[SHiRO]

All I need to name is 1...language.
Weak. Explain India, Canada or other multilingual nations.
Moreover these are real nations, not a federation type entity some of us envision Europe to be...

[SHiRO]

I'm sure you people can make the distinction between countries with a few native languages (emmigration languages don't count because they don't bring nationalism with them).

And a country like what would the EU be with a full loads of "national" languages, adding the regional languages.

It's like comparing a V2 from WWII and an apocalypse dildo of 1megatons in capacity because both are ballistic missiles. The comparison is just given irrelevant because of the difference of scale.
Only need one word as a reply to this...:rolleyes:

India...


Scale? :haha: You were saying?

[Exarchus]

I'm not sure India is a great model for Europe though.

[The Dear Leader]

Weak. Explain India, Canada or other multilingual nations.
Moreover these are real nations, not a federation type entity some of us envision Europe to be...

I've already explained the situation in other multilingual nations. Europe already is in a sense a federation, so why not stop now? What is the driving force behind hardcore Europhiles?

[Exarchus]

I don't think we should go further.

I like the current context with France and Germany conspiring with Russia. Central Europe ranting. Greece and Turkey playing dogfights and Great Britain crusading left and right.

It gets entertaining with the time.

[R@ptor]

To summarize: Using clothing, cars, music etc. to support your argument people somehow have the same strictly defined (ie solely European, not Western) culture is foolish.

So what you are saying, is that people who have the same tastes, habits, opinions and hobbies have less in common than those having the same piece of paper called passport and being born behind the same imaginary lines drawn sometime in the past?

I guess we'll have to disagree here. From Heidelberg it's a 30 minute drive to France, a 2 hour drive to Luxembourg, a 2hour 30 minute drive to Switzerland but a 9 hour drive to northeastern Germany. If I drive those 30 minutes into France, the villages and towns look the same as they do on the other side of the border, restaurants serve the same food, the people share many values and opinions and so on. Even the language is no longer a problem since nowadays everyone under the age of 50 speaks English. Now if I drive to northeastern Germany (for example West Pomerania), I could just as well be on the other side of the world. The people may speak the same language, but everything else is completely different. The values, opinions, even the heritages are quite different.

Being part of a nation is something that you feel, perhaps a state of mind.

Something that you feel??? Can you seriously tell me when the average German feels that he is part of a nation when he hasn't just consumed 10 beers and is watching a world cup soccer match on TV?

[The Dear Leader]

I guess we'll have to disagree here. From Heidelberg it's a 30 minute drive to France, a 2 hour drive to Luxembourg, a 2hour 30 minute drive to Switzerland but a 9 hour drive to northeastern Germany. If I drive those 30 minutes into France, the villages and towns look the same as they do on the other side of the border, restaurants serve the same food, the people share many values and opinions and so on. Even the language is no longer a problem since nowadays everyone under the age of 50 speaks English. Now if I drive to northeastern Germany (for example West Pomerania), I could just as well be on the other side of the world. The people may speak the same language, but everything else is completely different. The values, opinions, even the heritages are quite different.

Thanks for backing me up...because this is what I wrote earlier on in this thread. You can either look at regional values (not national ones), or you have to include the entire western world. There simply is no such thing as distinctively European set of values, ie a set of values shared by a majority of Europeans and only shared by them.


Something that you feel??? Can you seriously tell me when the average German feels that he is part of a nation when he hasn't just consumed 10 beers and is watching a world cup soccer match on TV?

Don't really understand what you're getting at here. Yes, being part of a nation is something that you feel, it can be something as mundane as having a certain feeling (or no feeling whatsoever) when listening to the national anthem. The "European anthem" has no meaning to me for example.

[SHiRO]

I've already explained the situation in other multilingual nations. Europe already is in a sense a federation, so why not stop now? What is the driving force behind hardcore Europhiles?Why not stop now?
Aren't it people like you who can't stop complaining about the current situation?

Why not stop now? Because we are in an untransparent, undemocratic, halfway developed form of union in which we can't linger to long before globalisation gobbles us up.

We need to work to a fully functioning FULLY democratic federation, principle of subsidiarity, unified foreign and defense policy (most important!) ASAP!

We got the economic and cultural side right, now there isn't time to lose over the political and military integration and democratisation.

[SHiRO]

Thanks for backing me up...because this is what I wrote earlier on in this thread. You can either look at regional values (not national ones), or you have to include the entire western world. There simply is no such thing as distinctively European set of values, ie a set of values shared by a majority of Europeans and only shared by them.
Values is not the only component of culture. yes Canada, Australia/NZ and 1/2 the US shares a lot of values with Europe. There are a lot of differences in lifestyles between these countries and Europe, differences that simply do not exist between the European countries (or when they do are caused by differences in economical development). Then there is the very strong component of having a shared history and shared contemporary culture (again, there is also a shared contemporary culture and some shared history between all of the western world). Together these things make for a very real European common culture and it is silly to deny this.

[Anakin]

I've already explained the situation in other multilingual nations. Europe already is in a sense a federation, so why not stop now? What is the driving force behind hardcore Europhiles?

Because I want my children to live in peace as well. Too many people were fighting for what we have today and it's our responsibilty to improve it. I don't wanna rest on the last generations laurels, that's just selfish and lazy.

@all the europhobes in general
It's always the same story and it really starts to piss me off...if something goes good it's always the merit of the local government, if it goes wrong we blame Brussels. That's the most stupid point of view prolly ever occured in history and it's more than sad that there are so many out there who truly believe that.

Most of the Europhobes don't deserve Europe, go live somewhere else if you think it's better. Farewell, we wont miss you.

[The Dear Leader]

Most of the Europhobes don't deserve Europe, go live somewhere else if you think it's better. Farewell, we wont miss you.

Germany would miss me. :D

You're overestimating the hatred that European countries apparently have for each other if you think that Europe would plunge into another war if the EU doesn't turn into a federation. How do you explain the last few decades of peace, which were achieved w/o some sort of pan-European construct to watch over it?

[Exarchus]

In France, even cows are racist...
http://www.kamini.fr/

So to see them in the EU...

