Europe

[LittleGrizzly]

I think Beskar and Banquo pretty much summed up why I am a big fan of futher integration. Future potential and a decent voice in world events. I couldn't tell you if it has a positive impact or not at this present moment... I would like to think so but its complex if your trying to take everything into account... (somewhat similar to what gaelic cowboy said)

Our choices on the world stage seem to be follow what America does or not the other major powers are a little too different so we don't seem to follow thier lead as much whereas i think in the EU at least we will have a partial say in formulating policys...

[Furunculus]

1. And yet you will never leave because as I already said your locked into making sure Continental European integration never happens unless your in it.
Britain's ability to meddle in continental affairs had ended with the rapprochement between France and Germany no longer did you have the ability to play France off Germany or vice versa.

2. The dream of people like yourself died the day the European Coal and Steel Community was thought up from that moment on Britain had to be in Europe.

3. You overestimate EU interference I would like to point out your politicians are at the meetings where these things are thought up and Britain had her veto if they really were that important they would have exercised it no question.

4. Also Britain's bent towards services mean that the EU allows it to provide services anywhere in the EU without having to worry with all the old obstacles that used be in place to protect local services.
Britain does very well out of the EU but most of it is indirect benefit and not measured in a 19 century way in terms of how many ship's, coal and steel meaning it is impossible to relate to but very easy to knock for political gain.

5. Politicians are always knocking elites here at home the cry is "Look what there doing up in Dublin" etc etc thats because our politicians are more rooted in the area they come from in Ireland we effectively run a tribal system of government with indoor plumbing and electricity.
In London your politicians are far more removed from there constituients meaning how do they connect with people ta da "Look at what there doing over in Brussels" simple really.
The EU is a bureaucratic organisation but no more or less than the average council in England as apparently the tabloids are screaming all the time about looney councils banning Santa etc.

6. I for one hope Britain never leave because it is only Britain who can advance policies that encourage free trade thereby enriching the whole.
Too much time is spent by continental politco's trying to legislate for things like food prices and the ability to set up something as simple as your own business a company like Ryanair could never have happened in Ireland without the EU bringing about a marketplace where Ryanair could operate.
They way I see it John Bull is defending me from a system which would be designed to protect and not grow

1. And i don't want to leave, but at some stage in the game you have to assess the value of what you get by being in versus that of getting out. if we get a sensible EU that very clearly states the limits of its encroachment on sovereign power then fine, if we are subjected to ever more creeping federalism with no defined finish line then i'd rather be out. and strategies change, we have proven to be an adaptable bunch for quite some time now.

2. what people like me, you mean the ones who approve of visible and mutable lines of democratic accountability, where the demos have faith in their governance by the kratos, and the kratos in reliability of their demos? yes, i am one of those.

3. yes, we do indeed have a problem with our politicians forming a cartel that squashes all attempt at public debate on what we ACTUALLY want from the EU, as has been witnessed by the rise of anti-EU parties in recent UK euro-elections.

4. while at the same time eroding our competitive advantage via social financial and employment legislation. 48 hour week, and bankers bonus regulations being just two examples.

5. i agree that politicians in the UK have an unhealthy habit presenting europe in confrontational terms, they can't really do much else however while there is no other public debate about what we ACTUALLY want from the EU. if you've been telling the electorate for decades that ever-deeper-union really doesn't mean federalism then you have too lie and distort the appearance of every federalising EU initiative.

6. a jolly good reason for you to want the UK in the EU, but not very convincing or substantial reason to convince a brit he wants to be in EU. but remember, i too want the EU, however there is no reason anyone should write a blank cheque. everything has a value, and if the price-tag is significantly greater than the value then you don't buy, the essential point is to make an assessment of that value.

[gaelic cowboy]

1.
6. a jolly good reason for you to want the UK in the EU, but not very convincing substantial for convincing a brit he wants to be in EU. but remember, i too want the EU, however there is no reason anyone should write a blank cheque. everything has a value, and if the price-tag is significantly greater than the value then you don't buy, the essential point is to make an assessment of that value.

True

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nationalism is artifical in itself. Before nationalism was regionalism, taking Italy for example: there were papal states, tuscany, sardinia, kingdom of the two scilies, etc. After the great unification, as famously said "Now we made Italy, now we make Italians." and over the years they did just that.

But it wasn't artificial, or if it was, certainly not to the same extent that a European Union would be.

