Europe

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

What if the leader is a paternalistic/maternalistic leader chosen by the country's legislature, and rules by the consent and endorsement of the people.

That is, after all, the constitutional position.

[Incongruous]

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,

The impurities? Are you serious?

You clearly havn't been reading what I wrote, very carefully. What you proposed was an erroneous replacement of the head of state and some half-baked poorly thought out idea of federation. Your idea of fixing it is bollox and I believe connected to your belief that the Lisbon treaty will help solve fundamental issues. You are changeing the decoration and glueing on glitter. I believe that improvemnt is possible within the current parliamentary system, but the problem is that we have no leaders, only politicians. Republican politicians would change nothing.

Any ratification of the Lisbon treaty (without a referendum) will doom pro-EU campaigners to be associated with anti-democratic tendencies, which will be seen as inherent within the EU.

In Britain, you will be seen to be allies of a dead Labour govt. and its wish to push through unwanted legislation before it finally falls. The pro-EU camp in Britain, would become far more unpopular than before. Regardess of how right you are, you would ruin yourselves.

The best thing to do, is nothing, at least in terms of further EU intergration. The UK is a mess, no one will believe that joining together with countries which are also messy, will make things better. It won't matter whether that assertion is right or not, it will be made.

[Beskar]

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?

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?

Your idea of fixing it is bollox and I believe connected to your belief that the Lisbon treaty will help solve fundamental issues. You are changeing the decoration and glueing on glitter. I believe that improvemnt is possible within the current parliamentary system, but the problem is that we have no leaders, only politicians. Republican politicians would change nothing.

I do not want to repeat myself again. I already stated you are completely misrepresenting my views and I said explicitly I do not think much of the Lisbon treaty, except you just ignore that and state I have a belief in it.

Concept of Federal Europe =/= Lisbon Treaty.

There are other strawmans too, apparently holding an opinion means you want to put guns to peoples head. Then the idea of a larger community some how equals authoritarianism when I am strongly opposed to it. When I even say that authoritarian is bad, along with other concepts such as monarchy, I am now apparently the "bad one" again for speaking against authoritarianism by the same people who were saying I was an evil authoratarian.

Really, cut the nonsense out.

[seireikhaan]

Holy moley, there's some "energetic" discussion on this.

Question(s) for UK Euro skeptics- How "free" is the UK right now? With each passing election, how much has the domestic situation for individuals improved? Has the more local, elected gov't not banned Geert Wilders, amongst others, from entering the country? Has the local, elected gov't not authorized unwarranted computer hacking? Has the local, elected gov't not not put up a camera network over society itself? Would a European gov't be more authoritarian and secretive because it would be someone ruling from Paris or Brussels instead of the current splendid lot?

Question(s) for EU federalists- What's really the ultimate goal of all this? What is the objective of further expansion of the EU? What would be provided by a Euro super state that the current states cannot already provide, given their currently is already near total freedom of trade and movement?

[Beskar]

Question(s) for EU federalists- What's really the ultimate goal of all this? What is the objective of further expansion of the EU? What would be provided by a Euro super state that the current states cannot already provide, given their currently is already near total freedom of trade and movement?

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?

[LittleGrizzly]

Question(s) for EU federalists- What's really the ultimate goal of all this? What is the objective of further expansion of the EU? What would be provided by a Euro super state that the current states cannot already provide, given their currently is already near total freedom of trade and movement?

The best parts of it lie in our ability to influence the world, and in turn be less influenced by it (this could be a negative thing in some aspects but a few of the worlds rising powers are far less democratic and human rights concerned than EU states, so mostly a positive.) For example if China was heavily invested in a small eastern European state they may be much more positive to whatever China proposes even if its wrong and against public opinion, whereas this state as part of a bigger European state would have the power to match whatever negative effect China could try to put on it, so China wouldn't bother trying.

Or for an exsisting example check out the Eastern European country's that joined the Iraq war, many did so out of American pressure rather than a willingness to do so, i remember hearing that some didn't even let the public know they were supporting the war...