[SHiRO]

Germany would miss me. :D

You're overestimating the hatred that European countries apparently have for each other if you think that Europe would plunge into another war if the EU doesn't turn into a federation. How do you explain the last few decades of peace, which were achieved w/o some sort of pan-European construct to watch over it?
That's not the point.
The point is that noone in a globalised world is going to care what France, germany or the UK thinks.
There are many advantages to a globalised and more equal world, but those advantages are only to be had if Europe acts as one.
Something which is a "natural" course of action in the first place.

[Anakin]

Germany would miss me. :D

You're overestimating the hatred that European countries apparently have for each other if you think that Europe would plunge into another war if the EU doesn't turn into a federation.

I would be very careful with estimating when it comes to the behaviour of politicians on their road to power, history proves you wrong many times with that.
We got to set up a construct where an unpredictable change of a national government isn't able to lure entire europe into destruction anymore.

How do you explain the last few decades of peace, which were achieved w/o some sort of pan-European construct to watch over it?

Was it really achieved without that? In my oppinion the permanent progress in the european unification is highly responsible for our wealth and peace today.

The point is that noone in a globalised world is going to care what France, germany or the UK thinks.

Thanks, I couldn't have said it better. And that's also the weird point, outsiders see us way more unified than we see ourselves.

[pip]

Values is not the only component of culture. yes Canada, Australia/NZ and 1/2 the US shares a lot of values with Europe.There are a lot of differences in lifestyles between these countries and Europe, differences that simply do not exist between the European countries (or when they do are caused by differences in economical development). Then there is the very strong component of having a shared history and shared contemporary culture (again, there is also a shared contemporary culture and some shared history between all of the western world). Together these things make for a very real European common culture and it is silly to deny this.

I didn't realize 100% of the population of Canada, Europe, Australia/NZ have the same values but it is only half for the US. Canada probably comes closest to the 100% but it is still distant as it doesn't appear to have such right wing politicians as in Europe and Australia/NZ which regulary get a significant percentage of the vote.

[one very bored guy]

Belgium...might fall apart at any moment and the Flemings in particular might argue that they are indeed a separate nation. Same thing applies to Spain and Canada to a certain extent. The only country that's really been able to pull off this multilingual thing is Switzerland, largely because it's so decentralized. Every canton is almost like an independent country.

However, why the hell do people have to live in the same country just because they listen to the same music or wear the same clothes, after all that's the argument that some people are putting forth in this thread.

Whether there are groups in a country that wish it to split up is a completely different thing, the fact remains is that these country's are in fact still country's despite having different languages. And language differences are not the only thing that can split nations. The United Kingdom is a single country as far as any International definition goes, but it is further divided into historical country's like Scotland, of which speaks the same language as England but has little love for it.

Many States in the US feel rather seperated from the federation, and there are people living in them that would love to split from the US.

There are people in Western Australia that would also love to split from the rest of the country.

[one very bored guy]

Where's the Welsh page?

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp

That is the prime ministers page, not the official government page. Try going to the government page and you will see the Welsh language link on the front page:

It's called Cwmraeg

http://www.direct.gov.uk/Homepage/fs/en

or if you can't see it...
http://www.direct.gov.uk/Homepage/fs/cy

[one very bored guy]

Even Kampf can't deny that going to the US really makes you aware of what is 'european'.

I know from my time their I realised that everything from architecture to music to fashion, to politics even us Brits are way more european than we think we are.

Coming from Australia I saw the same. There are of cause much links between Australia and the UK, but modern Britain and it's lifestyle still has much more in common with Europe than Australia.

[JManc]

I'm not sure India is a great model for Europe though.


neither is canada seeing as every so often, the quebecois hold a referendum regarding suceeding from the rest of canada which narrowly fails. 51-49

[one very bored guy]

All I need to name is 1...language.

So, now that this was defeated, please name 10 major differences between a young typical person (aged 18-30) growing up in barcelona and a young typical person (aged 18-30) growing up in Stockholm.

Afterall, if you only need to name language, then it has been proved that many country's exist with multiple languages.

Besides, a typical young person from Barcelona can communicate with a typical young person from Stockholm in English.

[one very bored guy]

Thanks for backing me up...because this is what I wrote earlier on in this thread. You can either look at regional values (not national ones), or you have to include the entire western world. There simply is no such thing as distinctively European set of values, ie a set of values shared by a majority of Europeans and only shared by them.


But again, what has this to do with defining a country. These differences exist in single country's such as Germany with the North/South divide. They exist in the US, between the conservative and liberal states, they exist everywhere. You were originally trying to say that Northern Europeans have a different culture to Southern thus they could never be a single country, and yet here you are saying that different cultures don't make any differences. I am very confused.


Don't really understand what you're getting at here. Yes, being part of a nation is something that you feel, it can be something as mundane as having a certain feeling (or no feeling whatsoever) when listening to the national anthem. The "European anthem" has no meaning to me for example.

You are quite right here as far as personal perception is concerned. But keep in mind, this is purely personal perception. In your's that you feel your national anthem has more meaning. I am sure there are many Bavarians in Germany who won't agree with you, and still believe Bavaria should have remained a seperate nation. The same goes for Spain. There are many Spanish living in Barcelona that would stand by the Spanish national anthem, and many that would not.

Of cause very few people comparatively feel nationhood with the EU and the EU national anthem, because the EU is still both so new, and not yet a full nation. But do you honestly think when Germany united, overnight every single person felt German? Do you believe that when the Southern States lost the civil war to the North, they all stood up to the Star Spangled Banner and felt proud to be American?

Nationhood takes time, usually generations, and considering the EU isn't even a nation yet, it is quite amazing to see how many people, even if in the large minority still, already feel part of a united nation - despite it not even being one yet.

[The Dear Leader]

Afterall, if you only need to name language, then it has been proved that many country's exist with multiple languages.

Besides, a typical young person from Barcelona can communicate with a typical young person from Stockholm in English.

And this means they have to live in the same country? I can communicate with lots of people all around the world but that doesn't mean I necessarily would want to live in the same country with them.

Besides, for every successful multilingual country (India), there are numerous examples where it didn't or isn't working out too well (Belgium, Spain, Yugoslavia, Canada).

These differences exist in single country's such as Germany with the North/South divide. They exist in the US, between the conservative and liberal states, they exist everywhere. You were originally trying to say that Northern Europeans have a different culture to Southern thus they could never be a single country, and yet here you are saying that different cultures don't make any differences. I am very confused.

