Europe

[Subotan]

We see the nation as, in this case, the ideal size of a country.

Despite the fact that nations range from 1,000 to over 1,000,000,000 people in size?

it's about Germany and how I want my country to go forward in the world.

I wanna see Germany go forward in the world too. I just don't see why Germany, France, Poland, UK etc. going forward in the world should mean that everyone else should go back.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Despite the fact that nations range from 1,000 to over 1,000,000,000 people in size?

It has relatively little to do with population.

I wanna see Germany go forward in the world too. I just don't see why Germany, France, Poland, UK etc. going forward in the world should mean that everyone else should go back.

Because then it won't be us going forward in the world, it will be a superstate going forward in the world instead of us. Poland, France, Germany, and the UK can all go forward - if we don't have a federal superstate.

[Subotan]

It has relatively little to do with population.

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Because then it won't be us going forward in the world, it will be a superstate going forward in the world instead of us.

It would be the collective interest of everyone in Europe going forward.

Poland, France, Germany, and the UK can all go forward - if we don't have a federal superstate.

It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

[Beskar]

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

Because it isn't change for the better, it's change for the sake of change - change for the worse!

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Not that either.

It would be the collective interest of everyone in Europe going forward.

Going forward is in everybody's interest, but how we proceed with that isn't. You're assuming that everyone has the same definition of going forward, or that it will work for every country. We've seen this in the prison thread - some things just don't work everywhere. Some don't work anywhere. A superstate is a bad move for Europe. It will be now, it will be after a hundred years of unification.

It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

[Beskar]

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

Also violence and elitism.

Because it isn't change for the better, it's change for the sake of change - change for the worse!

No, that would be having a Monarch to govern all of Europe, or even a Monarch full-stop.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Also violence and elitism.

No. Those have always been there and will always be there. Those are problems (are they even always problematic? That's another discussion.) that will never be removed by society.

No, that would be having a Monarch to govern all of Europe, or even a Monarch full-stop.

Which doesn't really relate, at least not until the very unlikely chance that we get Emperor Barroso I or Emperor Blair I.

[LittleGrizzly]

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Its some mythical entity that some mantain exsist that binds some together and seperates them from others...

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

Yes and I would rather be Tesco competing with ASDA and the other big brands than my corner shop down the road scraping by... there will still be competition, internally for products and externally with the big powers as a powerful entity than a small pawn on thier chess board.

[Furunculus]

It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

the greatest net effect might well be achieved, but if it isn't your aims that are being implemented, what value that forward march?

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

is it for the better.......... for Britain?

Going forward is in everybody's interest, but how we proceed with that isn't. You're assuming that everyone has the same definition of going forward, or that it will work for every country. We've seen this in the prison thread - some things just don't work everywhere. Some don't work anywhere. A superstate is a bad move for Europe. It will be now, it will be after a hundred years of unification.

^ wot he said. ^

Its some mythical entity that some mantain exsist that binds some together and seperates them from others...

what is mythical about it? i have listed plenty of individual examples, none of which have been refuted. Louis has admitted to it, although he differs on its importance. and the political governance of france and germany certainly agree given their enthusiasm to keep turkey out of the EU because it does not fit into the desired cultural make-up of the EU.

Yet you can remove many of the causes and divides and many people can be open minded.
Remove nation aspect and you don't have nations fighting for superiority with one another, as exampled in the first and second world wars.
Make people equal, promote an open culture.

Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture. Just because people over there eat curry opposed to sushi, doesn't mean have same legal/political framework is going to some how replace all the choices and lifestyles with porridge.

given that people have been arguing that the nation state is not a natural state, and in fact a relatively new entity, does that not invalidate any argument that ending nationalism will end warfare and bloodshed?

it is not a matter of good or evil, cultures survive or die, and they die because they no longer have the vibrancy to compete against the attraction of neighbouring cultures.

What would you lose? You would still have French with berets with stripy jumpers, you will still have Japanese eating sushi, you will still have Curry night on Thursdays. The whoile idea that internationalist agenda creates a bland and exact sameness everywhere is superficial. An open culture is open to all the facets of learning, experimentation and being open to others of different cultures. You can easily go to Japan and learn about the Shogunate's and that will never change, just like trying and adopting features like trying out curry. The whole openess doesn't actually remove anyway, it only adds.

i would lose a Britain that is tied to a grouping i do care about; the anglosphere.
> if we integrated politically with europe the technology sharing with the US would disappear, thus our nuclear deterrent would disappear, which would reduce the depth of our mutual political ties.
> if we integrated politically with europe the intelligence sharing with the US would disappear (and our relative intelligence advantage would disappear), which would reduce the depth of our mutual political ties.
> both of the above would also push us further away from Canada and Australia, with whom we also have mutli-lateral agreements in place with.
> the inward looking nature of the EU would also push us further away from the Commonwealth.

[Furunculus]

hannan is claiming (without sources) that the french and german government are 'encouraging' czech politicians to impeach their president, if true; hardly the act of friendly nations:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-vaclav-klaus/

[Louis VI the Fat]

hannan is claiming (without sources) that the french and german government are 'encouraging' czech politicians to impeach their president, if true; hardly the act of friendly nations:

And Hannan, a MEP, is encouring the president to obstruct the will of the Czech parliament. Hardly the act of a friendly MEP with respect for the sovereignty of the Czech republic.

[Furunculus]

there i was thinking that hannan was encouraging Klaus not to cave into EU pressure by closing down a judicial review, sponsored by the czech parliamentarians, before it had reached its due conclusion. ;)

[Strike For The South]

There are farm subsidies over there to?

I like to rag on the cotton farmers over here, good to know this thing is wroldwide!

[Tribesman]

There are farm subsidies over there to?

Of course, but the biggest fiddle recently (apart from subsidised fictional sheep) has been horses, everyone wanted to get on that dodge.
The result now is that lots of people are stuck with loads of horses they cannot sell (and that they cannot feed after another dismal summer wrecked the winter fodder again) .
Twice recently I have been offered very fine horses as part payment for work, (I didn't take them, but one of my cousins has ended up taking 7 already this year)

[gaelic cowboy]

Heard about that horse thing what a load of cobblers will people never learn quick there offering grants for sheds build some then later hey whats this shed for I dunnno but we got one

Good beef animals were using a grass based system all year round not putting animals in is healthier and they only eat about the same in hay and silage anyway.

Means less input in nuts however thay are not overly heavy animals so it works out the same just means stock is a small bit less for same money at the factory.

I think you will find the sheep thing is gone a good while Tribesman fictional sheep were being claimed for but the real problem was overstocking as evidenced by the massive collapse back in middle nineties of lamb prices.

A field of ducks at that time was worth more than ten fields of sheep our stock level was before that and got out completely when prices hit the wall. Likely will restock one day soon there good for keeping down noxious weed levels.

I am convinced the rise of part time farming allied with rural housing development and reduction of sheep numbers in the country gave rise to the explosion of ragwort. I am sick of having to deal with weeds that just blow in on the wind even more than they used too.

[Strike For The South]

Of course, but the biggest fiddle recently (apart from subsidised fictional sheep) has been horses, everyone wanted to get on that dodge.
The result now is that lots of people are stuck with loads of horses they cannot sell (and that they cannot feed after another dismal summer wrecked the winter fodder again) .
Twice recently I have been offered very fine horses as part payment for work, (I didn't take them, but one of my cousins has ended up taking 7 already this year)

What sort of back asswards socitey do you live in that horses are used as payment?

That's retarded.