Europe

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Subotan, you are forgetting something, these people are basically nationalists.

And you're an internationalist. Big deal. We see the nation as, in this case, the ideal size of a country. It's not about America at all, it's about Germany and how I want my country to go forward in the world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?

Basically, that is Klaus' offer. He will only agree to Lisbon, if the EU is willing to give up social rights for the three million expelled Germans from the Czech Republic.

(Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Friday he wanted Prague to negotiate an "exemption" from the European Union's Lisbon Treaty to avert possible property claims by Germans expelled after World War Two

As to my own answer: No! The EU is here to put a final end to nationalist animosity. The Germans have social rights, like all other peoples. Incorporating Germany into a democratic Europe, and currently incorporating East Europe into a democratic Europe is the very business of the EU.
No to the Polish, Czech, Lithuanian (and their newfound friends, the UK Conservatives) demands to do WWII all over again.


Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions. We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.
So we might as well give in to the Czech anti-EU demands too - no social rights for the three million expelled Germans.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?

I'd rather see an end to the European Union as a political organization, to prevent the long-term loss of rights and soveriegnty for every German. Ideally I would want both, especially since my family suffered because of this kind of thing, but eighty million come ahead of three million.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less)

Well, our attempts at reasonable debate are drowned beneath millions of dollars of pro-EU advertising run by our governments, so how else can we get attention?

[Incongruous]

I think he big worry now is theprospect of Tony becoming the EU prsident, who the heck wants that? Lisbon will finaly allow Europe to become more self-sufficient and yet me have a Washington Poodle (and war criminal) as our first president.

I think we should all unte in making sure old Tony don't get what 'e wants.

[Furunculus]

I think he big worry now is theprospect of Tony becoming the EU prsident, who the heck wants that? Lisbon will finaly allow Europe to become more self-sufficient and yet me have a Washington Poodle (and war criminal) as our first president.

The yanks want a strong partner in a world where their power is in decline, which is why they are all for a fully federated EU (anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot), and it is why they want Britain within that federation (so the federal state retains a character sympathetic to US needs).

If you want a strong EU that is able to punch its weight on the international scene then you NEED someone like Blair, (he is an international superstar), the usual euro-pygmies from tiddly-winks nations simply won't cut the mustard.

I supported Blairs pro-americanism, and i supported his war, which is why i don't want him in the job of EU president; it directly conflicts with my desire for the federal ambitions of the EU to remain as weak and divided as possible.

Just because I am pro-american does not mean i am willing to subvert my nation in the interests of seeing the US get a more anglophile superpower partner for the 21st century.

put a final end to nationalist animosity

As much as I agree, there are those who have the agenda to keep it there for the stupidest of reasons.

if the aim of the game was to preserve national animosity then i would be agreed; that would be stupid.

however, you idealistic internationalists can only see the down-side of national sentiment so negative words like "animosity are automatically appended to your thoughts on nationalism, whereas many nationalists merely recognise that national sentiment is merely the result of their shared history and has resulted in a particular array of expectations and objectives peculiar to that group of people, who understandably feel that their rulers must share those same aims if representative governance is to be achieved.

i don't give a damn about abortion either way, nor does britain as a whole, but ireland obviously disagrees.
i reject the pacifist neutrality of ireland, and certainly britain as a whole is closer to my view-point than ireland.
i embrace NATO and by extension the US, and Britain certainly has a more relaxed attitude to the local superpower than Finland for example, who won't even join NATO.
i accept the potential for social instability resulting from our anglo-centric free wheeling capitalism, and judging by the level of support for hard left parties in the UK i'd say britain largely agrees with me, but i hardly think france feels the same given that Louis's compatriots are permanently on strike to protect their social welfare.

Even Louis accepted the existence of national expectations and objectives, he just didn't think they are important enough to derail a more integrated europe, so why the concept of something that is blatently common sense seems so obscure to you is a mystery to me..........

[Beskar]

Just a correction, I am not an "internationalist" per se, but carry on.

