citizens of EU member states - what do you think of galileo GPS competitor?

[Furunculus]

i make the distinction that while we elect a government to act in our name, and agree to abide by and accept the consequence of those decisions, if the gov't wishes to give away the power granted to it by the by the people then it should ask our permission directly via referendum, or a general election made on that specific platform.
we give of our authority to the gov't in order that they may act in our name, not so that they may give away that authority to some unknown third party.

and the sovereign nation state produces a better result than the EU because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision making process. because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

OT - you are the second person in recent times to mistake me for a yank, why is that?

[rory_20_uk]

The government is doing its best to undermine that shared identity, placing no one way of life above another (OK, all above the English way as to support English / British would be of course deeply offensive to everyone else and we wouldn't want that, would we?).

The EU is almost totally divorced from individuals. But having said that, so is Westminster.

[Furunculus]

what i'd like to know is if the one world government types even consider my reasoning a rational basis from which to accept governance, whether they agree with it or not?

[LittleGrizzly]

and while you may think that i fear you will find few people rallying behind your call for a post-sovereign world order.

I don't think many people do want one world goverment...

because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision
making process.

I don't see what's any majorly different about ours and europeans, of course there are slight differences but you can't tell me that someone living in london has more in common with some farmer loiving right at the top of scotland than someone living in paris...

because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

Well the actions would be taken in your name regardless of you consenting or not...

what is wrong with the view that your government has betrayed you if it gives away the cratos which the demos bestowed upon it to an unrelated third party without seeking the consent of the people?

The people knew the goverment were pro eu and still they won all the seats if alot of people were that worried then surely they would show it with thier vote...

they are not all the same by any stretch of the imagination, and how is it logically possible for you to have more clout if you are veered away from your desired position by an enforced consensus dictat?!?!?

Imagine Liverpool withdrew from britian. Because Liverpools foriegn and domestic policy is now decided by only 100,000 people these people have much more say in thier goverments actions, but much less clout. Imagine if you will a goverment does something bad and various rich western goverments are threatening sanctions... and then comes the threat from liverpool... not much clout at all....

you already admitted you can't by wishing we were governed by the EU foriegn policy so that we could not invade iraq.

Well the main reason alot of mp's supported it was because of the drummed up threat Blair and various others created, they wouldn't have been able (or less likely) to get away with this in a european parlimentand thus the european parliment would have done what the majority of the public wanted...

how can you possible argue against devolution

Welsh parliment... huge waste of money, wales cannot stand on its own as an independent state so we have just elected a whole big new batch of politicians who can do a little bit of tinkering here and there but nothing major as an independent wales is unworkable for the forseeable future...

and for a centralising state

I want less goverment. I don't mind various levels of goverment to a point, you could for example in a one world goverment have 3 levels of goverment. Firstly local council, bin services and the like. Secondly 'state' goverments these have a certain amount of control to set regional policy. Lastly the world goverment, which undertakes things like major disaster relief, research research and more research, into every kind of medicene/surgery and new ways to extract energy and every ever thing which can advance the human race.

But in terms of goverment budgets, with a one world goverment it would be alot easier to lower the budget, no need for much of a military or missles (i suppose maybe keep a little) no need for immigration. Could have a tax system that the rich can't simply dodge, they will have to pay thier share like everyone else. In lots of other ways i personally would cut things of the budget but this is advantadges to one world goverment

what i'd like to know is if the one world government types even consider my reasoning a rational basis from which to accept governance

I don't agree on your shared values point, i think your wrong on it, but i guess i can see the viewpoint. If for example we were thinking of merging with a nation of cannibals.. i would be think thier way of life is just too different...

[Furunculus]

and while you may think that i fear you will find few people rallying behind your call for a post-sovereign world order.

1. I don't think many people do want one world goverment...

because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision
making process.

2. I don't see what's any majorly different about ours and europeans, of course there are slight differences but you can't tell me that someone living in london has more in common with some farmer loiving right at the top of scotland than someone living in paris...

because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

3. Well the actions would be taken in your name regardless of you consenting or not...

what is wrong with the view that your government has betrayed you if it gives away the cratos which the demos bestowed upon it to an unrelated third party without seeking the consent of the people?

4. The people knew the goverment were pro eu and still they won all the seats if alot of people were that worried then surely they would show it with thier vote...

they are not all the same by any stretch of the imagination, and how is it logically possible for you to have more clout if you are veered away from your desired position by an enforced consensus dictat?!?!?

