arguments are possible, when you dictatorship-lovers point out how the citizens have any influence whatsover in the current system.

[edit] Institutions and bodies

The Brussels seat of ParliamentMain article: Institutions of the European Union
The European Union is governed by a number of institutions, these primarily being the Commission, Council and Parliament.

The European Commission acts as the executive branch. It is currently composed of one member from each state (currently 27) and is responsible for drafting all proposed law, a duty on which it maintains a monopoly in order to co-ordinate European Law. It also controls some agencies and the day-to-day running of the Union. Its president is nominated by the European Council then elected by the Parliament.[57]

The Council of the European Union (aka the Council of Ministers) forms one half of the Union's legislative branch (the other being the Parliament). It is composed of the national ministers responsible for the area of EU law being addressed, for example a law regarding agriculture would go to a Council composed of national agriculture ministers. This body should not be confused with the European Council below or the non-EU body, the Council of Europe. The body's presidency rotates between the member states every 6 months, though the current president member state co-operates with the previous and future president member state, to provide continuity.[58]

The European Parliament is the only Union body composed of officials directly elected by the citizens of the EU member states. Every 5 years citizens in all member states vote across a few days for 785 "MEPs" who form the second half of the Union's legislative branch. Its members sit according to political groups rather than nationality and its president is elected by its members.[59]

The European Central Bank in FrankfurtThe Judicial branch of the Union consists primarily of the European Court of Justice composed of one judge nominated by each member-state with the president elected from among those nominees. Below the Court of Justice there is a lower court called the Court of First Instance created to lift some of the work load of the Court of Justice. There is also the European Court of Auditors which monitors the Union's accounts.[60][61]

Another major body, though not an official institution, is the European Council, composed of the heads of government (along with the President of the European Commission) meeting 4 times a year. It shares its presidency with that of the Council of the European Union.[62] The European Central Bank controls the monetary policy within the Eurozone, consisting of 13 member states. The ECB was established in 1998 and its headquarters is located in Frankfurt, Germany.[63] There are also the two advisory committees; the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.[64][65]

There is no official European capital, with the location of European Union institutions spread across a number of cities. However, Brussels is often considered the de facto capital as it hosts most of the primary institutions, including the Commission and the Council. The Parliament also has its second seat in the city. Strasbourg is the official seat of the European Parliament, meeting there for twelve week-long plenary sessions each year. Luxembourg City plays host to the Secretariat of the European Parliament as well as the European Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Auditors.[66][67]

I'm afraid that you will persist in calling the EU a dictatorship. Fair enough, by your standards we are in the excellent company of such wicked 'dictatorships' as France, the UK, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands.
Others have given good arguments as to why the EU somewhat differs from the SU, I'm not going to waste my time on this.

@ Others. Arrogance and calling non-EUphiles narrow-minded fools is not going to endear the EU to anyone.

Watchman

07-01-2007, 23:36

No, but it helps relieve the stress involved in dealing with them. Like I said I've no beef with the legitimate grievances (the Central Bank could be more democratically accountable by what I know of it, for example), but lambasting the whole EU as a totalitarian threat (on pretty shaky arguments it might be added) and drawing comparisions to Hitler and the USSR are patently in the lunatic fringe.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 09:58

Look no further than Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/). You seem to be confusing "dictatorship", which pretty much per definition requires a clear "front man" (the dictator), with other similar concepts like authoritarian (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/authoritarian), totalitarian (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/totalitarian) or autocratic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/autocracy) governement...

I suggest paying particular attention to the definition 1b of democracy in this context, incidentally.
My definition of dictatorship is exactly the same as the one in Webster. My definition of democracy is also exactly the same:

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Note, it doesn't say "a government where people get to elect to 1/20th of the power positions by indirectly electing the people who indirectly elect the people who indirectly elect the people to get that power. With enough levels of indirection, no people's influence at all remains. Say you elect someone in your village who has similar opinion to you in issue 1 of issues 1,2,3...10. He then gets to elect someone in your province, but the probability that he chooses person based on issue 1 is 10%. The person he in turn elects, has again probability 10% of electing someone with similar opinion in issue 1. The probability that the voter gets what he wants in issue 1 is then 0.1*0.1*0.1*0.1*0.1 = 0.00001 = 0.001%

The general formula is (assuming we have in issue in 10 in common with the person with influence):
0.1^n, where n is the number of levels of indirection.
This means the limit, where n approaches infinity, becomes
lim n->inf 0.1^n = 0

Compare this with a single level of indirection:
0.1^1 = 0.1 = 10%

Or direct democracy:
0.1^0 = 1 = 100%

Because the formula includes a power to n, another dimension (<1-valued) is added for every level of indirection. This means an exponential decline in influence for each level of indirection added.

Someone much more knowledgeable than me has made similar, more sophisticated mathematical proofs of the same thing. She has apparently given out a book as well. However the above is a trivial, informal demonstration that should make it clear even to the least knowledgeable in mathematics that the more levels of indirection, the less influence of the people, and if the percentage of influence approaches values close to zero, there's no longer any democracy. In fact I would draw the line somewhere between 1% and 10%.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 10:10

[edit] Institutions and bodies

The Brussels seat of ParliamentMain article: Institutions of the European Union
The European Union is governed by a number of institutions, these primarily being the Commission, Council and Parliament.

The European Commission acts as the executive branch. It is currently composed of one member from each state (currently 27) and is responsible for drafting all proposed law, a duty on which it maintains a monopoly in order to co-ordinate European Law. It also controls some agencies and the day-to-day running of the Union. Its president is nominated by the European Council then elected by the Parliament.[57]

The Council of the European Union (aka the Council of Ministers) forms one half of the Union's legislative branch (the other being the Parliament). It is composed of the national ministers responsible for the area of EU law being addressed, for example a law regarding agriculture would go to a Council composed of national agriculture ministers. This body should not be confused with the European Council below or the non-EU body, the Council of Europe. The body's presidency rotates between the member states every 6 months, though the current president member state co-operates with the previous and future president member state, to provide continuity.[58]

The European Parliament is the only Union body composed of officials directly elected by the citizens of the EU member states. Every 5 years citizens in all member states vote across a few days for 785 "MEPs" who form the second half of the Union's legislative branch. Its members sit according to political groups rather than nationality and its president is elected by its members.[59]

The European Central Bank in FrankfurtThe Judicial branch of the Union consists primarily of the European Court of Justice composed of one judge nominated by each member-state with the president elected from among those nominees. Below the Court of Justice there is a lower court called the Court of First Instance created to lift some of the work load of the Court of Justice. There is also the European Court of Auditors which monitors the Union's accounts.[60][61]

Another major body, though not an official institution, is the European Council, composed of the heads of government (along with the President of the European Commission) meeting 4 times a year. It shares its presidency with that of the Council of the European Union.[62] The European Central Bank controls the monetary policy within the Eurozone, consisting of 13 member states. The ECB was established in 1998 and its headquarters is located in Frankfurt, Germany.[63] There are also the two advisory committees; the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.[64][65]

There is no official European capital, with the location of European Union institutions spread across a number of cities. However, Brussels is often considered the de facto capital as it hosts most of the primary institutions, including the Commission and the Council. The Parliament also has its second seat in the city. Strasbourg is the official seat of the European Parliament, meeting there for twelve week-long plenary sessions each year. Luxembourg City plays host to the Secretariat of the European Parliament as well as the European Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Auditors.[66][67]

I'm afraid that you will persist in calling the EU a dictatorship. Fair enough, by your standards we are in the excellent company of such wicked 'dictatorships' as France, the UK, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands.
Others have given good arguments as to why the EU somewhat differs from the SU, I'm not going to waste my time on this.

So you post a SPOIL-tagged list containing exactly the information I have been saying: that the people have no right at all to vote to the institutions that hold the real legislative power, i.e. the Council and Commission. If EU is to have the powers of a normal national government, then the EU legislative organs must be controlled by parties, where people get to vote centrally and directly to that European government. Otherwise we're back at influence approaching 0%. However, nobody wants a single EU government to vote for, since nobody (except crazy nationalists/imperialists nutjobs) wants to merge the European countries into one empire. Therefore people reject this proposal, but they aren't allowed to reject the EU centralization. The sum of this is no democracy in the EU + growing power for the EU = dictatorship Empire on the way.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 10:12

*sigh* I presume you've no issues with representative democracy anyway. Then what exactly is the problem with those elected representatives choosing from amongst themselves a representative for another organ ? The Commissioners are primarily chosen by the respective national governements; the Council of the European Union/Ministers is made up of the relevant ministers of the member-states; the MEPs for the European Parliament are chosen by direct elections; the European Council is made up of the heads of the member-states.

Might I inquire where exactly the fundamental problem is supposed to be found here ?

Papewaio

07-02-2007, 10:17

We don't elect civil servants either on the whole... and they tend to hold a lot more power then most people realise...

Legio is correct that the more layers the less influence tends to percolate. It also allows ones with better connections (money to political parties etc) to bypass levels and have a influence far above that of another voter.

However I don't think the EU is quite that bad, however I do think it could be a lot more direct in electing some positions.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 10:23

@Watchman: Papewaio pretty much summed it up. EU has more layers than any of the democracies with acceptable amounts of influence. Adding an extra layer doesn't mean linear decrease in influence, but a division of amount of influence by 10 (if we use the figures of the above example).

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 10:31

That the additional layer reduces the level of democracy is something has denied here; and I guess we can all agree that there is room for improvement here - at least with regard to giving the EU Parliament more powers (the sharing of the legislative power between a directly elected Parliament and a body that is composed of regional government representatives is BTW not a concept that is unique to the EU).

It's the digital nature of the leap you make from democratic member states to dictatorship in the EU that makes your argument look like hyperbole

if we use the figures of the above example
Figures which are completely arbitrary.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 10:51

If the elected representatives can be basically trusted to pick the ministers to run the state from amongst themselves, I don't really see why they could not an sich also be trusted to similarly pick the state representatives in the EU. Especially as in the case of the Council of EU these are the aforementioned state ministers...