Also, your 'judging by the support for the left' comment is out of place, since the majority of support for Labour is on the left (which are currently in power), however, there is just the little problem where the party swapped sides and the fanbase is like "?!!?!?! lets continue voting the same!" and the mismatch between the Labour party (its members) and the Leaders. Also other factions regarding "If we continue supporting Labour, at least they can get into power". Party politics has turned something like Football teams. Just because your team is losing, or going to wrong way, mean you automatically jump ship to another team.

It's a sad case where I know many people "on the left" actually working for the Labour party and many "on the left" which voted for them.

[Furunculus]

Also, your 'judging by the support for the left' comment is out of place, since the majority of support for Labour is on the left (which are currently in power), however, there is just the little problem where the party swapped sides and the fanbase is like "?!!?!?! lets continue voting the same!" and the mismatch between the Labour party (its members) and the Leaders. Also other factions regarding "If we continue supporting Labour, at least they can get into power". Party politics has turned something like Football teams. Just because your team is losing, or going to wrong way, mean you automatically jump ship to another team.

It's a sad case where I know many people "on the left" actually working for the Labour party and many "on the left" which voted for them.

i was really referring to the hard left, which is virtually non-existant here, but far more so on the continent.

I would've thought that last week's referendum would've reminded even the most stubbornly inward looking Englishman of the existence of the Emerald Isle...

Just a correction, I am not an "Englishman" per se, but carry on.

from the point of view of existential threats to the continued existance of the UK, i.e. by acting as a trigger point for future conflict................. NI doesn't count.

But the exception included provisions didn't it? As long as the United Kingdom kept a, b and c, in its own legal system. (or so I am led to believe) the exception was granted.

Furunculus probably knows more in that area anyway.

nope, i'm no laywer, but the very uncertainty on our legal opt-outs is hardly a cause for confidence........

[Beskar]

Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions.

That is actually incorrect. Britain just has its own version in the form of British Common Law and the EU respects that as long as the rights in the charter are covered. Issues have been taken to the European Human Rights commission and won before, which means the UK had to follow the verdict.

put a final end to nationalist animosity

As much as I agree, there are those who have the agenda to keep it there for the stupidest of reasons.

[Furunculus]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?
Basically, that is Klaus' offer. He will only agree to Lisbon, if the EU is willing to give up social rights for the three million expelled Germans from the Czech Republic.

As to my own answer: No! The EU is here to put a final end to nationalist animosity. The Germans have social rights, like all other peoples. Incorporating Germany into a democratic Europe, and currently incorporating East Europe into a democratic Europe is the very business of the EU.
No to the Polish, Czech, Lithuanian (and their newfound friends, the UK Conservatives) demands to do WWII all over again.

Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions. We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.
So we might as well give in to the Czech anti-EU demands too - no social rights for the three million expelled Germans.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less)

a wonderful example of national interest at work, pah to the internationalists.
and another example of a problem britain doesn't have, i.e. dangerous overlaps of cultural and national boundaries created by previous conflict, and a potential cause for future conflict.

WW2 again? bombing Dresden, marching through france, what a ridiculous notion that anyone should wish to do that again. might be an even bigger example of hyperbole than me branding the EU the EUSSR.

All fantastic examples of objectives and expectations shaped by the shared religious cultural and social history of the separate sovereign nations, and you wonder that these objectives and expectations are so disparate between nations?

The UK has human rights, it had them before the EU started getting its knickers in a twist over the issue, and as for democracy; my view is well known that representative democracy is best effected between a Demos and a Kratos that share the same social and cultural history, where the Demos is trusted by the Kratos not to introduce demagogues, and where the Kratos is always answerable to the Demos as a ward against tyranny.

[Louis VI the Fat]

another example of a problem britain doesn't have, i.e. dangerous overlaps of cultural and national boundaries created by previous conflict, and a potential cause for future conflict.

