Euro Area

[Furunculus]

As for me, the one thing I hate more than an international court protecting my rights against my government, it is no protection against my government.

Here's an idea: let the UK government uphold the rights of Britons, then it does not face international meddling.

If the government infringes upon your rights, you have one instance of appeal. At the ECHR. Me I'd let my government strip me of this right over my dead body. Just why others would not only not do that, but actively urge their government to strip them of their right of appeal is beyond me. Churchill must turning in his grave, what with the current UK parliament voting to strip Britons of the right of appeal he ensured for them. To think Churchill and his generation fought so hard for it.

Or, alternatively, we can sort it out ourselves through the complex and sophisticated political institutions that we have evolved over nearly 1500 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Witenagemot > Curia Regis > Parliament of England > Parliament of GB > Parliament of the UK of GB and Ireland
c. 627-1066 > 1066-c. 1215 > c. 1215-1707 > 1707-1800 > 1801-1927

using a system of common law that has evolved to meet the expectations of the people over nearly 1000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#History
"The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. "

[InsaneApache]

However, Britain's financial discipline record is comparable to that of Ireland or Spain. One of the highest budget deficits.

Hang on a minute. When I and others here on these boards pointed out that McRuin had mortgaged our grandkids future and borrowed and spent beyond reason, you were the one that said it wasn't so.

You can't have it both ways.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hang on a minute. When I and others here on these boards pointed out that McRuin had mortgaged our grandkids future and borrowed and spent beyond reason, you were the one that said it wasn't so.

You can't have it both ways.

Get out of this thread I nearly managed to get away with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or, alternatively, we can sort it out ourselves through the complex and sophisticated political institutions that we have evolved over nearly 1500 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Witenagemot > Curia Regis > Parliament of England > Parliament of GB > Parliament of the UK of GB and Ireland
c. 627-1066 > 1066-c. 1215 > c. 1215-1707 > 1707-1800 > 1801-1927

using a system of common law that has evolved to meet the expectations of the people over nearly 1000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#History
"The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. "

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.

[Furunculus]

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.

none of which does to answer why we should not repose trust in our democratically accountable and representatively legitimate political institutions to answer these conundrums of governance for us.....?

Aye we have our royals but they haven't been able to do a thing on thier own since the 1600's, the power's all in the house of commons which is close enough.

i think he knows this very well, and is engaging in what is colloquially known as a cheeky jibe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Actually, I believe the Isle of Man has the title of "oldest Democracy" at over one thousand years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynwald

In any case, I said "regional powers in Europe" which does not actually include Iceland or Switzerland, or Mann.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.[/QUOTE]

Oh well done, the British people are collectively learning impaired.

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

[Furunculus]

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

quite, but he rather ignored that point when i made it, so i don't expect anything other than silence this time either.

"fine if you want to define european in a geographical sense, less fine if in a political sense."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ignore it?


Everything I have written I've done so under the assumption that we are all talking about Europe in a cultural-political sense.


Europe as a geographical concept is meaningless to me, and I fully discard it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ignore it?


Everything I have written I've done so under the assumption that we are all talking about Europe in a cultural-political sense.


Europe as a geographical concept is meaningless to me, and I fully discard it.

So you just impose your cultural norms on us?

Isn't that genocide?

[Furunculus]

Ignore it?


Everything I have written I've done so under the assumption that we are all talking about Europe in a cultural-political sense.


Europe as a geographical concept is meaningless to me, and I fully discard it.

in that case you are wrong, as made clear by PVC:

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ignore it?


Everything I have written I've done so under the assumption that we are all talking about Europe in a cultural-political sense.


Europe as a geographical concept is meaningless to me, and I fully discard it.

The difference is between the promolugation of a "European identity" and acceptence that the various peoples of Europe share a history, they are not the same thing.

I realy hate it when people say this and I wouldn't normally say this but this justifiies it: No just... no. Mass murder is not cultural repression.

"Genocide" is not mass murder, it is the destruction of a culture, genocide against the Native American involved destroying the way of life, not the people.

[Furunculus]

An interesting quote from the economist:

Every euro-zone finance minister should be forced to explain the whitewash “stress tests” that gave even Dexia a clean bill of health earlier this year.

http://www.economist.com/node/21531467

[Furunculus]

on the subject of lack of recognised expertise on the global economy, i found this from eighteen months ago:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053231412

The euro, as presently constructed is at fault, having a monetary union without a fiscal union is quite frankly retarded.

Having a fiscal union only works if your collective peopleS will accept a transfer union, to prevent imbalances tearing your 'single' economy apart.

Anyone fancy asking a hard working german how keen they will be to bail out portugal before christmas, having already bailed out ireland and greece?

Seems pretty on the money! ;)

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.

Strictly speaking I wouldnt count UK as a real democracy either I mean ye still have the monarchy

By contrast France and Ireland are older.

France 1958 fifth republic

Ireland 1948 first republic

UK no republic

[Greyblades]

Aye we have our royals but they haven't been able to do a thing on thier own since the 1600's, the power's all in the house of commons which is close enough.