citizens of EU member states - what do you think of galileo GPS competitor?

[LittleGrizzly]

If the situation was reversed, do you think the Americans would think twice before developping their own GPS system.

This is why im confused at some of the American reactions, why do we bother having our own military... or currency... or anything... because we can and it gives us independence in our actions any american would want the same thing for thier country...

[Furunculus]

I don't think the EU wants to become a Superpower. I think it wants to end the Century hold period of American hegemony over the continent. And it has to start somewhere.
a) Wait, but do you think high defence spending budget is a good thing? O_o That's odd.
b) I don't see how not being a unified military would cripple the military power of the EU in comparison with different armies under a central EU command.
c) Damages so in what way? If so, why does it damage? Because the Americans wish for the Europeans to continue addicted to their system so they can use it as diplomatic leverage when the oportunity presents itself? If the situation was reversed, do you think the Americans would think twice before developping their own GPS system. Do you think a tiger would rather stay in a cage or be free?

Is that what the EU member states want? Because i know the UK doesn't, i doubt many of the new states do either.
a) Yes, it is the first duty of the nation state. Why is that odd?
b) Because not that many nations are willing to divest themselves of military sovereignty
c) America wants no such thing, America wants an independent military europe and cries when it sees chronic underspending and vanity projects.

[Vladimir]

Is that what the EU member states want? Because i know the UK doesn't, i doubt many of the new states do either.
a) Yes, it is the first duty of the nation state. Why is that odd?
b) Because not that many nations are willing to divest themselves of military sovereignty
c) America wants no such thing, America wants an independent military europe and cries when it sees chronic underspending and vanity projects.

Points a and c are wonderful.

[Furunculus]

Spending 1.75% on the military would be silly for us, we are way too small for that much an army, the Netherlands is armed to the teeth as it is. I know it's a deal but it's not practical.



You forgot incredibly dangerous, especially with the EU's desire to include the Balkans. How easily the EU will be devided with their EU army.

you spend enough money to demonstrate that you are serious about the future survival of your nation to your adversaries.

america spends about 4.0% of GDP (some might say that is too much)
the UK spends about 2.1% of GDP (which i say is too small even before you consider the impact of two ongoing wars)
the EU average is a pitiful ~1.6% (which tells me they don't take their first duty as a nation state seriously)



agreed, there is no EU foreign policy with which to use use armed force if the last 10 years are anything to go by!

[Strike For The South]

I don't care. You can do what you want as long as you're home for supper, now run along.

[Furunculus]

If the situation was reversed, do you think the Americans would think twice before developping their own GPS system.

This is why im confused at some of the American reactions, why do we bother having our own military... or currency... or anything... because we can and it gives us independence in our actions any american would want the same thing for thier country...

that is your mistake, the yanks have been supporting all and any moves towards a more effective european military capability. they have said, and i believe them, that they want a partner. what they don't say is that they are sick of europe acting like a bunch of selfish parasites.

europe has not, and likely never will be a strategic problem for the US, except that it is a sickly relative they feel compelled to prop up.

[Furunculus]

I don't care. You can do what you want as long as you're home for supper, now run along.

unfortunately, we aren't home for supper because the neighbourhood bully keeps knocking the p00p out of us, and thus you are needed to fly to rescue before the incident is worthy of a life-support machine.

[LittleGrizzly]

that is your mistake

I can only think that you thought by american reaction i meant the american goverment, i was actually referring to a few posters in the thread...

Either that or you confused my example (why do we bother having our own military... or currency... or anything...) for a different point, my point with that was why we bother having our own things we control, and the point was its so that we can have an independent policy that works for us...

[Furunculus]

my mistake indeed, i was talking about the amercian gov't and assuming you meant the same.

two points in return which don't necessarily refute what you say:
1) the UK indeed preserves its independence by steering clear of a EU common foreign policy
2) the EU as a putative federated unit would have to spend a lot more on defence to have any hope of an independent foreign policy

at the moment europe refuses to spend appropriately and then whines about being americas , and we are even more stupid as to be signing up to europes foriegn policy via further EU integration under the delusion that it gives us more clout in the world!

:)

[LittleGrizzly]

and we are even more stupid as to be signing up to europes foriegn policy via further EU integration under the delusion that it gives us more clout in the world!

Well if we had a common policy we would... even if every other country had a pitiful army thats quite a few pitiful armies as well as our army... as with things such as sanctions and the like...

whines about being americas

I think its more to do with joining things like Iraq rather than being able to invade some other country by ourselves...

[Furunculus]

but we don't.

how many times of recent has britain involved itself in events that appear to be opposed by our continetal 'partners'?
you don't just opt to have a common foreign policy, you need to agree what those objectives are.

case in point; iraq, which i supported and am thus glad could not be vetoed by javier solano.

[LittleGrizzly]

but we don't.

