Europe

[Beskar]

Question(s) for EU federalists- What's really the ultimate goal of all this? What is the objective of further expansion of the EU? What would be provided by a Euro super state that the current states cannot already provide, given their currently is already near total freedom of trade and movement?

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?

[Beskar]

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?

The opposite. Band together to prevent the other inflicting its will on it. If Europe does become the true democratic state as well, it will influence others int he world to adopt the same/similar as the people will want it.

[seireikhaan]

The opposite. Band together to prevent the other inflicting its will on it. If Europe does become the true democratic state as well, it will influence others int he world to adopt the same/similar as the people will want it.

That is quite faulty. A united Europe will not cease conflict, no more than a united Spain, or Britain, or Germany, or Soviet Union did. It merely changes whom the combatants will be. When Spain was united, it looked beyond its borders. When Britain was united, it looked beyond its borders. When Germany was united, it looked beyond its borders. When the USSR was united, it looked beyond its borders. When America finally hit the Pacific solidly, it looked beyond its borders.

All which can cease conflicts is mutually assured destruction.

[Beskar]

It will get to a point that everything is under one-power. Best to make sure it is as democratic as possible.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't think you can really make that assertion, if you look at fairly modern history things have become more seperated, British empire, Yugoslavia ect.

Outside of the EU and maybe China extending its control over Taiwan and Hong Kong...

Edit: On the other hand things like globalisation, cheap air travel and the internet is making the world a much smaller place. I don't think you can assert so surely that things are going to be all under one power, i think you could call it quite likely though...

[Beskar]

I am not implying it is any time soon, but it will most likely happen eventually. By the current rate of things, it is developing in a way against the interests of the people as a whole.

[Furunculus]

It will get to a point that everything is under one-power. Best to make sure it is as democratic as possible.

ah, so the justification is that because science fictions world government is inevitable, best we get started quick so we have Ian M Banks benign utopia rather than David Wingroves authoritarian dystopia?

[Beskar]

ah, so the justification is that because science fictions world government is inevitable, best we get started quick so we have Ian M Banks benign utopia rather than David Wingroves authoritarian dystopia?

Just saying "science fiction" just makes your point invalid as it means you do not know your history or what history is being made. It isn't Europe that is coming together, there is also things such as NAFTA which will eventually be taking a similar route. Did you even know they wrote a new American constitution in the 1970's? It wasn't put into place, but you could probably find it laying about.

[LittleGrizzly]

Question(s) for EU federalists- What's really the ultimate goal of all this? What is the objective of further expansion of the EU? What would be provided by a Euro super state that the current states cannot already provide, given their currently is already near total freedom of trade and movement?

The best parts of it lie in our ability to influence the world, and in turn be less influenced by it (this could be a negative thing in some aspects but a few of the worlds rising powers are far less democratic and human rights concerned than EU states, so mostly a positive.) For example if China was heavily invested in a small eastern European state they may be much more positive to whatever China proposes even if its wrong and against public opinion, whereas this state as part of a bigger European state would have the power to match whatever negative effect China could try to put on it, so China wouldn't bother trying.

Or for an exsisting example check out the Eastern European country's that joined the Iraq war, many did so out of American pressure rather than a willingness to do so, i remember hearing that some didn't even let the public know they were supporting the war...

Another good example would be Russia, i heard differing arguments as to why they cut the gas supply (it may have been for good reason) but if they were to try such a thing with an EU state, they would be sorry. Russians seem pretty pragmatic so i don't think they would even try to mess with such an entity...
And outside of the foriegn policy advantages

Of course as Beskar mentioned as one political union we could work together far more effectively, we can also invest in the eastern european states which have a lot of potential and reap the rewards as they reach western European levels...

And to concentrate on something other than foriegn policy, our own space program, I think the EU has a space program (nothing much) but it would be far easier to organise one more at the American level if we were together as one country. As it is, any money which goes towards an EU space program would be probably be classed as money the EU wastes by the sceptics...

So you want the Europeans to band together and inflict their will on others?

