European Disunity (i would like to discuss) [Archive]

Shane Costello

24th January 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Shaun in Scotland:
What's that quote about "being condemned to live in interesting times"?

The Scottish Fishing Fleet sure is finding out about what Europe means.......

As could the Irish economy over the next few years. What annoys me the most has been the lack of political debate in this country as to the wisdom of further European integration. We joined EMU with nary a discussion about the loss of economic sovereignty, and in the face of conventional economic wisdom that to do so without the UK was a move fraught with unpredicatability. I remember the political classes in this country at the time assuring us that the UK would have to join EMU within three years of it's inception. Says a lot about the insightfulness of our politicians! :(

All this while a petty and adolescent anglophobia continues to be fairly fashionable in this country. People whine and whinge about 800 years of British oppression, and yet the continued erosion of our hard earned independence by the EU arouses very little comment. FWIW I see a lot of parallels between anti-British sentiment in Ireland and anti-Americanism in Europe (It's late here so I'll expand on this some other time).

Abdul Alhazred

24th January 2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

As could the Irish economy over the next few years.

To repair my ignorance, please give me a run-down of recent Irish history. I'm not a moron, really I'm not. I'm merely someone lacking information.

My recent history of Ireland consists of what is said by the IRA on one side, and by Rudolph Guiliani on the other. Neither can be right.

Cleopatra

25th January 2004, 01:40 AM

Well, this European couldn't disagree more.

I believe in the European Union and the potential power that hides in Europe.

The most serious problem that Europe faces in our days is the lack of inspired and educated leadership that can imagine and design a future for Europe.

I am sorry to say that the socialist governments contributed to the weakness that Europe faces in our days.

Socialism, the way we experience it in Europe is not radical, it lacks vision, it cannot go beyong its simple administrative duties and its bounded to the organized interests of the Unions. You cannot do business when you have the unions blackmailing you every other month.

Also, some of the members of EU have to decide their future in the EU. I respect their skepticism towards the establishment but they can't stay in and undermining the cause running after the Americans. It's time for them to decide with whom they want to be. Do they really wish to have a central role in the EU or they wish they became the 52th American State?

With the wave of immigration within 10 years Europe won't be the continent we all know. The question is whether we are interested in keeping the distinctive European lifestyle or we don't care about it because if we do care united is the only way to do it.

Jon_in_london

25th January 2004, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The most serious problem that Europe faces in our days is the lack of inspired and educated leadership that can imagine and design a future for Europe.

I disagree. The most serious problem with the EU is its complete inability to consolidate any gains made and instead continue on a wild rampage of expansionism while continually vomiting a torrent of unnecessary and harmfull regulations. The power of the EU rests in being a powerfull trading block, not as being a collection of disparate states forced into a federation against the will of most of its people.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, some of the members of EU have to decide their future in the EU. I respect their skepticism towards the establishment but they can't stay in and undermining the cause running after the Americans. It's time for them to decide with whom they want to be. Do they really wish to have a central role in the EU or they wish they became the 52th American State?

This is a false dichotomy. You are basically saying that certain memebers (ie the UK) have to make a choice between being gobbled up by the EU or being gobbled up by the US. This is rubbish as we do not have to be gobbled up by either.

To say that we cannot be on equal terms with the EU and the US is nonsense. The EU and the US are not at war.

Jon_in_london

25th January 2004, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

To repair my ignorance, please give me a run-down of recent Irish history. I'm not a moron, really I'm not. I'm merely someone lacking information.

My recent history of Ireland consists of what is said by the IRA on one side, and by Rudolph Guiliani on the other. Neither can be right.

Guiliani Vs the IRA? :eek:

Ill give you a brief run-down on whats happened in Ireland, very much open to correction and expansion by others.

English involvement in Ireland goes back way into medieval times but it was after the English Civil War and with Cromwell in power that the whole thing really kicked off.

Cromwell launched an invasion of Ireland to pre-empt a French supported Royalist/Catholic invasion of England via Ireland. Basically, the war-hardened redcoats outmatched the Irish and they were basically colonised.

British Gentry installed themselves as land-lords and the Irish were in effect reduced to serfdom and poverty.

Irish terrorism has a very long history and Brits have been blown up by Irish bombs at least since victorian times.

Just as WWI was about to kick off, there was a crisis in the UK about Ireland. The gov wanted to give homerule to the Irish but sections of the army threatened to mutiny if this was done and most protestant Irish threatened to go on a violent rampage. OTH a lot of other people threatened a violent rampage if homerule was not granted.

Things settled down when the war strated but rose up again in 1916.

Between 1916 and 1923ish(?) there was a state of semi-anarchy in Ireland with people runnign around and shooting each other in the streets.

Ireland was partitioned in 1923ish(?) with the south being independent and the (mainly protestant) north remaining British.

Reginald

25th January 2004, 03:46 AM

I think it is essential that some members of the EU "Stand back".

Quite frankly it has become something of a joke here in the UK, the ridiculous regs that get issued from the heart of the EU...

