Europe

[LittleGrizzly]

if only Grizz would develop a taste in football

[Furunculus]

1. I agree with you, Furunculus! But then your fellow Briton Grizzly does not and I do. Which means that you are wrong. So I can't agree with you.
But if I disagree with you, it means that you are right, so I can't disagree either.
Which means that we have a paradox to trump Zeno.

2. Anyway, never mind the bollox. Not everything Furunculus writes is nonsense.

3. I can instantly tell when I am in Britain, or when I am in Sicily. One does not need to have a perfect, all-encompassing definition of national identity to claim that there is one. More important, is that national identities are seen for what they are. They are not monolithic, they are rather new, they are constructs, they are not exclusive, etcetera.
Europe is made up of many different identities, of which nationhood is only one. For example, Scotland is Calvinistic, together with the Netherlands and Geneva. France is Catholic, together with Belgium and Poland and Ireland. Catholic Ireland is Celtic, like much of calvinist Scotland and episcopalian Wales and Cornwall and catholic Brittany. Belgium shares a language with Calvinist Netherlands and Geneva and with Catholic France. And so on.

4. Nobody has 'Briton' as his sole identity. Every person has countless identities. 'British, Welsh, Londoner, Man Utd, protestant, Swedish father, aristocrat, gay, student, big city, ad infinitum'.

5. I must repeat Grizzly's statement: I really do have more in common with LG than with a 'Catholic, peasant, small-town, pensioner, pied-noir, reactionary, rugby-hating, etcetera'. Put me in a bar with him and Grizzly, and, if only Grizz would develop a taste in football, I'd rather spend my evening with the Grizz than with the Frenchman with whom I have absolutely nothing in common.

6. I do not want to abolish the national states. I want policy made at the level where it is most effective. That means some things must be done locally. Others at the state level. And others at the supra-national level.
For the supra-national level, I do not expect much from intensive co-operation with Syria and Burma. I do think co-operation with the UK, Spain, Hungary is viable. So let's do at this level (the EU) what is done most effectively at the supra-national level.

7. I know you love defense. I want defense done at the state level where it concerns national interests. I want defense done at the supra-national level where it concerns mutual and intertwined safety. I want to be in an intense alliance with other nations that share the most basic values. NATO suits me just fine in this regard. As with the EU, NATO doesn't undermine sovereignity, it protects it.
Lastly, I want to co-operate with all peaceful democracies across the globe. But since it is obvious that Japan has less security risks in common with France than Italy and the UK do, a closer pan-Atlantic alliance makes more sense.

8. I don't care for the bollox about Europe. I just want effictivity of policy making. Sticking with the defense theme, let Norway train polar troops, and Denmark build a navy, and Germany tanks. And then use these communally. This is more efficient than each trying to do all three itself. Yes, each one gives up the sovereign power of defending himself in all aspects. However, such is the beauty of the system, by giving up this full sovereignity, in the end their sovereignity is protected not only more efficiently, but more effectively.

1. I'm delighted to hear you agree, you always did appear to be a sensible fellow. But don't worry about the paradox, there is none. If you define national 'themes' in terms of individuals as LG did then you will always be able to strike ridiculous and absurd contrasts. This is about 'peoples' as you both know and recognise. :)

2. Thanks

3. "One does not need to have a perfect, all-encompassing definition of national identity to claim that there is one." It is also impossible to fully define for exactly the reasons you give above, national 'themes' derive from a veritable soup of ideas and norms that reach far beyond simple ideas of national identity.

4. Absolutely agreed, you said it perfectly in #3. When i talk of national 'themes' both you and i recognise that we are talking about a complex hodgepodge which is composed of wildly different components from nation to nation depending on what various peoples hold to be important.

5. On an individual level any point on the spectrum of similarity-difference is achievable, but you agree that we are not referring to individuals when you talk in #3 of 'recognising' a culture upon entering it. LG may be surprised to learn I am with him completely on disliking footbag.