5. Imagine Liverpool withdrew from britian. Because Liverpools foriegn and domestic policy is now decided by only 100,000 people these people have much more say in thier goverments actions, but much less clout. Imagine if you will a goverment does something bad and various rich western goverments are threatening sanctions... and then comes the threat from liverpool... not much clout at all....

you already admitted you can't by wishing we were governed by the EU foriegn policy so that we could not invade iraq.

6. Well the main reason alot of mp's supported it was because of the drummed up threat Blair and various others created, they wouldn't have been able (or less likely) to get away with this in a european parlimentand thus the european parliment would have done what the majority of the public wanted...

how can you possible argue against devolution

7. Welsh parliment... huge waste of money, wales cannot stand on its own as an independent state so we have just elected a whole big new batch of politicians who can do a little bit of tinkering here and there but nothing major as an independent wales is unworkable for the forseeable future...

and for a centralising state

8. I want less goverment. I don't mind various levels of goverment to a point, you could for example in a one world goverment have 3 levels of goverment. Firstly local council, bin services and the like. Secondly 'state' goverments these have a certain amount of control to set regional policy. Lastly the world goverment, which undertakes things like major disaster relief, research research and more research, into every kind of medicene/surgery and new ways to extract energy and every ever thing which can advance the human race.

9. But in terms of goverment budgets, with a one world goverment it would be alot easier to lower the budget, no need for much of a military or missles (i suppose maybe keep a little) no need for immigration. Could have a tax system that the rich can't simply dodge, they will have to pay thier share like everyone else. In lots of other ways i personally would cut things of the budget but this is advantadges to one world goverment

what i'd like to know is if the one world government types even consider my reasoning a rational basis from which to accept governance

10. I don't agree on your shared values point, i think your wrong on it, but i guess i can see the viewpoint. If for example we were thinking of merging with a nation of cannibals.. i would be think thier way of life is just too different...

1. that was only by way of introduction to the idea that most people would indeed demand that those who govern them have a strong cultural link to those they govern.

2. see one, same point

3. but do I ,as one example of many within civil society, accept those decisions, i.e. is there civil acceptance or civil unrest?

4. we have never been sold the idea of political integration with europe, we have never even been offered it as an option, there has been no 'other' choice at a general election even if we were explicitly asked, and there has never been a referendum or general election fought on the issue.

5. you make the grand mistake or confusing britain for belgium, we are the worlds 5th biggest economy with the worlds 2nd largest military spending. that is plenty of clout without diluting it immeasurably in the collective bargaining of the EU. lose more than win, in short.

6. but i want to be governed by what a british government decides, not europe, and britain opted for war. as i said earlier, i expect a gov't to make the difficult decisions that the herd will not; cake or death?

7. i don't believe wales would make a viable country either, but that is not what we are talking about.
on the other hand i am all in favour of devolving every power that does not need to be made centrally, but i totally agree that regional gov't, (which is what the WAG and holyrood is), is a total waste of time. the one good thing WAG did do was de-quango'ise wales which is an awesome plan to emulate throughout britain.

8. i too want less government, but any government above nation state will always suffer from a democratic deficit, and if the gov't doesn't respect the needs of the people it will lead to tryranny, likewise if the people don't respect the mandate of the gov't then it will lead to insurrection.

9. you seem very concerned about rich people dodging taxes, why is that? you do realise that we exist in a generally progressive tax system, and that if you want people to pay tax due then the best way to achieve that is a simple tax system, rather than complaining when rich people move to another jurisdiction along with their wealth generating innovation.
you also have a marvelous amount of faith in the ability of central gov't to act efficiently which i simply do not share.

10. that at least is reassuring
and will the cannibals consent to be ruled by your world government?

[LittleGrizzly]

1. that was only by way of introduction to the idea that most people would indeed demand that those who govern them have a strong cultural link to those they govern.

2. see one, same point

But there is more than one culture in britian, hell travel from souh wales to north wales and you'll notice the difference. the shared values i see us having are things like democracy and social welfare which we share in common with europe anyway....

4. we have never been sold the idea of political integration with europe, we have never even been offered it as an option, there has been no 'other' choice at a general election even if we were explicitly asked, and there has never been a referendum or general election fought on the issue.

Same with Iraq, but politicians are paid to make the tough decisions...

5. you make the grand mistake or confusing britain for belgium, we are the worlds 5th biggest economy with the worlds 2nd largest military spending. that is plenty of clout without diluting it immeasurably.

Im happy to sacrifice a portion of my say for greater clout, my argument was we would have more collective power but less which you seem to agree with... i think we are starting to argue semantics rather than an issue now...

i expect a gov't to make the difficult decisions that the herd will not

Like further EU integration!!