Another good example would be Russia, i heard differing arguments as to why they cut the gas supply (it may have been for good reason) but if they were to try such a thing with an EU state, they would be sorry. Russians seem pretty pragmatic so i don't think they would even try to mess with such an entity...
And outside of the foriegn policy advantages

Of course as Beskar mentioned as one political union we could work together far more effectively, we can also invest in the eastern european states which have a lot of potential and reap the rewards as they reach western European levels...

And to concentrate on something other than foriegn policy, our own space program, I think the EU has a space program (nothing much) but it would be far easier to organise one more at the American level if we were together as one country. As it is, any money which goes towards an EU space program would be probably be classed as money the EU wastes by the sceptics...

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?

Yes, we will force democracy and human rights on them through persuasion, diplomacy and with an economic carrot and stick. Far more effectively than a bunch of individual nations who have various disagreements or who are bribed into cooperation by larger powers can. We can the larger power bribing and cajouling people into doing the right thing.

China invidually can ride roughshod over some over the poorer EU states (probably some of the bigger ones to, or at least soon) would you want them able to bribe support the same way America was able to do over Iraq, not in my backyard!

[Beskar]

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?

The opposite. Band together to prevent the other inflicting its will on it. If Europe does become the true democratic state as well, it will influence others int he world to adopt the same/similar as the people will want it.

[seireikhaan]

The opposite. Band together to prevent the other inflicting its will on it. If Europe does become the true democratic state as well, it will influence others int he world to adopt the same/similar as the people will want it.

That is quite faulty. A united Europe will not cease conflict, no more than a united Spain, or Britain, or Germany, or Soviet Union did. It merely changes whom the combatants will be. When Spain was united, it looked beyond its borders. When Britain was united, it looked beyond its borders. When Germany was united, it looked beyond its borders. When the USSR was united, it looked beyond its borders. When America finally hit the Pacific solidly, it looked beyond its borders.

All which can cease conflicts is mutually assured destruction.

[Beskar]

It will get to a point that everything is under one-power. Best to make sure it is as democratic as possible.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't think you can really make that assertion, if you look at fairly modern history things have become more seperated, British empire, Yugoslavia ect.

Outside of the EU and maybe China extending its control over Taiwan and Hong Kong...

Edit: On the other hand things like globalisation, cheap air travel and the internet is making the world a much smaller place. I don't think you can assert so surely that things are going to be all under one power, i think you could call it quite likely though...

[Beskar]

I am not implying it is any time soon, but it will most likely happen eventually. By the current rate of things, it is developing in a way against the interests of the people as a whole.

[Furunculus]

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.

what history was wrong?
what numbers were wrong? (are we still pushing the defence figures Tribesman?)
what is wrong with my posited explanation with voting trends?

[Tribesman]

what history was wrong?
what numbers were wrong? (are we still pushing the defence figures Tribesman?)

No not still on about the 2nd means 4th figures , this is about the history of the votes and the invented figures and trends you used.

what is wrong with my posited explanation with voting trends?

It starts to fall apart with even the briefest examination , then when you really look it becomes obvious that the explanation is nothing but bollox.

This ....

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.

...really sums it up as an overall explanation of your approach to a wide range of issues.

[Furunculus]

No not still on about the 2nd means 4th figures ,

this is about the history of the votes and the invented figures and trends you used.

It starts to fall apart with even the briefest examination , then when you really look it becomes obvious that the explanation is nothing but bollox.

This (louis quote i believe) really sums it up as an overall explanation of your approach to a wide range of issues.

good, because you were wrong.

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

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. why is it incredible that voters lose interest in their politicians as a direct relationship to the trend of politicians goving away the powers that let them affect the lives of their electorate?

that is what you believe, and i don't hold many flattering opinions about you opinions either................ so what?

[Furunculus]

It will get to a point that everything is under one-power. Best to make sure it is as democratic as possible.

ah, so the justification is that because science fictions world government is inevitable, best we get started quick so we have Ian M Banks benign utopia rather than David Wingroves authoritarian dystopia?

[Furunculus]

Holy moley, there's some "energetic" discussion on this.