6. I agee with the sentiment entirely, it would appear that our disagreement over the EU is one of degrees rather than something fundamental. I am no statist, I would like all suitable power devolved to the lowest appropriate local level. I absolutely agree with the idea of working collaboratively at a supra-national level, where it is appropriate. I love trade agreements, I love free trade, I love geo-political summits where consensus on international matters can be hammered out. I simply feel that a federal EU attempts to take on responsibilities that will alienate itself from the national electorates by dint of those differences we both recognise above. Will British people deem it just for a British subject to be extradited and tried in a country that does does recognise habeus corpus? If the EU treats British citizens differently because of habeus corpus will that cause justifiable resentment in those countries that wish to try British people they suspect of being criminals because it is difficult to bring them to 'justice'? Should Britain be forced to reform its financial sector in a way that will make it less internationally competitive just because some europeans believe that in their view we are not acting as responsible world citizens with our free-wheeling capitalistic ways? Should France tolerate financial practices within the Euro-zone that will lead to instability causing social and economic hurt just because Britain wants to make a faster buck?

7. I agree with everything you say, except that a federal europe does not hurt national sovereignty. I want collective defence, I want co-operation and harmony from sensible consensus decision making, most importantly in our european backyard, but to a lesser degree throughout the world. I just don't see a federal europe as being necessary to achieve this.

8. As said earlier our disagreement is one of degrees, your sense of the level at which governance is appropriate to bring about the best outcome is different from mine, hence my rejection of a federal europe. You agree that there are these national 'themes' which affect how peoples perceive governance and define what they want from governance, but you clearly think it a less important factor than myself as you believe the nation-state level for governance is less efficient than one with more supra-national guidance. Thus is our divide on the role of europe defined, by a matter of degrees on a sliding scale of where governance is most appropriately applied.

[Furunculus]

On that note this xenophobic and nationalistic racist with militaristic and autarkic tendancies, is going to spend the next nine days chopping wood on the farm of his polish girlfriend.

Whilst he is doing this he will no doubt be building a hatred towards all foriegners, and planning to revive the empire so that fine upstanding whitey englishmen can properly supervise the peasant-like johnny-foreigner once again.

When I get back I expect to find either scintillating debate on how ECRG has collapsed, or deathly silence indicating that its motoring on quite successfully in obscurity.

Have fun.

[Tribesman]

When I get back I expect to find either scintillating debate on how ECRG has collapsed, or deathly silence indicating that its motoring on quite successfully in obscurity.

It started collapsing as soon as it was formed. Fnland was a great start but now the Polish lot is going in favour of policies that are completey at odds with the stated aims of the group. It really says a lot when the chosen leader of the group is pushing in the opposite direction to the group.
Thats the problem with the lunatic fringe , they tend to come away at the seams very easily.

[Idaho]

The group are united in nothing but their own small self interest. Doomed as a doomed thing.

Not that any euro politician deserves more than a lynching.

[Tribesman]

Not that any euro politician deserves more than a lynching.

Hold on be fair.....

Not that any politician deserves more than a lynching.

[LittleGrizzly]

Typical Imperialist, off to a less developed country to pluder thier natural resources and make use of the locals

I don't hugely disagree with anything either of you (frunc and louis) there is a lot of common ground across Europe but then there are differences across the place to, you can somewhat feel the differences place to place even just in the people but then I don't think the differences are that much bigger across europe than they are across individual countrys...

Glad we could come to some kind of middle ground!

Ohh and I do like football, the reference was to my support of Man Utd whereas Louis supports some unimportant French team

[rvg]

E.U. needs someone to unify it. Someone like George W. Bush. Unknowingly, that man did more to unify the E.U. than any European politician.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think he did a lot for the Euro cause in Britian, I think some Brits generally see the UK as having 2 choices. 1) follow America 2) follow/lead/work with Europe.

