Europe

[Furunculus]

Yeah, because it's tyranny that people in Scotland or Wales work for the common good of Britain

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=14586858
So, will we see a "President Blair", and if we did, would it be a good thing?

300 years since the act of union tells me that we have a pretty harmonised opinion by now.

he would be a good president, which is precisely why i don't want him, i want a pygmy to occupy the position if such a position must exist.

[Subotan]

300 years since the act of union tells me that we have a pretty harmonised opinion by now.

Despite the fact that it was created with force (See Civil Wars, Conquest of Wales, The Troubles, Jacobite Rebellions etc.)? Yet you oppose the peaceful formation of a loose association of states, that haven't been at war once since the beginning of that Union over 50 years ago?

[Furunculus]

why should i care how it formed, what matters is that it works now.

and i oppose britain's involvement in what appears to be a federal state because i consider it to have no net benefit.

if britain were so tiddly little continental state with no influence and a history of hosting other peoples wars then i might take a different assessment of the net benefit of being part of a federal state.

if i were absolutely convinced that the end state of the EU would result in a loose association of sovereign nation states then i would stop bitching, but history tells us all otherwise.

[Beskar]

Subotan, you are forgetting something, these people are basically nationalists. The fact we are a nation already means we are one now, and they don't care about some Europe as they only care about Britain (Furunculus) or they have some fantasy land ideal of the American dream (EMFM).

Furunculus's arguments are mainly based on the here and now of Britain, such as overall net benefits of Britain as a nation with pro's and con's. He generally sees Britain as a great nation, with a nato security seat, one of the top economies, etc and has a great pride in his nation. He sees Europe as this "foriegn tentacle monster" wanting to control his beloved nation, weakening it and have random people deciding policies and governance. His arguments for the situation are quite reasonable, as you cannot deny that Britain currently is in a very comfortable position in many aspects.


However, would you fully support a confederation, Furunculus? As in many ways, the EU is part of a confederation, not a federation. (In technical terms, it is some weird hybrid)

Taken from Wikipedia:

A confederation in modern political terms is a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.[1] Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.

The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies considerably. Likewise, the relationship between the member states and the central government, and the distribution of powers among them, is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations, while tighter confederations may resemble federations.

Off-topic:

why should i care how it formed, what matters is that it works now.

Dislike change?

[Furunculus]

i have the same problem with the looser definition of confederation as i do with the EU political project, i.e. there is no definition of what they wish to achieve and thus no limits to the application of ever deeper union.

if the agreed goal was to achieve the former and not the latter of the following:
"Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations, while tighter confederations may resemble federations," then i would be perfectly happy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Subotan, you are forgetting something, these people are basically nationalists.

And you're an internationalist. Big deal. We see the nation as, in this case, the ideal size of a country. It's not about America at all, it's about Germany and how I want my country to go forward in the world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?

Basically, that is Klaus' offer. He will only agree to Lisbon, if the EU is willing to give up social rights for the three million expelled Germans from the Czech Republic.

(Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Friday he wanted Prague to negotiate an "exemption" from the European Union's Lisbon Treaty to avert possible property claims by Germans expelled after World War Two

As to my own answer: No! The EU is here to put a final end to nationalist animosity. The Germans have social rights, like all other peoples. Incorporating Germany into a democratic Europe, and currently incorporating East Europe into a democratic Europe is the very business of the EU.
No to the Polish, Czech, Lithuanian (and their newfound friends, the UK Conservatives) demands to do WWII all over again.


Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions. We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.
So we might as well give in to the Czech anti-EU demands too - no social rights for the three million expelled Germans.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?

I'd rather see an end to the European Union as a political organization, to prevent the long-term loss of rights and soveriegnty for every German. Ideally I would want both, especially since my family suffered because of this kind of thing, but eighty million come ahead of three million.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less)

Well, our attempts at reasonable debate are drowned beneath millions of dollars of pro-EU advertising run by our governments, so how else can we get attention?

[Incongruous]

I think he big worry now is theprospect of Tony becoming the EU prsident, who the heck wants that? Lisbon will finaly allow Europe to become more self-sufficient and yet me have a Washington Poodle (and war criminal) as our first president.

I think we should all unte in making sure old Tony don't get what 'e wants.

[Beskar]

Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions.

That is actually incorrect. Britain just has its own version in the form of British Common Law and the EU respects that as long as the rights in the charter are covered. Issues have been taken to the European Human Rights commission and won before, which means the UK had to follow the verdict.

put a final end to nationalist animosity

As much as I agree, there are those who have the agenda to keep it there for the stupidest of reasons.

[Furunculus]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?
Basically, that is Klaus' offer. He will only agree to Lisbon, if the EU is willing to give up social rights for the three million expelled Germans from the Czech Republic.

As to my own answer: No! The EU is here to put a final end to nationalist animosity. The Germans have social rights, like all other peoples. Incorporating Germany into a democratic Europe, and currently incorporating East Europe into a democratic Europe is the very business of the EU.
No to the Polish, Czech, Lithuanian (and their newfound friends, the UK Conservatives) demands to do WWII all over again.

Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions. We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.
So we might as well give in to the Czech anti-EU demands too - no social rights for the three million expelled Germans.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less)

a wonderful example of national interest at work, pah to the internationalists.
and another example of a problem britain doesn't have, i.e. dangerous overlaps of cultural and national boundaries created by previous conflict, and a potential cause for future conflict.

WW2 again? bombing Dresden, marching through france, what a ridiculous notion that anyone should wish to do that again. might be an even bigger example of hyperbole than me branding the EU the EUSSR.

All fantastic examples of objectives and expectations shaped by the shared religious cultural and social history of the separate sovereign nations, and you wonder that these objectives and expectations are so disparate between nations?

The UK has human rights, it had them before the EU started getting its knickers in a twist over the issue, and as for democracy; my view is well known that representative democracy is best effected between a Demos and a Kratos that share the same social and cultural history, where the Demos is trusted by the Kratos not to introduce demagogues, and where the Kratos is always answerable to the Demos as a ward against tyranny.

[Furunculus]

I think he big worry now is theprospect of Tony becoming the EU prsident, who the heck wants that? Lisbon will finaly allow Europe to become more self-sufficient and yet me have a Washington Poodle (and war criminal) as our first president.

The yanks want a strong partner in a world where their power is in decline, which is why they are all for a fully federated EU (anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot), and it is why they want Britain within that federation (so the federal state retains a character sympathetic to US needs).

If you want a strong EU that is able to punch its weight on the international scene then you NEED someone like Blair, (he is an international superstar), the usual euro-pygmies from tiddly-winks nations simply won't cut the mustard.

I supported Blairs pro-americanism, and i supported his war, which is why i don't want him in the job of EU president; it directly conflicts with my desire for the federal ambitions of the EU to remain as weak and divided as possible.

Just because I am pro-american does not mean i am willing to subvert my nation in the interests of seeing the US get a more anglophile superpower partner for the 21st century.

put a final end to nationalist animosity

As much as I agree, there are those who have the agenda to keep it there for the stupidest of reasons.

if the aim of the game was to preserve national animosity then i would be agreed; that would be stupid.

however, you idealistic internationalists can only see the down-side of national sentiment so negative words like "animosity are automatically appended to your thoughts on nationalism, whereas many nationalists merely recognise that national sentiment is merely the result of their shared history and has resulted in a particular array of expectations and objectives peculiar to that group of people, who understandably feel that their rulers must share those same aims if representative governance is to be achieved.

i don't give a damn about abortion either way, nor does britain as a whole, but ireland obviously disagrees.
i reject the pacifist neutrality of ireland, and certainly britain as a whole is closer to my view-point than ireland.
i embrace NATO and by extension the US, and Britain certainly has a more relaxed attitude to the local superpower than Finland for example, who won't even join NATO.
i accept the potential for social instability resulting from our anglo-centric free wheeling capitalism, and judging by the level of support for hard left parties in the UK i'd say britain largely agrees with me, but i hardly think france feels the same given that Louis's compatriots are permanently on strike to protect their social welfare.

Even Louis accepted the existence of national expectations and objectives, he just didn't think they are important enough to derail a more integrated europe, so why the concept of something that is blatently common sense seems so obscure to you is a mystery to me..........

[Beskar]

Just a correction, I am not an "internationalist" per se, but carry on.

Also, your 'judging by the support for the left' comment is out of place, since the majority of support for Labour is on the left (which are currently in power), however, there is just the little problem where the party swapped sides and the fanbase is like "?!!?!?! lets continue voting the same!" and the mismatch between the Labour party (its members) and the Leaders. Also other factions regarding "If we continue supporting Labour, at least they can get into power". Party politics has turned something like Football teams. Just because your team is losing, or going to wrong way, mean you automatically jump ship to another team.

It's a sad case where I know many people "on the left" actually working for the Labour party and many "on the left" which voted for them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

another example of a problem britain doesn't have, i.e. dangerous overlaps of cultural and national boundaries created by previous conflict, and a potential cause for future conflict.

I would've thought that last week's referendum would've reminded even the most stubbornly inward looking Englishman of the existence of the Emerald Isle...






Beskar - Britain did secure exemption from European social rights for its working population. (Well done NuLAb! Keep those labourers and their cheeky demands in check!):

Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights feature in the new treaty?

No. There is a reference to it, making it legally binding, but the full text does not appear, even in an annex.
The UK has secured a written guarantee that the charter cannot be used by the European Court to alter British labour law, or other laws that deal with social rights. However, experts are divided on how effective this will be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm

[Beskar]

But the exception included provisions didn't it? As long as the United Kingdom kept a, b and c, in its own legal system. (or so I am led to believe) the exception was granted.

Furunculus probably knows more in that area anyway.

