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

[Furunculus]

1. 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...

2. 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

3. 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...

4. 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...

1. well its a brave stance, but you are going against the understanding of 3000 years of "we the people", and while you may think that i fear you will find few people rallying behind your call for a post-sovereign world order.

2. because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision making process. because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.
i use the word terrorist "glibly". what is wrong with the view that your government has betrayed you if it gives away the cratos which the demos bestowed upon it to an unrelated third party without seeking the consent of the people?
if your government has betrayed its people then the people have the right to restore the demos-cratos.

3. see #2 re my bedroom
they are not all the same by any stretch of the imagination, and how is it logically possible for you to have more clout if you are veered away from your desired position by an enforced consensus dictat?!?!?
you already admitted you can't by wishing we were governed by the EU foriegn policy so that we could not invade iraq.

4. oh dear a proto-marxist is among us, there goes sensible debate.
how can you possible argue against devolution and for a centralising state when you have just witnessed gordon brown blow and extra £219 billion every year labour has been in power on bloated government! it defies belief:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...a-tragedy.html

[Husar]

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

A nation is just a subdivision of a continent state similar to how in the middle ages(around 1800-2100) certain regions or countries were subdisvisions of nation states.
So basically what you elected leaders in the US decide is your policy and you are the one to decide it with your vote just like in the old nation states.
Don't pretend to have anything like referendums and also note that your politicians who you voted into office are among the ones pushing this, so if politicians of nation states always do what you want and is in your best interest then surely the EU is what you want.
If you're now going to say you didn't vote for the current government and do not agree with what they do then how is that going to be any better or worse in the EU?

To me it's all the same mess, just on a different level.

[Furunculus]

i make the distinction that while we elect a government to act in our name, and agree to abide by and accept the consequence of those decisions, if the gov't wishes to give away the power granted to it by the by the people then it should ask our permission directly via referendum, or a general election made on that specific platform.
we give of our authority to the gov't in order that they may act in our name, not so that they may give away that authority to some unknown third party.

and the sovereign nation state produces a better result than the EU because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision making process. because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

OT - you are the second person in recent times to mistake me for a yank, why is that?

[rory_20_uk]

The government is doing its best to undermine that shared identity, placing no one way of life above another (OK, all above the English way as to support English / British would be of course deeply offensive to everyone else and we wouldn't want that, would we?).

The EU is almost totally divorced from individuals. But having said that, so is Westminster.

[Furunculus]

what i'd like to know is if the one world government types even consider my reasoning a rational basis from which to accept governance, whether they agree with it or not?

[LittleGrizzly]

and while you may think that i fear you will find few people rallying behind your call for a post-sovereign world order.

I don't think many people do want one world goverment...

because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision
making process.

I don't see what's any majorly different about ours and europeans, of course there are slight differences but you can't tell me that someone living in london has more in common with some farmer loiving right at the top of scotland than someone living in paris...

because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

Well the actions would be taken in your name regardless of you consenting or not...

what is wrong with the view that your government has betrayed you if it gives away the cratos which the demos bestowed upon it to an unrelated third party without seeking the consent of the people?

The people knew the goverment were pro eu and still they won all the seats if alot of people were that worried then surely they would show it with thier vote...

they are not all the same by any stretch of the imagination, and how is it logically possible for you to have more clout if you are veered away from your desired position by an enforced consensus dictat?!?!?

Imagine Liverpool withdrew from britian. Because Liverpools foriegn and domestic policy is now decided by only 100,000 people these people have much more say in thier goverments actions, but much less clout. Imagine if you will a goverment does something bad and various rich western goverments are threatening sanctions... and then comes the threat from liverpool... not much clout at all....

you already admitted you can't by wishing we were governed by the EU foriegn policy so that we could not invade iraq.