I was saying that the differences are bigger than in the US, largely because Americans consider themselves to be part of a single nation/country.

And where exactly did I in that post say that different cultures don't make any differences? :shrug: The point I made was that there are not distinctively European values.

But do you honestly think when Germany united, overnight every single person felt German?

Germans wanted to live in a united country, that's the difference between the EU and Germany in the 1800s. People were more than happy to finally see a united Germany back then, largely because they felt that they were part of a single nation.

[pricemazda]

But also it was the perceived weakness of the German states in the international system with Russia, France and the UK all direct competitors. Identity is usually formed in opposition to another country. Irish identity against the UK, Soviet against the USA.

Hence why integration in europe was strongest during the Cold War.

[one very bored guy]

And this means they have to live in the same country? I can communicate with lots of people all around the world but that doesn't mean I necessarily would want to live in the same country with them.

Besides, for every successful multilingual country (India), there are numerous examples where it didn't or isn't working out too well (Belgium, Spain, Yugoslavia, Canada).


From memory, you pointed out that a different language is all you need to say how people across different country's in Europe are so different that they couldn't possibly form a single nation.

My point was that there are many country's that are successful as a single nation with more than one language, and they do include Belgium, Canada, Spain etc. My point was that you don't need a single language for a single nation, and that has been proved in reality.



I was saying that the differences are bigger than in the US, largely because Americans consider themselves to be part of a single nation/country.

And where exactly did I in that post say that different cultures don't make any differences? :shrug: The point I made was that there are not distinctively European values.


But what exactly is your point. Of cause there are no single European values. There are no single American values, or German values etc. So what are you trying to say? That the EU could never become a single nation because there are no single distinctive European values, yet single nations themselves have no single values.



Germans wanted to live in a united country, that's the difference between the EU and Germany in the 1800s. People were more than happy to finally see a united Germany back then, largely because they felt that they were part of a single nation.
Hey, did you personally ask all Germans if they all wanted to live in a single united country? Germanys borders have changed many times since 1815, and from loose collections to various republics. Don't tell me every single German then and today had exactly the same idea's of nationhood!

[The Dear Leader]

But what exactly is your point. Of cause there are no single European values. There are no single American values, or German values etc. So what are you trying to say? That the EU could never become a single nation because there are no single distinctive European values, yet single nations themselves have no single values.

The point some people are trying to make is that those values do exist though and that this shows that there is an all encompassing European identity. I just disagree with that, nothing more.


Hey, did you personally ask all Germans if they all wanted to live in a single united country?

Come on...a majority of them was in favor of it. Next time you make a statement along the lines of "Europe's in favor of blahblah", should I also ask you if you've asked all Europeans?


Germanys borders have changed many times since 1815, and from loss collections to various republics. Don't tell me every single German then and today had exactly the same idea's of nationhood!

I'm not saying that it is the case, the point simply is that back then people were largely in favor of a united Germany, something which isn't the case if you look at Europe today.

[jan966]

United Europe will inevitably lead to the new war in Europe.

[jan966]

Hey, did you personally ask all Germans if they all wanted to live in a single united country? Germanys borders have changed many times since 1815, and from loose collections to various republics. Don't tell me every single German then and today had exactly the same idea's of nationhood!

Germany did not exist in 1815. What borders are you talking about?

[Swede]

I've never understood that "it'll lead to war"-mania. Why would it? Most of Europe (population-wise) is already united in a confederation today...

Germany did exist in 1815. Just not as a nation-state. In the last thousand years there's also been a kingdom of Germany and, more well-known today, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

[one very bored guy]

Germany did not exist in 1815. What borders are you talking about?

Forgive my history on Germany, I was never taught in school, but from what I thought I knew, in 1814 the German Confederation was founded, which was league of 39 seperate states. In many ways, it was a trade pact not to dissimilar to the EU. My point was then, how many actually felt "German" and united with all the other states.

Later on, they formed a single nation in what, 1871? (although by then the borders were different from memory). Between the date of the German Confederation and Empire was 57 years. I am sure that at the point of the German Empire starting in 1871, a great deal of the population was not 100% behind the idea.

The EU started as the European Economic Community in 1957, 49 years ago. There are indeed simularities to some degree here, although the EU is a damn sight more peaceful.

[one very bored guy]

United Europe will inevitably lead to the new war in Europe.

And you base this on what exactly? Do you feel the need to kill people from your neighbouring country's?

[jan966]

And you base this on what exactly? Do you feel the need to kill people from your neighbouring country's?

There is more than one mechanisn that will lead inevitably to war. Some states will be still out of a united Europe, for example UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Serbia. The will be blamed and victimised. And will be looking for a coalition of states against Europe. Russia, US will be more than happy to intervene.


Will we have US bases still in Germany? I hope so. Otherwise civil wars are sure.

[downtown_meltdown]

United Europe will inevitably lead to the new war in Europe.

Although one cannot entirely exclude the possibility of a military conflict between EU nations or countries, I find it quite improbable at this stage of unification. Time will tell.

[downtown_meltdown]

[...]
I guess we'll have to disagree here. From Heidelberg it's a 30 minute drive to France, a 2 hour drive to Luxembourg, a 2hour 30 minute drive to Switzerland but a 9 hour drive to northeastern Germany. If I drive those 30 minutes into France, the villages and towns look the same as they do on the other side of the border, restaurants serve the same food, the people share many values and opinions and so on. Even the language is no longer a problem since nowadays everyone under the age of 50 speaks English. Now if I drive to northeastern Germany (for example West Pomerania), I could just as well be on the other side of the world. The people may speak the same language, but everything else is completely different. The values, opinions, even the heritages are quite different.
[...]


Would you support the deunification of Germany under the auspices of the EU then?

[one very bored guy]

There is more than one mechanisn that will lead inevitably to war. Some states will be still out of a united Europe, for example UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Serbia. The will be blamed and victimised. And will be looking for a coalition of states against Europe. Russia, US will be more than happy to intervene.


Will we have US bases still in Germany? I hope so. Otherwise civil wars are sure.