But as always there could be room for improvement in some fields of course. There usually is in solidly established nation-states after all, and the EU in not only still rather Under Construction but also somewhat unprecedented making the whole process a bit hit-and-miss.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 10:59

Figures which are completely arbitrary.
Give accurate figures then. I hope you do realize that it's completely impossible to find any real figures for this, since it isn't measured.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 11:01

I don't think it's particularly measurable to begin with. Which hardly excuses pulling numbers out of the ten-gallon hat for rhetorical convenience.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 11:03

@Watchman: room for improvement is an understatement. Imagine how ridiculous you would think it was if someone in nazi Germany or USSR in 1941 said "there's room for improvement", then you realize how ridiculous you're sounding right now. Showing such absolute, blind trust to these institutions is very naive IMO. There's no justifiable reason to trust a non-democratic institution when it says it's non-democratic for any other purpose than to make decisions that are against the will of the people.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 11:05

I don't think it's particularly measurable to begin with. Which hardly excuses pulling numbers out of the ten-gallon hat for rhetorical convenience.
Feel free to give a number, it doesn't change the fact that there's an exponential decrease in influence for each level of indirection.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 11:08

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 11:10

Would you incidentally like to explain this cognitive leap from the partial lack of direct democratic accountability in the EU to the one-party totalitarianisms of Die Reich and the USSR ? 'Cause I'm kind of failing to see how one goes about doing it. Assuming a severe lack of understanding of all the three systems concerned out of the equation, that is.

Stinks of populist emotional appeal without a whit of substance to me, frankly.
So Putin's Russia is democratic, even though the two major parties are controlled by Putin and his wife? Is the number of parties the requirement by which you assess democracy?

I think democracy requires "people ruling" demos=people kratia=rule. If the influence of the people is too small, there's simply no democracy. No matter what it's called officially.

If you're a historian, as you claim, you should know that the practise of removing power, justice and freedom from the people has become increasingly sophisticated throughout history. Few of the major dictatorships have call themselves dictatorships openly since the word "dictator" was tarnished after Gaius Julius Caesar. "Dictator" has become "Duce", "Coordinator", "Driver", "People's representative" etc. etc. The dictators hide the reality behind multiple institutions, which appear to control each other, although in reality a small clique holds all the power. For instance in Hitler's "enabling act", we may read: "The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled." This would give the impression that 3 bodies, all representing the people, approved of the text following upon this phrase. In reality, people had no right to vote to either of these institutions afterwards. Dictators don't have a sign in their face saying "BAD GUY".

The only measure of dictatorship that is sane, is to measure the influence of the people. If it approaches zero, the stage is set for a maniac to take the position and cause the death and suffering of millions.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 11:12

Please answer the question.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 11:20

Please read the answer to the question.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 11:26

I'm still waiting for an even remotely detailed explanation concerning where exactly that connects with the EU. Are you saying that the duly elected member-state governements, which furnish the system with the better part of its assorted executives and ministers and so on, are collectively that untrustworthy ?

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 11:32

Wow, another Red Herring and Poisoning the well fallacy.

It's not the people that elects the Council and Comission. It's representatives of representatives of representatives of representatives of representatives of the people. We both know that this is the case. However, there's one thing I don't understand. Why do you think it's so important to defend a dictatorship? Why do you think it's so important to make institutions that the people have no control over look democratic? How can you defend such an indefensible position? How can you defend something that is the same as what caused World war 2, the Holocaust, the Gulag archipelago, and more lives than anything else of the previous century? Do you like bloodshed? Are you a sadist? Do you think you will somehow be able to escape the suffering that will come over us all?

Watchman

07-02-2007, 11:43

Can the emotional appeal please. Especially if you can't actually prove true and meaningful parallels, as seems to be the case judging by the fact you keep tossing vague Nazi and Soviet references without actually validating them.

And in the case you forgot (or didn't bother to read), the Council consists of the ministers of the member-states - who, last I heard, tended to be chosen through normal representative democratic processes. The Commission is a whole different story, but then, it is supposed to be the de facto governement of the Union itself; seeing as how there as of yet does not exist a territorial state called the European Union it is mildly difficult to see how this organ could be staffed through democratic processes in the normal sense.
Plus the directly elected Parliament has a veto right on Commission line-up, remember ?

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 11:46

I hope you do realize that it's completely impossible to find any real figures for this, since it isn't measured.

Of course I do realise that - that's why using such numbers as an argument in the discussion does not make sense.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 11:49

Can the emotional appeal please. Especially if you can't actually prove true and meaningful parallels, as seems to be the case judging by the fact you keep tossing vague Nazi and Soviet references without actually validating them.

My references come from reliable sources. The quoted text is a direct translation made by professional translators from Russian and German to English. Are you trying to say that these historians and translators don't know what they are talking about?

The Commission is a whole different story, but then, it is supposed to be the de facto governement of the Union itself; seeing as how there as of yet does not exist a territorial state called the European Union it is mildly difficult to see how this organ could be staffed through democratic processes in the normal sense.

= the definition of dictatorship, and not very well camouflaged either. "There's no country, so there can be no democracy" is the lousiest excuse I've heard in a long time for bringing oppression and dictatorship over so many people. Back in the nazi/communist era they at least tried to hide it behind an ideology. Come on, you can do better!

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 11:52

Of course I do realise that - that's why using such numbers as an argument in the discussion does not make sense.
Fine, then:
a^n, where a<1 and n = the number of levels of indirection
lim a->inf (a^n) = 0 (when a<1)
As you can see, it becomes harded to read when only raw formulae without numerical examples are given.

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 11:57

Fine, then:
a^n, where a<1 and n = the number of levels of indirection
lim a->inf (a^n) = 0 (when a<1)
That's just saying again that with each added layer you reduce the democratic nature (I thought we had established by now that everybody is aware of that)
It does not at all allow for any conclusions to which extent this is the case, neither does it allow for the leap to Stalinism that you make.

My references come from reliable sources. The quoted text
On which page of this thread did you make the references and/or quotes?
On the last two pages I have not seen any references to historians.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 12:02

My references come from reliable sources. The quoted text is a direct translation made by professional translators from Russian and German to English. Are you trying to say that these historians and translators don't know what they are talking about?I'm saying that you don't know what you're talking about, as you're obviously disregarding the fact the state apparatuses in the totalitarian systems mentioned were functionally pure rubber-stamp decorations while those in democratic systems, and the EU, have real enough power and influence.

= the definition of dictatorship, and not very well camouflaged either. "There's no country, so there can be no democracy" is the lousiest excuse I've heard in a long time for bringing oppression and dictatorship over so many people. Back in the nazi/communist era they at least tried to hide it behind an ideology. Come on, you can do better!And where the Hell does the EU "oppress" anyone, pray tell ? Nevermind now the merry way you're ignoring the detail the Commissioners are appointed by the member-states, and the organ in no way possesses either formal or factual plenipotentiary powers but needs the cooperation of the Council and Parliament.

Oh, and the Parliament can sack the lot through a nonconfidence vote if it comes to that.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 12:05

On which page of this thread did you make the references and/or quotes?
On the last two pages I have not seen any references to historians.
I have not seen you making any references. It is odd to require only one participant to bring references, no?

Ronin

07-02-2007, 12:08

I have not seen you making any references. It is odd to require only one participant to bring references, no?

well...the side that is making the crazy accusations has to come up with the references first...

this is what is normally refered too as the "tough **** rule"

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 12:17

I have not seen you making any references. It is odd to require only one participant to bring references, no?
References for what? That the EU is not a Stalinistic dictatorship?

I am asking you for references because you were specifally referring to
a) "references from reliable sources"
b) "quoted text"
to add weight to your argument.

As I have not noticed that you cited any sources or quoted historians on the last two pages I am interested to knwo what you are referring to in your post #181 that I quoted when I posed my question.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 12:23

Oh, and the Parliament can sack the lot through a nonconfidence vote if it comes to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_germany

Interesting information about the centralization efforts towards a non-democratic government in Nazi Germany:

Further consolidation of power was achieved on 30 January 1934, with the Gesetz über den Neuaufbau des Reichs (Act to rebuild the Reich). The act changed the highly decentralized federal Germany of the Weimar era into a centralized state [...] transferring sovereign rights of the states to the Reich central government and put the state administrations under the control of the Reich administration.

And about the practise of creating a huge number of institutions to give an illusion of power being shared between them:

The leaders of Nazi Germany created a large number of different organizations for the purpose of helping them stay in power. They rearmed and strengthened the military, set up an extensive state security apparatus and created their own personal party army, the Waffen-SS.

The government of Nazi Germany gradually formed into a process known as "working towards the Führer." Although Hitler was the undisputable ideological force behind the third Reich, as leader of the country, he was very lazy, especially in the pre-war years, spending much of his time relaxing in his mountain retreat. Because of this, a system of government was formed whereby leading Nazi officials were forced to interpret Hitler's random speeches and rants on government policies, often based on chance overhearings, or off-the-cuff remarks, and turn them into legislation. This created an elite of ambitious Nazis, all of whom were desperate to win the approval of the Führer, and all of whom despised one another. Any government member could take one of Hitler's comments, and turn it into a new law, of which Hitler would casually either approve or disapprove when he finally heard about it. This became known as "working towards the Führer", as the government was not a co-ordinated, co-operating body, but a collection of individuals each trying to gain more power and influence over the Führer. This often made government very convoluted and divided, especially with Hitler's vague policy of creating a multitute of often very similar posts. The process allowed more unscrupulous and ambitious Nazis to get away with implementing the more radical and extreme elements of Hitler's ideology, such as anti-Semitism, and in doing so win political favour. Protected by Goebbels' extremely effective propaganda machine, which portrayed the government as a dedicated, dutiful and efficient outfit, the dog-eat-dog competition, and chaotic legislation was allowed to escalate out of control. Historical opinion is divided between "intentionalists" who believe that Hitler created this system as the only means of ensuring both the total loyalty and dedication of his supporters, and the complete impossibility of a conspiracy; and the "structuralists" who believe that the system evolved by itself, and was a serious limitation on Hitler's supposedly totalitarian power.

[...]

