Europe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. :pimp: (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

---

Hopeless:

Families are divided, until an Outsider interferes. Neighbours are divided, until the Town tries to do something. Towns are divided until the county gets involved. Counties have little in common, until the region makes demands. Regions are so large they are very disparate, until the Central Government tries to do something. Countries are utterly divided, until threatened by something else, and so on.

The only thing that will unite Humanity to a common goal is something else: only green and other will bind black and white, rich and poor and the varying nations.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. :pimp: (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

---

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

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

Wales, a nation of 3 million is divided both regionally and linguistically. Regionally, it breaks down into four or five groups just among the Welsh, then you have the English-speaking Welsh and the English immigrants. Wales has been politically united with England for over 500 years, and there is still bordernline racism and xenophobia between the two.

I would say the main divide among the actual Welsh would be North and South, outside of that it is just petty local rivalries. I can support the notion that there is borderline racism and xenophobia between the two, being half English half Welsh and having gone to both English and Welsh schools. I am regularly told Welsh football fans support two countrys, Wales and whoever England are playing.

I see much more hate and dislike between England and the smaller nations of Britian than i see between England and any other nation in Europe. In fact taking this into account, maybe Britian is actually unworkable ?

That doesn't seem right though, as Britian seems to work fairly well as one nation, despite our vast differences culturally and historically the joining of Britian resulted in us doing far far better than the seperate small nations managed on thier own. Europe would just be an extension of this but with less hatred and rivalry between the nations, or at least in the case of the British nations. You wouldn't hear the Germans or the French say they support two national teams thier own and whoever England are playing, so i can only assume a political union with France and Germany for example would be much more workable than Britian, seen as Britian functions pretty well i can only assume the union would also....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I see much more hate and dislike between England and the smaller nations of Britian than i see between England and any other nation in Europe. In fact taking this into account, maybe Britian is actually unworkable ?

That doesn't seem right though, as Britian seems to work fairly well as one nation, despite our vast differences culturally and historically the joining of Britian resulted in us doing far far better than the seperate small nations managed on thier own. Europe would just be an extension of this but with less hatred and rivalry between the nations, or at least in the case of the British nations. You wouldn't hear the Germans or the French say they support two national teams thier own and whoever England are playing, so i can only assume a political union with France and Germany for example would be much more workable than Britian, seen as Britian functions pretty well i can only assume the union would also....

---

maybe that is because britain already is a 'federation', thus the tensions are there and still there after 300+ years of forced marriage, in which case; how much worse would the tension be in the electorates of a 27 nation federation who have not had 300 years to acclimatise to their new reality?

if you first statement is incorrect, then it rather invalidates the second.

maybe that is because britain already is a 'federation', thus the tensions are there and still there after 300+ years of forced marriage, in which case; how much worse would the tension be in the electorates of a 27 nation federation who have not had 300 years to acclimatise to their new reality?

But it was not always so, Scotland and England are the easier example to work with. England and Scotland hatred for each other at the time could probably have only been matched by the French rivalry with England. Yet do you know what happened after Scotland and England joined together. It worked BRILLIANTLY! Scotland and England underwent an enlightenment an industrial revolution. The joining of this decent sized world power and this rather small one forged one of the biggest empires the world has ever seen. Unmatched progress in science, economic theory and a whole bunch of other things!

So that covers the success, now onto the rivalry. Do you seriously think the rivalry exsists simply because were together under one country, the rivalry is due to England being much bigger than the smaller country's around it. Tell me where is the Welsh Scottish hatred of each other, they similarly have been forced together as England and Scotland have....

And tell me, Why would France have the same jealousy issues as Wales and Scotland have ? its a more comparable sized nation to England. So if you can make a Union between awkardly different sized powers which have huge grudges against each other (Britian) than the political union between Britian and mainland European powers is a cakewalk in comparison.

Edit: Alot of the rivalry exsists in Britian because England owned these countrys at various times, outside of 1066 the french have never owned the English in any recent times, and without going back hundreds and hundreds of years we haven't ruled the French either. The previous ownership and conquering is the cause of the rivalries...

What tensions between France and England. I can gaurentee i got far more abuse for being Welsh in England and English in Wales then i would have for being British on the mainland...

This to me tells me that a union between the british powers is less workable than a union between european ones, seen as our british union works so well the european one would work even better...

Quote:

---

good, because you were wrong.

---

Really?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

have voting figures not declined from sixties to forties in the past 20 years, and is that not a decline of a third?

---

Errr, I dont know how to break it to ya , but that ain't what you claimed .

Quote:

---

why does it fall apart? frankly no one can say categorically why voting in UK national elections has declined so dramatically, that which i positied has been mentioned as a possible reason that is no more or less credible than any other.

---

It lacks credibilty because it does not hold water.
Other european EU nations have had similar declines in turnout for national elections, so have other european non-EU nations as have other western nations.

Then trying to corelate that to EU elections is just ridiculous , some states have declined in turnout, others have increased . Some have fluctated wildly and some have remained pretty stable.
Your attempt was to try and take a huge pile of different things and link them when they cannot be linked , and what was even funnier is that you took as your prime example a case that does the opposite of what you initially claimed.
So...
What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality. :2thumbsup:

oh, your still here then.

ah yes, i said thirties not forties.