Germany is another example, it used to be Saxony, Balavia, Prussia, Hanover, etc, then they were unified and they became Germans. These were only done in the last 100+ years or so.

But they were Germans before they were unified, decades before. They shared, if not exact cultural customs, a similar language (and so on).

If you believe, however, that they were very different, then internationalism gets even worse. And why? The erosion of individual cultures. Like it or not, regardless of what you do to prevent it, our cultures will morph into a larger common culture much more quickly. I don't consider that a good thing, though you might.

What makes it so different that it can't go larger? Why are you stuck on this level and why not advocate a return to the old system of Hanover/Prussia/Saxony/etc ?

Balance. I consider this to be a good balance between the two, in addition to what I have explained above.

How so? You don't qualify your point at all. Tie it into previous question I asked if you like. If I am being honest, many arguments seems just to want status quo and against change/advancement.

What we are saying is that it is change, but not positive change (advancement). I've qualified my points time and time again, I dislike having to type them out every time. Hence the shortness of this post.

Im not sure what actually qualifies the entity as artificial or not.... but wouldn't anything outside of a family unit maybe friends be artificial anyway...

All in the formation.

I hardly see why a unified Europe nessecarily means more authoritarian... a few posters seem to think America is the most free country and thier not far off the size of it...

Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

That is the fundamental problem of internationalism. Corruption, control, it all becomes so much easier.

How exactly would we be by the time Europe was unified for a bit... will society come crashing down... did Italy or Germany suddenly fall apart... how about Britian ?

1) Europe is much bigger.
2) The formations of Italy and Germany were certainly not the same.

Our choices on the world stage seem to be follow what America does or not the other major powers are a little too different so we don't seem to follow thier lead as much whereas i think in the EU at least we will have a partial say in formulating policys...

For the last time, that isn't your choice. That will only be your choice as long as your political leaders don't expand their own voice in the world. You're trading the potential to be your own power for the chance to have a 1/27th of an opinion on something.

Actually, that brings up a point. Why is United States of America the best thing since sliced bread, in your opinion, EMFM, but the idea of an United States of Europe the worst thing imaginable?

How are they being formed? What were the states, their cultures, and their beginnings? The differences between the two are massive.

You couldn't be more wrong when you say that I'm a nationalist just because. I'm not even really a nationalist - I'm just a committed anti-internationalist. Regionalism I wouldn't be a huge fan of, but I would much prefer it to a united Europe.

[LittleGrizzly]

But they were Germans before they were unified, decades before. They shared, if not exact cultural customs, a similar language (and so on).

We have Europeans now. A great many of them could communicate without the use of translators. Besides its hardly if language differences make unification impossible look at Britian, you have English, Welsh and Gaelic. We became a superpower for a while as well...

Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

When I think the whole of Germany uniting I think of 1984...

When I think of the whole of Italy uniting I think of 1984...

When I think of the whole of Britian uniting I think of 1984...

Thankfully I was pretty much wrong every time... so maybe when the EU unites were not going to all of a sudden see 1984... this was all back in the days when populations could be swayed to extremes so much more easily than today... Also America... when it united properly after the civil war the place became better (because the slaves were somewhat freer, although still messed about) Infact I think of all of these unification events as good things, you could possibly somewhat maybe blame German unification on Hitler I suppose but I think that was more of a product of the age and the events that happened to Germany rather than a direct result of its unification..

All in the formation.

So what exaclty, the act of union betwen England and Scotland and America's expansion including states seem about as artificial as the EU to me... well actually ours is done with democratic goverments that everyone gets a vote in so ours is a much better expansion if you ask me...

1) Europe is much bigger.

Is there some geographical limit of where suddenly when a nation owns a mile extra thier leaders become insane dictators... and ironically that exact geographical limit is slightly bigger than America so thats ok and possibly the coolest place ever... but its a bit smaller than the size of the EU, so the think is some kinbd of unworkable hitler/stalin dream... let us also ignore that places like China and India seem to function pretty well despite the fact thier not 1st world countrys like ours... that again is different obviously....


2) The formations of Italy and Germany were certainly not the same.


And America and Britian... and every other unification throughout time... because perhaps you weren't there at the time and politically opposed to them ?

For the last time, that isn't your choice. That will only be your choice as long as your political leaders don't expand their own voice in the world. You're trading the potential to be your own power for the chance to have a 1/27th of an opinion on something.

