Euro Area

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is what Furunculus has been saying for years, Andres, Husar feels closer to his own politicians than poor Cypriots. It's the fundamental problem with the EU and why it doesn't work - people don't see it as a pan-European political issue, they see it as a pet project of the elite, and it's not like people voted for the Euro - it's just that all the big parties supported the Euro.

[Andres]

This is what Furunculus has been saying for years, Andres, Husar feels closer to his own politicians than poor Cypriots. It's the fundamental problem with the EU and why it doesn't work - people don't see it as a pan-European political issue, they see it as a pet project of the elite, and it's not like people voted for the Euro - it's just that all the big parties supported the Euro.

@Furunculus is, just like everyone else who shares my viewpoints and agrees with me, clearly a genius. He should be put at the head of the Eurozone and the EU and lead us to glory.

[Sarmatian]

This is what Furunculus has been saying for years, Andres, Husar feels closer to his own politicians than poor Cypriots. It's the fundamental problem with the EU and why it doesn't work - people don't see it as a pan-European political issue, they see it as a pet project of the elite, and it's not like people voted for the Euro - it's just that all the big parties supported the Euro.

Furunculus is under a childish belief that what is now has always been. He deems himself British by nationality, which is already kind of supra-national identity as he really is English, which may or may not be forced onto him after the Scottish referendum, also ignoring that Great Britain came into existence a few centuries ago. Prior to that, the the Saxon and Norman melting pot created the English nation, which also didn't exist.

He's clinging to the status quo which may well prove to be extremely short, history-wise.

[InsaneApache]

Prior to that, the the Saxon and Norman melting pot created the English nation

Not true.

[Greyblades]

Furunculus is under a childish belief that what is now has always been. He deems himself British by nationality, which is already kind of supra-national identity as he really is English, which may or may not be forced onto him after the Scottish referendum, also ignoring that Great Britain came into existence a few centuries ago. Prior to that, the the Saxon and Norman melting pot created the English nation, which also didn't exist.

He's clinging to the status quo which may well prove to be extremely short, history-wise.

What does any of that have to do with anything?

[Sarmatian]

What does any of that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with everything.

EU is criticized, most vocally on these boards by Furunculus, because it is a supra-national organization. In lay terms, it won't work because a guy from Marseille doesn't care for a guy from Krakow, and a guy from Ljubljana doesn't care for a guy from Copenhagen, you get the concept. On the other hand, in a nation state, supposedly, people do care about each other, so a guy from London cares about a guy from Edinburgh.

And, it's bollox, naturally, for two reasons

1) Nation state exists for a very small amount of time in human history. The concept of nation state isn't the same in all countries. The concept of nation itself isn't the same everywhere and at all times. British nationality, which I used, exists for a relatively short time, and may cease to exist when/if Scotland declares independence. Since Great Britain was created by the Act of the Union between Scotland and England, if Scotland secedes, there will be no British nationality in that sense, we're back to English and Scots, as citizens of two nation states that haven't existed for three centuries. There are numerous examples like that, another being Yugoslavia where up to a certain point number of people who declared as Yugoslavians was on a significant rise only to drop to just a few in later years. In the space of a decade or two, a few million people changed their position on their nationality. So, not only the idea of what nation state is that change over time, the core components of that nation may change their idea as well.

2) Second reason is purely selfish - I do agree that a guy from Marseille doesn't care for a guy from Krakow, but I also think that when **** hits the fan, a guy from London doesn't care any more for a guy from Edinburgh. It's all fine and dandy when it's all fine and dandy, but if the guy from London had to choose between seriously tightening his belt or telling the guy from Edinburgh to fend for himself, I'm certain that he would tell him to **** off. For example, since the crisis, there has been a steady increase in general indifference to Kosovo situation in Serbia, which is now at a point where I'm pretty sure there wouldn't even be mass protests if Serbia recognized Kosovo. People are focusing on their own problems, they worry about paying back their loans and keeping their jobs. Yeah, sure, Kosovo is very nice, it's important and all, but they can't eat it, if push comes to shove. Likewise, it is quite natural and normal when people are tightening their belts are crying murder if they feel that someone else is taking an additional dime from them. It happens in the nation state and in supra-national state. There are other examples as well, like Italy and Spain.


Once we are past this, we can focus on the real problems of the EU.

[Greyblades]

Yeah cool that you can parrot your preferred ideology but I could not give a fig, what has your strawman character assassination diatribe of Furunculus earlier have to do with anything.

[Sarmatian]

This is what Furunculus has been saying for years,

@Furunculus is, just like everyone else who shares my viewpoints and agrees with me, clearly a genius. He should be put at the head of the Eurozone and the EU and lead us to glory.

Yeah cool that you can parrot your preferred ideology but I could not give a fig, what has your strawman character assassination diatribe of Furunculus earlier have to do with anything.

Que?

Strawman? Character assassination?