The organization of the Nazi state, as of 1944, was as follows:

Cabinet and national authorities
Office of the Reich Chancellery (Hans Lammers)
Office of the Party Chancellery (Martin Bormann)
Office of the Presidential Chancellery (Otto Meissner)
Privy Cabinet Council (Konstantin von Neurath)
Chancellery of the Führer (Philip Bouhler)

Reich Offices
Office of the Four-Year Plan (Hermann Göring)
Office of the Reich Master Forester (Hermann Göring)
Office of the Inspector for Highways
Office of the President of the Reich Bank
Reich Youth Office
Reich Treasury Office
General Inspector of the Reich Capital
Office of the Councillor for the Capital of the Movement (Munich, Bavaria)

Reich Ministries
Reich Foreign Ministry (Joachim von Ribbentrop)
Reich Interior Ministry (Wilhelm Frick, Heinrich Himmler)
Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (Joseph Goebbels)
Reich Ministry of Aviation (Hermann Göring)
Reich Ministry of Finance (Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk)
Reich Ministry of Justice (Otto Thierack)
Reich Economics Ministry (Walther Funk)
Reich Ministry for Nutrition and Agriculture (R. Walther Darre)
Reich Labor Ministry (Franz Seldte)
Reich Ministry for Science, Education, and Public Instruction (Bernhard Rust)
Reich Ministry for Ecclesiastical Affairs (Hanns Kerrl)
Reich Transportation Ministry (Julius Dorpmüller)
Reich Postal Ministry (Wilhelm Ohnesorge)
Reich Ministry for Weapons, Munitions, and Armament (Fritz Todt, Albert Speer)
Reich Ministers without Portfolio (Konstantin von Neurath, Hans Frank, Hjalmar Schacht, Arthur Seyss-Inquart)

Occupation authorities
Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories (Alfred Rosenberg)
General Government of Poland (Hans Frank)
Reich Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (Konstantin von Neurath)
Deputy Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia (Reinhard Heydrich)
Office of the Military Governor of France

Legislative Branch
Reichstag
President of the Reichstag (Hermann Göring)
Reichsrat (disbanded February 14, 1934)
It has to be considered that there is little use talking about a legislative branch in a totalitarian state, where there is no separation of powers. For example, since 1933 the Reichsregierung (Reich cabinet) was enabled to enact Reichsgesetze (statute law) without respect to the constitution from 1919.

Judicial System
Most of the judicial structures and legal codes of the Weimar Republic remained in use during the Third Reich
[...]

Military organizations
Wehrmacht (Defence Force)
Heer (Army)
Kriegsmarine (Navy)
Luftwaffe (Air force)

Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, but it was as you can see well hidden in a mess identical to that present in the EU. We can't accept such a dictatorship/oligarchy rule to arise, as the danger of takeover by a maniac is significant!

Or perhaps I'm just making "crazy accusations" towards their government? :dizzy: Are people really that stupid, one day saying "it must never happen again", and next day embracing the very same thing, referred to with another name. If you are suicidal, bear in mind that all others aren't interested in collective suicide.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 12:25

References for what? [...]

I am asking you for references because you were specifally referring to
a) "references from reliable sources"
b) "quoted text"
to add weight to your argument.

As I have not noticed that you cited any sources or quoted historians on the last two pages I am interested to knwo what you are referring to in your post #181 that I quoted when I posed my question.
The quoted text which looked so similar to EU texts, actually was a direct quotation from Hitler's enabling act.

And yes, if I need to show references you certainly need to show references that there are fundamental differences between direction the EU is going towards, and a dictatorship. Perhaps, it would also be good if you showed a real crucial difference that makes EU safe from dictatorship, instead of just saying "you're wrong"

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 12:33

The quoted text which looked so similar to EU texts, actually was a direct quotation from Hitler's enabling act.

And yes, if I need to show references you certainly need to show references that there are fundamental differences between direction the EU is going towards, and a dictatorship.

Again - I have not asked you to bring forward references that support your argument - you claimed that you quoted reliable sources.

If you did as you claim in post #181 I would like to know where you referred to these reliable sources as I did not see any references to any sources on the last two pages of the thread (and it is entirely possible that I simply missed the post where you did so).

So did you quote texts from historians or not?

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 12:35

So did you quote texts from historians or not?
The quoted text that looked like an EU document, is a direct quote from Hitler's Enabling act. Search the web or your library, or go to a museum. If you want to see it quickly, you can always go to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
Additionally you can check:
Shirer, William L. (1959). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. ISBN 0-671-62420-2
Etc. etc. etc.

If I need to show references you certainly need to show references that there are fundamental differences between the direction the EU is going towards, and a dictatorship. Perhaps, it would also be good if you showed a real crucial difference that makes EU safe from dictatorship, instead of just saying "you're wrong"

Watchman

07-02-2007, 12:36

Don't take this the wrong way Legio, but do you quite understand the difference between working and not working "checks and balances" (as the Americans call them) ? The two are formally nigh invariably all but identical; the meaningful difference is the reality of power distribution. In totalitarian/autocratic systems factual power is concentrated in one part or another which is functionally more or less immune to interference of the parts that are supposed to keep it in check; in properly working systems - be they democracies or constitutional monarchies or whatever - the power distribution works more or less like it is supposed to and the different parts superwise each other.

I'd really like to see some evidence of the EU being of the "not working" kind as you constantly claim, thank you very much.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 12:38

Watchman

07-02-2007, 12:43

Watchman

07-02-2007, 12:48

Plus, I've better things to do than dig through the 6+ pages of this thread for someone's posts. You want to cite them, you find them please.

...and wasn't one of the points of the (canned) Constitution specifically attempting to remedy some of the "democracy deficit" issues ? AFAIK the French for example voted it down far more due to domestic reasons than because of anything particularly inherent to the initiative itself...

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 12:50

...and is that supposed to be particularly unusual in democracies ? Democratic accountability factually goes only as far as the memory of the electorate, which tends not be too long, and is further modulated by the varying ability of politicians to BS their way out of responsibility.

Just pointing that out.
Overruling the will of the people in such a crucial matter as constitution is not democracy. The constitution defines the way voting occurs and how much influence the people have. If it's allowed to change constitution without the consent of the people, it's possible to remove the voting right of the people without their consent.

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 12:50

If I need to show references you certainly need to show references that there are fundamental differences between the direction the EU is going towards, and a dictatorship. Perhaps, it would also be good if you showed a real crucial difference that makes EU safe from dictatorship, instead of just saying "you're wrong"
You already got the references - the EU Parliament that is directly elected can reject members of the executive branch and is part of the lagislative
The other part of the legislative branch consists of people who can be removed from power via democratic elections in the individual member countries.
Both are not really hallmarks of a dictatorship.

Your reference to the "Enabling Act" is irrelevant in this context as it does not refer to any situation that would be specifically comparable to the EU.
An elected body/parliament allowed the executive branch to take dicatorial power.

This did not happen in the EU. You argument is apparently that it could happen, but the same could than be said about any of the individual member states. Would you call them dictatorships as well?

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 12:52

Watchman

07-02-2007, 12:56

Overruling the will of the people in such a crucial matter as constitution is not democracy. The constitution defines the way voting occurs and how much influence the people have. If it's allowed to change constitution without the consent of the people, it's possible to remove the voting right of the people without their consent.In the case you forgot democracy doesn't actually quarantee anything more than the opportunity to change the decision-makers at certain intervals. Which EU certainly qualifies for.

Anyway, this isn't one of them state constitutions far as I know; and while I haven't looked it up I wouldn't be surprised if the "voting right of the people" was one of those funny "hardcoded" bits of legislation that's inalienable even by constitutional change... which obviously starts pushing to the territory of metaphysics, but for example German law has a few things like that.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 13:02

You already got the references - the EU Parliament that is directly elected can reject members of the executive branch and is part of the lagislative
The other part of the legislative branch consists of people who can be removed from power via democratic elections in the individual member countries.
Both are not really hallmarks of a dictatorship.

Your reference to the "Enabling Act" is irrelevant in this context as it does not refer to any situation that would be specifically comparable to the EU.
An elected body/parliament allowed the executive branch to take dicatorial power.

This did not happen in the EU. You argument is apparently that it could happen, but the same could than be said about any of the individual member states. Would you call them dictatorships as well?
There are major differences:
1. the EU leadership is located far away and constantly moving around, and have immense protection (1,000+ police and military). I can't revolt against them, should they take dictatorship power. However, national governments can be more easily overthrown if they remove democracy
2. the EU works mostly without any public announcements about what is going on. The majority is uneducated about the fact that the Council and Commission hold all real power, and the Parliament which is voted for is nothing but a puppet
3. the EU is challenging and provoking the USA, Russia, and the Middle East countries, drawing all EU member countries into diplomatical problems, and increasing the risk of terrorism
4. the EU is gradually moving more and more power from national governments to the EU Council and Commission (which we can't vote for), without any official maximum limits of to what degree this will continue. They have put no upper limit on the power that will be drawn to these non-elected institutions.
5. the EU is pressuring and threatening non-members to weaken them if they don't become part of EU, so that they are forced to join
6. the EU thinks it can make such drastic things as complete change of constitution without the consent of the people. Calling it an amending treaty to rewrite the entire constitution is similar to what George Orwell described in "Animal Farm": "all animals are equal" amended with "but some are more equal than others".
7. there are not several parties to elect for the positions in the Commission and Council, who hold all the real power.
8. incredible nepotism, beaureaucracy and corruption, and the EU institutions are more difficult to root out corruption and nepotism from than are national governments, since it lies beyond the reach of the average citizen
9. the EU as a whole has not held a single referendum in any question
10. the EU tries to eradicate the cultural differences between European countries and try assimilation and Gleichschaltung all over Europe. There are nationalistic EU movements trying to create racism and hate-feelings towards non-Europeans, trying to form a united "white übermensch race" against all others.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 13:09

@Watchman: remember, if the EU turns into a dictatorship, you will be partially responsible for the death of millions of people. Can you bear such a burden on your shoulders? Can you look at yourself in the mirror and think, that it was your hands that brought the blood over your children? That you actively defended anti-democratic movements? I can not. Some dictatorships have existed for several decades without massmurder and oppression, some have not. Are you willing to take the risk? Are you eager to try and convince others to join you in that risk taking? What bonus does it give you compared to not taking part in it? Those things of the EU that are positive can all be acquired without being part of the EU, for instance the trade treaties of EEC can remain while the political part is disbanded. So we can have the good things without the risk of dictatorship and millions of dead, yet you support the risk itself. Why?