Well the main reason alot of mp's supported it was because of the drummed up threat Blair and various others created, they wouldn't have been able (or less likely) to get away with this in a european parlimentand thus the european parliment would have done what the majority of the public wanted...

how can you possible argue against devolution

Welsh parliment... huge waste of money, wales cannot stand on its own as an independent state so we have just elected a whole big new batch of politicians who can do a little bit of tinkering here and there but nothing major as an independent wales is unworkable for the forseeable future...

and for a centralising state

I want less goverment. I don't mind various levels of goverment to a point, you could for example in a one world goverment have 3 levels of goverment. Firstly local council, bin services and the like. Secondly 'state' goverments these have a certain amount of control to set regional policy. Lastly the world goverment, which undertakes things like major disaster relief, research research and more research, into every kind of medicene/surgery and new ways to extract energy and every ever thing which can advance the human race.

But in terms of goverment budgets, with a one world goverment it would be alot easier to lower the budget, no need for much of a military or missles (i suppose maybe keep a little) no need for immigration. Could have a tax system that the rich can't simply dodge, they will have to pay thier share like everyone else. In lots of other ways i personally would cut things of the budget but this is advantadges to one world goverment

what i'd like to know is if the one world government types even consider my reasoning a rational basis from which to accept governance

I don't agree on your shared values point, i think your wrong on it, but i guess i can see the viewpoint. If for example we were thinking of merging with a nation of cannibals.. i would be think thier way of life is just too different...

[Furunculus]

and while you may think that i fear you will find few people rallying behind your call for a post-sovereign world order.

1. I don't think many people do want one world goverment...

because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision
making process.

2. I don't see what's any majorly different about ours and europeans, of course there are slight differences but you can't tell me that someone living in london has more in common with some farmer loiving right at the top of scotland than someone living in paris...

because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

3. Well the actions would be taken in your name regardless of you consenting or not...

what is wrong with the view that your government has betrayed you if it gives away the cratos which the demos bestowed upon it to an unrelated third party without seeking the consent of the people?

4. The people knew the goverment were pro eu and still they won all the seats if alot of people were that worried then surely they would show it with thier vote...

they are not all the same by any stretch of the imagination, and how is it logically possible for you to have more clout if you are veered away from your desired position by an enforced consensus dictat?!?!?

5. Imagine Liverpool withdrew from britian. Because Liverpools foriegn and domestic policy is now decided by only 100,000 people these people have much more say in thier goverments actions, but much less clout. Imagine if you will a goverment does something bad and various rich western goverments are threatening sanctions... and then comes the threat from liverpool... not much clout at all....

you already admitted you can't by wishing we were governed by the EU foriegn policy so that we could not invade iraq.

6. Well the main reason alot of mp's supported it was because of the drummed up threat Blair and various others created, they wouldn't have been able (or less likely) to get away with this in a european parlimentand thus the european parliment would have done what the majority of the public wanted...

how can you possible argue against devolution

7. Welsh parliment... huge waste of money, wales cannot stand on its own as an independent state so we have just elected a whole big new batch of politicians who can do a little bit of tinkering here and there but nothing major as an independent wales is unworkable for the forseeable future...

and for a centralising state

8. I want less goverment. I don't mind various levels of goverment to a point, you could for example in a one world goverment have 3 levels of goverment. Firstly local council, bin services and the like. Secondly 'state' goverments these have a certain amount of control to set regional policy. Lastly the world goverment, which undertakes things like major disaster relief, research research and more research, into every kind of medicene/surgery and new ways to extract energy and every ever thing which can advance the human race.

9. But in terms of goverment budgets, with a one world goverment it would be alot easier to lower the budget, no need for much of a military or missles (i suppose maybe keep a little) no need for immigration. Could have a tax system that the rich can't simply dodge, they will have to pay thier share like everyone else. In lots of other ways i personally would cut things of the budget but this is advantadges to one world goverment

what i'd like to know is if the one world government types even consider my reasoning a rational basis from which to accept governance

10. I don't agree on your shared values point, i think your wrong on it, but i guess i can see the viewpoint. If for example we were thinking of merging with a nation of cannibals.. i would be think thier way of life is just too different...