Ohh sure I missed out the option where we become our own our own superpower and join a great alliance with the fairy's and the trolls. We can't have much independance in foriegn policy we need to work in larger groups to achieve most things... the powers we can work with are America... and maybe China and Russia... within the EU we could make our own decision whether China Russia and America all weren't intrested in doing it all, atm with the EU as fractured as it is Britian's choice is follow America or not... within the EU our choice would be what do 'we' want to do...

Besides its hardly 1/27th of a choice we have, our opinions are hardly miles apart, if we joined in a union with a union which was exactly like euorpe but filled with leaders like the Chinese have then we would have a small crappy say which all the authoritarians could overrule. Within Europe its much more like common goals, sure there are differences but they are small so we would have a much larger say in foriegn policy then we do now...

[Beskar]

[B]
Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

Just picking at a point, in 1984, Britain is part of American superpower being very honest, with our current anti-terror laws, CCTV everywhere, America's current actions, we are already in 1984. With a united Europe, there is actually a chance it might get reduced instead of America forcing us to follow their way.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm too amused to respond, especially when I've done so to this exact same debate so many times before. This might as well be an exercise in copy and paste. I'm out for now.

[Viking]

Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

All the power does not have to be gathered at one place; alot of power is normally placed locally, even the law differ within some countries.

Corruption, control, it all becomes so much easier.

Huh?

[Furunculus]

since we're back to the whole tiresome squabble over why a more global governance cannot successfully be forged, i give you this article which was an interesting read, and seems apt for the moment:

Thinking global brings a world of problems
The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, says Janet Daley.

By Janet Daley
Published: 5:35PM BST 26 Sep 2009

You are a political leader whose domestic programme is bogged down in messy controversy: what do you do? You go global. You walk the world stage with an air of supercilious moral righteousness, implying by your preoccupied manner that all the trouble back at home is just parochial backbiting.

I am not just talking about Gordon Brown. He is part of a great tradition of failing prime ministers and presidents at the fag end of their tenures going walkabout on the international circuit, in the hope that this larger arena will provide some sort of dignified final chapter to their historical story. But Barack Obama is at it too, and he is just at the beginning of what could still be (in spite of his present difficulties) a successful presidency.

No, there is something quite different going on: it is not just the clapped-out and desperate players who are leaping on to the grand transnational plane. There is a new discourse in the air which goes beyond the established understanding of the relationship between national and international politics: a language of "global governance" and an apparent consensus that all the interests of responsible countries are now "shared interests".

This vocabulary has aroused little resistance outside America, perhaps because older nations are sufficiently cynical to utter platitudinous phrases that they never intend to be bound by, whereas the US, whose political culture rests on sacred documents, places much more significance on words. And some of the words that are bandied about by the G20 are fatuous at best and sinister at worst.

The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, so what are we talking about here? World government? A system of laws and policing which would be beyond the reach of the electorates of individual countries, and therefore have no direct democratic accountability to the peoples of those nations? Even assuming that such institutions did not take on a self-justifying life of their own – which history teaches us is almost inevitable – and that they remained fastidiously responsive to the heads of national governments, they would still be, by definition, supranational.

In other words, their function would be precisely to ignore those needs and interests of individual countries which might endanger the welfare of the larger entity. And the welfare of that larger entity would be judged by – what? The interests of the most powerful or the most populous countries? Or by a simplistic majority vote? Or by endless wrangling and ineffectual compromise – as we see now in that sententious talking shop, the G20? And in this vast permanent seminar, how much would democratic legitimacy count in a nation's degree of influence: would a dictatorship have as much power as a fully fledged democracy, which would have to take the wishes of its own citizens as a priority?

Then there is the moral blackmail of "shared interests". Mr Obama has actually contended that, in the newly interconnected world, all of our interests are shared. Which is clearly false. Some of them are and some of them aren't, as has always been the case. When nations do indeed share interests, whether they are economic or military, there are traditional ways of formalising their mutually advantageous understandings. There have always been bilateral or multilateral trade and credit arrangements, just as there have always been mutual defence treaties and foreign policy agreements. It is no coincidence that such arrangements have tended to be temporary: national interests change with time and circumstances. Does Mr Obama (and Mr Brown, who is trotting alongside him) believe that we have reached the end of history, or that circumstances are actually altering more slowly now than in previous eras? Surely not. All of his rhetoric, in fact, says the opposite.