Its fairly obvious that if we don't have a common policy that we don't have more clout, but your point i originally answered was about further eu integration giving us more clout, i would assume further eu integration would include common policy

how many times of recent has britain involved itself in events that appear to be opposed by our continetal 'partners'?
you don't just opt to have a common foreign policy, you need to agree what those objectives are.

case in point; iraq, which i supported and am thus glad could not be vetoed by javier solano.

I agree, which is why we need to move to a common policy so europe can keep us out of things like the iraq war...

[Jolt]

Is that what the EU member states want? Because i know the UK doesn't, i doubt many of the new states do either.
a) Yes, it is the first duty of the nation state. Why is that odd?
b) Because not that many nations are willing to divest themselves of military sovereignty
c) America wants no such thing, America wants an independent military europe and cries when it sees chronic underspending and vanity projects.

a) I'm confused, you're saying its a waste of money, then you say countries ought to have high spending in defence. Since Galileo is primarily due to military independence, I'd say the EU is doing exactly what you propose. And you're arguing against having spending money on something which will make the EU countries better without needing the assistence of the USA.
That is a Pro-Militaristic point of view. But then, I'm sure Kim-Il Jung would agree with your views. I'd much, much rather have a low budget for defence and a high budget towards economic and social development. Having high spendings in defence at a time of crisis is foolish and ridiculous.
b) NATO takes part of the military sovereignty of its members. I don't see an International outcry about it.
c) HAHAHA. America cries when it sees chronic underspending? You should read up on what Realpolitik or International Realism is. For a proponent of high budget spending in contrast with economical social welfare, you sure have a liberal view of the International Relations that the USA executes, which is not quite up to par with the truth, and you're hearing this from a person who knows of what he is speaking.

[Furunculus]

Its fairly obvious that if we don't have a common policy that we don't have more clout, but your point i originally answered was about further eu integration giving us more clout, i would assume further eu integration would include common policy

I agree, which is why we need to move to a common policy so europe can keep us out of things like the iraq war...

we don't have more clout if we don't agree with the consensus opinion on the continent.

that is a very sad lack of confidence in your nation that you would rather have a bunch of unelected quangocrats make your countries decisions for you.

[LittleGrizzly]

we don't have more clout if we don't agree with the consensus opinion on the continent.

With the Iraq war we slightly favoured continent's opinion to USA's, but our elected officials took us in... obviously we could disagree on things, but what if newcastle was deadly against the iraq war... should it break off and be able to have its own say... or should it stay part of a larger collective for mutual benefit and more clout but having to live with differences of opinion...

that is a very sad lack of confidence in your nation

Its the politicians i have the lack of confidence in... public just about agreed with me on this one...

bunch of unelected quangocrats

I don't now who you refer too but most are elected are at least chosen by elected officials...

make your countries decisions for you.

Its not quite like that, It is us making our desicions, kinda of like how the british goverment tells every part of britian what to do but we contribute by choosing the goverment that tells us what to do, same principle applies...

[Furunculus]

a) I'm confused, you're saying its a waste of money, then you say countries ought to have high spending in defence. Since Galileo is primarily due to military independence, I'd say the EU is doing exactly what you propose. And you're arguing against having spending money on something which will make the EU countries better without needing the assistence of the USA.
That is a Pro-Militaristic point of view. But then, I'm sure Kim-Il Jung would agree with your views. I'd much, much rather have a low budget for defence and a high budget towards economic and social development. Having high spendings in defence at a time of crisis is foolish and ridiculous.
b) NATO takes part of the military sovereignty of its members. I don't see an International outcry about it.
c) HAHAHA. America cries when it sees chronic underspending? You should read up on what Realpolitik or International Realism is. For a proponent of high budget spending in contrast with economical social welfare, you sure have a liberal view of the International Relations that the USA executes, which is not quite up to par with the truth, and you're hearing this from a person who knows of what he is speaking.

a) it is a waste of money for a capability that already exists. what the eu collective lacks is power projection, where is the airlift, where is the sealift, where are the carriers, outside of britain and france where is there any real ability to support a significant force out-of-area. all of these things are way more important than penis waving with the US. where does kim-il-jung come into this, really? as to budgets, <5.0% of government spending on defence is still very little given that this is the first duty of the nation state.

b) it is a defensive arrangement and does not guide and control foreign policy.

c) america would very much like a europe that could pull its weight in international affairs, so what are you proving with all that excessive verbiage?

[LittleGrizzly]

<5.0% of government spending on defence is still very little given that this is the first duty of the nation state.

I don't see why it should be, Britian is under no risk of invasion what so ever, we simply use it around the world often as part of someone else's goals... it seems like a fairly low priority to me...

[Furunculus]

we don't have more clout if we don't agree with the consensus opinion on the continent.