No, I don't think there will be war. War is bad for business when attacking your main trading partners. Europe is also quite anti-war, people here don't even like going to war with countries like Iraq, let alone our neighbours.

There will be no further wars in Europe and of that I'm pretty damn sure.

I think you maybe a tad paranoid. What country do you live in anyway?

[jan966]

No, I don't think there will be war. War is bad for business when attacking your main trading partners. Europe is also quite anti-war, people here don't even like going to war with countries like Iraq, let alone our neighbours.

There will be no further wars in Europe and of that I'm pretty damn sure.

I think you maybe a tad paranoid. What country do you live in anyway?

People who want to make war will never say this. They will say exactly what you are saying. Just count how many EU troops were killed in the last 15 years (also in Europe), I think several hundreds or more, and what is more interesting how many people were killed by peacefull EU troops, surely hundreds of thousands.

[SHiRO]

:crazy:

[FREKI]

Some states will be still out of a united Europe, for example UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Serbia. The will be blamed and victimised. And will be looking for a coalition of states against Europe. Russia, US will be more than happy to intervene. Dude how do you expect anyone to take yous serius, when you think the UK isn't a part of the EU??? :haha:

As for the rest of your cr** I won't even waste my time commenting, because dude... that's just pure BS!

[Metropolitan]

No, Metropolitan knows what I'm refering to.

He was talking of TF1 and the news on it (Jean Pierre Pernaut being the guy the French see for decades)


The first post, with the articles, was for you as you asked what was on the top news.

The second one was for Metropolitan. As to compare medias let's take the most followed ones.Actually, I was referring to 8 pm news. As much on TF1 than on France 2. I visited my brother in Australia this summer, and there's an Australian channel broadcasting news from several countries in the morning. That was during the conflict in Lebanon. Every international TVs were talking about it during half of the news. As for the French TV news (France 2), it made only 5 minutes, the rest being about gellyfishes on the French Rivieira and restaurants complaining about the lack of clients in Normandy.

[Metropolitan]

I've never understood that "it'll lead to war"-mania. Why would it? Most of Europe (population-wise) is already united in a confederation today...Indeed, I totally agree with you.

European countries could offer themselves to declare war to each others at a time when the rest of the world was irrelevant. This has stopped 60 years ago when Russia and the US have proven to be much more powerful than any country in Western Europe, if not Western Europe as a whole.

It's not peace which is at the origin of the European unification, it is actually war. World War 2 made realize to Europeans that in fighting against each other they were mutually weakening themselves.

In the globalized world of the 21st century, which will see many superpowers rising, European countries can only defend better themrselves in getting closer to each other. Saying that our little independent country representing less than 1% of humanity could do as good if not better than with the EU is nothing else than wishful thinking.

[one very bored guy]

People who want to make war will never say this. They will say exactly what you are saying. Just count how many EU troops were killed in the last 15 years (also in Europe), I think several hundreds or more, and what is more interesting how many people were killed by peacefull EU troops, surely hundreds of thousands.

Were they killed in an EU country?

No.

We are talking the EU here. So, you didn't answer my question, what country are you from, do you live in?

[pricemazda]

Indeed, I totally agree with you.

European countries could offer themselves to declare war to each others at a time when the rest of the world was irrelevant. This has stopped 60 years ago when Russia and the US have proven to be much more powerful than any country in Western Europe, if not Western Europe as a whole.

It's not peace which is at the origin of the European unification, it is actually war. World War 2 made realize to Europeans that in fighting against each other they were mutually weakening themselves.

In the globalized world of the 21st century, which will see many superpowers rising, European countries can only defend better themrselves in getting closer to each other. Saying that our little independent country representing less than 1% of humanity could do as good if not better than with the EU is nothing else than wishful thinking.

That is my basic starting point for the EU metropolitan. There isn't much we agree on but on the EU it seems we do.

The world is changing fast and if we want any influence or control over our own economic affairs we need to work together otherwise either we will become vassal states or just ignored.

This is the basic view of the left, that we can achieve more together than we can apart.

[JManc]

question to the EU fans: why? why are you guys so enthusiastic about consolidating europe?

[pricemazda]

because we can achieve more together than we can apart.

[JManc]

because we can achieve more together than we can apart.

like what? you guys do fine as seperate countries working together.

besides, don't you realize that i would have to buy a new globe? i don't want to buy a new globe. i like the one i have.

[Swede]

^Technically, the EU is already a confederacy if you look at how laws/directives are made. The only part that people really see in their daily lives tho is the €. So we're not, IMO, seperate countries working together anymore! The only thing left to integrate is foreign policy and militaries, if that were done everyone would consider the EU the country (and the member states more like the US states).
/IMO the best route for the EU would be moving power from the Council of Ministers to the Parliament and have the Comission be appointed by the Parliament instead of the National goverments (oh noes! then we'd be federal instead of confederal! what do you mean this'd adress the democracy defecit we're always blasting the EU for???).

Do keep the globe. I love old, obviously erroneous globes. Like the one somewhere around the appartment here - Soviet Union and all :D

[The Dear Leader]

Saying that our little independent country representing less than 1% of humanity could do as good if not better than with the EU is nothing else than wishful thinking.

Most people aren't concerned about international representation though. They're concerned about issues right at home and they sometimes feel that Brussels is out of touch with the average citizen. Which is no surprise since the EU has to take the views of 25 member states into account. I don't feel like I'm properly represented in Brussels either since I don't even have an MEP.

[downtown_meltdown]

^Technically, the EU is already a confederacy if you look at how laws/directives are made. [...]

Technically Sweden is a monarchy. Or am I wrong here?

[Swede]

It is indeed. A constitutional monarchy. The King has no power at all, and the constitution begins "All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket", quickee translation: "All public power in Sweden comes from the people".
The title of the head of state is irrelevent to the issue of the EU's status of federal/confederal/international polity.

[pricemazda]

like what? you guys do fine as seperate countries working together.

besides, don't you realize that i would have to buy a new globe? i don't want to buy a new globe. i like the one i have.

Like a common immigration policy, a common foreign policy, a common european voice in foreign affairs would have a much greater impact if we worked together.

Organised crime, immigration, pollution, trade policy, fisheries are all things that benefit from collective action.

[downtown_meltdown]

[...] The King has no power at all, and the constitution begins "All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket", quickee translation: "All public power in Sweden comes from the people".
[...]