Question(s) for UK Euro skeptics- How "free" is the UK right now? With each passing election, how much has the domestic situation for individuals improved? Has the more local, elected gov't not banned Geert Wilders, amongst others, from entering the country? Has the local, elected gov't not authorized unwarranted computer hacking? Has the local, elected gov't not not put up a camera network over society itself?

Would a European gov't be more authoritarian and secretive because it would be someone ruling from Paris or Brussels instead of the current splendid lot?

the answer is that a non-federated britain is gradually making itself less free, minute by minute.
all the above are correct and reprehensible, though many are symptoms of a centralising government that cares more for collective welfare rather than individual liberty. most importantly, they are mistakes made within my family that i feel i can make a difference against.

yes. in my opinion this is an inevitable result of moving the cratos further away from the demos, and severing the link that allows both groups the trust the other.
an electorate that watches its masters enact policy that is inimical to the will of the people will grow resentful and contemptuous, especially when they are so far removed from the centre of power, and such a small function of that power, that they see themselves powerless to change things via the democratic process.
a ruling class that enacts policy over a multitude of differnt social and cultural electorate groups must know that it cannot please everyone, (and will in fact please no-one in its compromises) will learn to harden themselves against voter opinion, especially when there is no local link that allows them to empathise with 'their' electorate, and the electorate is so massive and fractured that their can never be effective opposition to individual acts.
it is not that these problems do not occur in national government, merely that they will be greatly magnified on a federal level if we take as disparate a group as the electorates of the 27 eu nations.

[Beskar]

the answer is that a non-federated britain is gradually making itself less free, minute by minute.
all the above are correct and reprehensible, though many are symptoms of a centralising government that cares more for collective welfare rather than individual liberty. most importantly, they are mistakes made within my family that i feel i can make a difference against.

yes. in my opinion this is an inevitable result of moving the cratos further away from the demos, and severing the link that allows both groups the trust the other.
an electorate that watches its masters enact policy that is inimical to the will of the people will grow resentful and contemptuous, especially when they are so far removed from the centre of power, and such a small function of that power, that they see themselves powerless to change things via the democratic process.
a ruling class that enacts policy over a multitude of differnt social and cultural electorate groups must know that it cannot please everyone, (and will in fact please no-one in its compromises) will learn to harden themselves against voter opinion, especially when there is no local link that allows them to empathise with 'their' electorate, and the electorate is so massive and fractured that their can never be effective opposition to individual acts.
it is not that these problems do not occur in national government, merely that they will be greatly magnified on a federal level if we take as disparate a group as the electorates of the 27 eu nations.

The whole idea of a federal system is that there are power on different levels and that power isn't centralised. You touch on other issues which is basically the failure of the representative democracy system hence, the best way forward is to continue to evolve opposed to just "sitting still" as voter apathy and disillusionment grows as the people don't have the power to make the changes that need to be done, especially with those "representing us" are merely representing just themselves. This would only increase if the same flaws are taken to a greater level, in a sense, in would just turn into the US system with countries (Britain, French, Germany) having state rights (California, Texas, Florida) with a powerful centralised federal body.

However, the drawbacks and failures of a representitive system are completely separate from the drawbacks or idea of a Europe unity. The problem is only there or possibly remain there if things that are the issue don't change.

The curse of a Constitutional Monarchy like there is in Britain, is that we are supporting a bunch of people on a completely different class who are just born into power, regardless of who they are. This is against the ethos and spirit of equality which is the advancement of the political power. The problem is with this hybrid system, is that it really proposes doing what needs to be done because people hate change, especially the older generation. You heard examples of people who comment "In my youth, I was radical, now I simply don't care" the thing is, this is made to sound like change and wanting change is a bad aspect, in fact, wanting change is the best aspect, the willingness to constantly change, improve, get better, it is the underlying principle in science and technological advancement. You have the older generation still wondering "What is with these damn computers?" while now they are absolutely everywhere.


Just on another note, comparing community like a family in a way, is a very bad idea, mainly because of family roles such as mother and father, really complicate matters opposed to a bunch of equally entitled and individual members working together.