1. that was only by way of introduction to the idea that most people would indeed demand that those who govern them have a strong cultural link to those they govern.

2. see one, same point

3. but do I ,as one example of many within civil society, accept those decisions, i.e. is there civil acceptance or civil unrest?

4. we have never been sold the idea of political integration with europe, we have never even been offered it as an option, there has been no 'other' choice at a general election even if we were explicitly asked, and there has never been a referendum or general election fought on the issue.

5. you make the grand mistake or confusing britain for belgium, we are the worlds 5th biggest economy with the worlds 2nd largest military spending. that is plenty of clout without diluting it immeasurably in the collective bargaining of the EU. lose more than win, in short.

6. but i want to be governed by what a british government decides, not europe, and britain opted for war. as i said earlier, i expect a gov't to make the difficult decisions that the herd will not; cake or death?

7. i don't believe wales would make a viable country either, but that is not what we are talking about.
on the other hand i am all in favour of devolving every power that does not need to be made centrally, but i totally agree that regional gov't, (which is what the WAG and holyrood is), is a total waste of time. the one good thing WAG did do was de-quango'ise wales which is an awesome plan to emulate throughout britain.

8. i too want less government, but any government above nation state will always suffer from a democratic deficit, and if the gov't doesn't respect the needs of the people it will lead to tryranny, likewise if the people don't respect the mandate of the gov't then it will lead to insurrection.

9. you seem very concerned about rich people dodging taxes, why is that? you do realise that we exist in a generally progressive tax system, and that if you want people to pay tax due then the best way to achieve that is a simple tax system, rather than complaining when rich people move to another jurisdiction along with their wealth generating innovation.
you also have a marvelous amount of faith in the ability of central gov't to act efficiently which i simply do not share.

10. that at least is reassuring
and will the cannibals consent to be ruled by your world government?

[LittleGrizzly]

1. that was only by way of introduction to the idea that most people would indeed demand that those who govern them have a strong cultural link to those they govern.

2. see one, same point

But there is more than one culture in britian, hell travel from souh wales to north wales and you'll notice the difference. the shared values i see us having are things like democracy and social welfare which we share in common with europe anyway....

4. we have never been sold the idea of political integration with europe, we have never even been offered it as an option, there has been no 'other' choice at a general election even if we were explicitly asked, and there has never been a referendum or general election fought on the issue.

Same with Iraq, but politicians are paid to make the tough decisions...

5. you make the grand mistake or confusing britain for belgium, we are the worlds 5th biggest economy with the worlds 2nd largest military spending. that is plenty of clout without diluting it immeasurably.

Im happy to sacrifice a portion of my say for greater clout, my argument was we would have more collective power but less which you seem to agree with... i think we are starting to argue semantics rather than an issue now...

i expect a gov't to make the difficult decisions that the herd will not

Like further EU integration!!

7. i don't believe wales would make a viable country either, but that is not what we are talking about.

Well you brought up devolution... which is the whole reason we have WAG, did you mean it in some other less waseful form ?

on the other hand i am all in favour of devolving every power that does not need to be made centrally

I can agree to this point, just because i espouse a one world government doesn't mean i wish every single little choice for the planet to be made in one place, the central control would be more for grand things lie space exploration and lots of research into various things like i mentioned earlier... and then things like law and order* to ensure a fair standard is maintained...

*to a certain extent

gotta dash ill get to the others when im back..









you also have a marvelous amount of faith in the ability of central gov't to act efficiently which i simply do not share.

The best way i can put it is... would the usa have got to the moon first if it had been a 50 seperate nations instead*

*to clarify would any of the seperate "countries" alone made it to the moon first...

[Furunculus]

that was only by way of introduction to the idea that most people would indeed demand that those who govern them have a strong cultural link to those they govern.

1. But there is more than one culture in britian, hell travel from souh wales to north wales and you'll notice the difference. the shared values i see us having are things like democracy and social welfare which we share in common with europe anyway....

we have never been sold the idea of political integration with europe, we have never even been offered it as an option, there has been no 'other' choice at a general election even if we were explicitly asked, and there has never been a referendum or general election fought on the issue.