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 13:26

There are major differences:
1. the EU leadership is located far away and constantly moving around, and have immense protection (1,000+ police and military). I can't revolt against them, should they take dictatorship power. However, national governments can be more easily overthrown if they remove democracy
The EU leadership has less access to police forces and military than the vast majority of its member states - unless you are a citizen in Luxembourg I think it is save to assume that your national government has access to much more military power should it decide to "go dictator". 1000+ police and military is hardly "immense"

2. the EU works mostly without any public announcements about what is going on. The majority is uneducated about the fact that the Council and Commission hold all real power, and the Parliament which is voted for is nothing but a puppet
Any decisions are well documented and publicly available. The lack of education seems to be rather due to a lack of interest than due to any conspiracies to keep the public "dumb"

3. the EU is challenging and provoking the USA, Russia, and the Middle East countries, drawing all EU member countries into diplomatical problems, and increasing the risk of terrorism
Not more or less than the individual member states. Apart from that this more about whether you are happy with a particular policy - it has nothing to do with dictatorship

4. the EU is gradually moving more and more power from national governments to the EU Council and Commission (which we can't vote for), without any official maximum limits of to what degree this will continue. They have put no upper limit on the power that will be drawn to these non-elected institutions.
It is not "the EU" that is doing that - it is your elected leaders that are doing that. Unhappy with what your represantatives are doing? Vote them out.

5. the EU is pressuring and threatening non-members to weaken them if they don't become part of EU, so that they are forced to join
Examples? This seems to be just your opinion. The last waves of new members did not look like they were forced or threatened to join.

6. the EU thinks it can make such drastic things as complete change of constitution without the consent of the people. Calling it an amending treaty to rewrite the entire constitution is similar to what George Orwell described in "Animal Farm": "all animals are equal" amended with "but some are more equal than others".
I do not quite recall that the planned Constitution made some citizens more equal than others - perhaps you can help me out here?
The issue of the Consitution has already been touched in previous posts

7. there are not several parties to elect for the positions in the Commission and Council, who hold all the real power.
The same is true for the executive branch of the individual member states

8. incredible nepotism, beaureaucracy and corruption, and the EU institutions are more difficult to root out corruption and nepotism from than are national governments, since it lies beyond the reach of the average citizen
Agree - however, that does not make a dicatorship and hardly justifies drawing a parallel to Nazi Germany

9. the EU as a whole has not held a single referendum in any question
Not really common in all member states either. Dictatorships?

10. the EU tries to eradicate the cultural differences between European countries and try assimilation and Gleichschaltung all over Europe. There are nationalistic EU movements trying to create racism and hate-feelings towards non-Europeans, trying to form a united "white übermensch race" against all others.
Huh? Nationalistic EU movements?

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 13:46

Any decisions are well documented and publicly available. The lack of education seems to be rather due to a lack of interest

No, the EU doesn't force by law that schools teach how these work. The majority of people know how their own government works, but not how the EU works.

Not more or less than the individual member states

Can you show a reference for this, because it seems very counter intuitive.

It is not "the EU" that is doing that - it is your elected leaders that are doing that. Unhappy with what your represantatives are doing? Vote them out.

Yes it's the EU people doing that. The pro-EU people within the national governments. And they cooperate over borders against the nay-sayers in each country.

Examples? This seems to be just your opinion. The last waves of new members did not look like they were forced or threatened to join.

Trying to prevent individual cooperation treaties in favor of only opening them to EU countries. This is one reason why Turkey wants to join, for instance.

The issue of the Consitution has already been touched in previous posts

No it has not. A complete rewriting of the constitution is a serious matter that require listening to the opinions of the people, as well as working hard to prevent it from becoming an anti-democratic constitution.

The same is true for the executive branch of the individual member states

No, in nations, the government hold the power, and the government is elected.

Agree

Good

Not really common in all member states either.

Very common in the national governments

Huh? Nationalistic EU movements?
EU is the most nationalistic momvement in Europe today. It's a stronger argument and rationality-free we-versus-them conglomerate than any nationalism present in the individual nations today. In fact, now that we've finally made nationalism die in most European countries, we are creating a new wave of dangerous nationalism in the EU. This is much like there was no Prussian nationalism in nazi Germany, but a Pangermanic nationalism manifested in the desire to form a German Union with all German city-states, duchies and countries "sharing similar values/culture" and later also Austria, Sudet Czechs and Alsacce Germans. The Union became increasingly racistic, and as we know: imperialistic. Similarly there was no Sardinian nationalism in fascist Italy, but a Panitalian nationalism to form a Union of the "similar-minded" states in the Italian peninsula. The dangerous forms of nationalism we've seen in history didn't arise as a positive sentiments towards your own existing country, but as a means of bringing and holding together a newly formed Empire/Union/country consisting of several countries that were independent at the time the nationalism begun. It is an instrument to hold together a weak Union more firmly, and to justify centralization by directing all against a common outer enemy (which you often create yourself, by provoking).

Watchman

07-02-2007, 13:52

@Watchman: remember, if the EU turns into a dictatorship... <snip>Because this hypothetical "risk" of the EU going totalitarian is not written in English, but in Paranoid Gibberish. Seriously now; do you honestly think the elected regimes of the sovereign nation-states that constitute the EU would be willing to let that slide, or for that matter interested in pursuing such policies ? I for one think higher of them than that, cynical though I am.

1. the EU leadership is located far away and constantly moving around, and have immense protection (1,000+ police and military). I can't revolt against them, should they take dictatorship power. However, national governments can be more easily overthrown if they remove democracyYou know, I live within a hour's walk of the buildings our state governement works in. Were I to try to go there to enact an outright revolution, I'd first have to get through... well, however many cops there now were around the capital; a lot certainly. Then there would be the Guards Battalion permanently stationed to defend the capital, and a few other military bases within not too great distances...

Reality check time. The EU doesn't even have the instruments of legitimate violence possessed by a sovereign state.

2. the EU works mostly without any public announcements about what is going on. The majority is uneducated about the fact that the Council and Commission hold all real power, and the Parliament which is voted for is nothing but a puppetAFAIK they actually announce readily enough. People just don't bother paying attention, which isn't unusual given the very real lack of interesting content in everyday bureaucratic bulletins.

And this "puppet" Parliament can fire the Commission, and its approval is required for any law to pass. The Council is composed of the duly empowered ministers of the member-states...

3. the EU is challenging and provoking the USA, Russia, and the Middle East countries, drawing all EU member countries into diplomatical problems, and increasing the risk of terrorismThe last I checked the EU was one of the few akin-to-friends the Palestinians had, and all the states that went into Iraq with the Americans did so very much on their own accord. As for USA and Russia, please; which has a stronger base for dealing with them, the Union or an individual state ? Think of it like a labour union, or the way developing countries have a lot more influence when dealing with others when they work as a block.

4. the EU is gradually moving more and more power from national governments to the EU Council and Commission (which we can't vote for), without any official maximum limits of to what degree this will continue. They have put no upper limit on the power that will be drawn to these non-elected institutions.You vote for both the Council and the Commission just the same as you do for the state ministers you know - you elect the folks who choose them.

5. the EU is pressuring and threatening non-members to weaken them if they don't become part of EU, so that they are forced to join"Forced to" ? Please. They're clamoring to join, and being told they don't get in before they fulfill certain criterias. Switzerland and others who aren't interested can be that way to their hearts' content.

6. the EU thinks it can make such drastic things as complete change of constitution without the consent of the people. Calling it an amending treaty to rewrite the entire constitution is similar to what George Orwell described in "Animal Farm": "all animals are equal" amended with "but some are more equal than others".What, there was a constitution at some point before ? The proposed "European Constitution" (properly "the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe") was to create a sort-of one and clear up the confusing clutter of diverse agreements, treaties and whatnots accumulated over the years. Since the French and Dutch sunk it it got reworked into the current "Reform Treaty".

7. there are not several parties to elect for the positions in the Commission and Council, who hold all the real power.Since they're not elected in the normal sense anyway this point is somewhat moot; but you do elect the people who pick the state reps for them in the usual fashion from among the usual parties, no ? Same as with ministers.

8. incredible nepotism, beaureaucracy and corruption, and the EU institutions are more difficult to root out corruption and nepotism from than are national governments, since it lies beyond the reach of the average citizenBut not the reach of the elected representatives of the average citizen, for example. Example gratia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_of_the_Santer_Commission).

9. the EU as a whole has not held a single referendum in any questionIt's not a state either you know; it doesn't have citizens as such. Referendums, and holding them or not, are basically a domestic issue of the members aren't they ? Some are really fond of them, others rarely bother.

10. the EU tries to eradicate the cultural differences between European countries and try assimilation and Gleichschaltung all over Europe. There are nationalistic EU movements trying to create racism and hate-feelings towards non-Europeans, trying to form a united "white übermensch race" against all others.Funny, and here I thought the nationalists tended to be EUphobes too for certain bloody obvious reasons... ours certainly are anyway.

Might I see some concrete examples of this supposed "Russification" agenda of the EU, incidentally ?

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 14:07

Because this hypothetical "risk" of the EU going totalitarian is not written in English, but in Paranoid Gibberish. Seriously now; do you honestly think the elected regimes of the sovereign nation-states that constitute the EU would be willing to let that slide, or for that matter interested in pursuing such policies ? I for one think higher of them than that, cynical though I am.

It is in the interests of each person with power within the individual countries to increase their power. It's a pretty obvious risk for anti-democratic developments. Additionally, I ask again: Those things of the EU that are positive can all be acquired without being part of the EU, for instance the trade treaties of EEC can remain while the political part is disbanded. So we can have the good things without the risk of dictatorship and millions of dead, yet you support the risk itself. Why?

You know, I live within a hour's walk of the buildings our state governement works in.

Good, this proves my point. You could put up a mortar a few kilometers away and start a revolution, if it would be necessary. Hopefully, your country hasn't attempted any coup and you thus don't need to.

And this "puppet" Parliament can fire the Commission, and its approval is required for any law to pass. The Council is composed of the duly empowered ministers of the member-states...

It can only fire them on the paper, but in practise they can't, as we have seen. Has any Commission member been fired? Should we assume that this means the Commission members are divine demigods who never make mistakes and are infallible, or as a sign that this power, although nominally there, is never used and as such non-existent?

The last I checked the EU was one of the few akin-to-friends the Palestinians had, and all the states that went into Iraq with the Americans did so very much on their own accord. As for USA and Russia, please; which has a stronger base for dealing with them, the Union or an individual state ? Think of it like a labour union, or the way developing countries have a lot more influence when dealing with others when they work as a block.

You prove my point. Provoking states to the left and right like maniacs. Soon we'll have one or two "common outer enemies" too.

You vote for both the Council and the Commission just the same as you do for the state ministers you know

No, I elect the party that has the ideology I want to rule the country.

"Forced to" ? Please. They're clamoring to join, and being told they don't get in before they fulfill certain criterias.