[Beskar]

ah, so the justification is that because science fictions world government is inevitable, best we get started quick so we have Ian M Banks benign utopia rather than David Wingroves authoritarian dystopia?

Just saying "science fiction" just makes your point invalid as it means you do not know your history or what history is being made. It isn't Europe that is coming together, there is also things such as NAFTA which will eventually be taking a similar route. Did you even know they wrote a new American constitution in the 1970's? It wasn't put into place, but you could probably find it laying about.

[Furunculus]

1. the best way forward is to continue to evolve opposed to just "sitting still" as voter apathy and disillusionment grows as the people don't have the power to make the changes that need to be done, especially with those "representing us" are merely representing just themselves.

2. The curse of a Constitutional Monarchy like there is in Britain, is that we are supporting a bunch of people on a completely different class who are just born into power, regardless of who they are. This is against the ethos and spirit of equality which is the advancement of the political power. The problem is with this hybrid system, is that it really proposes doing what needs to be done because people hate change, especially the older generation. You heard examples of people who comment "In my youth, I was radical, now I simply don't care" the thing is, this is made to sound like change and wanting change is a bad aspect, in fact, wanting change is the best aspect, the willingness to constantly change, improve, get better, it is the underlying principle in science and technological advancement. You have the older generation still wondering "What is with these damn computers?" while now they are absolutely everywhere.

3. Just on another note, comparing community like a family in a way, is a very bad idea, mainly because of family roles such as mother and father, really complicate matters opposed to a bunch of equally entitled and individual members working together.

1. agreed, one of the joys of an umwritten constitution is that the UK is able to adapt very quickly, however I believe that evolving in the direction of a federal europe would be a retrograde step.

2. i don't agree, it may seem daft to you but i recognise that it works and works as well or better than any other system, most importantly it is perceived to work by the majority in this country, even if that majority does include conservative old people. this country is their too, indeed more theirs than ours.

3. yes its a flawed analogy, but it works for me in the sense that i am trying to convey the concept of trust being given to those who you know, and know to hold views that you believe will lead to acceptable decisions which may later impact on yourself, and that you know this because of a shared history.

[Furunculus]

Just saying "science fiction" just makes your point invalid as it means you do not know your history or what history is being made.

It isn't Europe that is coming together, there is also things such as NAFTA which will eventually be taking a similar route.

Did you even know they wrote a new American constitution in the 1970's? It wasn't put into place, but you could probably find it laying about.

you might think so.

last time i checked NAFTA wasn't a political confederation, it was a free-trade bloc. sounds great.

why do you mention this, is it because you think i am against change? i'm not against change, i am against foolish change.

[Beskar]

last time i checked NAFTA wasn't a political confederation, it was a free-trade bloc. sounds great.

So was Europe at first, how did that turn out?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So was Europe at first, how did that turn out?

Authoritarian and undemocratic. Europe was always meant to be a federal project, that has been admitted a few times by the French and Germans. At the same time, integration has always proceeded at a fairly even pace.

This is largely because Eurocrats see federalism as both desireable and inevitable. It is not necessarily either.

[Furunculus]

So was Europe at first, how did that turn out?

i don't think that NAFTA arose from the ashes of WW2 as a project chiefly architected to prevent WW3 by its two biggest cheer leaders (the guilty conscience and unwilling host), via the method of ever deeper union.

so i'm not really sure where you are going with this?
i don't believe that free-trade blocs like NAFTA are bad.
i don't believe regional forums like ASEAN are bad.
i don't believe collective defense pacts like NATO are bad.

i do think that Britain, on balance, will be worse off within in a federal europe.
i do think that governance in Britain will become less representative in a federal europe.

[Kagemusha]

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

So basically you are promoting European Nationalism to replace nationalism of individual countries.

[Furunculus]

Merkel in Washington yesterday:
"The Europeans have grown closer together," she said. Often, she went on, Europeans are considered to be somewhat complicated, but that is a misconception. "We have understood that we need to speak with a single voice. We are 500 million people and that is a weight that cannot be ignored."