2. Same with Iraq, but politicians are paid to make the tough decisions...

you make the grand mistake or confusing britain for belgium, we are the worlds 5th biggest economy with the worlds 2nd largest military spending. that is plenty of clout without diluting it immeasurably.

3. Im happy to sacrifice a portion of my say for greater clout, my argument was [not that] (?)we would have more collective power but less which you seem to agree with... i think we are starting to argue semantics rather than an issue now...

i expect a gov't to make the difficult decisions that the herd will not

4. Like further EU integration!!

7. i don't believe wales would make a viable country either, but that is not what we are talking about.

5. Well you brought up devolution... which is the whole reason we have WAG, did you mean it in some other less waseful form ?

on the other hand i am all in favour of devolving every power that does not need to be made centrally

6. I can agree to this point, just because i espouse a one world government doesn't mean i wish every single little choice for the planet to be made in one place, the central control would be more for grand things lie space exploration and lots of research into various things like i mentioned earlier... and then things like law and order* to ensure a fair standard is maintained...
*to a certain extent
you also have a marvelous amount of faith in the ability of central gov't to act efficiently which i simply do not share.

7. The best way i can put it is... would the usa have got to the moon first if it had been a 50 seperate nations instead*
*to clarify would any of the seperate "countries" alone made it to the moon first...

1. we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, but i'd love to see a public poll on that one. it is not necessarily about what is logical, but what people feel is acceptable. that is a different matter.

2. i refer you to post #63:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=63

i make the distinction that while we elect a government to act in our name, and agree to abide by and accept the consequence of those decisions, if the gov't wishes to give away the power granted to it by the by the people then it should ask our permission directly via referendum, or a general election made on that specific platform.
we give of our authority to the gov't in order that they may act in our name, not so that they may give away that authority to some unknown third party.

and the sovereign nation state produces a better result than the EU because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision making process. because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

3. we would have less clout in the world were we part of federal europe because our differing opinion would be drowned out among the need for a consensus opinion, whereby we are only 60m voices in 350m rather one of five UNSC votes.

4. i refer you to post #63:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=63

i make the distinction that while we elect a government to act in our name, and agree to abide by and accept the consequence of those decisions, if the gov't wishes to give away the power granted to it by the by the people then it should ask our permission directly via referendum, or a general election made on that specific platform.
we give of our authority to the gov't in order that they may act in our name, not so that they may give away that authority to some unknown third party.

and the sovereign nation state produces a better result than the EU because it is MY government, formed from people with whom i have a shared history, which informs the many shared values and cultural norms, and ultimately leads to a similar world-view and thus decision making process. because of this I consent to be governed by my peers, and most importantly i accept the consequences of the actions taken in my name.

5. by devolution i mean the devolving of powers generally, not the welsh/scottish woody with rediscovering their current self.

6. no argument there, see above.

7. but america is one nation composed of one culture (amercian), one language (english). there is no democratic deficit because people move to america with the explicit intention of becoming american and taking part in the future of a 300 year old revolutionary immigrant nation. that cannot be said of the EU's current attempt to artificially homogenize 30 different countries, with 29 different languages, 28 distict cultural histories, 4 wildly different prevailing political philosphies, 3 different structures of basic law, two different extremes on the acceptance of social justice, two different extremes of the idea of freedom of speach/liberty, and one almighty sense of their own individual place in history resulting from the last millenia of evolution of the modern nation state!

[LittleGrizzly]

8. i too want less government, but any government above nation state will always suffer from a democratic deficit

Effectively the world goverment will be a nation goverment just one big nation....

and if the gov't doesn't respect the needs of the people it will lead to tryranny

I don't see why it would, not any more than currently elected goverments do, they would have to get elected just the same....

likewise if the people don't respect the mandate of the gov't then it will lead to insurrection.

It isn't something i would want forced on the world, its more a hope that in the future people will band together and all work for the common good. I realise that sounds quite communist but thats not the intent...