I think 1) was the dominant philosphy for Britians until Bush's time, not that 2) is now dominant just 1) doesn't seem to have its lead anymore..

For now both 1 and 2 are unpopular...

This is based on my opinion of viewing events over the last few years rather than any statistics... so i could be wrong...

[Vladimir]

I think he did a lot for the Euro cause in Britian, I think some Brits generally see the UK as having 2 choices. 1) follow America 2) follow/lead/work with Europe.

I think 1) was the dominant philosphy for Britians until Bush's time, not that 2) is now dominant just 1) doesn't seem to have its lead anymore..

For now both 1 and 2 are unpopular...

This is based on my opinion of viewing events over the last few years rather than any statistics... so i could be wrong...

No, you are not wrong. This is the backroom. Everyone else is wrong.

[gaelic cowboy]

On the subject of the perceived purity of the EUropean political blocks:
Proinsias De Rossa MEP (Ireland)

Born Francis Ross, Proinsias De Rossa is PES MEP for the Dublin constituency and former member of the IRA. De Rossa was interned by the Irish government in the late 1950s for his involvement in the IRA’s border campaign – a campaign which caused the deaths of six British policemen.

While this is correct in the facts of his early career it is incorrret to state this is still De Rossa's pollitical motivation today.

He was interned as a member of the repulican movement at the time.

After the split between Official Sinn Fein and Provisonal Sinn Fein he took the Official side.

Official Sinn Fein then became the Workers Party which would have been a republican socialist movement calling for soviet still policies etc

A member of the Workers Party he eventually left to found a party called Democratic Left. This was due to tension between so called reformers and old style hardliners in the party.

Democratic Left later joined with the Labour Party.

De Rossa is essentially someone who had is own views evolve over the years to more centre left style politics from hard left socialism.

Far be it from me to defend him he is after all a member of the Labour Party which I dislike as a party but dont paint the poor man as some kind of terrorist when a simple wikipedia search could give a simple bio of the man.

Having said all this I feel that we need more Euro conservative groupings in order to create a more representative parliment just like our own societies at large.

[Furunculus]

The group are united in nothing but their own small self interest. Doomed as a doomed thing.

how nice, you guys reached the magic 400 post mark without me, congrats.

their shared platform is:

1. Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity.
2. Freedom of the individual, more personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability.
3. Sustainable, clean energy supply with an emphasis on energy security.
4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.
5. The sovereign integrity of the nation state, opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity.
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures.
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."

seems pretty good to me................

:)

[Furunculus]

While this is correct in the facts of his early career it is incorrret to state this is still De Rossa's pollitical motivation today.

He was interned as a member of the repulican movement at the time.

After the split between Official Sinn Fein and Provisonal Sinn Fein he took the Official side.

Official Sinn Fein then became the Workers Party which would have been a republican socialist movement calling for soviet still policies etc

A member of the Workers Party he eventually left to found a party called Democratic Left. This was due to tension between so called reformers and old style hardliners in the party.

Democratic Left later joined with the Labour Party.

De Rossa is essentially someone who had is own views evolve over the years to more centre left style politics from hard left socialism.

Far be it from me to defend him he is after all a member of the Labour Party which I dislike as a party but dont paint the poor man as some kind of terrorist when a simple wikipedia search could give a simple bio of the man.

Having said all this I feel that we need more Euro conservative groupings in order to create a more representative parliment just like our own societies at large.

fair enough, cheers.

sounds a similar case to people getting excited about latvian MP's.

[Furunculus]

It started collapsing as soon as it was formed. Fnland was a great start but now the Polish lot is going in favour of policies that are completey at odds with the stated aims of the group. It really says a lot when the chosen leader of the group is pushing in the opposite direction to the group.
Thats the problem with the lunatic fringe , they tend to come away at the seams very easily.

............................. and still not collapsed yet. gee, imagine that.