And by "the people" they mean the citizens of Sweden, and not, for example, citizens of Poland, do they not?

[downtown_meltdown]

Organised crime, immigration, pollution, trade policy, fisheries are all things that benefit from collective action.

Now, I couldn't agree with this more ;) :jester: :tup: :haha:

[pricemazda]

well done! You should be very proud of yourself for noticing a typing error.

[downtown_meltdown]

well done! You should be very proud of yourself for noticing a typing error.

Actually I didn't realize I noticed a typing error, but even if I did, I wouldn't point it out, since I make many myself. So indulge me and tell me what the error is.

[pricemazda]

I just phrased it incorrectly, get over it already, you know full well the point i was making.

[Metropolitan]

Most people aren't concerned about international representation though. They're concerned about issues right at home and they sometimes feel that Brussels is out of touch with the average citizen. Which is no surprise since the EU has to take the views of 25 member states into account. I don't feel like I'm properly represented in Brussels either since I don't even have an MEP.And how do you solve issues "right at home" such as unemployment and things alike ?

Just imagine discussions at the WTO if Europe wasn't represented as a whole. European countries would be forced to join coalitions in order to get heard. Even Germany. And in the end, you would see in those coalitions European countries against each others. Just like it is currently the case for defence policies, you would see the exact same thing on economical issues.

Now tell me where our interests are better represented ? At the WTO, where we are united, or at the UN security council, while despite having two permanent members, the only thing we can do is accept or oppose what other countries proposes.

Okay, defence policies are irrelevant to our problems right at home, but this is certainly not the case of economical policies. Just imagine how it would be if our economical interests were defended the same way as our defence interests and you will probably understand how this has an influence right at home. Without Europe, we wouldn't have any other influence at the WTO than to accept or oppose what the United States or China would propose.

[The Dear Leader]

And how do you solve issues "right at home" such as unemployment and things alike ?



By having decent labor market policies. I'm not against some sort of cooperation on a European level, I'm just against any sort of political union. European cooperation is beneficial but only to a certain extent IMO and we've probably reached this level. A few minor adjustments here and there are needed but that's about it.

[pricemazda]

I have said this before the union won't happen in a magical treaty in which overnight our nation states will become federal states.

So being against it, or worrying it is going to happen is futile. The union will evolve as and when the need arises, but one day probably not in our lifetime we will have in effect a federal europe

[The Dear Leader]

So being against it, or worrying it is going to happen is futile.

How exactly is it futile? If enough people are opposed to it, politicians will (or at should) listen to them.

[pricemazda]

you misunderstand what I said, it is futile worrying that a federal EU superstate will happen in a penstroke, as that is not the way it will happen.

[downtown_meltdown]

[...]
So being against it, or worrying it is going to happen is futile. [...]

Borg? ;)

[elfabyanos]

[QUOTE=jmancuso]like what? you guys do fine as seperate countries working together.
QUOTE]

Thats what the EU is about. Separate countries working together. Its quite common in international politics for countries to work together for economic mutual gain. ASEAN, OPEC, EU. I find it hard to belive americans from the US don't see that, considering that's exactly how that country began (clues in the name). The EU grouping is a lot tighter knit than others, and a lot more powerful because of it. It has allowed a network of multinational companies to develop within the EU that have serious international clout.
The EU is not about beating the opposition, it's not about defending our land, it's not about national borders or identities, it's about a group of nations that thought it would be a good idea to discuss common interests and align policies with each other to ease the friction of companies operating over international borders, and create a way of globally monitoring european accounts,economies,food, produce, people, health......
the EU is designed to STOP war between the component countries, by being grown up and talking and having respect gor each other. So the Brits and the French enjoy taking the piss out of each other - so what. Its fun and that'll never change. We don't take it that seriously but we do care about peace and sustainable prosperity.

[elfabyanos]

And how do you solve issues "right at home" such as unemployment and things alike ?

Just imagine discussions at the WTO if Europe wasn't represented as a whole. European countries would be forced to join coalitions in order to get heard. Even Germany. And in the end, you would see in those coalitions European countries against each others. Just like it is currently the case for defence policies, you would see the exact same thing on economical issues.

Now tell me where our interests are better represented ? At the WTO, where we are united, or at the UN security council, while despite having two permanent members, the only thing we can do is accept or oppose what other countries proposes.

Okay, defence policies are irrelevant to our problems right at home, but this is certainly not the case of economical policies. Just imagine how it would be if our economical interests were defended the same way as our defence interests and you will probably understand how this has an influence right at home. Without Europe, we wouldn't have any other influence at the WTO than to accept or oppose what the United States or China would propose.

Totally correct. And why on earth does anyone think the EU is invovled in local employment and such like? If it was meant to do those things, local governments (i.e. the national governments) would have been disempowered. But we have perfectly useful working governments to do that.

[Julito-Dubai]

We still have the principle of subsidiarity in the EU. Everything that can be solved locally better than on a European level remains in local hands. Written down in the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992.

[pricemazda]

For instance?

[Swede]

And by "the people" they mean the citizens of Sweden, and not, for example, citizens of Poland, do they not?
Of course they do. So what? I really fail to see the relevance.
/EU+Nordic citizens who have been residents in Sweden for over 5 years get to vote in municipal elections tho.
//and EU citizens who are here on a permanent residents get to vote in the Swedish EU elections too.

[downtown_meltdown]

Of course they do. So what? I really fail to see the relevance.


I'm asking so I can get some information. I don't know anyone from Sweden, ya know. I hope you don't mind enlightening me on some issues. :) So, my main question now is: does the Swedish constitution take precedence over any EU directives, documents, or treaties?

[Swede]

Legaly, they're not supposed to. EU directives are to be implemented in all EU member states, and should the two sets of laws come into conflict, the EU directives win.
I'm no expert on the issue, but that's how I understand it to be.

As a Swede I have a disproportionate say in the EU, citizens of the big members have less representation per capita. I.e., fewer seats in the European Parliament and less weight in the Council of Ministers per capita.

[pricemazda]

The supremacy of EU law was established a very long time ago, and it always trumps domestic law.