9. you seem very concerned about rich people dodging taxes, why is that?

Its not just that, but in general companies and rich people playing countrys off against each other to try and attract them.

you do realise that we exist in a generally progressive tax system, and that if you want people to pay tax due then the best way to achieve that is a simple tax system

Just make a far more basic progressive tax system... theres a whole industry around tax and its OTT in my opinion, have a progressive income tax on individuals and progressive profit tax on companies. Though all things considered it would be easy to cut taxes somewhat in those circumstances...

rather than complaining when rich people move to another jurisdiction along with their wealth generating innovation.

I wasn't complaining just listing what i see as the advantages...

and will the cannibals consent to be ruled by your world government?

It would be thier own choice... though i imagine some members of the government may take some issue with thier hobby..

[Meneldil]

no, but the idea of the EU wishing to be an independent superpower is:
a) laughable given how low Defence spending ranks in european priorities
b) wholly undesirable to many EU nations given the level of military integration it would require
c) daft in that considering the above it manages to damage institutions that DO provide european security
thus rendering galileo a pointless vanity project, and one that has been mis-managed to the point of redundancy to boot.

The amount of military spending of members has absolutely no link whatsoever to the capability of the EU to be a superpower. In any case, the EU (read France and UK) has enough nukes to blow the crap out of anyone threatening the old continent, be it the US, Russia or China, and it will stay the same until one of them develop some badass scifi-like anti nuke technology.
Furthermore, military spendings suck, nobody except a few right wing nationalists support them, so it is fine by me. High military spendings are not a 'duty of the nation state'. Protecting citizens is a duty of the state. When there's no threat, the spending can be reduced.

There's absolutely no reason to support large military spendings in Europe right now, except if you to play the 'I've got the biggest one' game that nobody cares about anymore.

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.

At least there's one point of agreement between us: the UK has nothing to do in the EU. I don't even know why you whined and begged so much to get in, just to whine even more once we allowed you to join the club. I say go and whine alone and stop pestering us. I'm pretty sure you could make a Britano-Polish Union of Whiners. Would probably work fairly well ;)

Now, since that seems to be pretty much the main argument you bring in, since when is military spending the first duty of the (nation? I don't see what the nation is doing there, but heh) state? It might be according to your personal but nonetheless respectable idea of the nation, but it is not according to me and to a whole lot of people.

Oh, and a few scholars of political science, history and international relations, both from the left and the right, think the Westphalian system is well, really outdated, if not already dead and burried. Actually, there's quite a lot of them, so you might want to check their work, because according to them, we're heading right into a post-Westphalian system whose caracteristics are still unclear.

But after this ranting, I have to agree on a point, and not a minor one: the EU, in its current form, smells bad. I'm all for an European con/federation of willing European countries, but the thing we have now is neither that nor a simple free market agreement. And the worse is that even European leaders don't know what the EU is going to be

If Canada tried to do it without the inherent anti-Americanism involved (yes, it is involved, and some of it is vicious), then I think a lot more people would be a little happier about it.

Oh yeah, absolutely agreed. That's why I think we should give up with the anti-americanism in Europe. While I think we should have our own 'GPS' system, the fact we reached an agreement with China tells quite a lot about the general mindset that still plagues most western european leaders.

[Sigurd]

I haven't read all posts in this thread, but I felt I had to comment on the general topic.

First and foremost the NAVSTAR GPS is an American Military system. This normally means the US military use it during military campaigns.
Having worked in Navy intelligence, I have learned that The US military has GPS jamming capability.
(We, as in the Norwegian Military, tested such a jamming system)
There is also implemented in the GPS; forced inaccuracies that can be turned off with a flip of a switch.
This is problematic as satnav programmers must implement offset algorithms to the GPS softwares and build land based correction bases for them to show true positioning which even then leads to inaccuracies.
The US military during their military campaigns will turn off this offset and most Satnavs will be useless as The Gulf War I painfully demonstrated.
In Europe, satnavs showed boats running on the shore during the Gulf War.