[Furunculus]

Typical Imperialist, off to a less developed country to pluder thier natural resources and make use of the locals

I don't hugely disagree with anything either of you (frunc and louis) there is a lot of common ground across Europe but then there are differences across the place to, you can somewhat feel the differences place to place even just in the people but then I don't think the differences are that much bigger across europe than they are across individual countrys...

Glad we could come to some kind of middle ground!

Ohh and I do like football, the reference was to my support of Man Utd whereas Louis supports some unimportant French team

quite the opposite, i was un unpaid menial labourer of which i will give proof in the frontroom later on.

on a related note, having spent two days in southern poland and witnessing the divided society resulting from 500+ years of continental border carve-ups i have the following observations:

1. The EU is a very good thing, as so many border peoples of continental nations like poland are defined by their opposition to their neighbours, a divisive stand than is not conducive to harmony.

2. People realise this and thus the enthusiasm for the EU, i can even sympathise with the view of some that more EU (read: federation) = better chance for peace and harmony. This is not a popular view in poland, and i disagree with it anyway, but i can at least sympathise with it having seen the stark cultural divisions in the country surrounding and including Opolle.

3. This is still irrelevant to the UK. not the EU bit, for what the EU has been is fine, merely the federal future, as there simply doesn't exist the same tension.

[Louis VI the Fat]

1. The EU is a very good thing, as so many border peoples of continental nations [..] are defined by their opposition to their neighbours, a divisive stand than is not conducive to harmony.

2.

3. This is still irrelevant to the UK.

Ah, so you've seen 'continental border peoples' firsthand. Did you spot any other game while there? The Big Five perhaps? Was there good bird-spotting?


Or, to put it differently, maybe I should discuss Britain, not the EU. Because I think you have some fantastical, non-existing Britain in your head. On which illusion you base your allergy to the EU. An illusory Britain. A monolitic, militaristic, colonising, massive world power at the heart of a globe-spanning Anglo-Empire.

May I be so bold as to stay with the safari theme and wonder if maybe during your youth in Malawi you developed these ideas? Read too much Cecil Rhodes perhaps? Stuck in a place where it is '1900' forever, with dreams of colony, Empire, queen Victoria?


The Empire is gone, mate. Your Britain does not exist. It is also commonly accepted among many Britons nowadays that the Europeans are closely related to the British. And may, in fact, be a member of the same species.

For example, the British Isles are full of border peoples. Just like in the rest of Europe. As a matter of fact, the UK is still emerging from a rather brutal civil war that lasted roughly until last decade. There is devolution everywhere. Frustration towards the SouthEast. Regional identities are on the rise.
There is Protestant vs Catholic, Celtic vs Anglo, Scotland vs England, the Irish question. These have been some of the 'divise stands not conducive to harmony' that have plagued your Isles for, oh let's say, the last one thousand years.
So 'irrelevant to the UK?' No, it is as relevant to Britain as it is elsewhere in Europe. Britain is not an island, it is full of divisions, and differs not from the rest of our continent in this regard.

[Tribesman]

May I be so bold as to stay with the safari theme and wonder if maybe during your youth in Malawi you developed these ideas? Read too much Cecil Rhodes perhaps? Stuck in a place where it is '1900' forever, with dreams of colony, Empire, queen Victoria?

Don't be so silly Louis, it would have to be pre 1900 because at that time a bunch of uppity Dutch farmers were making the mighty empire look pretty pathetic.

[Furunculus]

Don't be so silly Louis, it would have to be pre 1900 because at that time a bunch of uppity Dutch farmers were making the mighty empire look pretty pathetic.

^ valueless trolling non-contribution ^

[Tribesman]

^ valueless trolling non-contribution ^

Attacking your views is not valueless or trolling , your views of the mythical Britain exist only in your head .

[Furunculus]

1. The EU is a very good thing, as so many border peoples of continental nations like poland are defined by their opposition to their neighbours, a divisive stand than is not conducive to harmony.

