Europe

[Furunculus]

It is an unfortunate fact that the average man doesn't know what is good for him, as they aren't taught or made to understand things. Simple education providing key skills such as critical thinking and how to research/come up with valid conclusions by itself will make the common man know what is good for them. If you noticed, I never biased that in any direction.

Also, it's not naive, it is rather people just being selfish. A trait from capitalism.

Also, I love how you labelled me as progressive. It is more of a compliment than an insult.

a lot of people seem to disagree with your 'benign' authoritarianism:

I'll give you the same ultimatum as I gave Amelius Paulus - you say that the average man doesn't know what is good for him. What distinguishes you from the average man?

I once thought in the same authoritarian vein. I don't anymore. As much as you hold yourself apart from the common man, eventually you will grow to realise that you are similar to him. Perhaps you are even just like him. And whatever you think, you do not know what is best for him any more than he knows what is best for you.

You have no right to dictate merely because you believe you know best. Such thinking has in the past led to mass burnings of heretics for the good of the Respublica Christiana.

If you cannot make the case for the federalised EU, that is your failing. Thus far the basic arguement is that the Euopean nations cannot work together, so they need to be forced to work together.

It's a crap arguement.

Wow. How blatant and 'out there'.

And euro's wonder why yanks are suspicious. Beskar is a young guy. That he holds such thoughts and entertains them, tells me that the USSR didn't die , it simply got smarter, to wit: quit the shoe-banging at the UN, stop the economically-draining arms race with the US... just spread the word. The word of universal harmony. Directed by people who know what's good/best for the people.

Concur, Kukri. The older I become, the more I think up new questions and the more I realize I don't have the answers. Aside from a notably shorter refraction interval, the thing I envy the most in the young is their certainty.

I'm not all that thrilled with the increasing power of our OWN central government and would prefer some reversion to the states.

Beskar and the other EU centralists want one big happy state with adminstrative districts called France, Germany etc. Can't say as I favor that for Europe either, though ultimately its up to them not to me.

If people are uninterested about politics now, why the heck will they take an interest in the maze of toss which comprises the EU. Instead of lambasting your fellow taxpayers and Britons for not knowing enough, seek a solution, if they do not know enough, help them know enough. Do not use their lack of knowledge as a weapon against them or as reason to disregard their what they firmly hold as their right to have a say. Doing anything else will merely anatgonise those people who view the EU through a mist of fear and apprehension.

you realise that is a very telling trait of those in favour of progressive/lefty politics, the fact the the average man doesn't know what is good for him, and that your solution correctly applied, and given him time, will sway him from his erroneous ways on to the true path.

this is commonly known as age-acquired-cynicism, that accrues through a lifetime of witnessing well-intentioned busy bodies in government screw things up.
it tracks a similar path to those adults who start of as left-wing firebrands and end up as stolid conservatives.

maybe there is a correlation?

[Furunculus]

just curious to see if you were keen on federalism regardless of what the majority of your comrades/compatriots might think?

Well i don't know about you but i don't base my political views on what the majority of people want...
If the majority of Brits wanted trident scrapped and the defence budget shrunk would you change your views or would you stick with your views regardless of what the majority of people think...
If we are just going to base policy on majority rules we can do away with all this politics nonsense and just have referendums on every issue...
I gotta agree with Ame and Beskar to a point. I would say it is a whole lot more due to disinterest than stupidity though, i don't consider myself a great mind i am just intrested in politics... my mere interest puts me above a sizeable chunk of the population.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with your average voter. After reading Frunculus post you would assume that quote came from a socialist (or just a lefty) think again...

i think i phrased the question very ill, let me try again. the question i was trying to ask was whether you supported the current 'policy' of advancing with ever deeper union (read: federalism) regardless of whether you asked the electorate if this is what they want, and in spite of the fact that all 'anecdotal' evidence suggests they explicitly do not?

nice churchill quote, but i not sure you should read into it that he supported authoritarian tyranny because the population is too bovine to know what is good for them!