Which brings us to the sticking point: the tricky bit comes when the interests of sovereign countries are not shared, but actually conflict. When Russia's territorial inclinations are at odds with the independence of eastern European republics, or China's reliance on exports is contributing to America's credit problems, or Germany's economic priorities threaten Britain's finance industry – what then? Intoning pious banalities about global consensus will not make these differences go away: for the countries concerned they are – or may seem like – fundamental imperatives.

Every country has its unique history, its political culture, its sense of continuity and progress – and, above all, a duty to its own people. At the moment, the global governance fashion is trying to depict that duty as simply a malign parochialism – a kind of purblind national selfishness in which nations would rather beggar their neighbours than engage in civilised give-and-take. Again, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

What nobody seems to be saying is that it is the proper business of democratically elected governments to protect and defend the needs and wishes of their own people. This is nothing less than the whole 18th-century project of modern democracy with which we are playing fast and loose. Ironically, the fad for "global governance" – whatever that turns out to mean – suits democratically elected leaders rather well: it absolves them of responsibility while enhancing their prestige. Perfect. But then exposure on the world stage is also likely to betray the limits of their understanding: does Mr Obama really think that he can coerce or shame European nations – with all their historical baggage and self-serving complacency – into forsaking what he calls their "collective inaction" on foreign policy (on Iran, say)? It is hard enough for a leader to remain in touch with the consciousness of his own people: playing to a global electorate puts almost any politician out of his depth. Not that we are talking about electorates any longer. Voters are way, way down on the list of considerations in this new ball game.

But perhaps you find yourself convinced, in the present economic circumstances, that there are no national crises any more, only global ones – and that the governing of all nations must now be subsumed under some overarching international framework of law and supervision, to be monitored and policed by suitably empowered agencies. Maybe you think that is an acceptable price to be paid for stability at home and security abroad. But consider this: what if the new dispensation, once installed, fails to produce that stability and security, or delivers it only to certain nations (not yours), or does so only by limiting freedoms that you consider precious? What recourse will you have then to remove it peaceably from power, as you do your national government?

[Furunculus]

we're now in the hands of the irish:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...652690,00.html

Irish 'No' Campaign Gains Momentum
By Carsten Volkery in Dublin
Europe is watching Ireland anxiously on the eve of the second referendum. And while the "yes" camp seemed to be in the lead for weeks, the aggressive campaign against the Lisbon Treaty now appears to be swaying undecided voters.
Niamh is 19 years old. She studies Design, wears green chucks, heavy mascara, and a nose ring. She could not care less about politics but she has just been approached by an old man on Grafton Street. "He was so nice," she says. "Beforehand, I actually wanted to vote 'no,' but maybe now I'll be voting 'yes.'"
She doesn't know him. "Is he famous?" she asks. The man is Eamon Gilmore, leader of the Irish Labour Party. He's trudging through Dublin in a last ditch attempt to prevent a second calamity in Europe. On Friday the Irish will be voting for the second time on the treaty that hopes to reform the European Union. This time around nothing is supposed to go wrong.