Yes, if you see little school children playing with a ball, and they say "no you can't be part of the game, you're too bad", they will say "but please let us join". If there's only a single ball and a single football court available, that is not necessarily a sign that they approve of the way the bullies are running the game, but probably a sign that they want to bring forth their justified claim to have a share of the ball and the football court.

Switzerland and others who aren't interested can be that way to their hearts' content.

Switzerland has been the greatest bastion of sanity and peace since the Rennaissance. No other European country has been so excellent at preserving peace, justice, freedom and democracy.

What, there was a constitution at some point before?

Maybe you've heard of the many various treaties such as Maastricht etc. that together form a constitution. Now putting all these treaties aside and rewriting all previous agreements completely, certainly requires the consent of the people.

Since they're not elected in the normal sense anyway this point is somewhat moot

I think it's highly relevant that you can't elect who will lead the entire EU, and that there are no available parties to vote for.

But not the reach of the elected representatives of the average citizen, for example.

They failed, because they failed to look into the interests of the national leaders in their corruption. A more clever corrupt person in the EU would make sure to share it among these leaders. Additionally, you are apparently unaware of the many lobbyist organizations that attend to regular political EU meetings. Only industries have lobbyist organization. The regular people, especially the working class, haven't got any.

It's not a state either you know; it doesn't have citizens as such. Referendums, and holding them or not, are basically a domestic issue of the members aren't they ? Some are really fond of them, others rarely bother.

So the EU can hold the powers normally given to a nation, but isn't officially denoted a nation, therefore they have no requirement upon them to be democratic? :dizzy2:

Funny, and here I thought the nationalists tended to be EUphobes too for certain bloody obvious reasons... ours certainly are anyway.

Might I see some concrete examples of this supposed "Russification" agenda of the EU, incidentally ?
See my response to Ser Clegane. A historian such as yourself should know better.

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 14:15

Can you show a reference for this, because it seems very counter intuitive.
Involvement in the Iraq war was based on the decision of individual EU countries

Yes it's the EU people doing that. The pro-EU people within the national governments. And they cooperate over borders against the nay-sayers in each country.
Indeed - our elected governments. Not happy with what they do? Vote them out. They cooperate against the nay-sayers? Then perhaps the nay-sayers should co-operate as well

Trying to prevent individual cooperation treaties in favor of only opening them to EU countries. This is one reason why Turkey wants to join, for instance.
Last time I checked, the Turkish administartion wanted the full membership and not just some treaties

No it has not. A complete rewriting of the constitution is a serious matter that require listening to the opinions of the people, as well as working hard to prevent it from becoming an anti-democratic constitution.

No, in nations, the government hold the power, and the government is elected.
In many countries you do not directly elect the executive branch. You have elections for the parliament. Often enough the voters will not know who a lot of the members of the executive will be until those are presented to the voters after the election

Very common in the national governments
Not in Germany. Dictatorship?

EU is the most nationalistic momvement in Europe today. It's a stronger argument and rationality-free we-versus-them conglomerate than any nationalism present in the individual nations today. In fact, now that we've finally made nationalism die in most European countries, we are creating a new wave of dangerous nationalism in the EU. This is much like there was no Prussian nationalism in nazi Germany, but a Pangermanic nationalism manifested in the desire to form a German Union with all German city-states, duchies and countries "sharing similar values/culture" and later also Austria, Sudet Czechs and Alsacce Germans. The Union became increasingly racistic, and as we know: imperialistic. Similarly there was no Sardinian nationalism in fascist Italy, but a Panitalian nationalism to form a Union of the "similar-minded" states in the Italian peninsula. The dangerous forms of nationalism we've seen in history didn't arise as a positive sentiments towards your own existing country, but as a means of bringing and holding together a newly formed Empire/Union/country consisting of several countries that were independent at the time the nationalism begun. It is an instrument to hold together a weak Union more firmly, and to justify centralization by directing all against a common outer enemy (which you often create yourself, by provoking).
Please give same examples of "nationalistic EU movements" that try to create reacism and hate-feelings.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 15:17

Involvement in the Iraq war was based on the decision of individual EU countries

Yes, we barely escaped that. Lucky, that the national government stood up for themselves!

Indeed - our elected governments.

No, not our elected governments, but a small minority of the people in our elected governments. You can take any group of people and find a non-representative minority from it.

Not happy with what they do? Vote them out.

No matter who come to power, within each group there will be a group of pro-Dictatorship Empire representatives who will push away the others by cooperating with the other pro-Dictatorship Empire representatives in the other countries.

They cooperate against the nay-sayers? Then perhaps the nay-sayers should co-operate as well

Not easy, as long as you're hardly allowed to describe the dangers of the dictatorship constitution of the EU without getting as response the list of institutions acting to camouflage the reality, much like it was pretty much impossible to explain to Germans between 1933 and 1945 that nazi Germany was actually a dictatorship. It's up to us regular people and individual nations struggling to succeed in voting in anti-EU parties and dissolving the political union and replacing the danger of a dictatorship with the treaties alone. But the details of the constitution are hidden from regular people, who don't realize that the Commission and Council, which we have no right to vote for, hold all the real power.

Last time I checked, the Turkish administartion wanted the full membership and not just some treaties

You give no references. Additionally, some treaties can't be received unless you accept the full membership, for example the aid money sent to some member countries at the moment.

In many countries you do not directly elect the executive branch. You have elections for the parliament. Often enough the voters will not know who a lot of the members of the executive will be until those are presented to the voters after the election

These countries are endangered of course. If there are already three layers, adding a fourth will make people's influenjce zero beyond all doubt.

Not in Germany. Dictatorship?

This is actually an abuse of the Holocaust from the German administration. The only trace of democracy at all left in nazi Germany after 1933 was referendums, but instead referendums are given a bad name with a logic of the form "Hitler liked strawberry icecream (or whatever flavor he liked), therefore eating strawberry icecream makes you a nazi". The things that made the nazis horrible was the eagerness to start wars, their racism, and their undermining of democracy. Everything that can't solely be used to achieve these aims shouldn't be tarnished by the nazis, it is a shameless way to abuse the suffering of millions of people to further own interests. But taking the nazis as an example every time people support dictatorship, anti-democratic movements, nationalism/racism and war-mongering attitudes, is the duty of every citizen in every country of the western world.

Please give same examples of "nationalistic EU movements" that try to create reacism and hate-feelings.
Red herring fallacy again. I didn't say there were any central conspiracy, much like there was no central conspiracy behind Pangermanism and Panitalianism in the 19th century, and during world war 2 and fascism.

As I wrote:

there was no Prussian nationalism in nazi Germany, but a Pangermanic nationalism [...] the desire to form a German Union with all German city-states, duchies and countries "sharing similar values/culture" [...] Similarly there was no Sardinian nationalism in fascist Italy, but a Panitalian nationalism to form a Union of the "similar-minded" states in the Italian peninsula. The dangerous forms of nationalism we've seen in history didn't arise as a positive sentiments towards your own existing country, but as a means of bringing and holding together a newly formed Empire/Union/country consisting of several countries that were independent at the time the nationalism begun. It is an instrument to hold together a weak Union more firmly, and to justify centralization by directing all against a common outer enemy (which you often create yourself, by provoking).

The dangerous form of nationalism arises from trying to form Unions and Empires out of independent states.

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 15:37

Yes, we barely escaped that. Lucky, that the national government stood up for themselves!
The EU as a whole was against it - while a number of individual states got involved. So this clearkly shows that the EU as a total is not more confrontational as its individual states - it might even create pressure on individual members to not get involved into conflicts

No matter who come to power, within each group there will be a group of pro-Dictatorship Empire representatives who will push away the others by cooperating with the other pro-Dictatorship Empire representatives in the other countries.
You are assuming a bit much here and are reaching the realm of conspiracy theories. Is there any fact that would show that this is actually happening?

Not easy, as long as you're hardly allowed to describe the dangers of the dictatorship constitution of the EU without getting as response the list of institutions acting to camouflage the reality, much like it was pretty much impossible to explain to Germans between 1933 and 1945 that nazi Germany was actually a dictatorship. It's up to us regular people and individual nations struggling to succeed in voting in anti-EU parties and dissolving the political union and replacing the danger of a dictatorship with the treaties alone. But the details of the constitution are hidden from regular people, who don't realize that the Commission and Council, which we have no right to vote for, hold all the real power.
Maybe the responses here just indicate that your view is rather exotic? Having exotic views on things does not necessarily mean that the majority is uneducated and uninformed - sometimes it just means that the majority disagrees with you and that perhaps you are slightly off the track.

for example the aid money sent to some member countries at the moment.
So you mean there should be an option for individual countries to get all the benefits of a member but none of the responsibilities?

These countries are endangered of course. If there are already three layers, adding a fourth will make people's influenjce zero beyond all doubt.
Do you have the option to directly elect the members of your executive? I highly doubt that - the best you might get in some countries is the direct election of the head of the executive - often you are only voting for the parliament and then the representatives elect the head of the executive.

This is actually an abuse of the Holocaust from the German administration. The only trace of democracy at all left in nazi Germany after 1933 was referendums, but instead referendums are given a bad name with a logic of the form "Hitler liked strawberry icecream (or whatever flavor he liked), therefore eating strawberry icecream makes you a nazi". The things that made the nazis horrible was the eagerness to start wars, their racism, and their undermining of democracy. Everything that can't solely be used to achieve these aims shouldn't be tarnished by the nazis, it is a shameless way to abuse the suffering of millions of people to further own interests. But taking the nazis as an example every time people support dictatorship, anti-democratic movements, nationalism/racism and war-mongering attitudes, is the duty of every citizen in every country of the western world.
To repeat the question: without a referendum, would you consider Germany a dictatorship today (now that you are even argueing that the dictatorship you compare the EU to had referendums)?

Red herring fallacy again. I didn't say there were any central conspiracy, much like there was no central conspiracy behind Pangermanism and Panitalianism in the 19th century, and during world war 2 and fascism.
Red herring? I just quoted you - so what "nationalistic EU movement" is there now (and vague historical references don't anwer that question)?

Watchman

07-02-2007, 15:45

These countries are endangered of course. If there are already three layers, adding a fourth will make people's influenjce zero beyond all doubt.Thank you for this wonderfully narrow and ignorant understanding of democracy. I presume your governement doesn't work in this fashion; fair enough. (Where do you live incidentally ?) But please refrain from making arrogant and entirely inaccurate statements concerning different arrangements in other states, assuming yours is the only proper way to do the representative democracy gig.