The curvature of bananas, the diameter of peaches, passports for donkeys, haggis can't be sold by butchers, multiple ear tags for sheep, retesting every chemical you can think of (so much for lab animal care), 80,000 pages of regulations to be met if you want to join.....

In fact I'm surprised that the states waiting to join, don't get cold feet, the memories of USSR style edicts being so fresh in their memories.

Accuse me if you will of wanting the best of both worlds, but if it's a position you can have, I don't see what's so wrong with wanting it.

25th January 2004, 04:10 AM

I am not a European but have traveled there a bit and have had numerous business contacts with citizens of various European countries.

The one thing that has struck me, perhaps falsely, is the tribal nature of Europe. It appears that attitudes are very insular. Does this resonate with any of our European posters?

Shane Costello

25th January 2004, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Abdul Ahrazed:
To repair my ignorance, please give me a run-down of recent Irish history. I'm not a moron, really I'm not. I'm merely someone lacking information.

Well, I wouldn't expect the wider world to take much of an interest in the goings on of our fair isle. Basically over the past decade Ireland hs enjoyed an economic boom that's probably unprecedented in the Western World. Unemployment went from 16% to 4%, while income as a % of the European average has gone from 60% to well over 100%. The main engine of this growth was economic liberalisation, which in turn attracted investment by American multinationals (hardly the European way of doing things). Our two biggest trading partners are the US and the UK, rather than the continental Europeans, which is why the decision to sign up for European monetary union without the UK made no sense, and why we're vulnerable to a declining dollar.

My recent history of Ireland consists of what is said by the IRA on one side, and by Rudolph Guiliani on the other. Neither can be right.

Not sure what Rudi had to say about Irish history but given the past (and present) form of the other crew it's probably safe to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by Cleopatra:
I believe in the European Union and the potential power that hides in Europe.

I see no evidence for this. European power was dissipated by the propensity of Europeans to blow the continent to hell every generation. Right now the declining birthrate means Europe is getting ever wrinklier, and at the risk of sounding ageist dynamism doesn't increase with age. Throw in all that socialism and I fail to see how there's any potential power to be unleashed. The best example of this bureaucratic never never land was the Lisbon conference, where the Eurocrats convinced themselves that Europe would overtake the US as the world's most dynamic knowledge based economy. These people know as much about the workings of the modern economy as I do about the native tongue of the Hopi Indians.

The most serious problem that Europe faces in our days is the lack of inspired and educated leadership that can imagine and design a future for Europe.

Politicians can no more design and imagine a future for Europe than cows can design opera houses. The problem has been the belief by politicians that they can indeed mould Europe into a dynamic economic and political superpower. Take a look at Britain, which was transformed from an economic basket case into Europe's best performing large economy by economic and political reform based upon less government involvement in the economy. Ditto Ireland. The problem is that this minimalist approach is anathema to the statist political paradigm favoured by the EU.

Socialism, the way we experience it in Europe is not radical, it lacks vision, it cannot go beyong its simple administrative duties and its bounded to the organized interests of the Unions. You cannot do business when you have the unions blackmailing you every other month.

Which is prrecisely why socialism is kaputt, full stop.

Also, some of the members of EU have to decide their future in the EU. I respect their skepticism towards the establishment but they can't stay in and undermining the cause running after the Americans. It's time for them to decide with whom they want to be. Do they really wish to have a central role in the EU or they wish they became the 52th American State?

************! Stinking, reeking Bull!

The greatest disregard for the future of the EU has been displayed by the French and Germans, what with their disregarding of the EMU growth and stabilty pact, the sweetheart deal they struck on CAP reform and traditional French unilateralism. (www.techcentralstation.com/092203B.html) Which goes to prove the point I made earlier; that no one actually buys into this "Europe", rather it's a handy vehicle for narrow national and sectional interests.

Seriously Cleo, what's this nonsense about European countries having to consider admission to the US? As Jon pointed out this is a fairly lame false dilemma. I haven't noticed the stars and stripes flying over Switzerland or Norway lately.

With the wave of immigration within 10 years Europe won't be the continent we all know. The question is whether we are interested in keeping the distinctive European lifestyle or we don't care about it because if we do care united is the only way to do it.

What "distinctive European lifestyle" is this then? Is it the Catholic influenced lifestyle of Italy or Ireland, or the Protestant ethos of the Nordic countries. Is it the winedrinking lifestyle of the mediterranean, or the beer drinking lifestyle of Northern Europe?In short, which of Europes many distinctive cultures are you getting at?

Reginald

25th January 2004, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Ed
I am not a European but have traveled there a bit and have had numerous business contacts with citizens of various European countries.

The one thing that has struck me, perhaps falsely, is the tribal nature of Europe. It appears that attitudes are very insular. Does this resonate with any of our European posters?

Yes to a degree. You see the outward opinion is that we all want to join together and be one big happy family. But the truth of the matter is that each country is trying to take best advantage of the situation for further it's own national position. A somewhat contradictory philosophy. Some countries own up to this, some don't. It's my opinion that the ones grabbing for the most are also the ones hailing unity the most.

Given that only 50 odd years ago, half of us were shooting and bombing the other half, remarkable progress has been made. I think a non tribal pan-European state is a long way off yet.