"It is very important that you vote 'yes' on Friday," Gilmore tells Niamh, while pressing his two palms together, as if in prayer. Niamh is somehow inspired. She has already forgotten what was said, but remembers it being said in earnest.
But then what about the "no" posters? "They say that wages will sink," she says. "And what about my right to vote?"
Perplexing and Polarizing
Niamh is not the only one confused. Yes, no, yes, no -- a tour through the streets of the capital is a perplexing and polarized affair. One poster depicts a girl with nervous green eyes: "Irish Democracy 1916-2009? Just say No." Another poster states that the "yes" vote will bring economic recovery. These posters are everywhere. They all either entice, promise or warn. Most importantly, they all contradict each other. What can you believe?
Should you believe that the minimum wage would fall to €1.84 should the Lisbon Treaty pass? Or that it would signal the end of the Irish democracy? The government claims these are lies, but who believes the government anyway? "It has to come from somewhere," says Niamh.
Judging by the latest polls from this weekend, 19 percent of the Irish voters are still undecided, with 48 percent will vote "yes," and 33 percent will vote "no." The final result could swing either way depending on if and how the undecided voters make up their minds. As a result, a fierce tug of war between political groups as ensued. All of the major parties in parliament are campaigning for a yes apart from Sinn Fein, the left- wing nationalist party that presents itself as a mouthpiece for the disenfranchised.
"It is closer than anticipated," says one of the Labour Party's chief strategists. Though the "yes" camp was comfortably in the majority for many weeks, it seems that their advantage is seeping away at the final hurdle. The "no" camp is gaining momentum, he concedes, saying that those who are still undecided will in all likelihood end up voting "no." If that happens then the majority for the "yes" camp will be lost.
'There Will Be No Lisbon Three'
The Irish Prime minister Brian Cowen of the conservative Fianna Fail party is holding his final press conference in a hotel room in Dublin. A large, yellow "yes" badge is pinned to his lapel. There are journalists from Italy, Belgium, Spain and England. The treaty has already been ratified in 26 countries. The Czech and Polish presidents may be dragging their heels but essentially it is up to Ireland to decide if the treaty comes into force in 2010.
When asked what Cowen would do if the vote goes badly, he responds: "There would be no Lisbon Three." He does his best to talk up Friday as the "all or nothing" D-Day. It concerns "the future of our country," he exclaims. Two thirds of Irish jobs depend on exports to other EU countries He compares Ireland's situation before and after joining the then European Community in 1973, reminding his audience of how indebted the former poorhouse is to Europe. He appeals to the voters to set aside day-to-day political disputes and to concentrate on the collective mission.
A speech laden with historical pathos is Cowen's only viable option. Heavy endorsement of the treaty could be disastrous given that he is Ireland's most despised politician. His management of the economic crisis, which has affected Ireland worse than any other EU country, is regarded as catastrophic.
Gary Keogh, a dockworker, marches through downtown Dublin with fellow critics of the government. They are protesting against the government's austerity plans which envisage deep cuts in public spending. The 28-year-old crane operator has worked in Dublin's port for 12 years. He and his co-workers are on strike for three months as they refuse to put up with the recent wage cuts. His British employer has found temporary replacements -- English and Scottish workers who are prepared to do the job for 20 percent lower wages. Keogh chides the government for deserting the Irish workers. Although he is still an undecided voter, he leans towards rejecting the treaty. It would be a form of revenge, as the Cowen government is likely to fall if Lisbon is rejected for a second time.
'I Don't See Any Reason to Change My Mind'
"Many people want to stick it to the government" says the 21-year-old Ross Jones, a shopkeeper of a souvenir store in downtown Dublin. He himself plans to vote "yes," and so do most of his friends. He voted "no" in the first referendum as he feared Irish taxes would have to increase to meet EU levels. However, he is now satisfied that the government has secured a guarantee on the issue from the European Council
This echoes the attitude of many who voted "no" last time. In fact Dublin secured a number of legally-binding commitments in Brussels on a range of issues that were deemed to have been decisive in last year's rejections, such as abortion and military neutrality. However, others still cannot extract themselves from traditional attitudes towards authority. "The Irish don't like to be told what to do" explains Paul McSweeney. The 66 year old is disgruntled with the EU. He sees this second referendum as an act of impertinence. He voted "no" last year and will again vote "no" on principle. "I don't see any reason to change my mind," he says. His friend, 67-year-old Tom Trehy, pipes in: 'I don't want a lunatic like Sarkozy to be making my decisions."
Most are aware that Europe is watching on. It is now up to three million people to decide whether in the near future 500 million people share the same president and foreign minister. The pressure is immense. Andrew Duff, a British MEP, warns that the rejection of this referendum would create the "mother of all constitutional stalemates."
Whether the Irish want it or not, Friday's outcome will be of great symbolic importance to Europe. On Wednesday evening, the main Irish news program reminded its viewers that 600 journalists from all the EU countries are accredited to cover the referendum, and that the European governments will be in much suspense as they await the results on Saturday.
Tapping Into Class Resentments
Yet the outcome is in no way certain. The "yes" camp may have picked itself up this time round, and has perhaps put in enough time and money to change public opinion. The political and business elite have driven massive promotional campaigns and huge multinationals such as Intel, Dell and Microsoft have helped by promising more jobs.
Nevertheless, this aggressive campaign may actually have the opposite effect. The "no" camp has managed to tap into class resentments against those "up there." It's not at all helpful, says Jones, the shop owner, when the Irish budget airline Ryanair accuses the "no" voters in a newspaper advertisement of being "losers."
Niamh still does not know which way she will go. It is the first time that she has had the right to vote, and she will make her decision on Friday. She thinks she is leaning towards a "no." If she votes "yes," who knows what will happen to Ireland? If she votes "no" then "everything will stay just as it is." She is not the only one who thinks this way.