Oh, and since you seem to like WW2 references, lemme tell you something interesting. We Finns were pretty much the exact only Axis combatant that never ever had the democratic principles compromised by authoritarianism, then, before or later...

And I'm pretty sure our governement was elected by more or less exact the same people-vote-the-parliament-parliament-parties-work-out-the-ministers pattern as now, which according to you is a recipe for "dictatorship"...

If you don't know what ichtyologists do, don't start talking about camels.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 16:18

Red herring? I just quoted you - so what "nationalistic EU movement" is there now (and vague historical references don't anwer that question)?
Dangerous nationalism arises from attempting to form new larger states out of smaller.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 16:20

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 16:22

arrogant

entirely inaccurate statements

since you seem to like WW2 references

If you don't know what ichtyologists do, don't start talking about camels.
Are these an attempt of serious discussion, or an attempt of personal attack?

We Finns were pretty much the exact only Axis combatant that never ever had the democratic principles compromised by authoritarianism, then, before or later...

And I'm pretty sure our governement was elected by more or less exact the same people-vote-the-parliament-parliament-parties-work-out-the-ministers pattern as now, which according to you is a recipe for "dictatorship"...

Wait, you say I'm nationalistic for saying that a system used by several countries, maybe mine included (but you don't know which mine is), maybe not, is better than a system used by YOUR country. Then you proceed saying that your country is better than all other countries who happened to be part of the axis during ww2? Perhaps if you ransack yourself you might realize that you are quite nationalistic.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 16:23

Really ? I'm pretty sure it has historically been the exact other way around - what with all the instances of violent separationism and related "one land one people" type politics withing the last two centuries.
Quite few of these (would you care to give some examples by the way, along with a reference for once?) have taken as many lives as the nationalism seeking to unite several independent, sovereign states.

I must say I'm quite disappointed with what you have shown in this discussion. Previously you seemed to be a respectable pro-democracy and anti-war spokesman, but it turns out I was wrong.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 16:32

Are these an attempt of serious discussion, or an attempt of personal attack?They're opinions. I have them, you may have noticed.

Wait, you say I'm nationalistic for saying that a system used by several countries, maybe mine included (but you don't know which mine is), maybe not, is better than a system used by YOUR country. Then you proceed saying that your country is better than all other countries who happened to be part of the axis during ww2? Perhaps if you ransack yourself you might realize that you are quite nationalistic.No. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that there are many possible ways to realize representative democracy in practice, and to claim that one is "superior" to another - as you did - is quite simply arrogant. I brought out the bit with WW2 out of general annoyance at your habit of banalizing the tyrannies of the era for rhetorical convenience, and to underline that your high-handed assumptions concerning the model of representative democracy discussed are pretty much complete baloney.

I'm also curious as to where exactly it is that you live in, as I'd like to be able to check if you actually know how your own governement works...

Ser Clegane

07-02-2007, 16:34

Dangerous nationalism arises from attempting to form new larger states out of smaller.
That's a possibility - but you stated:

There are nationalistic EU movements trying to create racism and hate-feelings towards non-Europeans, trying to form a united "white übermensch race" against all others.
Which movements?

Husar

07-02-2007, 17:31

Wait, you say I'm nationalistic for saying that a system used by several countries, maybe mine included (but you don't know which mine is)
I think you're from the UK, but since the Blodrast-desaster I'm not so sure anymore.:beam:

Apart from that, I agree with Ser Clegane and Watchman in that the EU is not a dictatorship and I think you're over-reacting. It's good to watch developments and check them, but in this case I don't think those people in Brussels want to oppress me with their 1000+ policemen.:sweatdrop:

Like Ser and Watchman said, those people were elected by the people of their respective nations and the representatives of those nations then elected them for a place in the EU, which means you can't say that the people wouldn't want them, after all they voted them into the parliament of that particular nation they come from, didn't they?

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 19:58

That's a possibility - but you stated:

Which movements?
I referred to the movement consisting of general independent activities of various extremists, many of whom frequent the news.

Rodion Romanovich

07-02-2007, 20:00

@Husar: the questions you asked have already been answered in my posts in the previous two pages.

Btw, what do you mean with Bloodrast disaster? :inquisitive: ~:)

Watchman

07-02-2007, 21:56

I referred to the movement consisting of general independent activities of various extremists, many of whom frequent the news.And on what basis do you claim these have anything to do with the EU, save that such populists tend to hate said supranational system about as much if not more than they do ethnic minorities, immigrants, Jews or whatever their particular hobby horse now happens to be ? These guys tend to be ultranationalist reactionaries; to them the EU is usually almost the same kind of bogeyman as the UN is to their loony US peers.

Of course it might be we're thinking of different popular movements, but that's what you get for being vague.

I'm still waiting for the concrete examples of the EU's supposed cultural-assimilation agenda incidentally. Disney and McDo's have it beat by decades anyway, though...

Husar

07-02-2007, 22:54

Btw, what do you mean with Bloodrast disaster? :inquisitive: ~:)
Well, I was pretty sure that he was from Sweden, but apparently he isn't which I found out in another thread about the treatment of animals.

Papewaio

07-02-2007, 23:52

But as always there could be room for improvement in some fields of course. There usually is in solidly established nation-states after all, and the EU in not only still rather Under Construction but also somewhat unprecedented making the whole process a bit hit-and-miss.

Hardly unprecedented. Not many Federations in history but enough for direction, USA would be an obvious model. Australia is another (Aus is a Commonwealth and it could have/can include Fiji and New Zealand)... Swiss Federation... I think there are a few modern nations that exist quite happily that have gone through a Federation transition.

Watchman

07-02-2007, 23:59

The EU isn't normally regarded as a federation in the normal sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation#European_Union). It is certainly possible that it may one day become in effect a federal state, but for the time being it isn't AFAIK really regarded as fulfilling the criteria.

Papewaio

07-03-2007, 00:07

It's certainly going through some of the standard parts.

Australia first formed a Federal Council in 1883 for essentially trade reasons.

As people identified more with the nation a consitution was made... it failed the first time (1898) , gained success in a enough of the states to get the ball rolling the second time (1899), and the third time Western Australia said yes to it the third time (1900) and the country was Federated by 1901.

Federation of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia)

Watchman

07-03-2007, 00:12

Fair enough, but in the case of the EU the component parts are what is sometimes known as "old-established" nation-states - and ones quite conscious of their own specific identities at that.

Papewaio

07-03-2007, 01:35

How old is Germany?

Watchman

07-03-2007, 01:39

How old is German "national" identity ?

Papewaio

07-03-2007, 03:23

It's just that Germany is one of those rather complex Federated state models...

cegorach

07-03-2007, 07:35

Oh, I mostly posted the link because the article gives a good description of the troubles in Polish-German relations, not so much because it represents my opinion per se.

You'll be pleased to know that in my quest to find out 'Wass will der Pole', I reverted to reading Norman Davies. :book:

Good decision. I recommend one of older 'Heart of Europe' - describes ideologies which are still present despite it was written in 1981 or slightly later.
Second must read would be 'Rising '44' and perhaps second volume of 'God's Playground'.

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

You highlighted the sentence that summarized the point of my post, yet seem to have failed to realize that that was the main point. The parallel discussions in this very thread are good examples of exactly what I mean: there's a lack of proper respect for Poland, and Poland stands little chance of affecting much within the EU while this remains. Believing anything else is unrealistic. Poland's entry into the EU isn't charity from the previous members, they use it as a tool to gain benefits for themselves, or so they believe. Just like Napoleon used the Duchy of Warsaw as a temporary tool for his own purposes, and not as any charity. Any positive outcome for Poland that may have come from that cooperation was random, not Napoleon's intention.

In fact, it's this naive belief in the EU that in my opinion undermines the respect for Poland. The current leader's sound scepticism towards the EU and its intentions, however, is giving me more respect for Poland than ever, even if several of his other actions undermines my respect for him as a person. To be honest: when the short term effects of a diplomatic offer seem to good to be true, lack of scepticism is a sign of naiveity IMO.
___________

Sorry for answering so late. I am for healthy sceptycism, something between euro-optimism and euro-scepticism.
However it is all about SKILL - building alliances and preparing the ground before the 'abttle' - the present coalition cannot do it properly sothey are criticised heavily here - especially totally incompetent Foreign Office.:smash:

About the rest of discussion here I won't speak.

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 10:02

And on what basis do you claim these have anything to do with the
Well it's kinda obvious as they talk about vague benefits of EU, mainly (in their opinion) about creating a single European people, state, national anthem and army, that should "stand up against"
1. terrorism (= entire third world in their descriptions)
2. Russia
3. USA
and plenty of others who they declare inferior for one reason or another...

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 10:03

Sorry for answering so late. I am for healthy sceptycism, something between euro-optimism and euro-scepticism.
However it is all about SKILL - building alliances and preparing the ground before the 'abttle' - the present coalition cannot do it properly sothey are criticised heavily here - especially totally incompetent Foreign Office.:smash:

It seems that after all we agree about the main point then :2thumbsup:

Watchman

07-03-2007, 10:18

Well it's kinda obvious as they talk about vague benefits of EU, mainly (in their opinion) about creating a single European people, state, national anthem and army, that should "stand up against"
1. terrorism (= entire third world in their descriptions)
2. Russia
3. USA
and plenty of others who they declare inferior for one reason or another...Excuse me, but what exactly do these have to do with the nationalist movements which if anything tend to be separationistically inclined and anti-EU ?

And are you claiming European states could not pursue their own interests better in dealing with just for example the US superpower or the Russian "energy weapon" through coordinated cooperation (whenever they now actually manage it) than going at it separately ? An individual state has rather less bargaining power than whatwasit, 27 of them at once.

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 10:21

No, they're by definition not anti-EU, since they speak of uniting all European countries into one big nationalistic state through gradually increasing centralization and anti-democratic developments in the EU. That's pro-EU.

Quite contrary to what your red herring attempts tries to imply, I believe powers should negotiate as groups to be stronger negotiation parts, but joining the same pact for all negotiations is rather stupid, especially without defining which decisions are included in the pact and which are not. When you enter a pact, you must clearly define it's goals. Otherwise you will have more harm than benefits from it, and be drawn into treaties you have no use for. A single pact for everything is more an attempt of Gleichschaltung, than of reaching sound political goals.

