Europe

[Adrian II]

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

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

[Fragony]

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

why?

why is political integration necessary?

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

[Fragony]

why?

why is political integration necessary?

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

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

[Adrian II]

why?

why is political integration necessary?

I just told you.

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

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

What challenge, the only challenge is what eurocrats have set out for theirselves.

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

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

[Furunculus]

I just told you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Adrian II]

[..] that backbone is found in self-confident sovereign nation states, who if they are sensible work together when beneficial to achieve a common end.

That sounds just right for 1909, not for 2009.

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

[Furunculus]

That sounds just right for 1909, not for 2009.

why?

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

we have the second largest official defence budget

we have the joint fifth largest economy

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

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


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

[Tribesman]

we have the second largest official defence budget

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

we have the joint fifth largest economy

You have the 2nd largest external debt

[Fragony]

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

Because this world is unforgiving, my friends.

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

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

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

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

Can you answer this question, Furunculus?

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

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

[Furunculus]

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


Can you answer this question, Furunculus?
Why did the Conservative leadership itself only four years ago (rightly) call the Polish nationalists unappealing ragbag, only to get in bed with them now?
Don't just call TGA an idiot - show us why he is an idiot for raising this question.

we have transnational institutions to assist in transnational matters, there is no need for supra-national governance in any way for the global economy to function, and there is no desire for it either unless you are one of those people that gets sticky pants over the ideas of world government touted by sci-fi authors.

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

[Adrian II]

we have transnational institutions to assist in transnational matters, there is no need for supra-national governance in any way [..]

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

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

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

And how is the EU going to approach that, as in being more then just a trading block, as a political entity? EU can only react with economic sanctions so why would it have to be anything more then a trading block?

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

there's that fear again.

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

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

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

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

[Incongruous]

I just told you.

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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