Yes, we will force democracy and human rights on them through persuasion, diplomacy and with an economic carrot and stick. Far more effectively than a bunch of individual nations who have various disagreements or who are bribed into cooperation by larger powers can. We can the larger power bribing and cajouling people into doing the right thing.

China invidually can ride roughshod over some over the poorer EU states (probably some of the bigger ones to, or at least soon) would you want them able to bribe support the same way America was able to do over Iraq, not in my backyard!

[Kagemusha]

Aim is not expansion, it is more a unity. Unity can bring greater benefits and causing the breakdown of nationality which serves nothing more causing conflict. When at discussion tables, a strong united Europe would be a far more formidable power than any of the individual states by themselves. Causing unity will start destroying boundaries which separate people, and instead of people fighting amongst themselves, they will be fighting together. It brings a brand new focus and energy with it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It will end disparities and be an uniting banner. There is far more to be done and things that should be done on a fundamental level that cannot be done efficiently otherwise.

So basically you are promoting European Nationalism to replace nationalism of individual countries.

[Furunculus]

Merkel in Washington yesterday:
"The Europeans have grown closer together," she said. Often, she went on, Europeans are considered to be somewhat complicated, but that is a misconception. "We have understood that we need to speak with a single voice. We are 500 million people and that is a weight that cannot be ignored."

We have, certainly grown closer together, isn't it nice.
I am not aware that "we" understand that we need to speak with a single voice.
500m people cannot be ignored, ah, there is that fear again.

[rory_20_uk]

What voice was that?

We can't even agree on one language - the farce of the parliament with something like 5 core languages and then translators to translate these into all the little ones...
To be fair, the most strident voice has been generalised dissatisfaction against the EU whenever it has been allowed to be voiced (although to be fair the politicians have ensured that this is as infrequent as possible and like true lawyers they try to only ask questions when they know the answer).

[Furunculus]

the economists view on the new right-wing anti-federalist party:
http://www.economist.com/world/brita...ry_id=13919296

Eurochums

Jun 25th 2009 | BRUSSELS
From The Economist print edition
The Tories’ new allies are a motley crew

NOT fascists, but not obvious soul mates either: that is a fair summary of the politicians invited on June 22nd to join Britain’s Conservatives in a new grouping in the European Parliament. Most are nationalists or social conservatives whose views hardly chime with the moderate messages pushed by David Cameron at home. How did this happen?

Mr Cameron promised, during his campaign to become Tory leader, to leave the main centre-right grouping, the European People’s Party (EPP), and found a new one committed to free trade and opposition to a federal Europe. In these cynical times, it is tempting to cheer him merely for keeping his word.

The new “European Conservatives and Reformists Group” consists of 56 MEPs from nine countries, 26 of them British Conservatives. Tories say that staying in the EPP was inconsistent with campaigning at home to defend British sovereignty. They have a point: the EPP is dominated by federalists. They are also right that no grouping is entirely wholesome. The socialist group, in which Britain’s Labour Party sits, heaves with ex-communists from the east. The EPP, for its part, is home to post-fascists from Italy.

The Tories point out that their key allies, Law and Justice in Poland (with 15 MEPs) and the Czech Civic Democrats (with nine), were until recently parties of government. They scoff, with reason, at suggestions that Mr Cameron would be ostracised by EPP stalwarts such as Nicolas Sarkozy of France or Angela Merkel of Germany were he to become prime minister. And perhaps their more exotic allies were forced on the Tories by rules that require at least 25 MEPs from seven countries to form a parliamentary group entitled to extra funding and access to senior parliamentary posts.

But critics also have a point. The Tories did not control who sat with them in the EPP; in founding a new group, they invite closer scrutiny of their allies. That scrutiny reveals a muddled picture. Mr Cameron has managed to avoid the extreme right, but he has broken with large mainstream parties.