But this is not entirely accurate. There is no such thing as EU law, it only exists in the law of member states. When the council of ministers votes on an issue, effectively they are voting to introduce the policy into their own law on a treaty basis.

[downtown_meltdown]

Legaly, they're not supposed to. EU directives are to be implemented in all EU member states, and should the two sets of laws come into conflict, the EU directives win.
I'm no expert on the issue, but that's how I understand it to be.
[...]

Thx.

[JManc]

Thats what the EU is about. Separate countries working together. Its quite common in international politics for countries to work together for economic mutual gain. ASEAN, OPEC, EU. I find it hard to belive americans from the US don't see that, considering that's exactly how that country began (clues in the name). The EU grouping is a lot tighter knit than others, and a lot more powerful because of it. It has allowed a network of multinational companies to develop within the EU that have serious international clout.
The EU is not about beating the opposition, it's not about defending our land, it's not about national borders or identities, it's about a group of nations that thought it would be a good idea to discuss common interests and align policies with each other to ease the friction of companies operating over international borders, and create a way of globally monitoring european accounts,economies,food, produce, people, health......
the EU is designed to STOP war between the component countries, by being grown up and talking and having respect gor each other. So the Brits and the French enjoy taking the piss out of each other - so what. Its fun and that'll never change. We don't take it that seriously but we do care about peace and sustainable prosperity.

that's fine and all but i just don't understand the EU nationalism; identifying with all things EU as opposed to my own country. if i were a brit or french, i would still identify my as british or french, not EUian, even if i was a proponent of the EU.

@ swede: my globe still has the USSR, yugolslavia, east/ west germany. :banana:

[SHiRO]

^Technically, the EU is already a confederacy if you look at how laws/directives are made. The only part that people really see in their daily lives tho is the €. So we're not, IMO, seperate countries working together anymore! The only thing left to integrate is foreign policy and militaries, if that were done everyone would consider the EU the country (and the member states more like the US states).
/IMO the best route for the EU would be moving power from the Council of Ministers to the Parliament and have the Comission be appointed by the Parliament instead of the National goverments (oh noes! then we'd be federal instead of confederal! what do you mean this'd adress the democracy defecit we're always blasting the EU for???).

Exactely!

The most important things right now are consolidation of foreign policy and democratisation.

[SHiRO]

Most people aren't concerned about international representation though. They're concerned about issues right at home and they sometimes feel that Brussels is out of touch with the average citizen. Which is no surprise since the EU has to take the views of 25 member states into account. I don't feel like I'm properly represented in Brussels either since I don't even have an MEP.
What do you mean you don't have a MEP?

People are out of touch, not "Brussels". There is no such thing as "Brussels". You have the EP, the Commision and the Council. People should educate themselves and demand democracy where democracy is needed. Often times "the issues at home" are protected by laws made in Brussels and not the national governments.

[SHiRO]

And by "the people" they mean the citizens of Sweden, and not, for example, citizens of Poland, do they not?
Who cares?
If an issue only applies to Swedes, Swedes should have a say in it. If an issue applies to all of Europe, then the political arena is in Brussels.
I'm not voting for the city council in another city either so what's the difference? Imaginary lines on a map?

[The Dear Leader]

BTW, pricemazda, your claim that only Germany was opposed to majority voting in regard to judicial matters is flat out wrong. A number of countries are opposed to it.

What do you mean you don't have a MEP?

I don't have a district, the way I do in German elections. But even if I had one, it would be much larger than the Bundestagswahl-district, hence I feel I'd be better represented in Berlin.

[jan966]

This discussion seems meaningless. Here are just a few improtant questions about USE.
Do you think UK will sign European Constitution and adopt euro and when?
Should all monarchies be abolished?
Do you want one european arm forces, in what language is the command?
Will the vote be based on population census that can be rigged or manipulated?
Will propaganda of hate against other members of USE be tolerated, as it happens now in Germany?
Do you back the right to leave USE?

Go on to the discussion.

[pricemazda]

Why would monarchies need to be abolished?

What is the language of NATO command which contains nearly every European country as a member

What is to stop votes being rigged in current member states?

The right to leave the EU was in the constitution, so presumably you would be in favour of the constitution?

[Exarchus]

I have a question, the Queen is the Head of the state and has legislative powers (she can veto laws for example). But she never uses it (because maybe it would be seen antidemocratic, although I would have cheered at her if she vetoed some laws lately). Therefore, as she's a weak political figure in fact, does that mean that the Prime Minister, beyond being the Head of the State, also hold powers comparable to the Head of the Government as the real Head never uses its power to oppose him?

[SHiRO]

I don't have a district, the way I do in German elections. But even if I had one, it would be much larger than the Bundestagswahl-district, hence I feel I'd be better represented in Berlin.
Either way, you can vote for the EP so whoever you vote for is you MEP.
You "feel" better represented in Berlin but that doesn't necessarily mean you are any less represented in Brussels. You chose not to involve yourself, that's another issue...

[The Dear Leader]

Either way, you can vote for the EP so whoever you vote for is you MEP.
You "feel" better represented in Berlin but that doesn't necessarily mean you are any less represented in Brussels. You chose not to involve yourself, that's another issue...

It's a list system. There is no particular MEP for my area, while my MP represents a fairly small district (ie she's actually from this area), so even if we had a direct election for MEPs, the district he/she would represent, would be much larger than the one used for national elections.

And what do you mean by "you chose not to involve yourself"? Are you in contact with your MEP on a daily basis or something like that?

[garpie]

I have a question, the Queen is the Head of the state and has legislative powers (she can veto laws for example). But she never uses it (because maybe it would be seen antidemocratic, although I would have cheered at her if she vetoed some laws lately). Therefore, as she's a weak political figure in fact, does that mean that the Prime Minister, beyond being the Head of the State, also hold powers comparable to the Head of the Government as the real Head never uses its power to oppose him?

Heads of State in Legislative Monarchies are just for being shown in coins & stamps, as well as for shaking hands when meeting other Heads of State: Models & Puppets.

[SHiRO]

It's a list system. There is no particular MEP for my area, while my MP represents a fairly small district (ie she's actually from this area), so even if we had a direct election for MEPs, the district he/she would represent, would be much larger than the one used for national elections.