2. People realise this and thus the enthusiasm for the EU, i can even sympathise with the view of some that more EU (read: federation) = better chance for peace and harmony. This is not a popular view in poland, and i disagree with it anyway, but i can at least sympathise with it having seen the stark cultural divisions in the country surrounding and including Opolle.

3. This is still irrelevant to the UK. not the EU bit, for what the EU has been is fine, merely the federal future, as there simply doesn't exist the same tension.

1. Ah, so you've seen 'continental border peoples' firsthand. Did you spot any other game while there? The Big Five perhaps? Was there good bird-spotting?

2. Or, to put it differently, maybe I should discuss Britain, not the EU. Because I think you have some fantastical, non-existing Britain in your head. On which illusion you base your allergy to the EU. An illusory Britain. A monolitic, militaristic, colonising, massive world power at the heart of a globe-spanning Anglo-Empire.

3. May I be so bold as to stay with the safari theme and wonder if maybe during your youth in Malawi you developed these ideas? Read too much Cecil Rhodes perhaps? Stuck in a place where it is '1900' forever, with dreams of colony, Empire, queen Victoria?

4. The Empire is gone, mate. Your Britain does not exist. It is also commonly accepted among many Britons nowadays that the Europeans are closely related to the British. And may, in fact, be a member of the same species.

5. For example, the British Isles are full of border peoples. Just like in the rest of Europe. As a matter of fact, the UK is still emerging from a rather brutal civil war that lasted roughly until last decade. There is devolution everywhere. Frustration towards the SouthEast. Regional identities are on the rise.
There is Protestant vs Catholic, Celtic vs Anglo, Scotland vs England, the Irish question. These have been some of the 'divise stands not conducive to harmony' that have plagued your Isles for, oh let's say, the last one thousand years.
So 'irrelevant to the UK?' No, it is as relevant to Britain as it is elsewhere in Europe. Britain is not an island, it is full of divisions, and differs not from the rest of our continent in this regard.

1. The big five?

2. Louis, i gave a very reasoned response to your previous post before i left on holiday, quite where you have this idea of me i do not know.

3. No my time in africa led me to appreciate that living under tyranny is a bad thing, and that if you want to really help africa then give africans the skills to manage the own affairs and access to our markets rather than heaping gift-aid toys upon them whilst keeping them locked in their own little economic cage.

4. I know this Louis, and i don't regret it. I also appreciate that you too are a human being, just like the rest of johnny foreigner, after all i am going out with one, however, as discussed with you in my previous response i believe that for britain the nation state remains the most advantageous pinnacle of governance.

5. There is devolution everywhere, hey i hadn't noticed, and you are obviously oblivious to the fact that i am a fan of de-centralisation. How does a federal EU improve this situation for the UK? The relevance to the border 'peoples' of continental europe is that hopefully the festering sores of the 20th century resulting from bloody conquest being repeatedly thrust upon them will hopefully not be revisited in the 21st century, something that has been refreshingly absent from the UK for some hundreds of years.

[Louis VI the Fat]

1. The big five?

Oooh! Now you dissapoint me, you silly colonial, Cecil Rhodes is turning in his grave! The 'Big Five': Lion, Leopard, Rhinoceros, Buffalo, Elephant. (I think it was...)

I picked up on that back when I dated one of you colonials deep in the heart of Africa. So funny, a bit of retro-Britain in the heart of the dark continent. Tea at four, cricket in the afternoon, and a stiff upper lip maintained throughout, no matter what hardship was thrown at them by the harsh climate, the natives, or pesky me.


After re-reading my previous post, I think that my wording left a lot to be desired. Ligh-hearted irony was the intention, not harsh sarcasm. Sorry.

In Eastern Europe, division along etnic/religious/linguistic/historical lines is more pronounced than in the western part. This, I think, you got a taste of in Poland. Within in the west, I really do not think there is all that much difference between sectarianism in the British Isles or in Belgium, Spain or elsewhere. Whether the EU is a solution to many ancient plagues of Europe is a matter of debate. I myself, of course, think it is.
What is more seldomly argued however, is that sectarianism is 'irrelevant' to the British Isles or Britain itself. It can be witnessed from the Old Firm down to the twentienth century history of the Emerald Isle.