In Poland, the governing centre-right party is the Civic Platform. To the far right sit fringe politicians with openly anti-Semitic views. Mr Cameron’s allies are in the middle, with wrong-headed opinions on gays and capital punishment. In Belgium, the Christian Democrats belong to the EPP. Mr Cameron has nothing to do with the anti-immigrant parties on the far right, but his allies are from the Lijst Dedecker, a populist outfit that wants independence for Dutch-speaking Flanders. In the Netherlands too, the largest party, the Christian Democrats, is in the EPP. Mr Cameron has eschewed the anti-Islamist Geert Wilders but his partners are from the tiny Christian Union, which favours government guided by biblical commandments. And the Tories’ sole Latvian chum is a mild-mannered economist, a wing of whose party annually honours Latvians who fought with the Waffen SS against Soviet forces.

Mr Cameron’s real problem is structural. Europe makes even centrist voters cross in Britain, yet centrists on the continent are overwhelmingly pro-EU. So to find allies who share their Euroscepticism, Tories have to seek out populists and angry nationalists. Mr Cameron’s new band of allies may be a symptom of Britain’s strained relationship with Europe rather than a solution to it.

[Beskar]

So basically you are promoting European Nationalism to replace nationalism of individual countries.

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

Won't work without strenuous social engineering (which invarriable fails itself). It is human nature to identify with a group, in the UK we have a plethora of national and regional groups. Wales, a nation of 3 million is divided both regionally and linguistically. Regionally, it breaks down into four or five groups just among the Welsh, then you have the English-speaking Welsh and the English immigrants. Wales has been politically united with England for over 500 years, and there is still bordernline racism and xenophobia between the two.

What you are proposing is a "Grand Plan" with a "Great objective", such has never been achieved without suffering and bloodshed. Just leave people alone, let them live in their own countries, raise children (or sheep if you're Welsh), grow old and die happy.

[Tribesman]

good, because you were wrong.

Really?

have voting figures not declined from sixties to forties in the past 20 years, and is that not a decline of a third?

Errr, I dont know how to break it to ya , but that ain't what you claimed .

why does it fall apart? frankly no one can say categorically why voting in UK national elections has declined so dramatically, that which i positied has been mentioned as a possible reason that is no more or less credible than any other.

It lacks credibilty because it does not hold water.
Other european EU nations have had similar declines in turnout for national elections, so have other european non-EU nations as have other western nations.

Then trying to corelate that to EU elections is just ridiculous , some states have declined in turnout, others have increased . Some have fluctated wildly and some have remained pretty stable.
Your attempt was to try and take a huge pile of different things and link them when they cannot be linked , and what was even funnier is that you took as your prime example a case that does the opposite of what you initially claimed.
So...
What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality.

[Furunculus]

oh, your still here then.

ah yes, i said thirties not forties.

what a surprise that in endless tedium of your nit-picking i made a mistake.

sorry.

not like you haven't made a few, notably being unable to read the caveat at the top of the wiki page where you got you military expenditure figures detailing why it is difficult to compare nationally compiled figures.

[Furunculus]

It lacks credibilty because it does not hold water.
Other european EU nations have had similar declines in turnout for national elections, so have other european non-EU nations as have other western nations.

Then trying to corelate that to EU elections is just ridiculous , some states have declined in turnout, others have increased . Some have fluctated wildly and some have remained pretty stable.
Your attempt was to try and take a huge pile of different things and link them when they cannot be linked , and what was even funnier is that you took as your prime example a case that does the opposite of what you initially claimed.
So...
What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality.

not that i am claiming it to be the sole reason for the decline in voter turnout, i disagree that it's irrelevant however, but i invite you to come up with some more likely reasons, be >useful< to this thread you grumpy old bear................

[rory_20_uk]

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

Hopeless:

Families are divided, until an Outsider interferes. Neighbours are divided, until the Town tries to do something. Towns are divided until the county gets involved. Counties have little in common, until the region makes demands. Regions are so large they are very disparate, until the Central Government tries to do something. Countries are utterly divided, until threatened by something else, and so on.

The only thing that will unite Humanity to a common goal is something else: only green and other will bind black and white, rich and poor and the varying nations.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Backroom etiquette evil national-communistic moderatocrats ban curved cucumbers from the News of the Weird thread.

I shall reply to Rabbit and Fragony here.