With the Iraq war we slightly favoured continent's opinion to USA's, but our elected officials took us in... obviously we could disagree on things, but what if newcastle was deadly against the iraq war... should it break off and be able to have its own say... or should it stay part of a larger collective for mutual benefit and more clout but having to live with differences of opinion...

bunch of unelected quangocrats

I don't now who you refer too but most are elected are at least chosen by elected officials...

i go with the Gov't on this one, not in that i agree, but that i accept we elect a gov't to make tough decisions for us. do you want apple pie? *cries of yes* do you want dead soldiers? *cries of no*

do you want a consensus of euro nations deciding your foreign policy for you?

[Furunculus]

<5.0% of government spending on defence is still very little given that this is the first duty of the nation state.

I don't see why it should be, Britian is under no risk of invasion what so ever, we simply use it around the world often as part of someone else's goals... it seems like a fairly low priority to me...

i seem to remember people said there could never be another world war after the first................

and whether you think it should be or not, it is the first duty of the nation state.

[LittleGrizzly]

but that i accept we elect a gov't to make tough decisions for us.

do you want a consensus of euro nations deciding your foreign policy for you?

And nothing would be different with an EU goverment, majority (basically) rules and if your opinion is different try and change it... but don't try to claim that somehow we would be ruled from abroad anymore than newcastle is ruled from london... if we were going to be following EU policy without any representation you would have a point..

i seem to remember people said there could never be another world war after the first................

Your much older than i thought

The situation in Europe was vastly different to the situation now, no country within the eu would attack, they are joining together if anything, so it would have to be a more distant power... USA have capability but i really don't ever see that happening... or at least in my lifetime... Russia ? China ? Firstly theres not really much good motive for any big power to attempt to take over britian, it would certainly annoy the rest of the eu for one, there are much easier less well connected country's to go for.

BTW I wasn't advocating no military spending, i was arguing that calling it a first duty given our geo political situation is wrong imo

I think the budget could use a little trim though... of course we have to see out of military commitments first..

[Furunculus]

but that i accept we elect a gov't to make tough decisions for us.

do you want a consensus of euro nations deciding your foreign policy for you?

And nothing would be different with an EU goverment, majority (basically) rules and if your opinion is different try and change it... but don't try to claim that somehow we would be ruled from abroad anymore than newcastle is ruled from london... if we were going to be following EU policy without any representation you would have a point..

but that is exactly what i do argue.

the foundation of the nation state is the community of spirit, that shared culture which allows you to accept the decisions made in your name. blah blah blah*........ to cut a long story short; that does not exist in europe.

so yes, that is exactly what i am saying, it would be a very different thing for me to happily abide by the decisions of europe, there would be no quicker way to make a terrorist of me.







* this is democracy 101, explained by me here too many times for me to bother typing out again

[LittleGrizzly]

the foundation of the nation state is the community of spirit, that shared culture which allows you to accept the decisions made in your name. blah blah blah*........

You look at people living in different extremes in britian, from city dwellers to people living on remote scottish islands, if you count Gaelic and Welsh we don't even share a common language, about the only uniform thing i see is the currency and goverment, which we would have in common in europe if we joing and futher integrated... Our city dwellers would have more in common with europe's city dwellers than our rural folk and the same applies to our rural folk having more in common with european rural folk. Overall we seem to have slightly different political views but they aren't hugely different to majority european opinion....*

*or as i like to call it the newcastle choice... they can control thier own policy completely but have very little effect, so join the rest of britian to have more effect...

it would be a very different thing for me to happily abide by the decisions of europe, there would be no quicker way to make a terrorist of me.

thats kind of creepy...

[Fragony]

you spend enough money to demonstrate that you are serious about the future survival of your nation to your adversaries.

The Netherlands is incredibly tiny, if we would spend 4% on the military we wouldn't have any room to build houses on. We have a small but extremely advanced army and we can hit hard if we need to, but only with allies, if the world crumbles so do we.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought the whole point was transnational progressivism -- the end of the petty states and the radiant future of a Europe united as one community?

[Fragony]

I thought the whole point was transnational progressivism -- the end of the petty states and the radiant future of a Europe united as one community?

So was the Vienna Convention, shame about that incident in the Balkans.

[Furunculus]

the foundation of the nation state is the community of spirit, that shared culture which allows you to accept the decisions made in your name. blah blah blah*........

You look at people living in different extremes in britian, from city dwellers to people living on remote scottish islands, if you count Gaelic and Welsh we don't even share a common language, about the only uniform thing i see is the currency and goverment, which we would have in common in europe if we joing and futher integrated... Our city dwellers would have more in common with europe's city dwellers than our rural folk and the same applies to our rural folk having more in common with european rural folk. Overall we seem to have slightly different political views but they aren't hugely different to majority european opinion....*

*or as i like to call it the newcastle choice... they can control thier own policy completely but have very little effect, so join the rest of britian to have more effect...

it would be a very different thing for me to happily abide by the decisions of europe, there would be no quicker way to make a terrorist of me.

thats kind of creepy...

that simply has no bearing in reality.
there is far more that binds us as a nation than divides us through demographic differences.