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

sorry.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It lacks credibilty because it does not hold water.
Other european EU nations have had similar declines in turnout for national elections, so have other european non-EU nations as have other western nations.

Then trying to corelate that to EU elections is just ridiculous , some states have declined in turnout, others have increased . Some have fluctated wildly and some have remained pretty stable.
Your attempt was to try and take a huge pile of different things and link them when they cannot be linked , and what was even funnier is that you took as your prime example a case that does the opposite of what you initially claimed.
So...
What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality. :2thumbsup:

---

not that i am claiming it to be the sole reason for the decline in voter turnout, i disagree that it's irrelevant however, but i invite you to come up with some more likely reasons, be >useful< to this thread you grumpy old bear................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

But it was not always so, Scotland and England are the easier example to work with. England and Scotland hatred for each other at the time could probably have only been matched by the French rivalry with England. Yet do you know what happened after Scotland and England joined together. It worked BRILLIANTLY! Scotland and England underwent an enlightenment an industrial revolution. The joining of this decent sized world power and this rather small one forged one of the biggest empires the world has ever seen. Unmatched progress in science, economic theory and a whole bunch of other things!

---

i think the success of the act of union had a lot to do with the ability to export our internal contradictions via the rise of a worldwide trading empire, at a time when it was ok to subjugate other nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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

---

Obviously, having the same plug sockets, the same currency and the same road laws while put down the great german culture, so different from the neighbouring dutch, austrian, danish or french cultures. What a shame, trully. German philosophers won't be allowed to think and write books as long as they don't abandon their german citizenship and join the ever more widespread great European Unique Citizenship (which grant them more rights). Movies won't be allowed to be labeled german movies, but rather 'Eurosoc movies from Euro-region B'. And the list goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EMFM

There is more than one way, depending how you look at it. You can say that "EU nationalism" is emerging, or is even established, and that could lead to it. You could also say that it won't work as all the European Union will cause in the long term is a resurgence in nationalist feeling and will bring the whole project down in flames. Finally, you could say that our current agreements, alliances, and NATO is enough to keep us together.
I firmly stand by the belief that it wasn't European unity that kept us from war after WWII, it was the Cold War and NATO. The EU hasn't given us peace, it has just taken credit for it.

---

That's your belief, you're entitled to it. I'm entitled to disagree with it.
Now, a few things.
A long lasting peace in Europe is something that has never be seen before. This long lasting peace saw the developement of an increasing european integration. This obviously -as you pointed out- doesn't mean that 'Peace is caused by european integration', but it sure as heck would mean that 'european integration doesn't cause war', which is the current rally cry of anti-EU people.

Quote:

---

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

---

Come on, you can do better than this. Are you actually comparing the EU to the 3rd Reich?
AFAIK, neither Hitler nor Napoleon wanted to set up an European superstate. But heh, if it makes you happy to think otherwise :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Outdated? No.
Civic nationalism. Read.

---

There's no such thing as civic or ethnic nationalism. Most nationalism is in fact a mish-mash of both ideas.
So, there we go. The theory that there would be a civic and an ethnic nationalism is kind of regarded as a bunch of outdated mumbo-jumbo since the late 80's. Read.

Mind you, you're entitled to refer to a theory that is widely considered as inherently wrong by now. I'd just like to point out that countries that claimed to promote a civic nationalism (France, the US, Greece in its very first years) were by no means more pacific or more stable than others.
So yeah, nationalism is outdated and appeals only to a few right-wing embittered people. Patriotism is a whole other topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Because it's rebuilding the conditions.

---

Such as? Sounds like a lot of irrational anti-EU tough talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EMFM

European unity takes that away, and the second your foreign policy goes your national sovereignty is gone.

---

National sovereignty never existed and never will. A country always have to plan his moves according to global economy, is rivals, his friends and so on. The idea that all internal and foreign policy political power is in the hands of a state is just plain wrong.
Right now, a lot of european countries plan their foreign policy moves altogether (though they often also disagree). Do you feel it on a day to day basis? Do you complain and feel outraged that your sacred nation is being violated everytime Sarkozy and Merkel make a speech together regarding any foreign policy issue?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Ahem.

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

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

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

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

I shall reply to Rabbit and Fragony here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I didn't click Louis's link

---

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

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

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



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

Quote:

---

whenever I do search for disgruntled manufacturers or exporters unhappy about a planned EU directive standardising their product, I often find that the majority are happy that there are Europe-wide rules, so they don't have to have legal teams and paperwork to meet 27 different national standards.

---

Yes, as pesky as they may seem, and as much as they are blamed for everything that goes wrong, removing the referee does not, in fact, benefit either the sport or the players.

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

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

olol. Sure we are reading the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

who buys black rotten banana's anyway.

---

You'd be surprised where they'd end up in without strictly enforced, proper regulation.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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

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

---

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

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

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

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

CR

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

That, frankly, is idiotic buarocracy.