I didn't click Louis's link

It says: 'Cucumbers do not have to be straight. There are grading rules, which were called for by representatives from the industry to enable buyers in one country to know what quality and quantity they would get when purchasing a box, unseen, from another country. Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications. The EU Single Market rules are identical to pre-existing standards set down both by the UN/OECD and the UK'.

The tabloids and the British press turned this into a deformed, crooked alternate reality. In their world, fruit classification and legally enforcable quality guarantees are about the prescription of the curvature of cucumbers.

Here's a thought: if there is, say, food and health safety regulation that prevents the use of rotten, black bananas from being processed into food anywhere in the European food chain, does that mean this is about 'bananas being the right shade of yellow'? No, of course not.
And neither are industry categories of product quality a prescription of the curvature of cucumbers. It distorts reality beyond recognition.
Here's what went into effect: Link under 'marketing standards'



We shall now return to 27 different sets of product categorization and regulation, instead of a single one, drastically complicating trade and benefitting only lawyers and pencil pushers at a national level and at firms engaging in transnational trade (i.e. all involved in the food business). Two hundred 'evil bureaucrats' in Bruxelles will be replaced by 5400 national bureacrats, plus 50000 bureaucrats at food processing companies trying to make sense of different regulation. Industry weeps. Well done.

whenever I do search for disgruntled manufacturers or exporters unhappy about a planned EU directive standardising their product, I often find that the majority are happy that there are Europe-wide rules, so they don't have to have legal teams and paperwork to meet 27 different national standards.

Yes, as pesky as they may seem, and as much as they are blamed for everything that goes wrong, removing the referee does not, in fact, benefit either the sport or the players.

[Fragony]

Yeah having to throw away up to half of your production, excellent idea. And who buys black rotten banana's anyway.

'Cucumbers do not have to be straight. There are grading rules, which were called for by representatives from the industry to enable buyers in one country to know what quality and quantity they would get when purchasing a box, unseen, from another country. Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications.

olol. Sure we are reading the same thing?

[Louis VI the Fat]

who buys black rotten banana's anyway.

You'd be surprised where they'd end up in without strictly enforced, proper regulation.

Where'd you rather eat: an outdoor food stand in Morocco, or in Sweden?

The difference is tight regulation. If there's one thing we need governments for, it's strict food quality regulation.

[Adrian II]

Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications.

Sorry Louis, but that's wrong.

The old rules did ban all fruits and veggies that did not conform to the regulations. Here is what the responsible Commissioner had to say:

12 Nov, 2008 - Rules governing the size and shape of fruit and vegetables will be consigned to history after European Union Member States today voted on Commission proposals to repeal specific marketing standards for 26 types of fruit and vegetables.
Daily News Alerts

The Commission's initiative to get rid of these standards is a major element in its ongoing efforts to streamline and simplify EU rules and cut red tape. For 10 types of fruit and vegetables, including apples, strawberries and tomatoes, marketing standards will remain in place. But even for these 10, Member States could for the first time allow shops to sell products that don't respect the standards, as long as they are labelled to distinguish them from 'extra', 'class I' and 'class II' fruit. In other words, the new rules will allow national authorities to permit the sale of all fruit and vegetables, regardless of their size and shape.

"This marks a new dawn for the curvy cucumber and the knobbly carrot," said Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. "It's a concrete example of our drive to cut unnecessary red tape. We simply don't need to regulate this sort of thing at EU level. It is far better to leave it to market operators. And in these days of high food prices and general economic difficulties, consumers should be able to choose from the widest range of products possible. It makes no sense to throw perfectly good products away, just because they are the 'wrong' shape."

Linky

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry Louis, but that's wrong.

Europe ought to ban pesky reporters and their meddlesome ways.

[Furunculus]

interesting article on how the german talking-heads are viewing their recent high-court ratification of lisbon, and how that will affect further federal integration:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...633736,00.html

[Furunculus]

Nope, it is in stages. My ultimate goal is to remove nationalism all together by destroying all nations. (using those words make it sound more cool and evil-ish, when actually it is very good)

humanity naturally forms groups, and quite frankly they will be unlikely to unify as proponents of transnational progressivism before the arrival of the octo-squid invasion.

nationalism, in both its healthy and its unhealthy forms, is here to stay.