[Furunculus]

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

JFYI - everything you need to know about the independence of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent

Independence of Operation, not independence of acquisition:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fr...nalControl.htm

"2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?

No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes,
procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was
being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such
circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?

No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons?

No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the
answer to your second question."

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../986/98607.htm

"80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

81. Sir Michael Quinlan told us that the UK's decision to choose independence of operation meant that "in the last resort, when the chips are down and we are scared, worried to the extreme, we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not".[67] He argued that the decision to fire is an independent, sovereign decision. The United States "can neither dictate that the [UK's] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor [can it] apply any veto-legal or physical-if HMG were to decide upon [its] use".[68]

82. Commodore Hare told us that "operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else". He told us that the United States does not have a "technical golden key" which can prevent the UK from using the system.[69]

83. The potential disadvantage of the UK decision to forego independence of acquisition is that "if, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in… great difficulty".[70] Commodore Hare told us that such a risk was, in reality, "very low" and that, ultimately, "one must balance that risk against the enormous cost benefits that we have in procuring an American system to house in our submarines. That should not be underestimated".[71]"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know! I mean, Martin Luther spoke against the Catholic Church and look now, we have these protestants. You have William Wilberforce, so sure of his convictions against the British Slave Trade, even when all these people were lining their pockets at the expense of captured-africans. Thanks to his dedication, it played a massive part in ending this suffering.

Please don't use stupid examples, I can pull out loads of good ones.

I used very apt examples. Luthor had the backing of his local elite, as did Huss before he was betrayed, condemned and burned. Wilberforce was an MP, it took him decades to make his case, but he did. Conviction is no bad thing, trying to ram-rod others into your way of thinking by force is a very bad thing.

That is what the Roman Catholic Church tried to do, that is was the Oligarchs of the EU are trying to do. Interestingly, both were grand plans to unify Europe and both were vehemently resisted at the grass-roots level.

[Furunculus]

that would certainly seem to be the case.

20+ years ago participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU started in the high sixities percentage wise.

after 20+ years of creeping federalism, participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU sits in the low thirties.

correlation much?

[Beskar]

a lot of people seem to disagree with your 'benign' authoritarianism:

What authoritarianism?

That is what the Roman Catholic Church tried to do, that is was the Oligarchs of the EU are trying to do. Interestingly, both were grand plans to unify Europe and both were vehemently resisted at the grass-roots level.

What forcing and ram-rodding?



Both of those are just pulled out the air and have nothing to do with what I have been saying.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What authoritarianism?



What forcing and ram-rodding?



Both of those are just pulled out the air and have nothing to do with what I have been saying.

You keep using the "people don't know what's good for them" line. You favour further integration over the reform despite the fact that it is not what the majoriety want.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Some facts:

- The entire EU has only 25.000 employees. Or, the amount of a medium sized provincial town.
- The entire EU expenditure is less than 1% of Gross European Product.
- For every Euro invested in the EU, it is estimated that, on average, a country earns six Euros.

And euro's wonder why yanks are suspicious.

the USSR didn't die , it simply got smarter,

Directed by people who know what's good/best for the people.

The 'EUSSR' celebrated ten years of relentless pursuit of internal market: free trade, harmonisation and an removal of national protectionism - some of it hidden or undeliberate.

Extra prosperity to the cumulated value of €877 billion over the last ten years has been

created. That means €5,700 per household on average.

Here's the national-communist EU experiment:
http://collections.europarchive.org/...kingdoc_en.pdf

Beskar and the other EU centralists want one big happy state with adminstrative districts called France, Germany etc. Can't say as I favor that for Europe either, though ultimately its up to them not to me.

The EU protects the sovereignity of European nations, while simultaneously reinvigorating cross-national regionalism.

That is, the best of two worlds. France and German sovereignity is protected, Strasbourg is open to both Germans and French to live and work in.
The same goes for 'Ireland'. Irish sovereignity is protected against infringment, while the isle of Ireland is open to all Irish and others.
Etcetera. Sheer, unmitigated genius.

[Furunculus]

What authoritarianism?

if you haven't figured it out from my response, and the five quotes above then attempting further enlightenment might be a tough assignment!