Wire

25th January 2004, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The EU and the US are not at war.

But they are..

Originally posted by Reginald

In fact I'm surprised that the states waiting to join, don't get cold feet, the memories of USSR style edicts being so fresh in their memories.

That was one of the favourite arguments of the people who opposed joining EU. But this is rather ridiculous, if you think more about what belonging to USSR meant. Actually, I think, reasons to join are prettu much the things, we didn't have in USSR.

25th January 2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

To repair my ignorance, please give me a run-down of recent Irish history. I'm not a moron, really I'm not. I'm merely someone lacking information.

Welllllll ....

There are taters. Then there is the Whisky. And Taters of course. Then the Sheep and the beasiality, and Taters, did I mention them? And the Catholics in one part and the Anglicans in the other so you have your pedophilia and sodomy. And Taters.

That sums it up nicely.:D

charley_bigtime

25th January 2004, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

The Scottish Fishing Fleet sure is finding out about what Europe means.......

Not sure I follow you.

Shane Costello

25th January 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
Ill give you a brief run-down on whats happened in Ireland, very much open to correction and expansion by others.

That's where I come in.

English involvement in Ireland goes back way into medieval times but it was after the English Civil War and with Cromwell in power that the whole thing really kicked off.

A couple of things.

Ireland's fraught relationship with the English crown dates back to the Norman "invasion" of 1169-70. Invasion is in quotation marks because these Norman adventurers (ancestors of the Costellos included) were invited into the country by the Irish king of Leinster to help him in a spat with the King of Breffni. It's worth pointing out that these Normans came from Wales rather than England, which is why the surname Walsh is so common nowadays. IIRC the King of Leinster appealed to Henry II, who didn't care less about Ireland but allowed his vassals chance their arms their nonetheless. He subsequently declared himself king of Ireland because he feared that the newly established Normans in Ireland would launch an attempt on the English crown.

English attention in Ireland was diverted by the upheavals of domestic politics as well as campaigns in France. The whole thing kicked off under the Tudors, rather than Cromwell. IIRC Cromwell landed in Ireland to launch a campaign against Royalist insurgents, rather than to preempt an invasion by continental Catholic powers. It should be noted that the native Irish nobility had almost defeated the Elizabethan armies dusing the 9 years war from 1594 to 1603. It's also worth noting that the Elizabethan armies contained large contingents of native Irish troops.

British Gentry installed themselves as land-lords and the Irish were in effect reduced to serfdom and poverty.

Even under the old Irish nobility the vast majority of the populace lived in poverty. The native Irish landed nobility were no more enlightened than their replacements in this respect.

Irish terrorism has a very long history and Brits have been blown up by Irish bombs at least since victorian times.

True, but it's worth remembering that for most of that time Irish people supported constitutional nationalism rather than physical force republicanism.

Between 1916 and 1923ish(?) there was a state of semi-anarchy in Ireland with people runnign around and shooting each other in the streets.

Ireland was partitioned in 1923ish(?) with the south being independent and the (mainly protestant) north remaining British.

The date usually given for the Irish War of Independence is 1919 to 1921. A ceasefire was ultimately called and a treaty negotiated, which had the result of splitting the Irish ranks and precipitating the Irish civil war which ran from the end of 1921 to the beginning of 1923.

Abdul Alhazred

25th January 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Do they really wish to have a central role in the EU or they wish they became the 52th American State?

Well gee whiz! There are only 50 states so far, so who is the 51st, never mind the 52nd? New York City or the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico or Guam or what?

Having England as a state would be nice, but how would we constitutionally deal with royalty? Make them all Colonels as we do in Kentucky?

Colonel Elizabeth? Naaah! Won't work.

Abdul Alhazred

25th January 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Guiliani Vs the IRA? :eek:

Ill give you a brief run-down on whats happened in Ireland, very much open to correction and expansion by others.

English involvement in Ireland goes back way into medieval times but it was after the English Civil War and with Cromwell in power that the whole thing really kicked off.

Thank you. I already knew some of what you said. Guiliani as Cromwell never quite made it. :D

For those who are not aware: Guiliani was a Federal prosecutor before he was Mayor of New York City, and he prosecuted several IRA members. Which may have been why he lost to Dinkins the first time he ran for Mayor.

An important distinction between the USA and the UK. UK candidates stand for office, ours run. Something is chasing them, and rightly so! :p

Cleopatra

26th January 2004, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I disagree. The most serious problem with the EU is its complete inability to consolidate any gains made and instead continue on a wild rampage of expansionism while continually vomiting a torrent of unnecessary and harmfull regulations. The power of the EU rests in being a powerfull trading block, not as being a collection of disparate states forced into a federation against the will of most of its people.

I will reply to that later, I will include it to my reply to Shane's message.

This is a false dichotomy. You are basically saying that certain memebers (ie the UK) have to make a choice between being gobbled up by the EU or being gobbled up by the US. This is rubbish as we do not have to be gobbled up by either.
If this is how it sounded I retract it. None can dictate to anybody what to do but from the moment you have decided to belong to a Union you cannot undermine it.
I cannot imagine a European Union without Great Britain and yet British people seem very hostile towards the Union. I think that it's time they decide. It's their right not to be part of it it's not their right to boycott it.
To say that we cannot be on equal terms with the EU and the US is nonsense. The EU and the US are not at war.