We have, certainly grown closer together, isn't it nice.
I am not aware that "we" understand that we need to speak with a single voice.
500m people cannot be ignored, ah, there is that fear again.

[rory_20_uk]

What voice was that?

We can't even agree on one language - the farce of the parliament with something like 5 core languages and then translators to translate these into all the little ones...
To be fair, the most strident voice has been generalised dissatisfaction against the EU whenever it has been allowed to be voiced (although to be fair the politicians have ensured that this is as infrequent as possible and like true lawyers they try to only ask questions when they know the answer).

[Furunculus]

the economists view on the new right-wing anti-federalist party:
http://www.economist.com/world/brita...ry_id=13919296

Eurochums

Jun 25th 2009 | BRUSSELS
From The Economist print edition
The Tories’ new allies are a motley crew

NOT fascists, but not obvious soul mates either: that is a fair summary of the politicians invited on June 22nd to join Britain’s Conservatives in a new grouping in the European Parliament. Most are nationalists or social conservatives whose views hardly chime with the moderate messages pushed by David Cameron at home. How did this happen?

Mr Cameron promised, during his campaign to become Tory leader, to leave the main centre-right grouping, the European People’s Party (EPP), and found a new one committed to free trade and opposition to a federal Europe. In these cynical times, it is tempting to cheer him merely for keeping his word.

The new “European Conservatives and Reformists Group” consists of 56 MEPs from nine countries, 26 of them British Conservatives. Tories say that staying in the EPP was inconsistent with campaigning at home to defend British sovereignty. They have a point: the EPP is dominated by federalists. They are also right that no grouping is entirely wholesome. The socialist group, in which Britain’s Labour Party sits, heaves with ex-communists from the east. The EPP, for its part, is home to post-fascists from Italy.

The Tories point out that their key allies, Law and Justice in Poland (with 15 MEPs) and the Czech Civic Democrats (with nine), were until recently parties of government. They scoff, with reason, at suggestions that Mr Cameron would be ostracised by EPP stalwarts such as Nicolas Sarkozy of France or Angela Merkel of Germany were he to become prime minister. And perhaps their more exotic allies were forced on the Tories by rules that require at least 25 MEPs from seven countries to form a parliamentary group entitled to extra funding and access to senior parliamentary posts.

But critics also have a point. The Tories did not control who sat with them in the EPP; in founding a new group, they invite closer scrutiny of their allies. That scrutiny reveals a muddled picture. Mr Cameron has managed to avoid the extreme right, but he has broken with large mainstream parties.

In Poland, the governing centre-right party is the Civic Platform. To the far right sit fringe politicians with openly anti-Semitic views. Mr Cameron’s allies are in the middle, with wrong-headed opinions on gays and capital punishment. In Belgium, the Christian Democrats belong to the EPP. Mr Cameron has nothing to do with the anti-immigrant parties on the far right, but his allies are from the Lijst Dedecker, a populist outfit that wants independence for Dutch-speaking Flanders. In the Netherlands too, the largest party, the Christian Democrats, is in the EPP. Mr Cameron has eschewed the anti-Islamist Geert Wilders but his partners are from the tiny Christian Union, which favours government guided by biblical commandments. And the Tories’ sole Latvian chum is a mild-mannered economist, a wing of whose party annually honours Latvians who fought with the Waffen SS against Soviet forces.

Mr Cameron’s real problem is structural. Europe makes even centrist voters cross in Britain, yet centrists on the continent are overwhelmingly pro-EU. So to find allies who share their Euroscepticism, Tories have to seek out populists and angry nationalists. Mr Cameron’s new band of allies may be a symptom of Britain’s strained relationship with Europe rather than a solution to it.

[Beskar]

So basically you are promoting European Nationalism to replace nationalism of individual countries.

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

Won't work without strenuous social engineering (which invarriable fails itself). It is human nature to identify with a group, in the UK we have a plethora of national and regional groups. 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.

What you are proposing is a "Grand Plan" with a "Great objective", such has never been achieved without suffering and bloodshed. Just leave people alone, let them live in their own countries, raise children (or sheep if you're Welsh), grow old and die happy.