[LittleGrizzly]

i think i phrased the question very ill, let me try again. the question i was trying to ask was whether you supported the current 'policy' of advancing with ever deeper union (read: federalism) regardless of whether you asked the electorate if this is what they want, and in spite of the fact that all 'anecdotal' evidence suggests they explicitly do not?

nice churchill quote, but i not sure you should read into it that he supported authoritarian tyranny because the population is too bovine to know what is good for them!

Now thats a better question, my answer is probably not, If the issue was a fairly close run thing possibly but anything over 60% against then no. Though there are some thing i would try to put through as prime minister whether the majority agreed or not, who wouldn't ?

Thats the beauty of the Churchill quote... and the one from Beskar, they don't rate your average voter but neither do they support Authoritarian tyranny!

[Furunculus]

Some facts:
- The entire EU has only 25.000 employees. Or, the amount of a medium sized provincial town.
- The entire EU expenditure is less than 1% of Gross European Product.
- For every Euro invested in the EU, it is estimated that, on average, a country earns six Euros.

- too many already, and doing to much
- and that is 1% wasted in large part
- you mean investing in advanced western free-trade nations (to those on the inside) results in economic growth, how novel

The 'EUSSR' celebrated ten years of relentless pursuit of internal market: free trade, harmonisation and an removal of national protectionism - some of it hidden or undeliberate.

I'm all for it, so why does the UK want ever deeper union (read: federalism) again?

The EU protects the sovereignity of European nations, while simultaneously reinvigorating cross-national regionalism.

I thought NATO protected the sovereignty of european nations?
It's great that the EU reinvigorates cross-national regionalism, but why does the UK want ever deeper union (read: federalism) again?

That is, the best of two worlds. France and German sovereignity is protected, Strasbourg is open to both Germans and French to live and work in.
The same goes for 'Ireland'. Irish sovereignity is protected against infringment, while the isle of Ireland is open to all Irish and others.
Etcetera. Sheer, unmitigated genius.

I've always known that a major raison-d'etre* of ever deeper union was to stop nasty things like having other nations soldiers marching all over your own, but why does the UK want ever deeper union (read: federalism) again?


* please forgive my atrocious French

[Furunculus]

i think i phrased the question very ill, let me try again. the question i was trying to ask was whether you supported the current 'policy' of advancing with ever deeper union (read: federalism) regardless of whether you asked the electorate if this is what they want, and in spite of the fact that all 'anecdotal' evidence suggests they explicitly do not?

nice churchill quote, but i not sure you should read into it that he supported authoritarian tyranny because the population is too bovine to know what is good for them!

Now thats a better question, my answer is probably not, If the issue was a fairly close run thing possibly but anything over 60% against then no. Though there are some thing i would try to put through as prime minister whether the majority agreed or not, who wouldn't ?

Thats the beauty of the Churchill quote... and the one from Beskar, they don't rate your average voter but neither do they support Authoritarian tyranny!

i too support governments making the tough decisions that the herd aren't willing to make (it is the nature of any non-direct democracy), in all but one case:
when the government proposes to give the authority, that the citizens have loaned it on trust to act in their name, to a third party.
in that instance i want the government to ask the people: "hey guys, we know you expected us to rule you, but is it ok if we give that authority to some other bugger, i'm sure it will all be ok as they seem very nice?"

here's another churchill quote for you to chew on: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” and that demos-cratos, the link between the people and the power, is very important. and largely non-existant between nations because of the lack of shared values, and the perception of those shared values in others, which derive from a shared history, society and culture.

[Tribesman]

that would certainly seem to be the case.

20+ years ago participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU started in the high sixities percentage wise.

after 20+ years of creeping federalism, participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU sits in the low thirties.

correlation much?