Somebody must tell to the Americans that we are not in War then and that we are not obliged to follow them in their absurd imperialistic policy.

Europe can be the answer, the opposite pole to the American Imperialism and you don't become the opposite pole by being in equal terms.

I just don't want the Americans on our continent and yet we have invited them to solve our problems, we have even let their Army to come in and take care of our problems. Are you ok with that?

26th January 2004, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Somebody must tell to the Americans that we are not in War then and that we are not obliged to follow them in their absurd imperialistic policy.

Imperialist how? What empire have we built, what land have we conquered and held, what people have we subjugated?

charley_bigtime

26th January 2004, 04:03 AM

Cleo.

>I think that it's time they decide. It's their right not to be part of it it's not their right to boycott it.

Of course it is.

Jaggy Bunnet

26th January 2004, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Welllllll ....

There are taters. Then there is the Whisky. And Taters of course. Then the Sheep and the beasiality, and Taters, did I mention them? And the Catholics in one part and the Anglicans in the other so you have your pedophilia and sodomy. And Taters.

That sums it up nicely.:D

Whisky has nothing to do with Ireland. You must be thinking of Whiskey.

Shane Costello

26th January 2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra:
I cannot imagine a European Union without Great Britain and yet British people seem very hostile towards the Union. I think that it's time they decide. It's their right not to be part of it it's not their right to boycott it.

How exactly is Britain "boycotting" Europe? It seems to me that the British view of how Europe should develop has more adherants among European governments than the Franco-German view.

Britain has had a history of peaceful constitutional development that has view parallels in Europe. Present day European governments have an aversion top consulting their own electorates as to developments at EU level. For instance if the people were consulted then it's more than likely that EMU would never have happened, since opinion polls showed a majority of Germans were opposed to giving up the Deutschmark.

Somebody must tell to the Americans that we are not in War then and that we are not obliged to follow them in their absurd imperialistic policy.

When did the Americans suggest that Europeans were obliged to follow them? Here's a mad idea; when Jacques Chirac threw that hissy fit and told his "equals" in Europe that they's missed a good opportunity to shut up, maybe he thought we were obliged to follow him in his absurd imperialistic policy!

I just don't want the Americans on our continent and yet we have invited them to solve our problems, we have even let their Army to come in and take care of our problems. Are you ok with that?

Considering the alternative was being ruled by Uncle Joe and his red Soviet minions, personally I'm relieved that there was a US military presence. Of course European problems were caused by European diplomacy and ruling elites, which is why I'm suspicious about European diplomats and elites nowadays.

Originally psoted by Ed:
Imperialist how? What empire have we built, what land have we conquered and held, what people have we subjugated?

Well, you Yanks weren't satisfied with just providing opportunity and relief to millions of Irish in your own country. Oh no, then you came along with your multinational corporations and your direct investment and your jobs, slashing our unemployment rate and putting more money in our pockets. And to think if it wasn't for enroaching American imperialism we could all be living on handouts from Brussels!

That and a lot of us would be getting on transatlantic flights to Boston and New York.

Shane Costello

26th January 2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Whisky has nothing to do with Ireland. You must be thinking of Whiskey.

Neither does improper behaviour with sheep. He must be thinking of Wales.

26th January 2004, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

That and a lot of us would be getting on transatlantic flights to Boston and New York.

Just to lure you on......http://www.pa.ipw.agrl.ethz.ch/spongospora/potato.jpg :D

PS...Had corned beef and cabbage last night, how appropriate.

Giz

26th January 2004, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Europe can be the answer, the opposite pole to the American Imperialism and you don't become the opposite pole by being in equal terms.

I just don't want the Americans on our continent and yet we have invited them to solve our problems, we have even let their Army to come in and take care of our problems. Are you ok with that?

Huh? Is this another of those "the world is in great danger now there is no counter balance to the all mighty USA" comments? Like the world was safer when there was a counter balancing left wing statist USSR occupying the opposite pole? Is that what Europe should be?

Is the "letting their army come in and take care of our problems" referring to World War 2 or deterring a Warsaw Pact invasion in the Cold War? Which (or both) of those interventions do you see as being unreasonable?

If you don't want Americans on "your" continent perhaps you should convince your compatriots to stop frequenting Starbucks and McDonalds, if the dollars dried up the multinationals would go!
(ps are there any other collections of people you dont want in Europe? Africans? Chinese? The Irish? Or is it just the Americans?)

26th January 2004, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Giz

(ps are there any other collections of people you dont want in Europe? Africans? Chinese? The Irish? Or is it just the Americans?)

Guess

Flo

26th January 2004, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Giz
(ps are there any other collections of people you dont want in Europe? Africans? Chinese? The Irish? Or is it just the Americans?)