I would've thought that last week's referendum would've reminded even the most stubbornly inward looking Englishman of the existence of the Emerald Isle...






Beskar - Britain did secure exemption from European social rights for its working population. (Well done NuLAb! Keep those labourers and their cheeky demands in check!):

Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights feature in the new treaty?

No. There is a reference to it, making it legally binding, but the full text does not appear, even in an annex.
The UK has secured a written guarantee that the charter cannot be used by the European Court to alter British labour law, or other laws that deal with social rights. However, experts are divided on how effective this will be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm

[Beskar]

But the exception included provisions didn't it? As long as the United Kingdom kept a, b and c, in its own legal system. (or so I am led to believe) the exception was granted.

Furunculus probably knows more in that area anyway.

[gaelic cowboy]

We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.

An Irish teenage girl who is raped is by definition allowed to travel to a country where abortion is allowed if she so wishes it's the law here we had a big court case over it.

In an economic union where Interest rates are set for the majority then the only way to run your economy is through your tax system.

Our troops are over in Chad cleaning up the mess French imperialism left behind it.

This Lisbon treaty is a bore its a load of rubbish I predict at the next enlargement an new treaty will be required again.

I voted for this tissue paper treaty with its verbal opt outs which have basis in reality for one reason the C.A.P. I suspect I am the only person on the org who at the minute his daily life is impacted by it.

[Tribesman]

I voted for this tissue paper treaty with its verbal opt outs which have basis in reality for one reason the C.A.P. I suspect I am the only person on the org who at the minute his daily life is impacted by it.

No offence, but you sound like one of those chaps that were on the news at the ploughing championships. "if we don't vote yes the cheques for farming will be stopped".
So what is your big fiddle ? sheep probably, I doubt its dairy , maybe you got into the really big fiddle with horses that has now come completely unstuck.

[gaelic cowboy]

No offence, but you sound like one of those chaps that were on the news at the ploughing championships. "if we don't vote yes the cheques for farming will be stopped".
So what is your big fiddle ? sheep probably, I doubt its dairy , maybe you got into the really big fiddle with horses that has now come completely unstuck.

None taken I have never been to the ploughing Championships and I aint in IFA those guys on the telly were idiots. I believe if you dont like the EU send the cheque back since we get subventions i aint voting for anything however remote may change that.

Beef is my fiddle.

On a positive note I just watched the Bull resign earlier on and it was lovely even if he is moving to a lovely feather bed of compensation for stepping down

[Tribesman]

Beef is my fiddle.

Ah I was expecting you to be after the headage for non existant flocks scattered all over Mayo.
So any nice grants for slatted sheds lately or has the tightening of rules put a stop to that?

[Subotan]

We see the nation as, in this case, the ideal size of a country.

Despite the fact that nations range from 1,000 to over 1,000,000,000 people in size?

it's about Germany and how I want my country to go forward in the world.

I wanna see Germany go forward in the world too. I just don't see why Germany, France, Poland, UK etc. going forward in the world should mean that everyone else should go back.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Despite the fact that nations range from 1,000 to over 1,000,000,000 people in size?

It has relatively little to do with population.

I wanna see Germany go forward in the world too. I just don't see why Germany, France, Poland, UK etc. going forward in the world should mean that everyone else should go back.

Because then it won't be us going forward in the world, it will be a superstate going forward in the world instead of us. Poland, France, Germany, and the UK can all go forward - if we don't have a federal superstate.

[Subotan]

It has relatively little to do with population.

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Because then it won't be us going forward in the world, it will be a superstate going forward in the world instead of us.

It would be the collective interest of everyone in Europe going forward.

Poland, France, Germany, and the UK can all go forward - if we don't have a federal superstate.

It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

[Beskar]

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

Because it isn't change for the better, it's change for the sake of change - change for the worse!

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Not that either.

It would be the collective interest of everyone in Europe going forward.