Thats wierd , in your country voter turnout has remained around the same the euro elections and declined in the national elections.
Though 10 years ago Britain did get a one off big drop in turnout that would put them on the same level as the new eastern european countries this time round

[Furunculus]

Thats wierd , in your country voter turnout has remained around the same the euro elections and declined in the national elections.
Though 10 years ago Britain did get a one off big drop in turnout that would put them on the same level as the new eastern european countries this time round

i didn't state that it was, but maybe that reflects a perception among voters of the growing irrelevance of parliament in the face of ever greater divestitures of power to brussels?

that EU wide the proportion and enthusiasm of eu voters has declined by nearly a third is a sobering fact, the fact that within the UK it has never got much above one third is derisory.

[Tribesman]

that EU wide the proportion and enthusiasm of eu voters has declined by over 50% is a sobering fact,

You ain't very good with numbers are you

[Furunculus]

You ain't very good with numbers are you

i corrected that mistake three minutes before you post was made. is there any point to this pointless nitpicking?

[LittleGrizzly]

here's another churchill quote for you to chew on: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” and that demos-cratos, the link between the people and the power, is very important.

Well heres another thing me Beskar and Churchill can agree on, unless im reading Beskar wrong, he wants a democratic EU, I also want a democratic EU. So we all want the best form of goverment :)

largely non-existant between nations because of the lack of shared values, and the perception of those shared values in others, which derive from a shared history, society and culture.

So a democracy that hypothetically included England and Scotland as one nation would simply be unworkable because of the lack of shared values which derive from history, society and culture.

Or did the act of Union show that slight differences, such as those between the English and the Scottish, or for another example between the English and the French, aren't actually an impediment to those country's forming a democracy together ?

[Kagemusha]

Some facts:

- The entire EU has only 25.000 employees. Or, the amount of a medium sized provincial town.
- The entire EU expenditure is less than 1% of Gross European Product.
- For every Euro invested in the EU, it is estimated that, on average, a country earns six Euros.

And you believe that in the federal state these statistics would remain the same?

[Beskar]

You keep using the "people don't know what's good for them" line. You favour further integration over the reform despite the fact that it is not what the majoriety want.

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? You are just seeing what you want to see.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? You are just seeing what you want to see.

I'm not the only one who views your posts in that way.

If there is a misrepresentation I think you are responsible for that.

[Kralizec]

And you believe that in the federal state these statistics would remain the same?

Rather then debating the merits of a (as of yet hypothetical) full-blown European states, let's approach this differently.

Can you list changes "forced" on your country by the EU that have effected you personally in a bad way?
Can you think of examples that the Lisbon treaties would add to that list?

[Incongruous]

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? You are just seeing what you want to see.

You have not been reading anyone elses either...

Indeed, have you even been reading your own?

I already spoke about this, please look earlier. I recommended teaching critical thinking and how to get your own sources equipping a population with the tools to make the right choices. Also, you have to remember, talking about a Federal Europe is on a completely different time-scale, no one is saying they want it tomorrow, it simply won't work and I believe as you said, you need to deal with the backyard first.

Sounds like a mess to me, I was thinking a proper, functioning publicly funded education system. You know, where teachers can actually teach because they have more than five text books to hand out to students who would rather not be there. You are taking it too far too fast, that is clear by the fact that most Britons do not want the Lisbon treaty ratified. Regardless of how sound their reasoning is, you will gave to listen to them sooner or later, sooner by giving them the referendum, or later by watching the enture edifice crumble due to the fatal lack of democratic process.

The biggest answer would be declaring a Consitutional Republic and creating a 5-state Federal Government of Scotland, Wales, North England, South England and Northern Ireland. Before you wonder, majority of this framework is already in place, it is just that the majority are held by unelected dangos. Using the Britain "at the top" in regards to issues that effect everything, the majority of the power is at the local level, the top is merely a bridge/framework holding everything together.

No it would not....
Why on earth would being a Republic help? It would not, you would still end up having the same old tossers in power, plus you would have pissed off the large majority of the population who are pro-monarchy. The ability to use government at a more local level is possible now, its just that the idiots on top won't let it happen.

[Beskar]

I'm not the only one who views your posts in that way.

If there is a misrepresentation I think you are responsible for that.