7. i don't believe wales would make a viable country either, but that is not what we are talking about.

Well you brought up devolution... which is the whole reason we have WAG, did you mean it in some other less waseful form ?

on the other hand i am all in favour of devolving every power that does not need to be made centrally

I can agree to this point, just because i espouse a one world government doesn't mean i wish every single little choice for the planet to be made in one place, the central control would be more for grand things lie space exploration and lots of research into various things like i mentioned earlier... and then things like law and order* to ensure a fair standard is maintained...

*to a certain extent

gotta dash ill get to the others when im back..









you also have a marvelous amount of faith in the ability of central gov't to act efficiently which i simply do not share.

The best way i can put it is... would the usa have got to the moon first if it had been a 50 seperate nations instead*

*to clarify would any of the seperate "countries" alone made it to the moon first...

[Furunculus]

that was only by way of introduction to the idea that most people would indeed demand that those who govern them have a strong cultural link to those they govern.

1. But there is more than one culture in britian, hell travel from souh wales to north wales and you'll notice the difference. the shared values i see us having are things like democracy and social welfare which we share in common with europe anyway....

we have never been sold the idea of political integration with europe, we have never even been offered it as an option, there has been no 'other' choice at a general election even if we were explicitly asked, and there has never been a referendum or general election fought on the issue.

2. Same with Iraq, but politicians are paid to make the tough decisions...

you make the grand mistake or confusing britain for belgium, we are the worlds 5th biggest economy with the worlds 2nd largest military spending. that is plenty of clout without diluting it immeasurably.

3. Im happy to sacrifice a portion of my say for greater clout, my argument was [not that] (?)we would have more collective power but less which you seem to agree with... i think we are starting to argue semantics rather than an issue now...

i expect a gov't to make the difficult decisions that the herd will not

4. Like further EU integration!!

7. i don't believe wales would make a viable country either, but that is not what we are talking about.

5. Well you brought up devolution... which is the whole reason we have WAG, did you mean it in some other less waseful form ?

on the other hand i am all in favour of devolving every power that does not need to be made centrally

6. I can agree to this point, just because i espouse a one world government doesn't mean i wish every single little choice for the planet to be made in one place, the central control would be more for grand things lie space exploration and lots of research into various things like i mentioned earlier... and then things like law and order* to ensure a fair standard is maintained...
*to a certain extent
you also have a marvelous amount of faith in the ability of central gov't to act efficiently which i simply do not share.

7. The best way i can put it is... would the usa have got to the moon first if it had been a 50 seperate nations instead*
*to clarify would any of the seperate "countries" alone made it to the moon first...

1. we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, but i'd love to see a public poll on that one. it is not necessarily about what is logical, but what people feel is acceptable. that is a different matter.

2. i refer you to post #63:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=63

i make the distinction that while we elect a government to act in our name, and agree to abide by and accept the consequence of those decisions, if the gov't wishes to give away the power granted to it by the by the people then it should ask our permission directly via referendum, or a general election made on that specific platform.
we give of our authority to the gov't in order that they may act in our name, not so that they may give away that authority to some unknown third party.

and the sovereign nation state produces a better result than the EU because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision making process. because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

3. we would have less clout in the world were we part of federal europe because our differing opinion would be drowned out among the need for a consensus opinion, whereby we are only 60m voices in 350m rather one of five UNSC votes.

4. i refer you to post #63:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=63

i make the distinction that while we elect a government to act in our name, and agree to abide by and accept the consequence of those decisions, if the gov't wishes to give away the power granted to it by the by the people then it should ask our permission directly via referendum, or a general election made on that specific platform.
we give of our authority to the gov't in order that they may act in our name, not so that they may give away that authority to some unknown third party.

and the sovereign nation state produces a better result than the EU because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision making process. because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

5. by devolution i mean the devolving of powers generally, not the welsh/scottish woody with rediscovering their current self.

6. no argument there, see above.

7. but america is one nation composed of one culture (amercian), one language (english). there is no democratic deficit because people move to america with the explicit intention of becoming american and taking part in the future of a 300 year old revolutionary immigrant nation. that cannot be said of the EU's current attempt to artificially homogenize 30 different countries, with 29 different languages, 28 distict cultural histories, 4 wildly different prevailing political philosphies, 3 different structures of basic law, two different extremes on the acceptance of social justice, two different extremes of the idea of freedom of speach/liberty, and one almighty sense of their own individual place in history resulting from the last millenia of evolution of the modern nation state!