Watchman

07-03-2007, 10:33

No, they're by definition not anti-EU, since they speak of uniting all European countries into one big nationalistic state through gradually increasing centralization and anti-democratic developments in the EU. That's pro-EU.Who they ? Your description does not match a single movement normally defined as "nationalistic" that I am aware of. There exists neither an "European" state nor nation, whatever the really hardline Europhiles might wish; it follows that by definition there cannot be "European nationalism" as such for the time being.

Quite contrary to what your red herring attempts tries to imply, I believe powers should negotiate as groups to be stronger negotiation parts, but joining the same pact for all negotiations is rather stupid, especially without defining which decisions are included in the pact and which are not. When you enter a pact, you must clearly define it's goals. Otherwise you will have more harm than benefits from it, and be drawn into treaties you have no use for. A single pact for everything is more an attempt of Gleichschaltung, than of reaching sound political goals.Part of the whole point of the idea is to forestall "divide and conquer" approaches (which hasn't really been all that succesful mind you) and to keep individual states from pissing in the common drinking bowl for their own short-term benefit (ditto), you know.

Also, the EU isn't a "pact" methinks. It's a supranational organisation whose one job is to quarantee the pacts between the members are upheld and not tossed by the wayside when convenient.

AntiochusIII

07-03-2007, 10:36

No, they're by definition not anti-EU, since they speak of uniting all European countries into one big nationalistic state through gradually increasing centralization and anti-democratic developments in the EU. That's pro-EU.Excuse me, but what the hell!!? :inquisitive:

It is quite clear to everyone that separatist, nationalist, and/or supremacist (for whatever reason) movements generally strongly oppose such a supranational organization as the EU. They believe themselves the best, and therefore cooperation with lesser peoples, on more or less equal grounds, is downright offensive.

How you translate that into pro-EU is beyond me.

I'm not a European and don't have much say in this, but your hatred for the EU borders on conspiracy. It might not be the best organization ever, not as directly democratic compare to smaller levels of government, or even a Very Bad Idea (personally I don't see why). As far as I'm aware though they're not all megalomaniac Illuminatii.

Fragony

07-03-2007, 10:47

Are these an attempt of serious discussion, or an attempt of personal attack?

I thought he meant that if you don't study political science you shouldn't have an opinion, but maybe that was just wishful thinking from my part ~;)

Watchman

07-03-2007, 10:57

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 12:30

Excuse me, but what the hell!!? :inquisitive:

It is quite clear to everyone that separatist, nationalist, and/or supremacist (for whatever reason) movements generally strongly oppose such a supranational organization as the EU. They believe themselves the best, and therefore cooperation with lesser peoples, on more or less equal grounds, is downright offensive.

How you translate that into pro-EU is beyond me.

I'm not a European and don't have much say in this, but your hatred for the EU borders on conspiracy. It might not be the best organization ever, not as directly democratic compare to smaller levels of government, or even a Very Bad Idea (personally I don't see why). As far as I'm aware though they're not all megalomaniac Illuminatii.
If you look back at history, you will see that the dangerous nationalism that caused the holocaust and world war 2 wasn't people liking their country, but about propaganda to push together several countries into a Union.

Before the 19th century, there was no Germany or Italy. There were small states feeling they had less in common with each other than with countries that didn't become part of Germany and Italy. For instance, "north Germans" felt more related to the Netherlands, than to Bavarians. Nationalism sprung as an attempt to create a union of these states, who had previously little in common, and to put them against other nations. Nationalism may be a misnomer for what caused the Holocaust and ww2, because the Unions formed out of smaller states were not nations in the mind of the masses, until after the ruthless propaganda seeking to merge them into one nation made people think of it as such.

The pro-EU movements are much more likely to cause such dangerous nasty nationalism, than the anti-EU movements.

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 12:35

The bit about icthyologists and camels actually means that if you have no clue as to what something is, don't try to fake it by talking about something random. You'll only embarass yourself.

I love you too, Fragsy. :biker:
In response I say: if you have a clue about what you're talking about, you should be able to motivate your statements, instead of just stating the opponent is wrong. It's pretty scornful and fascistic to believe your own opinion is so much better than everyone else's, then refuse to give proper arguments for all the central parts of it.

Watchman

07-03-2007, 12:50

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 12:59

The 1800s pattern of virulent nationalism (whose history we can talk more about but which is not really important here) is sort of passé these days you know. The two World Wars had something to do with that. You are, in any case, missing the point; nationalism only becomes inherently problematic when it develops a supremacist streak - the belief that "we" (more or less inherently by the virtue of being "us") are better than "they", whoever "they" now may be (these days usually people with wrong skin colour or ethnic origin). It was this kind of thinking that led to the Nazi atrocities and the slaughterhouse of Yugoslavia.

and it is essentially just this brand of nationalism the right-wing populists who also tend to hate EU peddle, for assorted reasons I can discuss more in depth if you now want to.

The "pan-Europeanism" you are so afraid of, if it exists in the first place, seems more like an ideology of cooperation and understanding across the barriers built by language, distance and the old-school particularist nationalism. Indeed a major point of the developement that led to the EU was linking European states and peoples to each other firmly enough that they would have too much shared interests and understanding to not repeat the horrid carnage of the World Wars. The destructive power of modern weaponry and astronomical expenses of modern mass war are such that the age-old patterns of territorial squabbling that culminated in the two World Wars were tried to do away with.

The EU is in part very much a project to abolish that old vicious form of discriminatory nationalism. That it may still live on altogether too strong in the member states themselves vis-a-vis their own minorities, and duly presumably has at least some effect on the Union level through representatives who may harbour such views, is a whole different issue.
The dangerous nationalism is supremacistic, but supremacistic without arguments. If you say your country is supreme in the field of health care compared to other nations, because objective ranking puts you among top 10 in the world, and you are proud of this and think your health care is supreme to that of most other countries, you're not a dangerous nationalist. It's when you say your country is supreme without specifying any particular field, but implicitly thinking something along the lines of "on average over all questions", and don't motivate your stance. And that is what arises when you try to argue for the merging of sovereign states into a single state, and try to implement Gleichschaltung to keep them in check and counter any striving for independence from the Union.

If you think EU will abolish nationalism I think you're quite naive. It will no more abolish nationalism in European countries (that nationalism is quite weak at the moment by the way), than the Prussian efforts to create a German Union abolished nationalism in the individual German countries. In reality, it created a dangerous supremacist German nationalism.

AntiochusIII

07-03-2007, 13:02

If you look back at history, you will see that the dangerous nationalism that caused the holocaust and world war 2 wasn't people liking their country, but about propaganda to push together several countries into a Union.Huh?

Oh you mean Anschluss. I hate to say it out but you're dead wrong about this. "Greater Germany" was every bit as nationalistic as any idea ever was. Your comparison is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. :dizzy2:

The EU on the other hand is anything but nationalistic. Please please please recognize the difference between a continental identity and a national one. Even if it becomes a federal state it will take at least a century to convince all those Andorrans and Maltese that they are more European than Andorran and...Maltese.

European is not a national identity, "German" -- something many Germans and Austrians in 1938 felt they were, because of propaganda, shared cultural identity, political movements, and otherwise -- is a national identity.

By then your "EU will destroy us all by provoking everyone with rabid European nationalism" (they did!? I must miss the news here in the US) scenario will be subject to so many variables it's not so much a gamble as a wild guess.

Before the 19th century, there was no Germany or Italy. There were small states feeling they had less in common with each other than with countries that didn't become part of Germany and Italy. For instance, "north Germans" felt more related to the Netherlands, than to Bavarians. Nationalism sprung as an attempt to create a union of these states, who had previously little in common, and to put them against other nations. Nationalism may be a misnomer for what caused the Holocaust and ww2, because the Unions formed out of smaller states were not nations in the mind of the masses, until after the ruthless propaganda seeking to merge them into one nation made people think of it as such.Ruthless propaganda. :laugh4: Don't tell me you believe that tinfoil hat stuff. I'd bet on the Camarilla running the world behind the scenes before betting on how the majority of EU member states are uniting to subjugate their citizens into some sort of a conquering Alexandrian empire.

The "German" identity and the "Italian" identity came into existence much earlier than their respective nation-states by the way.

You're going out of the way into a trap aren't you. "Nationalism may be a misnomer for what caused ww2?" Huh? What's that, a new revisionist professor's paper on why most historians are wrong? The World Wars happen for many reasons, among those is an unfortunate mix of nationalism with expansionist tendencies of said national states: expansion, before you start claiming the EU is doing the same, that is done by force and coercion most of the time. The EU doesn't even have an army worth calling one, if any.

It probably is true that the EU member states are trying to form a closer relationship, may be even a federal state, but that's a far cry from dropping Godwin's Law or Stalinist accusations around and expecting us to agree with you about it.

The pro-EU movements are much more likely to cause such dangerous nasty nationalism, than the anti-EU movements. :wall:

Where are those damn extremist Europa Universalis warriors ruining everybody's day by the way? Trying to bomb London to make Gordon Brown submit to the EU or something? I'd attribute dangerous nasty nationalist movements to remnants of Yugoslavia or the stupid Greek-Macedonian pissing contest long before the nonexistent EU oppressors.

The dangerous nationalism is supremacistic, but supremacistic without arguments. If you say your country is supreme in the field of health care compared to other nations, because objective ranking puts you among top 10 in the world, and you are proud of this and think your health care is supreme to that of most other countries, you're not a dangerous nationalist. It's when you say your country is supreme without specifying any particular field, but implicitly thinking something along the lines of "on average over all questions", and don't motivate your stance. And that is what arises when you try to argue for the merging of sovereign states into a single state, and try to implement Gleichschaltung to keep them in check and counter any striving for independence from the Union.It's quite simple actually: Mr. Darcy is English and he thinks England is the best country in the world. Not only that, he also agrees that England, because of its superior people, should rule the world. If Mr. Darcy lives in the early 20th century it is also probable that he considers stuff like Eugenics to be legitimate, and culling the inferiors or completely assimilate them doesn't sound that bad. He doesn't share modern sensibilities like war is baaaaad with us after all.

If you think EU will abolish nationalism I think you're quite naive. It will no more abolish nationalism in European countries (that nationalism is quite weak at the moment by the way), than the Prussian efforts to create a German Union abolished nationalism in the individual German countries. In reality, it created a dangerous supremacist German nationalism.I don't see the validity in the comparison between Prussian unification of Germany with the development of the European Union. The similarities are superficial at best and misguided at worst.