This might sound like a conspiracy theory but my info comes from navigation system developers working in development of Military navigation systems in Norway.

[Furunculus]

I haven't read all posts in this thread, but I felt I had to comment on the general topic.

First and foremost the NAVSTAR GPS is an American Military system. This normally means the US military use it during military campaigns.
Having worked in Navy intelligence, I have learned that The US military has GPS jamming capability.
(We, as in the Norwegian Military, tested such a jamming system)
There is also implemented in the GPS; forced inaccuracies that can be turned off with a flip of a switch.
This is problematic as satnav programmers must implement offset algorithms to the GPS softwares and build land based correction bases for them to show true positioning which even then leads to inaccuracies.
The US military during their military campaigns will turn off this offset and most Satnavs will be useless as The Gulf War I painfully demonstrated.
In Europe, satnavs showed boats running on the shore during the Gulf War.

This might sound like a conspiracy theory but my info comes from navigation system developers working in development of Military navigation systems in Norway.

first logical reason i have heard in support of an alternative GPS.

though in reality all GPS systems will be turnable off in the event of war, no great power will leave on a service that guides cruise missiles and tank brigades in the heart of its cities.

[Furunculus]

1. The amount of military spending of members has absolutely no link whatsoever to the capability of the EU to be a superpower. In any case, the EU (read France and UK) has enough nukes to blow the crap out of anyone threatening the old continent, be it the US, Russia or China, and it will stay the same until one of them develop some badass scifi-like anti nuke technology.
Furthermore, military spendings suck, nobody except a few right wing nationalists support them, so it is fine by me. High military spendings are not a 'duty of the nation state'. Protecting citizens is a duty of the state. When there's no threat, the spending can be reduced.

2. There's absolutely no reason to support large military spendings in Europe right now, except if you to play the 'I've got the biggest one' game that nobody cares about anymore.

3. At least there's one point of agreement between us: the UK has nothing to do in the EU. I don't even know why you whined and begged so much to get in, just to whine even more once we allowed you to join the club. I say go and whine alone and stop pestering us. I'm pretty sure you could make a Britano-Polish Union of Whiners. Would probably work fairly well ;)

4. Now, since that seems to be pretty much the main argument you bring in, since when is military spending the first duty of the (nation? I don't see what the nation is doing there, but heh) state? It might be according to your personal but nonetheless respectable idea of the nation, but it is not according to me and to a whole lot of people.

5. Oh, and a few scholars of political science, history and international relations, both from the left and the right, think the Westphalian system is well, really outdated, if not already dead and burried. Actually, there's quite a lot of them, so you might want to check their work, because according to them, we're heading right into a post-Westphalian system whose caracteristics are still unclear.

6. But after this ranting, I have to agree on a point, and not a minor one: the EU, in its current form, smells bad. I'm all for an European con/federation of willing European countries, but the thing we have now is neither that nor a simple free market agreement. And the worse is that even European leaders don't know what the EU is going to be

1. but it does, because violence is the ultimate political sanction.
military spending is a necessity..... if you believe war is not gone from this world and that your nations first duty is the protection of its citizens.

2. what is large military spending? i ask that the NATO standard at least be adhered to which is a mere 2% of GDP, though i expect the UK to succeed that which must make me one of those right wing crazies.

3. fair point about britain in europe, you continetal types must be heartily sick of hearing brits whinge about the EU, and i have been the first to advocate exiting pronto and letting you guys get on with your federation without continual hindererance from the UK. i guess we whinge about it because there isn't a mainstream political party we can turn to to express our displeasure, and we hope that the volume of our noise will distract our politicians from their rapt gaze into the EU's navel.

4. fair enough.

5. scholars have always been dreaming up new political systems, and a post westphalian world must indeed look to be an attractive concept to powerless nations that have spent the last 350 years getting trampled, but it makes little sense for nations that have successfully maintained that balance of power and survived the traumas inflicted on less effective neighbours.