I was quite clearly disagreeing with his position, not attacking him. The only reason he's mentioned by name is because he's been arguing that case more frequently than anyone else and was mentioned in that capacity by at least two posters, and only after that did I mention why I disagreed with his opinion on the issue. Maybe you haven't read most of the thread, I know it's quite long, but that has been the most prominent point of friction throughout it.

I don't really see a problem here, but whatever strikes your fancy...

[Greyblades]

Que?

Strawman? Character assassination?

I was quite clearly disagreeing with his position, not attacking him. The only reason he's mentioned by name is because he's been arguing that case more frequently than anyone else and was mentioned in that capacity by at least two posters, and only after that did I mention why I disagreed with his opinion on the issue. Maybe you haven't read most of the thread, I know it's quite long, but that has been the most prominent point of friction throughout it.

I don't really see a problem here, but whatever strikes your fancy...

Ah crud.
"Slight" overreaction on my part but I found the bit you said about British/english/anglo saxon yada-yada irrelevent and coming from nowhere, your second post seemed to ignore that and I got annoyed, and annoyed means irrational apparantly.
You know that feeling when you just realised you said something wrong? It sucks.

[Furunculus]

EU is criticized, most vocally on these boards by Furunculus, because it is a supra-national organization. In lay terms, it won't work because a guy from Marseille doesn't care for a guy from Krakow, and a guy from Ljubljana doesn't care for a guy from Copenhagen, you get the concept. On the other hand, in a nation state, supposedly, people do care about each other, so a guy from London cares about a guy from Edinburgh.

I do agree that a guy from Marseille doesn't care for a guy from Krakow, but I also think that when **** hits the fan, a guy from London doesn't care any more for a guy from Edinburgh.

Not a bad summation, more or less exactly what is said four years ago.

More vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2269201

it always comes back to the question of; why does britain need to do this? and i at least never hear a convincing answer.

my skepticism about how democratic a federal EU will be is informed by the base concept of what democracy is:

which is to say that you and I consent to be governed by the british government because the shared values, culture, and history will 'ensure' that those elected to govern in your name will do so in a manner that you can live with.
you elect a local politician based on his knowledge of your communities needs, and the assumption that because he is local he will fight to see those needs met.
your local politician then works with other broadly similar (read: british) politicians to govern the nation, which as Churchill agreed is the least bad form of governance yet devised.

it is a matter of trust, you don't lightly let convicted thieves operate tills in your shop, you don't let unvetted strangers run your kids play-group.

i don't have that confidence that the brussels collective will legislate/govern/arbitrate/negotiate in a manner that i am willing to be bound by, and lots of other people share that view too. and its not just brits, Louis would be horrified were it occur that les anglo-saxons had turned corsica into a tax-haven where french hedge fund managers could squirrel away money that should be spent on the hard working french citizen! i am dismayed that germany cuts energy deals with russia that result in pipelines going around former eastern-bloc countries and thus making them susceptible to extortion. finland doesn't like our closeness with america and refuses to join NATO. Norway sees the benefit of NATO but not much advantage in the political end of the EU. germany wouldn't trust an italian or a greek to be within a square mile of german economic policy.

every nation forms its collective values from their own shared history and culture, and none of that is bad in and of itself, but people get riled when views they do not hold to be of value are forced upon them by 'outsiders'. "it's one thing for my mother to tell me i drink too much, but who the hell does my milkman think he is to say such a thing!"

the natural answer to this lack of legitimacy is an increase in authoritarianism, as the only way to govern those who hold no loyalty to the governors. aka tryanny.

so when there is no need for britain to join a federated europe, and the only result is less representative government................ why do it?

Regarding the relative good will to edinburgh vs krakow, well we are about to find out in less than eighteen months.............. Watch this space!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Furunculus is under a childish belief that what is now has always been. He deems himself British by nationality, which is already kind of supra-national identity as he really is English, which may or may not be forced onto him after the Scottish referendum, also ignoring that Great Britain came into existence a few centuries ago. Prior to that, the the Saxon and Norman melting pot created the English nation, which also didn't exist.

He's clinging to the status quo which may well prove to be extremely short, history-wise.

Bede was the first person to call us "The English", but it was Alfred the Great, his son Edward the Elder and his grandson Aethelstan the Magnificent that forged us into a political nation. Overall, the Norman influence is a tint, not a core component, to our identity.

Regardless, Furunculus, were he here, would tell you that it's not historical fact by historical myth that defines a national character. The Scots and English can just about stand each other - but there exists little to no fraternity between the English and French, and only slightly more between the English and Germans.

Husar's opinions, and those of others, demonstrate this.

[Fragony]

Husar is right, the concept of a nation-state is a very modern idea, 19centurish

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ascendancy-E.../dp/0582772591 < pretty good

[Husar]

I also forgot to mention that "1200 hundred" years are 120,000 years, that's quite a stretch IA.

[Furunculus]

Regardless, Furunculus, were he here, would tell you that it's not historical fact by historical myth that defines a national character. The Scots and English can just about stand each other - but there exists little to no fraternity between the English and French, and only slightly more between the English and Germans.