i love the reference to class resentment, ties in nicely with the euro-federalists branding the electorate: "too dull to know what's good for them, good job there are professional technocrats to ensure that society operates nice and smoothly"

personally i predict that most of the floating voters will vote no, but it won't be enough to stop the yes crowd winning the day by a very slim margin.

still even that will keep the question of the legitimacy of the whole sham open.

[Tribesman]

Typical Biffo

Two thirds of Irish jobs depend on exports to other EU countries He compares Ireland's situation before and after joining the then European Community in 1973, reminding his audience of how indebted the former poorhouse is to Europe.

...none of which has anything at all to do with the treaty

[Banquo's Ghost]

we're now in the hands of the irish:

Muhahahaha.

Well, they didn't change the Treaty, so I didn't change my vote.

[Furunculus]

i believe Tribesman harbours similar sentiments, and while i salute your good sense, i fear the "ayes" will have it.

[edit] if the "no's" somehow win the day, i will buy a non ryan-air flight to dublin and stick fifty pounds (or equivalent thereof) behind the first bar i find. [/edit]

[Tribesman]

i fear the "ayes" will have it.

Of course they will, this re run has had the amazing ability to make even less people understand what it is they are voting about than last time.
It was exactly the same with Nice, which is funny when its quite common that you get idiots complaining about things that they they voted in favour of in that treaty. I expect the same idiots to be complaining about what they voted in favour of this time too in a short while.

[LittleGrizzly]

I understand your point and its true but there has to be a level of compromise to get some kind of agreement... you can't have everything you want in there and everything you don't want out.... so I wouldn't say its hypocritical just pragmatic...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It looks like a 67% yes vote. Our last hope lies with the Czechs and Poles now.

And Germany, come to think of it.

[Furunculus]

in a way it may prove a good thing, for a decade now british politics hasn't had the courage to deal with britain in europe themselves, preferring the cowardly option of hoping that proxies will come to the aid of their indecision.

british politics may have to take a stance of their own now.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

in a way it may prove a good thing, for a decade now british politics hasn't had the courage to deal with britain in europe themselves, preferring the cowardly option of hoping that proxies will come to the aid of their indecision.

british politics may have to take a stance of their own now.

The Poles will probably sign in days and Cameron is already waffling. Our last hope lies with the Czechs delaying ratification long enough for Britain to plan a referendum (six to nine months should do the trick).

[tibilicus]

I love how Politicians can put enough Spin on the treaty to persuade people to vote yes.

If this treaty does in fact stand and the Poles and Czechs do ratify it's going to be a very dark day for Europe..

Also on the matter of it coming down to a British vote, if that were to happen im fairly confident Britain would NO.

[Beskar]

Doubtful.

Once Europe is set-up and if things go badly, the people will revolt and Europe would be forced to at least pander, to stop it ripping itself apart.

[Meneldil]

Nations are a natural entity.

Where did you get this weird idea? Nations are a quite recent form of political organization. They're built through a long, and often violent process. There's no such thing as a natural nation. The same can be said about states.

[Furunculus]

The Poles will probably sign in days and Cameron is already waffling. Our last hope lies with the Czechs delaying ratification long enough for Britain to plan a referendum (six to nine months should do the trick).

the question is; will the czechs be able to hold out against the bullying of france and germany?

I love how Politicians can put enough Spin on the treaty to persuade people to vote yes.

If this treaty does in fact stand and the Poles and Czechs do ratify it's going to be a very dark day for Europe..

Also on the matter of it coming down to a British vote, if that were to happen im fairly confident Britain would NO.

sadly yes.

agreed.

no question.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Where did you get this weird idea? Nations are a quite recent form of political organization. They're built through a long, and often violent process. There's no such thing as a natural nation. The same can be said about states.

I think we have a very different definition of what a nation is.

[Tribesman]

Also on the matter of it coming down to a British vote,

Britain has already ratified, that spiel from Cameron about having a vote is just bullexcrement for the consumption of fools.

[Meneldil]

I think we have a very different definition of what a nation is.