Nope, it is the people who think supports of a Federal Europe = Authoritarian even when they are not even the same thing. I never even mentioned once for supporting the Lisbon treaty or even the current processes at work, except comments keep saying I do when I explicitly say I am not. Misrepresentation isn't a fault on my part, should I make it in size 6 lettering?

Why on earth would being a Republic help? It would not, you would still end up having the same old tossers in power, plus you would have pissed off the large majority of the population who are pro-monarchy. The ability to use government at a more local level is possible now, its just that the idiots on top won't let it happen.

It is a matter of principle and democracy. get rid of the un-democratic aspects of the system. Removing the impurities.

So now we are going from how to fix it to "the tossers on the top won't let it happen" ? These are two different arguments,

[Tribesman]

is there any point to this pointless nitpicking?

Yeah , you ain't very good with numbers and keep throwing them out even when they don't mean what you want them to mean.
So high 60s means low 60s and low 30s means low 40s

[Furunculus]

I used very apt examples. Luthor had the backing of his local elite, as did Huss before he was betrayed, condemned and burned. Wilberforce was an MP, it took him decades to make his case, but he did. Conviction is no bad thing, trying to ram-rod others into your way of thinking by force is a very bad thing.

That is what the Roman Catholic Church tried to do, that is was the Oligarchs of the EU are trying to do. Interestingly, both were grand plans to unify Europe and both were vehemently resisted at the grass-roots level.

that would certainly seem to be the case.

20+ years ago participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU started in the high sixities percentage wise.

after 20+ years of creeping federalism, participation in euro elections and enthusiasm for the EU sits in the low thirties.

correlation much?

Thats wierd , in your country voter turnout has remained around the same the euro elections and declined in the national elections.
Though 10 years ago Britain did get a one off big drop in turnout that would put them on the same level as the new eastern european countries this time round

i didn't state that it was, but maybe that reflects a perception among voters of the growing irrelevance of parliament in the face of ever greater divestitures of power to brussels?

that EU wide the proportion and enthusiasm of eu voters has declined by >>>nearly a third<<< is a sobering fact, the fact that within the UK it has never got much above one third is derisory.

You ain't very good with numbers are you

i corrected that mistake three minutes before your post was made. is there any point to this pointless nitpicking?

Yeah , you ain't very good with numbers and keep throwing them out even when they don't mean what you want them to mean.
So high 60s means low 60s and low 30s means low 40s

keep nitpicking, you're making a great contribution to this discussion.

[Furunculus]

It is a matter of principle and democracy. get rid of the un-democratic aspects of the system. Removing the impurities.

So now we are going from how to fix it to "the tossers on the top won't let it happen" ? These are two different arguments,

those undemocratic aspects are what the people of this democracy want............................. or, is that just because they don't know what's best for them?

[Beskar]

Goes against fundamental values of any true democracy. It isn't a democracy is there is a monarch/dictator/any form of authoritarian leader. So the point is not valid.

[Furunculus]

Goes against fundamental values of any true democracy. It isn't a democracy is there is a monarch/dictator/any form of authoritarian leader. So the point is not valid.

so the people get representative government when their needs meet your expectations of what is reasonable, and when they are being unereasonable they do not get that representative government.

dang those misguided proles, bring closer the glorious day when all work to the common good of the socialist paradise.

[Beskar]

What are you on about? I been speaking about direct democracy. The fundamental tenets of democracy is that everyone is equal. There are no divisions based on wealth, birth or other variables. Any elected official is merely an administrative puppet of the people, not a ruler of the people and the power remains with the people.

Or are you objecting against democracy?

Please, you are trying to make out I am authoritarian because I because in the people holding power not "those at the top" or "beaucrats" or "those of noble birth" etc. If anything, you are supporting authoritarianism by opposing policies and beliefs which are against them.

[Tribesman]

keep nitpicking, you're making a great contribution to this discussion.

Stop writing bollox then it won't be picked apart .
Your whole angle on the voting issue is so warped its laughable.
Leaving aside that your history was wrong and your numbers wrong just look at the ridiculous explanation you tried for the changes in voting trends.