Hint:

With the wave of immigration within 10 years Europe won't be the continent we all know. The question is whether we are interested in keeping the distinctive European lifestyle or we don't care about it because if we do care united is the only way to do it

Ziggurat

26th January 2004, 05:55 AM

From that same site, another interesting entry about Europe falling behind us economically and technologically:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/12/EuropeanDecline.shtml

The "Essential Library" page also has an interesting set of links to a variety of interesting articles:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_Articles/TheEssentialLibrary.shtml

Cleopatra

26th January 2004, 06:28 AM

The abudance of stupid regulations that Jon and Shane pointed out and Reginald parodized ( although... hmmm...the curve of bananas is actually a regulation) are nothing but the side-effects of the socialist governing that has tortured and keeps torturing Europe along with the lack of a specific vision about the future of the Union.

All you of you tend to overlook that all these years Europe was something more than a trade union. EU has contributed a lot in the section of Human Rights and this in a period when Guantanamo Rules.What Ed observed as a tribal nature is not exactly a flaw. First of all I wouldn't describe it as such. The differences that exist tend to balance the scale in Europe, this is why I said that I cannot imagine a Europe without Great Britain. It would be quite an unbalanced Europe the same way it would be unbalanced if we let the British rule the Union.

So, which is this European culture? I am sorry Shane but the European culture is beyond Protestantism and Catholicism, it is beyond wine drinking and beer drinking.

The distinctive European lifestyle is the secular lifestyle that gives room to various people (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/18/193403.shtml) that are not allowed even to breath in their own countries to come and protest in this continent. The European lifestyle doesn't accept cabinets that pray to God before starting their meetings. The Europeans, Protestants or Catholics, British, French or Germans, whether they are drinking wine or beer they do not accept the existence of Guantanamos in the continent and they don't argue whether Laws about sodomy, gun control or death penalty should exist or not, we have been through these 2 centuries ago that's why we live in the most democratic and advanced societies in the world.Come-on people!! Over the ocean the police arrests people for violations of the sodomy laws what do we have in common with them?? Do we have in Europe a religious fanatic like Phelps??

I consider the absence of GB from the monetary union the greatest demonstration of hostility. I respect the reservations of the people that's why I think that it's time for the European countries to decide by national elections whether they want to stay in the Union as full members and support the idea of a European Constitution and a monetary Union or not.

As you pointed out it's up to the people to decide and I think that it's time to make a decision. Instead of pointing out the problems it's time to do something about them and deciding what do we want is a good start.

For the interference of the Americans in the European politics only the Europeans are to blame of course --I agree with Shane-- and especially the Germans but it was the European responsibility to solve those problems and not to let American soldiers in our soil.

I think I have covered almost everything for the moment. Ed I will reply to your question about the american imperialism after this discussion is over although I am not so sure that I will after what I read in your sig. I voted so as the Elgin Marbles are going to your garden not to London...

BillyTK

26th January 2004, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

How exactly is Britain "boycotting" Europe? It seems to me that the British view of how Europe should develop has more adherants among European governments than the Franco-German view.
Could you tell me what this British view is, please? Blair's a supporter of the French version, and the German version has gone down the pan, probably because it was a little too democratic. So what's the British view?

Nitpick

26th January 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

>I think that it's time they decide. It's their right not to be part of it it's not their right to boycott it.

Of course it is.

Maybe it's their right. But it's not really gentlemanlike :p, not as long as there's no risk involved - no risk to get kicked out of the Union. There's still no procedure for that.

P.S.
I really can't imagine a EU without the UK, but I'd be curious to know how everyone (not only the UK) would behave if said procedure existed.

charley_bigtime

26th January 2004, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Nitpick
I really can't imagine a EU without the UK, but I'd be curious to know how everyone (not only the UK) would behave if said procedure existed.

The same as they do now.

Shane Costello

26th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally psoted by Cleopatra:
All you of you tend to overlook that all these years Europe was something more than a trade union. EU has contributed a lot in the section of Human Rights and this in a period when Guantanamo Rules.

What exactly has the EU contributed in the sphere of human rights? You also overlook the fact that the EU could never have came into existence were it not for American military protection.

So, which is this European culture? I am sorry Shane but the European culture is beyond Protestantism and Catholicism, it is beyond wine drinking and beer drinking.

Like it or not religion does influence culture, even if religious adherance isn't what it might once have been. Compare rates of marriage breakdown in Scandanavia and Italy, for instance. IIRC so do drinking habits. I remember reading about studies linking levels of violent crime with beer drinking, for instance.

The distinctive European lifestyle is the secular lifestyle that gives room to various people that are not allowed even to breath in their own countries to come and protest in this continent.

Why does this "distinctive European lifestyle" require centralised European government. It's worth pointing out that does European countries with the longest traditions of tolerance and democracy are those with the strongest Euroskeptic tendancies.

The Europeans, Protestants or Catholics, British, French or Germans, whether they are drinking wine or beer they do not accept the existence of Guantanamos in the continent and they don't argue whether Laws about sodomy, gun control or death penalty should exist or not, we have been through these 2 centuries ago that's why we live in the most democratic and advanced societies in the world.Come-on people!!