[LittleGrizzly]

Wales, a nation of 3 million is divided both regionally and linguistically. Regionally, it breaks down into four or five groups just among the Welsh, then you have the English-speaking Welsh and the English immigrants. Wales has been politically united with England for over 500 years, and there is still bordernline racism and xenophobia between the two.

I would say the main divide among the actual Welsh would be North and South, outside of that it is just petty local rivalries. I can support the notion that there is borderline racism and xenophobia between the two, being half English half Welsh and having gone to both English and Welsh schools. I am regularly told Welsh football fans support two countrys, Wales and whoever England are playing.

I see much more hate and dislike between England and the smaller nations of Britian than i see between England and any other nation in Europe. In fact taking this into account, maybe Britian is actually unworkable ?

That doesn't seem right though, as Britian seems to work fairly well as one nation, despite our vast differences culturally and historically the joining of Britian resulted in us doing far far better than the seperate small nations managed on thier own. Europe would just be an extension of this but with less hatred and rivalry between the nations, or at least in the case of the British nations. You wouldn't hear the Germans or the French say they support two national teams thier own and whoever England are playing, so i can only assume a political union with France and Germany for example would be much more workable than Britian, seen as Britian functions pretty well i can only assume the union would also....

[Furunculus]

I see much more hate and dislike between England and the smaller nations of Britian than i see between England and any other nation in Europe. In fact taking this into account, maybe Britian is actually unworkable ?

That doesn't seem right though, as Britian seems to work fairly well as one nation, despite our vast differences culturally and historically the joining of Britian resulted in us doing far far better than the seperate small nations managed on thier own. Europe would just be an extension of this but with less hatred and rivalry between the nations, or at least in the case of the British nations. You wouldn't hear the Germans or the French say they support two national teams thier own and whoever England are playing, so i can only assume a political union with France and Germany for example would be much more workable than Britian, seen as Britian functions pretty well i can only assume the union would also....

maybe that is because britain already is a 'federation', thus the tensions are there and still there after 300+ years of forced marriage, in which case; how much worse would the tension be in the electorates of a 27 nation federation who have not had 300 years to acclimatise to their new reality?

if you first statement is incorrect, then it rather invalidates the second.

[LittleGrizzly]

maybe that is because britain already is a 'federation', thus the tensions are there and still there after 300+ years of forced marriage, in which case; how much worse would the tension be in the electorates of a 27 nation federation who have not had 300 years to acclimatise to their new reality?

But it was not always so, Scotland and England are the easier example to work with. England and Scotland hatred for each other at the time could probably have only been matched by the French rivalry with England. Yet do you know what happened after Scotland and England joined together. It worked BRILLIANTLY! Scotland and England underwent an enlightenment an industrial revolution. The joining of this decent sized world power and this rather small one forged one of the biggest empires the world has ever seen. Unmatched progress in science, economic theory and a whole bunch of other things!

So that covers the success, now onto the rivalry. Do you seriously think the rivalry exsists simply because were together under one country, the rivalry is due to England being much bigger than the smaller country's around it. Tell me where is the Welsh Scottish hatred of each other, they similarly have been forced together as England and Scotland have....

And tell me, Why would France have the same jealousy issues as Wales and Scotland have ? its a more comparable sized nation to England. So if you can make a Union between awkardly different sized powers which have huge grudges against each other (Britian) than the political union between Britian and mainland European powers is a cakewalk in comparison.

Edit: Alot of the rivalry exsists in Britian because England owned these countrys at various times, outside of 1066 the french have never owned the English in any recent times, and without going back hundreds and hundreds of years we haven't ruled the French either. The previous ownership and conquering is the cause of the rivalries...

What tensions between France and England. I can gaurentee i got far more abuse for being Welsh in England and English in Wales then i would have for being British on the mainland...

This to me tells me that a union between the british powers is less workable than a union between european ones, seen as our british union works so well the european one would work even better...