Fortunately for you.............. "Huzzzzaaarrrr!"

My answer is best given in vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2303351

Subotan - "don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?"


No, the whole concept is unecessary and inherently un-demos-cratos. I say this because I believe in the sovereign nation-state. 1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view. Therefore I trust this body of people act in a way that I generally approve of, and to produce a governing body that will act broadly in manner that I understand and accept. Therefore I am willing to be bound by their decisions, and thus is my acquiescence to the will of the state created. I am, in short, willing to suffer the consequence of my governments actions. I share no such empathy and common history with the continental nations, therefore I have no trust that they (the EU) will act in a manner that I approve of, and thus I do not acquiesce to be governed by the EU. In short, I am unwilling to suffer the consequence of the EU's actions conducted in my name. It will never be right that I should be governed by those I do not consider my 'family', hence I will never support the EU's political ambitions.
You know what, i'm pretty sure there are lots of people in europe who feel the same way about britain too, and that's okay, why should they want our free-booting capitalist ways interfering with their own political evolution.

[Fragony]

Cyprus

EUSSR: all your savings are belong to us

Simon says: bankruns all over the eurozone

[Brenus]

Not only Eurozone. UK as well, as we saved the banks for the managers to get their bonuses.

[Husar]

That's a good thing, the banks will finally fail as they should have in 2008.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus is under a childish belief that what is now has always been.

Utterly wrong, for i have always accepted the fundamental truth that britain has been as successful ass it has in large part because it has adapted to events, and that in consequence our political settlement has largely dispensed with periodic revolution precisely because that ceaseless change has [slowly] ground on.

I can even evidence that with some vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2306521

successful nations adapt and evolve to the situation around them, and who knows, in a hundred years time my two tests may have different answers, but for britain now and the near future there is no point in subsuming into dysfunctional federal europe.

If there is one reason I am sympathetic to the Tories it is the definition of what British Conservatism is:

the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly-changing organic humane traditionalism.

If there is one reason why I am sympathetic to the Lib-Dem's it is because the Tories don't always live up to the statement above.

He deems himself British by nationality, which is already kind of supra-national identity as he really is English, which may or may not be forced onto him after the Scottish referendum, also ignoring that Great Britain came into existence a few centuries ago.

The thing you don't understand is that I am British because it is an identity that I am comfortable with, and englishness is quite irrelevant.
Britain is a multi-nation state, similar to the ambitions of the EU.

However, the difference is that almost nobody considers fellow european nations to be their 'family' in the same way they do their countrymen whereas britishness is a widespread and popular identity. Yes, it co-exists with englishness, and welshness, and scottishness, and which is considered the dominant identity varies from person to person, but they can happily coexist.

You mention the Scottish referendum and I laugh, I laugh heartily, for the Scottish question is EXACTLY the same as the EU one:

are you my family, willing to look to the interests of me and mine, as I would you and yours?

That is the question the Scots are being asked to answer, and family is a two way relationship, so yes if they vote to leave I will have to reevaluate my commitment to the Scots and 'Britishness' will mean less in consequence.

I am british, i consider myself kin to all of the parts of the uk, and care little for any identity that derives from the place of my birth (england). If the scots reject that familial link, i will have to change in response, they will become kith. I would be disappointed, but a 'marriage' demands the commitment of both partners.

The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.

The manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.

I simply do not recognise a sufficiently congruent set of aims and expectations to assent to being governed by the common will of the EU.

This does not mean that we should not strive towards harmonious cooperation and collaboration wherever a common viewpoint will bring a more effective outcome, but............

A nation is either:
1. a broadly sovereign state within the EU (as Britain has tried to become)
2. a functioning part of a larger sovereign entity (such as the converged euro-core will become)

The only other alternative is being a dependent adjunct to a larger sovereign entity. A Sanjak, in short, as Greece was in Ottoman times and is again today.

Becoming an EU Sanjak is neither liberal nor democratic, so propose me a solution because otherwise we will be leaving…………

more vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2269020

if the mainstream parties continue to ignore the will of the electorate, then we all may very well find that parties like UKIP do just fine at the next elections, the recent euro-elections should be seen as warning shot across the bows.

in this light the conservative move to create an anti-federal bloc within the EU is very important.

[Furunculus]

This is what Furunculus has been saying for years, Andres, Husar feels closer to his own politicians than poor Cypriots. It's the fundamental problem with the EU and why it doesn't work - people don't see it as a pan-European political issue, they see it as a pet project of the elite, and it's not like people voted for the Euro - it's just that all the big parties supported the Euro.

Indeed i have.

@Furunculus is, just like everyone else who shares my viewpoints and agrees with me, clearly a genius. He should be put at the head of the Eurozone and the EU and lead us to glory.

Well quite. If you want some vintage Furunculus then i think this statement has stood the test of time:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2271636

Shinseikhan - "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?"

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.

i think i deserve a fricking medal!