This is an appeal to the masses with little factual basis. A Belgian bishop recently stated that most homosexuals were perverted. A recent BBC radio exercise found that most British people would favour homeowners having similar rights against intruders as in the US. France executed someone as recently as 1977. The political elites may have decided their positions on these things, but the people may beg to differ.

Over the ocean the police arrests people for violations of the sodomy laws what do we have in common with them?? Do we have in Europe a religious fanatic like Phelps??

Strawman. No one has argued that we have anything in common with the US.

I consider the absence of GB from the monetary union the greatest demonstration of hostility.

The economic case for Britain retaining it's economic sovereignty was very strong. Events since 1999 have shown what a sensible decision this was. Are you suggesting that economic well being be sacrificed to increasingly jaded concepts of "Europe"? And Sweden and Denmark voted pretty decisively not to join. Maybe the EU should eat some humble pie and reflect?

I respect the reservations of the people that's why I think that it's time for the European countries to decide by national elections whether they want to stay in the Union as full members and support the idea of a European Constitution and a monetary Union or not.

But this is exactly what the political elites don't want! And whenever national electorates have voted against the wishes of the elite the response of the response has been to disregard the wishes of the electorate. Perfectly valid referenda had to be restaged in Ireland and Denmark. The EU council of ministers behaved in the most disgusting manner when Austria voted for the Freedom Party.

As you pointed out it's up to the people to decide and I think that it's time to make a decision. Instead of pointing out the problems it's time to do something about them and deciding what do we want is a good start.

The problems facing Europe are self-evident, as are the solutions for the most part. Are you blaming me that the will to face them is non-existant?

For the interference of the Americans in the European politics only the Europeans are to blame of course --I agree with Shane-- and especially the Germans but it was the European responsibility to solve those problems and not to let American soldiers in our soil.

But Europe didn't have the capability to face the Red Army. Abd European solutions to European problems weren't palatable. The most infamous one was based upon mass extermination of people.

I think I have covered almost everything for the moment.

All you've done is continually beg the question and post strawmen fallacies. No one is suggesting we seek statehood in the US. Sodomy laws in the deep South or wherever are neither here nor there as regard the misgivings some of us have about the EU. And yes it's time to start solving problems, but keeping your finger pressed on the question mark key (once is enough) never solved anything.

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Could you tell me what this British view is, please?

That the EU should cooperate with the US, with Britain uniquely placed to act as a bridge between the two. This is clearly antithical to the French view of what the EU should be.

BillyTK

26th January 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
That the EU should cooperate with the US, with Britain uniquely placed to act as a bridge between the two. This is clearly antithical to the French view of what the EU should be.
Thanks. Now could you tell me which Britons advocate this view please? I'm kind of surprised considering general feelings towards Bush and the US.

Giz

26th January 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thanks. Now could you tell me which Britons advocate this view please? I'm kind of surprised considering general feelings towards Bush and the US.

I'd advocate this view!

I think you may be extrapolating a view of the US based on your circle of friends. Your gaggle of anarcho-socialist-yorkshiremen (is gaggle the correct plural?) may not represent the average decent (southern) Englishman's view of our transatlantic cousins.

Jon_in_london

26th January 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thanks. Now could you tell me which Britons advocate this view please? I'm kind of surprised considering general feelings towards Bush and the US.

Beleive it or not Billy, there are actually a lot of people who DID support the war and an even greater number of people who think of the US as a friend, and ally and a force for good in the world. Probably more than think of France and Germany in the same way.

BillyTK

26th January 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Beleive it or not Billy, there are actually a lot of people who DID support the war and an even greater number of people who think of the US as a friend, and ally and a force for good in the world. Probably more than think of France and Germany in the same way.
But enough to constitute a "British view"?

BillyTK

26th January 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Giz

I'd advocate this view!
Ah! So you're the British view!

I think you may be extrapolating a view of the US based on your circle of friends. Your gaggle of anarcho-socialist-yorkshiremen (is gaggle the correct plural?) may not represent the average decent (southern) Englishman's view of our transatlantic cousins.
I'd recommend Derron Brown for some tips on cold-reading.

Cleopatra

26th January 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

What exactly has the EU contributed in the sphere of human rights? You also overlook the fact that the EU could never have came into existence were it not for American military protection.

What? What do you mean?

Like it or not religion does influence culture, even if religious adherance isn't what it might once have been. Compare rates of marriage breakdown in Scandanavia and Italy, for instance. IIRC so do drinking habits. I remember reading about studies linking levels of violent crime with beer drinking, for instance.

Of course it does but European countries have managed to develop to secular democracies, point to me a European cabinet who prays to God before starting its meeting.

Why does this "distinctive European lifestyle" require centralised European government. It's worth pointing out that does European countries with the longest traditions of tolerance and democracy are those with the strongest Euroskeptic tendancies.

It doesn't require, it's something the European countries decided to do. Do you include Ireland among the countries with a long tradition to tolerance?Just curious.

This is an appeal to the masses with little factual basis. A Belgian bishop recently stated that most homosexuals were perverted. A recent BBC radio exercise found that most British people would favour homeowners having similar rights against intruders as in the US. France executed someone as recently as 1977. The political elites may have decided their positions on these things, but the people may beg to differ.