6. its not that a federal europe is necessarily bad, but it serves the UK no benefit to be in it, and until we can persuade our politicians of the fact i guess we shall shout from the rooftoops. :)

[Sigurd]

though in reality all GPS systems will be turnable off in the event of war, no great power will leave on a service that guides cruise missiles and tank brigades in the heart of its cities.

Having more than one system available will:

1. Make GPS navigation possible even if the Americans wages war in Langtvekkistan.
2. Disadvantage the US military GPS superiority.
3. Force the US to develop their own jamming tools for all new systems. (more workplaces).

[Furunculus]

8. i too want less government, but any government above nation state will always suffer from a democratic deficit

Effectively the world goverment will be a nation goverment just one big nation....

it simply doesn't work like that even head EU honchos admitted as much in a gloomy speech to the london school of economics on tuesday, joschka fischer, the former foreign minister of germany, said euro nations are retreating into their nationalist shells in the face of the crisis.

[Furunculus]

Having more than one system available will:

1. Make GPS navigation possible even if the Americans wages war in Langtvekkistan.
2. Disadvantage the US military GPS superiority.
3. Force the US to develop their own jamming tools for all new systems. (more workplaces).

1. useful (agreed there)
2. undesirable (not something i clamour towards)
3. inevitable (but very understandable )

[LittleGrizzly]

but america is one nation composed of one culture (amercian), one language (english).

One could argue they share an american culture.. or that there are different cultures like.... texan, californian ect.

Same with britian, Welsh, Scotish, Irish North Enlgish and south English, you could even subdivide these again, north and south wales for example...

Or you could say they all share an american culture... we all share a british culture... we all share a european culture.. its probably a very subjective way of looking at it, that you can call britian and america one culture but think europe is something completely different, theres just varying degrees of difference, the level of difference in culture doesn't change a great deal between a united britian and a united europe...

I guess my point is that there isn't the same culture and then a different culture like an on off switch, theres degress of seperation rather than a solid point beyond which people have a different culture... and i don't see the huge difference in the degrees of seperation between british and european cultures which makes the thing unworkable as you think...

GTG catch my bus from uni... hopefully i can catch up with your points sometime this year...

Try convincing some patriotic scot or welshman they don't have a different culture..

[Furunculus]

that is a marvelous way to write of the sum-total of all the differences outlined in my post above............

[LittleGrizzly]

3. we would have less clout in the world were we part of federal europe because our differing opinion would be drowned out among the need for a consensus opinion, whereby we are only 60m voices in 350m rather one of five UNSC votes.

I think i worded my answer badly.

What i meant to say was that you seem to agree there would be more power there overall...

But your defining the clout as our say in this increased power, whilst i seperated into 2 different categorys, clout as in just how many solidiers guns tanks ect. and then how much say we have, being our ability to have the army do what britian (or the british) wants it to do...

Basically i think we sidetracked off into an argument over semantics instead of an actual issue... as we both (seem to ?) agree there would be a bigger more powerful army but britian would have less control over it...

5. by devolution i mean the devolving of powers generally

I can agree to local control being a better option in some areas

not the welsh/scottish woody with rediscovering their current self.

Something else we can agree on, seems nothing more than a pointless exercise in patriotism

that is a marvelous way to write of the sum-total of all the differences outlined in my post above............

Was this aimed at my american culture post ? and if so I don't quite understand what you are trying to say...

[Furunculus]

1. I think i worded my answer badly.
What i meant to say was that you seem to agree there would be more power there overall...
But your defining the clout as our say in this increased power, whilst i seperated into 2 different categorys, clout as in just how many solidiers guns tanks ect. and then how much say we have, being our ability to have the army do what britian (or the british) wants it to do...
Basically i think we sidetracked off into an argument over semantics instead of an actual issue... as we both (seem to ?) agree there would be a bigger more powerful army but britian would have less control over it...