And what do you mean by "you chose not to involve yourself"? Are you in contact with your MEP on a daily basis or something like that?
No but I at least know who I'm voting for. Sounds to me that you don't even vote for the EP (correct me if I'm wrong).

I also don't see a reason why there should be a specific MEP for every single area in the EU (we would have a parliament of 10,000s). Local politicians should concern themselves with local issues. National politicians with national politics and European ones with European issues.
We still have too much of national politicians being involved in European politics, whereas frankly I wouldn't even care if the MEP I vote for is Dutch or not (hopefully voting for whoever you like will be possible soon).


MEP I voted for last time:
http://www.sophieintveld.nl/Information_in_English?sophieintveld=4b938fb6bac47acbcbb5f8dba86f7c63

[Exarchus]

I think the divide and conquer tactic of the neoconservatives has worked fantastic. But, let's face it, they didn't have to push very hard for it.

And that's worrying. I'm somehow glad they succeeded in there. Let's just say Europe will be working the way it is already.

GB (either tories or labours) will blackmail Cyprus to allow Turkey with the White House (be it Democrats or Republicans) pushing for it. While France and Austria will constantly postpone (forever) their accession.

France and Germany will conspire with Russia into their anti-American agenda for European domination (that's caricatural of course).

Warsaw and their Baltic friends will be constantly ranting at that Franco-Germano-Soviet threat.

Greece will play dogfight with Turkey and France will keep sending its used weapons to Cyprus for free.

And Spain and Italy will switch sides with their elections.

And by this time British and Americans will accuse Zimbabwe to devellop nuclear weapons and accuse it of being a threat to the world peace.

[pricemazda]

@ Detritus.

Its called the Royal Perogative powers and they are deeply controversial. Technically these are the powers reserved by the monarch and are legally exercised by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister ie Declaring war, signing treaties, pardons...

They do not need parliamentary approval.


But don't forget the USA has a formal fusion of roles the President is both Head of State and Head of Government. Australia, Canada and New Zealand also make use of Royal Perogative powers in their parliamentary system.

In reality though in the UK it doesn't give the Prime Minister carte blanche to do what he likes there are considerable contraints on his power. The Human Rights Act means the government cannot introduce laws that are in contravention of that act, devolution restrains his power in Scotland and Wales, the EU and a host of conventions, laws etc.

But both Gordon Brown and the opposition leader have promised to give Parliament the right to voe on war powers.

[Exarchus]

About the war in Iraq, I remember Blair only had the support of the parliament because of the opposition. I remember there even was a a minister that resigned. Therefore, the parliament was consulted wasn't it?

I don't think the distinction here is good enough. And I don't care anymore about what the US do. I don't believe their foreign policy and I certainly don't expect anything to change with a Democrat administration anymore.

I'm concerned at the influence such lame "constitutional" (seems to be a great word when you talk of UK though) organisation have on the European policy.

A complete re-organisation of some countries legal code has to be done before further integration for sure. But, will Britain ever accept the idea of a constitution for example? I don't believe so. And that's not a change that has to come from outside.

[SHiRO]

Why the hell do we need a constitution?

[Exarchus]

How do you prevent rulers to do complete nonsenses if you don't have a constitution?

[Jonas]

Why would Britain need a written constitution (as a single document) if the regular acts and conventions do their job? You can of course add them "all in one" and name it "Constitution" but that wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. It's been working this way for ages and it's never caused any problems.

[The Dear Leader]

No but I at least know who I'm voting for. Sounds to me that you don't even vote for the EP (correct me if I'm wrong).

I voted in the Euro elections but I could only vote for a party.

These are the MEPs that made it to the EP on Northrhine-Westfalian Landeslisten:

# Alvaro, Alexander
# Brok, Elmar
# Florenz, Karl-Heinz
# Graefe zu Baringdorf, Friedrich-Wilhelm
# Graf Lambsdorff, Alexander
# Hänsch, Klaus
# Haug, Jutta
# Hieronymi, Ruth
# Konrad, Christoph
# Kuhne, Helmut
# Lehne, Klaus-Heiner
# Liese, Peter
# Pieper, Markus
# Posdorf, Horst
# Rapkay, Bernhard
# Reul, Herbert
# Rothe, Mechtild
# Schmidt, Frithjof
# Schulz, Martin
# Sommer, Renate

So am I supposed to contact all of them if I feel like complaining about something?


I also don't see a reason why there should be a specific MEP for every single area in the EU (we would have a parliament of 10,000s). Local politicians should concern themselves with local issues. National politicians with national politics and European ones with European issues.

I think there should be a specific MEP with a specific constituency...which would obviously be much bigger than the constituencies in national elections. The problem with your "national MP for national issues, Euro MP for European issues" is that there's no clear distinction between both areas. With Brussels becoming more powerful I feel that democracy is moving further away from me.

[pricemazda]

About the war in Iraq, I remember Blair only had the support of the parliament because of the opposition. I remember there even was a a minister that resigned. Therefore, the parliament was consulted wasn't it?

I don't think the distinction here is good enough. And I don't care anymore about what the US do. I don't believe their foreign policy and I certainly don't expect anything to change with a Democrat administration anymore.

I'm concerned at the influence such lame "constitutional" (seems to be a great word when you talk of UK though) organisation have on the European policy.

A complete re-organisation of some countries legal code has to be done before further integration for sure. But, will Britain ever accept the idea of a constitution for example? I don't believe so. And that's not a change that has to come from outside.

Blair didn't have to consult parliament, but he did anyway. And no he won with his own MPs the Conservatives under their former leader who was an army colonel also voted in favour.

Ministers resign from government all the time over all sorts of policy issues. The reason is we have what is called 'collective responsibilty' of the cabinet. All decisions are voted by the cabinet and this means whether they voted in favour or not, all ministers have to publically support government policy, if they cannot they should resign.

Unlike France we don't need to throw out our constitution everytime something doesn't work and have a new republic every few weeks. Our system evolves overtime adjusting to new problems and circumstances.

What you need to understand is we do have a constitution it is just not in a single codefied document. It is made up of Acts of Parliament, Treaties, custom and convention and case law.

[Exarchus]

Saying our constitution is throwed each times things don't work in France is a bit silly.

The first republic was abolished for the first empire. Not because it was thrown away.