Watchman

07-03-2007, 13:09

There was a well enough developed "pan-German" national ideology extant at the time, of the due rather jingoistic 1800s form. AFAIK it had avid enough adherents in most of the statelets that formed the region geographically termed Greater Germany and outside it as well (among most German-speaking communities really), who were duly overjoyed at the manner Prussia unified the lot into one glorious state and whatnot.

As mentioned that brand of nationalism got rather discredited in the World Wars, much the same way as the Thirty Years' War largely put a stop to the Catholic-Protestant fighting. It is these days mainly found among ultranational populist groups, normally (thankfully) stuck at the fringes of the political fields.

Given that that sort of particularist thinking is specifically the antithesis of the EU project, I would say some pretty solid argumentation were needed to explain why exactly the organisation would bring about just that sort of thinking... and somehting more than vague historical parallels please.

Ronin

07-03-2007, 13:11

you mean that when the nationalist :daisy: here in Portugal hold rallies and demonstrations AGAINST the european union they are actually for it??? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:

crafty buggers...they had me going there!!! :dizzy2:

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 13:15

Huh?

Oh you mean Anschluss.

No, I don't mean Anschluss. I mean the process of creating a Union out of the previous independent states. If you read for instance "All Quiet on the Western Front" (written as late as 1929) you'll see that the author refers to the German military leadership as "the Prussians". The idea of a Germany was new and disliked in many of the subjugated states in the Union that was supposed to become a Germany. To hold them together, nationalism was brought up as a tool. If you go back as short as to the beginning of the Napoleonic era, you'll see that the idea of a Germany sounds like an absurd and impossible thing to the people living back then. In the 17th century, there was more in common between the Protestant German states and Denmark, England, the Netherlands and Sweden, than with for instance Bavaria. Less than 100 years later than the Napoleonic era, this heterogenic mass is supposed to suddenly be a single country. Such a development isn't automatic, it meets heavy resistance from all the parts of the Union, and to keep them in check, nationalism is used. Transforming this heterogenic mass into a nation requires nationalistic propaganda to go back to the ancient times and speak of "Germania" (not by far anything united and similar to a Germany either, but good enough for propaganda purposes), because that is the only time in history where the differences in culture between the different germanic tribes was smaller than the difference between them and their neighbors (the romans), because at most other times in history similarities and unity between "Germans" hardly existed as either an idea or a fact. The well-known agitator Fichte, during the Napoleonic period, spoke warmly of forming a Union of Germany, to bring peace between the German states and end the nationalism and competition between them, for they had a long history of fighting against each other. Not long afterwards, the forming of a Union begun. The Union was strengthened by nationalism, the local differences eradicated by using common outer enemies, and by centralization to an undermined democracy. We all know the rest of the story.

I have no reason to respond to the rest of your post since your conclusions there are based on the incorrect premise that Germany was a coherent, homogenous nation by 1930 - it was not - it was a Union of states in the hearts and minds of the masses (in fact Germany is still today called Bundesrepublik Deutschland), and some hoped this Union would become more centralized and strong than the individual parts and used nationalism and vehement speeches against independence of the individual states to further their agendas. They called those who wanted to remain independent nationalistic, self-interest serving and dangerous threats to all other German nations.

Watchman

07-03-2007, 13:21

The modern form of nationalism is a 1800s artifact, no question about that. It was however an universal phenomenom which ruling elites originally opposed and, as that proved futile, eventually went along with because they could do little else; it emerged equally in clusters of little statelets with something in common such as pre-unification Italy and Germany, as longtime "unitary" states like France, Britain and Sweden, as old-style multinational empires such as Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Romanov Russia.

AntiochusIII

07-03-2007, 13:28

No, I don't mean Anschluss. I mean the process of creating a Union out of the previous independent states. If you read for instance "All Quiet on the Western Front" (written as late as 1929) you'll see that the author refers to the German military leadership as "the Prussians".Prussians form a large part of the new military order of the State...it's a natural conclusion considering Prussia's militaristic nature and its power and size relative to the smaller states in the new Glorious Nation that it should dominate the military branch.

I read the book before in fact, and in my translation -- the one did by that English ww1 soldier whatshisname -- I didn't remember any references to Prussians. A bunch of Kantoreks but no Prussians.

I also see no comparison to the EU whatsoever in this case. Do you mean there's a powerful military state in the European Union right now poised to take over everyone else the moment the EU federalized or something?

The idea of a Germany was new and disliked in most of the subjugated states in the Union that was Germany. To hold them together, nationalism was brought up as a tool. If you go back as short as to the beginning of the Napoleonic era, you'll see that the idea of a Germany sounds like an absurd and impossible thing to the people living back then.Simply put, wrong.

In the 17th century, there was more in common between the Protestant German states and Denmark, England, the Netherlands and Sweden, than with for instance Bavaria. Less than 100 years later than the Napoleonic era, this heterogenic mass is supposed to be a single country. Such a development isn't automatic, it meets heavy resistance from all the parts of the Union, and to keep them in check, nationalism is used. Transforming this heterogenic mass into a nation requires nationalistic propaganda to go back to the ancient times and speak of "Germania" (not by far anything united and similar to a Germany either, but good enough for propaganda purposes), because at that time the differences between culture of the different germanic tribes was smaller than the difference between them and their neighbors the romans, because at most other times in history similarities and unity between "Germans" hardly existed as either an idea or a fact.So how does that has anything to do with the EU? What little media I consume from across the Atlantic don't seem to carry any of the stuff similar to your insinuation. Where's the national epic for Europe? Where's the black-and-white film with the great leader and the parades? Where's the abundance of literature reinterpreted as statements in support of the nation's ancient existence? Where's the Empire of Europe of old for the marketing department to use? Rome? That would ignore everything on the wrong side of the Rhine.

I have no reason to respond to the rest of your post since your conclusions there are based on the incorrect premise that Germany was a coherent, homogenous nation by 1930 - it was not - it was a Union in the hearts and minds of the masses, and some hoped this Union would become more centralized and strong than the individual parts.Err...it was a coherent, homogenous nation. Plagued by problems as any did during the Great Depression, but at least a nation as the USA was and probably a little more.

Way to ignore the whole post.

Louis VI the Fat

07-03-2007, 13:37

Huh?

your "EU will destroy us all by provoking everyone with rabid European nationalism" (they did!? I must miss the news here in the US) You're not missing the news. Legio's view of the EU is very singular, and extreme to the point of bizarre.

The logical leap Nazi = unification and Nazi = facist dictatorship to EU = unification, therefore EU = facist dictatorship is not followed by many opponents.

Most of those that voted against the referendum in 2005 here, are 'souvereignists'. They are souvereignists either from a right or a left wing point of view. It's one of those opinions were they, albeit from different starting positions, end up very close to each other. The right argues from a nationalistic 'France first', 'no foreign dictates' agenda against the EU. The left has a 'we must protect our welfare state', no 'liberal, capitalistic dictate' agenda. Very few suspect the EU of any Nazi / SU dictatorial tendencies.

People are against the EU because they accusse it of over-regulation. Or because they dislike EU regulation in general by virtue of it being foreign. Because they don't want their tax-money being spend on Greece, South Italy, French farmers, bureaucrats. They mistrust extreme Anglostyle free-marketism, or Polish plumbers. The more articulate may dislike the democratic deficit. And many opponents are actually not against European cooperation, but want the EU reduced to an extensive set of trade treaties, and dislike federalist tendencies.
Few opponents though accuse the EU of being an international-nationalistic recipe for mass murder.

AntiochusIII

07-03-2007, 13:46

People are against the EU because they accusse it of over-regulation. Or because they dislike EU regulation in general by virtue of it being foreign. Because they don't want their tax-money being spend on Greece, South Italy, French farmers, bureaucrats. They mistrust extreme Anglostyle free-marketism, or Polish plumbers. The more articulate may dislike the democratic deficit. And many opponents are actually not against European cooperation, but want the EU reduced to an extensive set of trade treaties, and dislike federalist tendencies.That's what it sounds like most of the time when I read about arguments against the EU here or somewhere else, which makes Legio's declaration that the EU is an equivalent to modern-day Soviet Union altogether more...foreign...to me at least.

What is your opinion of the EU, by the way?

Rodion Romanovich

07-03-2007, 13:47

I read the book before in fact, and in my translation -- the one did by that English ww1 soldier whatshisname -- I didn't remember any references to Prussians. A bunch of Kantoreks but no Prussians.

I find your revisionist view of European history quite interesting. Is that a common perception of European history where you live? :daisy:

So how does that has anything to do with the EU?

Since you still fail to realize the main point, you obviously will not understand the rest of the causes behind the historical developments from 1900 to 1945. The main point you need to realize is, that Germany was not a Nation any more than nominally and de jure at the outbreak of nazism, but it was a de facto Union, and Nationalism arose naturally in the attempts to centralize it even more and fight and suppress those who wished independence for the member states. Once you understand this (and that the situation was exactly the same in Italy), you will understand the rest.

What little media I consume from across the Atlantic don't seem to carry any of the stuff similar to your insinuation.

You have to understand that different countries have very different news coverage of events. For instance after 9/11 we saw 3 minutes of the incident in most European countries, whereas I suppose it was given a bit more coverage in the USA?

Where's the national epic for Europe? Where's the black-and-white film with the great leader and the parades?

I fail to realize the significance of the amount of color levels in films to degree of nationalism.

Where's the abundance of literature reinterpreted as statements in support of the nation's ancient existence?

This is present all over the pro-EU philosophical texts written in the previous 5 decades. And here's a funny modern example, from: http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm

A brief, simple explanation about what the EU is, what it does, and how it works.

Unity in diversity

The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended to replace existing States, nor is it just an organisation for international cooperation. The EU is, in fact, unique. Its member states have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. The idea was born because Europeans were determined to prevent such killing and destruction ever happening again. In the early years, the cooperation was between six countries and mainly about trade and the economy. Now the EU embraces 27 countries and 490 million people, and it deals with a wide range of issues of direct importance for our everyday life.

Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with shared values such as democracy, freedom and social justice. The EU defends these values. It fosters cooperation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to the citizens.

In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it is more necessary than ever for every European citizen to work together with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity, openness and solidarity.

If "EU" had been exchanged with "German", I would personally have had great difficulties knowing that such a document wasn't coming directly from The Reich propaganda!