[Furunculus]

Also, your 'judging by the support for the left' comment is out of place, since the majority of support for Labour is on the left (which are currently in power), however, there is just the little problem where the party swapped sides and the fanbase is like "?!!?!?! lets continue voting the same!" and the mismatch between the Labour party (its members) and the Leaders. Also other factions regarding "If we continue supporting Labour, at least they can get into power". Party politics has turned something like Football teams. Just because your team is losing, or going to wrong way, mean you automatically jump ship to another team.

It's a sad case where I know many people "on the left" actually working for the Labour party and many "on the left" which voted for them.

i was really referring to the hard left, which is virtually non-existant here, but far more so on the continent.

I would've thought that last week's referendum would've reminded even the most stubbornly inward looking Englishman of the existence of the Emerald Isle...

Just a correction, I am not an "Englishman" per se, but carry on.

from the point of view of existential threats to the continued existance of the UK, i.e. by acting as a trigger point for future conflict................. NI doesn't count.

But the exception included provisions didn't it? As long as the United Kingdom kept a, b and c, in its own legal system. (or so I am led to believe) the exception was granted.

Furunculus probably knows more in that area anyway.

nope, i'm no laywer, but the very uncertainty on our legal opt-outs is hardly a cause for confidence........

[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.

[Beskar]

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

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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...

Wrong again.

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.

We will not see the same competition, especially if the goal of internationalists is met. I've said it once, I'll say it again - if you've been a powerful entity once, you can be it again. You just need the political will. If you invest the same political will for European integration into national betterment, you will see huge improvements.

Yet you can remove many of the causes and divides and many people can be open minded.

This is wishful thinking. People will always find something. Next it will be money, and we'll have to redistribute all money from the rich to give the poor people an equal amount so that there is no divide that way and nobody gets left out.

Wait, that's been tried.

Remove nation aspect and you don't have nations fighting for superiority with one another, as exampled in the first and second world wars.

No, you have supernational entities fighting each other, or internal civil wars, etc. Where are the wars in North America? In Western Europe? We're doing OK as it is. What makes you think that we'll all be one big happy family under world government or supernational government? We won't.

You're also ignoring the other causes of the First and Second World Wars. It wasn't just about nationalism. It isn't as if the various countries or federal entities in the world aren't going to fight one another anyway. We'll always find something to kill. Call it a problem of human nature, but don't call it a problem of the nation, because it has existed long before that - and proportionately, on a similar scale.

Make people equal, promote an open culture.

All for being open to others. I just don't want you to force me into something that I don't want to be in. That's hardly very open to other points of view, is it?

Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture.

What?!?!?! Losing your culture is OK?

That attitude makes me hate internationalists. Culture is an amazing thing, having so many different cultures all around the world is so beautiful. The fact I can go to France and see one culture, and then drive to the Czech Republic and see another totally different one is the reason I love to travel. Why bother when everything is homogenized, with a standard "human" culture?

[LittleGrizzly]

That attitude makes me hate internationalists. Culture is an amazing thing, having so many different cultures all around the world is so beautiful. The fact I can go to France and see one culture, and then drive to the Czech Republic and see another totally different one is the reason I love to travel. Why bother when everything is homogenized, with a standard "human" culture?

Maybe Wales is some freaky different place but there slight changes in culture all over the place... North vs South is certainly different, then you get to England...n haven't even got the same national sport (as in no.1 sport) as Wales, don't do all this silly dress up stuff on st davids day and haven't got some stange obsession with leeks..

In conclusion being part of one goverment entity doesn't really effect culture all that much... so no worrys....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maybe Wales is some freaky different place but there slight changes in culture all over the place... North vs South is certainly different, then you get to England...n haven't even got the same national sport (as in no.1 sport) as Wales, don't do all this silly dress up stuff on st davids day and haven't got some stange obsession with leeks..

In conclusion being part of one goverment entity doesn't really effect culture all that much... so no worrys....

Sometimes you can keep your culture, sometimes you are assimilated. It depends on the situation and can happen either way, quickly or over a hundred years. That isn't what I was responding to though - I was responding to his assertion that losing your culture is OK.

[Beskar]

What?!?!?! Losing your culture is OK?

That attitude makes me hate internationalists. Culture is an amazing thing, having so many different cultures all around the world is so beautiful. The fact I can go to France and see one culture, and then drive to the Czech Republic and see another totally different one is the reason I love to travel. Why bother when everything is homogenized, with a standard "human" culture?

Funnily enough, I believe I said this.

Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture.

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.

Your arguments are just alarmist and superficial with no grounding in reality.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Funnily enough, I believe I said this.

No, you said that losing your own culture is fine and dandy as long as you replace it with a culture that accepts everything. If not, your wording was off and you may want to elaborate.

I mean, are all the nations in the EU identical in culture, and if it became a Federal State, why would they just suddenly become the same. Your arguments are just alarmist and superficial with no grounding in reality.

I didn't say that they would all become the same, but eventually it may well homogenize - if it isn't torn apart by the differences first.