The second republic was abolished for the second empire

The third republic is the second one reloaded

The forth one is the third one reloaded

Only the current one is really a brand new constitution. But it works pretty fine actually. The system is very fair IMO.

President elected through "suffrage universel" no college BS. And is the head of the state.

The PM is elected through legislative elections where the representation is fair and proportional to the population (no BS once again). Regions have a fair representation in the National Assembly.

No arguing, the system works fine.

[SHiRO]

I think there should be a specific MEP with a specific constituency...which would obviously be much bigger than the constituencies in national elections. The problem with your "national MP for national issues, Euro MP for European issues" is that there's no clear distinction between both areas. With Brussels becoming more powerful I feel that democracy is moving further away from me.
I do not claim there should be local MEP's, national MEP's and European MEP's.
I claim that local issues should be handled locally by local politicians, national issues nationally by national politicians and European issues by European politicians in Brussels. Voting for your city council is basically the same as voting for your national parliament and so should voting for the EP be.
It seems that some of you can't fathom the thought of playing out things in the European political arena. I don't even need Dutch politicians to do that for me (but I do think there should be proportional representation), I want liberal democratic politicians representing me and my ideas in Brussels.

[Jonas]

Blair didn't have to consult parliament, but he did anyway. And no he won with his own MPs the Conservatives under their former leader who was an army colonel also voted in favour.

Ministers resign from government all the time over all sorts of policy issues. The reason is we have what is called 'collective responsibilty' of the cabinet. All decisions are voted by the cabinet and this means whether they voted in favour or not, all ministers have to publically support government policy, if they cannot they should resign.

Unlike France we don't need to throw out our constitution everytime something doesn't work and have a new republic every few weeks. Our system evolves overtime adjusting to new problems and circumstances.

What you need to understand is we do have a constitution it is just not in a single codefied document. It is made up of Acts of Parliament, Treaties, custom and convention and case law.

This is is well said. These things are rather essential to the English legal system. We (and those who argue against it) should indeed understand that. :tup:

[jan966]

Why would monarchies need to be abolished?

?

I thought king is a sovereign ruler. I find it ridiculous If his boss will be the President of USE.

[JManc]

UK, france, germany, netherlands =/ new york, texas, california, florida.

EU authority should not supercede national authority

[Swede]

@jan966 - in Arabia, yes they rule. In Europe they are figureheads. In Sweden the king actually has fewer political rights than me. Unlike in the UK, it isn't just by custom that the monarch keeps out of politics, here he is legally obligated to do so.

@jmancuso - it does and has for many years superceded national authority. Just like federal law in the US. But since the anti-EU crowd don't want anything resembling a constitution the condeferal (EU) level is allowed to pretty much intervene in anything. IMO the anti-EU movements around the Union are accomplishing a lack of forward motion on clear vertical distibution of power and preventing a more democratic EU system.

The shadowy Council of Ministers is a horrible way of national goverments taking unpopular desicions and then blaming it all on "Brussels". Imagine the state governors' staffs comming up with legislation and then blaming DC!

[pricemazda]

For example Swede the UK's anti-ageism laws came into effect today, but not once in any of the coverage in the lead up to what the government said was the biggest change to employment law since the Equal Opportunities Act was there any mention this was an EU directive.

Governments take all the credit but none of the blame.

[Major AWACS]

You must be talking about a different Europe than the one I live in...

Deutschland cannot even get united correctly, so for Europe to do this on a level your are proposing it will take not years, but decades.

And France is much more like Texas than Poland. Actually Bavaria and Texas would be a better a comparison.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, I was told there would be not math

[SHiRO]

UK, france, germany, netherlands =/ new york, texas, california, florida.

EU authority should not supercede national authorityIt already does.

And Texas was once a republic.

The UK, France, Germany Netherlands etc etc. all have been unified countries/empires/whathaveyous multiple times in dozens of differents forms (and not always by force). Europe's natural state is unity.

http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/262/268312/art/figures/KISH106.jpg

http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/MapImages/CharlemagneEmpire-display.jpg

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/Holy_roman_Empire_Map1.jpg

http://cicg-iccg.org/images/Pol-hist/Polish-Lithuanian%20Commonwealth.jpg

http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1700.jpg

[SHiRO]

You must be talking about a different Europe than the one I live in...

Deutschland cannot even get united correctly, so for Europe to do this on a level your are proposing it will take not years, but decades.

And France is much more like Texas than Poland. Actually Bavaria and Texas would be a better a comparison.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, I was told there would be not math
Methinks you should stay here a bit longer and talk to a different crowd. The next generation doesn't care much about nationalism. Some Europeans are behind on current developments, it's no surprise that people from outside Europe don't realise how far along the road we already are.
It will take decades for Europe to become a truely unified state, but I believe it will happen A LOT quicker then people think it will.
On the contrary to what pricemazda said earlier, I do believe it is going to be in our lifetime.

[Major AWACS]

I've lived in Europe before, this isn't my first rodeo, so-to-speak. Yes I agree the younger generation is a bit different in ideology, but all I hang out with are folks under 30 and they basically say the same as the older folks--just a bit more muted. THe "city" folk are a bit different but the view is still the same. "lifetime"? I don't know

Look at the IHT from 1956
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/29/opinion/old30.php
1956: U.S. Seen Cooling on Europe

"BONN: Chancellor Konrad Adenauer told his Cabinet ministers in Bonn yesterday [September 27] that he is convinced that the Americans are losing interest in Europe. His remarks at yesterday's closed Cabinet session were one of the latest manifestations of the 80-year-old Chancellor's new and less enthusiastic attitude toward the United States. Dr. Adenauer, it was learned, said that growing American disinterest in Europe was the cause of his unusual appeal in Brussels earlier this week for a new attempt to unify Western Europe. In his Brussels address, Dr. Adenauer proposed a loose form of federation between an unidentified number of Western European states. He said it would mean salvation for Europe in a world dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. He added that American interests did not always coincide with those of Europe."

I am all for a more unified Europe, don't get me wrong. Hell, it makes my life easier. The first thing to fix are the goodamn cellphones/handy contracts. Let's work on abolishing the borders on those so it doesn't cost me over a Euro to call 3 kilometers from Tuddern DE to Sittard NL. Cell phones are absurd.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, You better Belize it