[Furunculus]

Oooh! Now you dissapoint me, you silly colonial, Cecil Rhodes is turning in his grave! The 'Big Five': Lion, Leopard, Rhinoceros, Buffalo, Elephant. (I think it was...)

I picked up on that back when I dated one of you colonials deep in the heart of Africa. So funny, a bit of retro-Britain in the heart of the dark continent. Tea at four, cricket in the afternoon, and a stiff upper lip maintained throughout, no matter what hardship was thrown at them by the harsh climate, the natives, or pesky me.

After re-reading my previous post, I think that my wording left a lot to be desired. Light-hearted irony was the intention, not harsh sarcasm. Sorry.

In Eastern Europe, division along etnic/religious/linguistic/historical lines is more pronounced than in the western part. This, I think, you got a taste of in Poland. Within in the west, I really do not think there is all that much difference between sectarianism in the British Isles or in Belgium, Spain or elsewhere. Whether the EU is a solution to many ancient plagues of Europe is a matter of debate. I myself, of course, think it is.
What is more seldomly argued however, is that sectarianism is 'irrelevant' to the British Isles or Britain itself. It can be witnessed from the Old Firm down to the twentienth century history of the Emerald Isle.

Ah, my hunting experience is exclusively British & Polish, my bad.

The bit of Malawi where i lived was specifically designed to replicate a 1920's public school, which was more than a little odd to the hippy generation of teachers that worked there in the 80's. However, it was far from being a piece of little-england-in-spain expat mentality, rather it was a place of intense learning that turned kids who'd never seen a toilet into the future generation of of educated and professional administrators. When we arrived the school was taught by a faculty that 95% white english, today it is 95% black Malawian. That is REAL development success created by my father of which he is rightly proud. A bit OT i know, but since you brought it up my african past i thought i should enlighten you.

NP.

I accept the point about NI, but it is the exception rather than the rule.
More importantly, much of the discord i have witnessed in places like Poland results from war between nations, which is precisely why bonding transnational institutions like the EU are such a good idea, and why a federal EU may have more appeal, however this has historically not been a problem for Britain, so there is less of an impetus for ever-deeper-union.

[Tribesman]

What it is to be British....

"Firebombing is not a British method. A brick through the window is a British method, but firebombing is not a way of showing displeasure,"

....
wierd eh , but that crowd are big on defence of the soveriegn realm and values of a shared culture created by 1000 years of history.

[Furunculus]

que?

[Tribesman]

que?

Oh sorry , its just quoting some British politician in the news today.
A politician who is from a party who has strange views of Britian which are not too different from your own ...it does demonstrate that you are not alone in your mythical approach to what Britain is ...rather similar views to Europe too.

[Furunculus]

don't beat about the bush tribesman, who, where, when, and preferably a link so i can have a look for myself before i respond to your cryptic comments.............

[Tribesman]

Pat Richardson from the land of the east saxons

[Furunculus]

explain yourself tribesman:

how am i similar to a BNP candidate?
exactly what views do we explicitly share on what britain is and how it came to be?
are you insinuating that i am racist?

[Beskar]

I think he was saying you shared the same mythical views about Britain that the BNP try to generate.

Britain pretty much has two choices. Stick with Europe or become a State of America. Being honest, I prefer the first option.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Britain pretty much has two choices. Stick with Europe or become a State of America. Being honest, I prefer the first option.

Sorry, but it doesn't. People aren't even considering the possibility of trying to fix their own problems and become powerful for themselves again. You don't need a lot of land to be powerful, even if it helps. But you can stay powerful and free. You do not have to join America or Europe.

That being said, if push came to shove, I'd take America. If Europe ever unifies into a single country, that is where I'm going.