Why? if i am no longer governed by those whose decisions i can accept then i have two choices:
1) learn to live with it (why should I, its my country)
2) fight against it (to re-install governance of my country, by my country, for my country)


It would seem you might be best served by accepting membership of Husar's merry little band of one-world-government groupies.
However, while i can understand it from him coming from a part of the western world that has been governed in a totally dysfunctional manner for the last hundred years, i am a little surprised that you would take that position.

[Furunculus]

The Netherlands is incredibly tiny, if we would spend 4% on the military we wouldn't have any room to build houses on. We have a small but extremely advanced army and we can hit hard if we need to, but only with allies, if the world crumbles so do we.

don't be so melodramatic. :)
i would not argue for 4%, but at least meeting the NATO goal of 2% would be a start.

[Furunculus]

I thought the whole point was transnational progressivism -- the end of the petty states and the radiant future of a Europe united as one community?

that is a political thought that i utterly reject, along with every single one of its tenets:

Transnational progressivism is a term coined by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte in 2001 to describe a movement and political view that endorses a concept of postnational global citizenship and promotes the authority of international institutions over the sovereignty of individual nation-states.

Fonte argued that the core beliefs of this view include:

* Advocating the goals of an identity group rather than individual: "The key political unit is not the individual citizen...but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born."[1]

* An oppressor/victim dichotomy: "Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy," with "immigrant groups designated as victims."[2]

* Proportional representation by group: "Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."[3]

* Change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions.

* Change in the assimilation paradigm: "The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism."[4]

* Redefinition of democracy: "Changing the system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens."[5]

* Deconstruction of Western national narratives and national symbols in favor of post-modern multiculturalist views.

what a load of rubbish!

I go in the opposite direction and follow the westphalian principle of the sovereign nation state.

[edit]
found this, interesting reading:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...ype=HI_reports
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/030118-6.htm
cheers
[/edit]

[Fragony]

Transnational progressivism is a term coined by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte in 2001 to describe a movement and political view that endorses a concept of postnational global citizenship and promotes the authority of international institutions over the sovereignty of individual nation-states.

Fonte argued that the core beliefs of this view include:

* Advocating the goals of an identity group rather than individual: "The key political unit is not the individual citizen...but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born."[1]

* An oppressor/victim dichotomy: "Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy," with "immigrant groups designated as victims."[2]

* Proportional representation by group: "Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."[3]

* Change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions.

* Change in the assimilation paradigm: "The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism."[4]

* Redefinition of democracy: "Changing the system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens."[5]

* Deconstruction of Western national narratives and national symbols in favor of post-modern multiculturalist views.

[LittleGrizzly]

that simply has no bearing in reality.
there is far more that binds us as a nation than divides us through demographic differences.

I don't see how... i now many people from the internet who i have much more in common with then your average britian. I just don't see how some British farmer living in a remote place would have more in common with a stockbroker in London than some French farmer living in a remote place, simply put they wouldn't. The farmers are both concerned about issues to do with farming they both used to a rural life... similar with a french stockbroker to a british one... concerned about financial markets.. both city slickers...


Why? if i am no longer governed by those whose decisions i can accept then i have two choices:
1) learn to live with it (why should I, its my country)

You don't like our current goverment but live with it...

You have the wills of people from all kinds of british towns imposing thier will on you... why should the people of cardiff have a say in ruling you ? why should newcastle have power over you ?

The simple answer is that you don't, you would still be just as much a part of a democratic process as before, just a smaller part of a bigger democratic process, to use this as an excuse for terrorism is wrong, it was wrong when muslim terrorists did it because of the iraq war and it would be wrong for you to do it because of further eu integration

2) fight against it (to re-install governance of my country, by my country, for my country)

Which country would that be ? your bedroom ? your house ? your street ? your town ? england ? britian ? europe ?

They are all exactly the same, the only difference is in each step you have less say but more clout...

It would seem you might be best served by accepting membership of Husar's merry little band of one-world-government groupies.
However, while i can understand it from him coming from a part of the western world that has been governed in a totally dysfunctional manner for the last hundred years, i am a little surprised that you would take that position.

One world goverment is obviously a very desirable goal, the rich couldn't avoid a fair level of taxation so easily, no need for armed forces (or maybe very small force... or very advanced police force...) instead of competing against each other we could work together and achieve much more...

Its not so much displeasure at the governance that lead me to this position... i have for example been against devolution since i was about 11, 12. Just because you achieve much more together and its a waste having seperate parliments and the like...

Though i admit theres displeasure at the government... i doubt that a one world government would be much closer to my views...