Care to elaborate what is your definition of a nation then? The only people who still claim nations are natural and have been there forever are nationalist nutjobs (from the left and from the right) and primordialist scholars (who are a tiny minority). The widespread consensus among scholars and students is that nations are born in the late 18th century (the modernist theory), either during the european revolutionnary wars (Renan, Kedourie), or after the industrial revolution (Gellner). Some other modernists point to South-America (Anderson) or to the US, but they also are a minority among modernists scholars.

Even Anthony Smith, who attempted to find a mindle-ground between primordialist and modernist approaches, with his 'pre-modern origins' confess that nations probably never came into existence before the 18th.

Now mind you, you're perfectly entitled to have your own definition of a nation. Hundred of scholars wrote book about nations and nationalism, and so far, they haven't reached an argument about what is a nation. But I hope you're part of the primordialist group rather than of the nationalist nutjobs one :-P

Furthermore, would you like to explain me how an European state would be more artificial than an Italian state? In 1850 most people in Italy didn't speak the same language, and didn't feel like having anything in common with people living on the other side of the peninsula.
The idea that an italian culture existed, and that italians should all live in a same state was pretty much only shared by the elites (and it's been like this for quite a while: Machiavelli wrote about it in the 16th). But your average Cesare most likely didn't give a crap. Note that the same was true for France, Spain or pretty much any country one century earlier (in fact, before the Revolution, many parts of what we call France now were considered as semi-independant States - Pays d'Etat - associated to the King of France - some tried to regain their independance during the Revolution).

Nowadays, we have people claiming we all share an European culture. Despite all our different languages, we're all (more or less) able to spout some gibberish in english. Whether what they say is true or not (I actually don't think it is), how are they crazier than Garibaldi?

Btw, when I say nations are the results of a historical process, I'm not necessarily saying they're built by men (or that they aren't). I'm just saying they certainly aren't a natural political organization, nor are they an ancient one.

As for your other arguments, they don't have much value. You're not even able to tell us why a german federation is okay, while an european one would lead to 1984, stalinism and what not. Your only excuse is 'balance'. Quite cheap ain't it, given that France and Germany now share much more than Cologne and Mecklemburg ever did.

[Louis VI the Fat]

@Banquo - the Treaty hasn't changed*, the world has changed. What made sense last time, is not automatically in the interest of Ireland any longer.

Ultra-liberalism provided excellent opportunities for Ireland, which it seized. But between the two referenda, ultra-liberalism has crashed Ireland into a severe economic depression.

Perhaps a rethinking of economic strategy, re-stabilizing Ireland in a larger framework, and the empowerment of states to protect the common good against private gain again, are just the right course for Ireland.


*It has changed a bit. The meddlesome influence of the Roman church and of American companies on Ireland have been guaranteed, at the behest of the 'sovereignty for Ireland!!1!!' camp.

@Maniac - there were no modern nations or nation-states before 1800. In 1780, it took seventeen days to travel from
Paris to Toulouse. You'd pass a dozen different languages, time zones, peoples, tribes, customs and toll zones, dishes, standards of measurement.*
Then nationhood was beaten into the populations of the new nation-states in the course of the 19th century. Then it all went wrong in the twentieth century. Nationalism thus discredited, Europe is trying to find a new balance between the local and the supra-local, on whatever level - region, state, EU, global.

*Asterixed for Furunculus, whose hands are no doubt itching to post 'That's all well and fine, Louis, but none of this applies to Britain'. I refer my honourable anti-EUist to Hobsbawm, 'Nations and Nationalism', for a sobering description of just how recent nations are, including the UK.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I know the theories of nationhood, and I don't want to get into the debate right now as I stated before. Thanks though.

[Beskar]

I said that many times, Menedil.

The clincher is, he loves the USA! Which is a bigger nation, however the idea of an USE is very bad.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The clincher is, he loves the USA! Which is a bigger nation, however the idea of an USE is very bad.

I love how you can't see a difference between the two.

[Beskar]

Oh that's easy.

USA - A world hyper-power which shapes the very world we live in, brought and instituted many operations from false-flag, CIA coups, installation of puppets, pretty much unrestraint power, ditacting European (and world) policy and using Europe (and world) as its own pawns and installing 1984 mindset at home and aboard.

USE - Something that doesn't exist, except on paper with a long way to go.