2. Was this aimed at my american culture post ? and if so I don't quite understand what you are trying to say...

1. this is not about the strength of military, rather what constitutes a strategic priority and how much weight should be thrown into achieving that priority.
an example of which could be iraq, i.e. the UK considered it a strategic priority to neutralise the threat represented by iraq, and was prepared to go to war to achieve that end if need be.

2. yes, to whit:

that cannot be said of the EU's current attempt to artificially homogenize 30 different countries, with 29 different languages, 28 distict cultural histories, 4 wildly different prevailing political philosphies, 3 different structures of basic law, two different extremes on the acceptance of social justice, two different extremes of the idea of freedom of speach/liberty, and one almighty sense of their own individual place in history resulting from the last millenia of evolution of the modern nation state!

3. and the idea that a useful and successful federated europe could be created presupposes that idea that this is in fact what all the member states want, something that has thus far not been demonstrated.

[LittleGrizzly]

1.

I can't remember who argued the others point first, but i think we can both agree that under the definition we were using of clout we were both right...

2. yes, to whit:

Ok i think were just in a circle of arguing now, to my mind my argument about america and britian was a counter to this...

basically i think america was when it was formed into a country not too far different from europe now, different cultures, different langauges ect.

and also UK itself contains different languages and cultures....

and then somewhere like belguim as another example...

All this tells me that simply because there are slight cultural and langauge differences, just like with wales and england, doesn't mean they can't form a successful patnership... just like wales and england

You could look at the alliance that joined scotland and enlgand into Great Britian in a similar light... seemingly unworkable in similar ways... but we became a super power thanks to the move... England and Scotland both benefitted greatly...

3. and the idea that a useful and successful federated europe could be created presupposes that idea that this is in fact what all the member states want, something that has thus far not been demonstrated.

I have never said otherwise... I would say there is majority support for further eu integration, a full on EU state probably not quite yet...

[Furunculus]

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?

America wants no such thing, America wants an independent military europe and cries when it sees chronic underspending and vanity projects.

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.

does any other european here actually believe this; that america wants to keep europe weak and divided?
i find it quite an unbelievable view, because;
a) it means US sees europe as a future threat........... which is laughable.
b) it goes against every statement they have ever made saying they want a useful partner for the role of global policeman

[Husar]

a) it means US sees europe as a future threat........... which is laughable.

Absolutely unpatriotic and lacking self-respect. Of course Europe will become an empire and impose it's will on the american people, we might even invade and establish a proper democracy over there.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Absolutely unpatriotic and lacking self-respect. Of course Europe will become an empire and impose it's will on the american people, we might even invade and establish a proper democracy over there.

I don't think we'll even be allowed to make the argument that we have a better democracy than they do until we finally put the Lisbon Treaty to full referendums...

[Furunculus]

in the absence of a serious reply, i thought i should at least emphasise how totally backward this view is, how far from reality, and how distorted the viewpoint of anyone who really believes it.

[Husar]

I don't think we'll even be allowed to make the argument that we have a better democracy than they do until we finally put the Lisbon Treaty to full referendums...

You're also not a true euro-patriot.
How dare you question our authoritahs?
Well, actually I agree, we should have referendums and vote yes but not for the Lisbon treaty but to establish a proper united european government ruled by representatives directly voted for by the people. What we should do with the current national governments I'm not sure, rename them to provincial perhaps or get rid of them completely if they want too much in salaries. Seems useless to think too much about as the idea will hardly leave this thread.

[Furunculus]

A nation is just a subdivision of a continent state similar to how in the middle ages(around 1800-2100) certain regions or countries were subdisvisions of nation states.
So basically what you elected leaders in the US decide is your policy and you are the one to decide it with your vote just like in the old nation states.
Don't pretend to have anything like referendums and also note that your politicians who you voted into office are among the ones pushing this, so if politicians of nation states always do what you want and is in your best interest then surely the EU is what you want.
If you're now going to say you didn't vote for the current government and do not agree with what they do then how is that going to be any better or worse in the EU?

on the subject of british views on the EU in general, and regionalism in particular, JFYI:
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/200...p-with-the-eu/