You accuse me of strawmen while you post anecdotes of the worse kind. A Belgian bishop that you don't remember his name? What about an American President who is pro the death penalty or an american president who talks about the sancity of marriage or an American President that thinks that he communicates with God. A paragraph above you described Europeans are Euroskeptics. Euroskeptics cannot be potrayed by the sporadic and marginal anecdotes you brought as examples.

Strawman. No one has argued that we have anything in common with the US.

We owe them our existence don't we?

The economic case for Britain retaining it's economic sovereignty was very strong. Events since 1999 have shown what a sensible decision this was. Are you suggesting that economic well being be sacrificed to increasingly jaded concepts of "Europe"? And Sweden and Denmark voted pretty decisively not to join. Maybe the EU should eat some humble pie and reflect?

I find interesting that you equate Britain with Sweden and Denmark. No offense to Denmark but none would notice if they left the Union the same way none would notice or miss Greece if it left.

Great Britain was and still is a premium factor that contributes to the European stability. By boycotting the monetary union Great Britain created serious problems. If the union is such a threat to GB's existence well, there is always the other way. I cannot accept the idea: We don't agree so none proceeds to the Union.Who is blocking the European Constitution now?

But this is exactly what the political elites don't want! And whenever national electorates have voted against the wishes of the elite the response of the response has been to disregard the wishes of the electorate. Perfectly valid referenda had to be restaged in Ireland and Denmark. The EU council of ministers behaved in the most disgusting manner when Austria voted for the Freedom Party.

I don't know what do you mean with the term political elite. Also, I don't know what are you doing here where you if you think that your government has falsified your will to such an important matter.Are you saying that you are posting from a banana republic? Unless I didn't hear at the news that the revolution started...

The problems facing Europe are self-evident, as are the solutions for the most part. Are you blaming me that the will to face them is non-existant?

Where did I say that I blame you. ( shall I start screamming stawman-strawman now??)What I said is that we all know the problems but we are unwilling to solve them.

But Europe didn't have the capability to face the Red Army. Abd European solutions to European problems weren't palatable. The most infamous one was based upon mass extermination of people.

The Red Army? I was refering to the crisis in Yogoslavia.

All you've done is continually beg the question and post strawmen fallacies. No one is suggesting we seek statehood in the US. Sodomy laws in the deep South or wherever are neither here nor there as regard the misgivings some of us have about the EU. And yes it's time to start solving problems, but keeping your finger pressed on the question mark key (once is enough) never solved anything.

You accuse me that I post strawmen while you do the same thing. Texas is not deep South and I refered to some examples only to show you that there is a European culture and lifestyle. You replied to Billy that Britain wishes to act as a bridge between the two continents. Too bad that some paragraphs above you admitted that we have very few things in common with USA so I don't know of what use a potential bridge would be.

Jon_in_london

26th January 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

But enough to constitute a "British view"?

You asked 'which Britons' and I said 'lots!'

I dont know if its the majority view as there hasnt been a referendum and neither has there been one to support your view.

Jon_in_london

26th January 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

We don't agree so none proceeds to the Union.Who is blocking the European Constitution now?

So far as I know the member states of the EU are blocking it because nobody likes it.

Cleopatra

26th January 2004, 09:38 AM

I want to add one thing. I would never spend time arguing about the benefits of the Union with a Frenchman or a German and not because I don't respect their views ( well I will be frank I don't take French people that seriously) but because Britain is "the superpower of Europe". Europe exists because of Britain I cannot even think a Union without Britain.

I believe that Britain has some responsibilities towards Europe. I feel "betrayed" when they turn their backs to the rest of us. That's all.:)

Shane Costello

26th January 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra:
What? What do you mean?

Well you were the one who claimed the EU had contribute loads to the cause of human rights without citing one example to support your case. I'd argue that the basis of human rights consist of such legal milestones as Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus, neither of which came from the EU.

Of course it does but European countries have managed to develop to secular democracies, point to me a European cabinet who prays to God before starting its meeting.

The Irish parliament opens with prayers. You're also forgetting that many, if not most European countries have political parties that describe or style themselves as Christian Democrats. A lot of European countries have official state religions, while in Germany the state acts as a revenue collector for the churches. There's also a significant movement (in this country anyway) to have God mentioned in any EU constitution. While European states may be less Christian in terms of adherance and church attendance than the US, they're simply not secular in the way the USA is.

It doesn't require, it's something the European countries decided to do. Do you include Ireland among the countries with a long tradition to tolerance?Just curious.

Broadly I would. While Ireland was and is an overwhelmingly Catholic country, and government policy reflected this, this did not manifest itself in persecution of minorities. Our first president was a Protestant. Our present constitution was drafted in 1938. While it recognised the special position of the Catholic church, it also recognised other faiths, including Judaism. Our government and our constitution recognised Judaism as a faith on a par with others at the same time as the Nuremburg Laws and the Kristallnacht. Think about that.

You accuse me of strawmen while you post anecdotes of the worse kind.