Going forward is in everybody's interest, but how we proceed with that isn't. You're assuming that everyone has the same definition of going forward, or that it will work for every country. We've seen this in the prison thread - some things just don't work everywhere. Some don't work anywhere. A superstate is a bad move for Europe. It will be now, it will be after a hundred years of unification.

It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

[Beskar]

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

Also violence and elitism.

Because it isn't change for the better, it's change for the sake of change - change for the worse!

No, that would be having a Monarch to govern all of Europe, or even a Monarch full-stop.

[Furunculus]

It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

the greatest net effect might well be achieved, but if it isn't your aims that are being implemented, what value that forward march?

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

is it for the better.......... for Britain?

Going forward is in everybody's interest, but how we proceed with that isn't. You're assuming that everyone has the same definition of going forward, or that it will work for every country. We've seen this in the prison thread - some things just don't work everywhere. Some don't work anywhere. A superstate is a bad move for Europe. It will be now, it will be after a hundred years of unification.

^ wot he said. ^

Its some mythical entity that some mantain exsist that binds some together and seperates them from others...

what is mythical about it? i have listed plenty of individual examples, none of which have been refuted. Louis has admitted to it, although he differs on its importance. and the political governance of france and germany certainly agree given their enthusiasm to keep turkey out of the EU because it does not fit into the desired cultural make-up of the EU.

Yet you can remove many of the causes and divides and many people can be open minded.
Remove nation aspect and you don't have nations fighting for superiority with one another, as exampled in the first and second world wars.
Make people equal, promote an open culture.

Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture. Just because people over there eat curry opposed to sushi, doesn't mean have same legal/political framework is going to some how replace all the choices and lifestyles with porridge.

given that people have been arguing that the nation state is not a natural state, and in fact a relatively new entity, does that not invalidate any argument that ending nationalism will end warfare and bloodshed?

it is not a matter of good or evil, cultures survive or die, and they die because they no longer have the vibrancy to compete against the attraction of neighbouring cultures.

What would you lose? You would still have French with berets with stripy jumpers, you will still have Japanese eating sushi, you will still have Curry night on Thursdays. The whoile idea that internationalist agenda creates a bland and exact sameness everywhere is superficial. An open culture is open to all the facets of learning, experimentation and being open to others of different cultures. You can easily go to Japan and learn about the Shogunate's and that will never change, just like trying and adopting features like trying out curry. The whole openess doesn't actually remove anyway, it only adds.

i would lose a Britain that is tied to a grouping i do care about; the anglosphere.
> if we integrated politically with europe the technology sharing with the US would disappear, thus our nuclear deterrent would disappear, which would reduce the depth of our mutual political ties.
> if we integrated politically with europe the intelligence sharing with the US would disappear (and our relative intelligence advantage would disappear), which would reduce the depth of our mutual political ties.
> both of the above would also push us further away from Canada and Australia, with whom we also have mutli-lateral agreements in place with.
> the inward looking nature of the EU would also push us further away from the Commonwealth.

[Furunculus]

hannan is claiming (without sources) that the french and german government are 'encouraging' czech politicians to impeach their president, if true; hardly the act of friendly nations:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-vaclav-klaus/

[Louis VI the Fat]

hannan is claiming (without sources) that the french and german government are 'encouraging' czech politicians to impeach their president, if true; hardly the act of friendly nations:

And Hannan, a MEP, is encouring the president to obstruct the will of the Czech parliament. Hardly the act of a friendly MEP with respect for the sovereignty of the Czech republic.

[Strike For The South]

There are farm subsidies over there to?

I like to rag on the cotton farmers over here, good to know this thing is wroldwide!

[Tribesman]

There are farm subsidies over there to?

Of course, but the biggest fiddle recently (apart from subsidised fictional sheep) has been horses, everyone wanted to get on that dodge.
The result now is that lots of people are stuck with loads of horses they cannot sell (and that they cannot feed after another dismal summer wrecked the winter fodder again) .
Twice recently I have been offered very fine horses as part payment for work, (I didn't take them, but one of my cousins has ended up taking 7 already this year)