What exactly are anecdotes of the worst kind? So I can't remeber the name of a Belgian bishop? Lord, I'm one step away from residential care in that case! :rolleyes:

What about an American President who is pro the death penalty or an american president who talks about the sancity of marriage or an American President that thinks that he communicates with God.

What about an American president that believes in this? What has any of it to do with scepticism about the EU?

A paragraph above you described Europeans are Euroskeptics. Euroskeptics cannot be potrayed by the sporadic and marginal anecdotes you brought as examples.

A blatant strawman. I didn't describe "Europeans are Euroskeptics", nor were the "anecdotes" I mentioned meant to portray them as such.

We owe them our existence don't we?

Our existance? Our present existance, certainly. But our ultimate existance, no.

Great Britain was and still is a premium factor that contributes to the European stability. By boycotting the monetary union Great Britain created serious problems.

It's the very existance of monetary union that is causing problems, not Britains non-participation.

I don't know what do you mean with the term political elite.

The unnaccountable eurocrats, the unelected European commision.

Also, I don't know what are you doing here where you if you think that your government has falsified your will to such an important matter.Are you saying that you are posting from a banana republic? Unless I didn't hear at the news that the revolution started...

This paragraph makes no sense, grammatical or otherwise.

Where did I say that I blame you. ( shall I start screamming stawman-strawman now??)

No but take it easy on the question marks if you want to appear in anyways sane.

The Red Army? I was refering to the crisis in Yogoslavia.

That too. Yugoslavia illustrates perfectly that terminal flaw in the European project. Europe just doesn't have the will to deal with stuff on it's own doorstep.

You accuse me that I post strawmen while you do the same thing.

Where on earth have I posted strawmen? I may have erred in presuming Texas to be in the deep south but that's an innaccuracy, not a strawman fallacy.

You replied to Billy that Britain wishes to act as a bridge between the two continents. Too bad that some paragraphs above you admitted that we have very few things in common with USA so I don't know of what use a potential bridge would be.

Now this is a strawman argument, misrepresenting my position and proceeding to rubbish my supposed argument. What I actually said was "Strawman. No one has argued that we have anything in common with the US. Your original point seemed to be that Christian fundamentalism was in some way an argument for greater European integration. FWIW I think that Britain and Ireland have more in common with the US (and wider English speaking world) than they have with continental Europe, in terms of common language, economic and legal systems. Personally I count many native born Americans in my immediate family circle, something I can't do with native born continental Europeans. Our vice-prime minister agrees. (www.entemp.ie/press00/210700.htm)

Rather than suggest anything constructive, you fall back on jaded anti-Americanisms and go nuts at those of us who express skepticism (on a sceptics website, of all places!) as to the motives and advisability of European integration. In my experiance this is the textbook response of Euro-fanatics.

BillyTK,

You misunderstand my argument. When I speak about a British position, or a French position, I'm talking about the positions of the governments, not the views held by their respective electorates.

Shaun from Scotland

26th January 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
[B
I dont know if its the majority view as there hasnt been a referendum and neither has there been one to support your view. [/B]

And there never will be one.

Remember, teflon Tony may be looking for a job by the end of the week. A nice big fat paycheque in Brussels or a referendum?

Guess which option Tony prefers..........?

DanishDynamite

27th January 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Well this "European" agrees with pretty much everything the blog has to say. IMO a unified Europe is impossible given the myriad of peoples, languages and cultures extant on the continent. In any event I believe that the notion of European unity has served as a vehicle for national and sectional interests, rather than being a serious aspiration in itself. There's also the incompetence and corruption of EU governance, not to mention the democratic deficit. The next few years in Europe should be interesting form a socio-political viewpoint, to say the least. Clarke's Law of Revolutionary Ideas:
Every revolutionary idea -- in Science, Politics, Art or Whatever -- evokes three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the three phrases:
1. "It is completely impossible -- don't waste my time."
2. "It is possible, but it is not worth doing."
3. "I said it was a good idea all along."

BillyTK

27th January 2004, 11:44 AM

Hi Shane,
You misunderstand my argument. When I speak about a British position, or a French position, I'm talking about the positions of the governments, not the views held by their respective electorates.
Thanks for the clarification. I wondered if this is what you meant, but thought clarification would be better than erecting houses made from straw, but I've got to repeat here my earlier point that Blair is a strong advocate of the French model of what the EU should be, and my suspicion is that whatever lip service he currently pays to the idea of the UK being an interstitial zone between the EU and US, this view would most likely get dumped if it proved politic to do so, for instance, if he got a chance at the EU presidency. As for the views of the rest of the cabinet, I honestly have no idea, and if I was to be completely cynical, I'd suggest that neither has Blair.

Shane Costello

28th January 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Clarke's Law of Revolutionary Ideas:
Every revolutionary idea -- in Science, Politics, Art or Whatever -- evokes three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the three phrases:
1. "It is completely impossible -- don't waste my time."
2. "It is possible, but it is not worth doing."
3. "I said it was a good idea all along."

Ah Danish Dynamite, I was beginning to think you weren't going to show!

Hmm, Clarke's law? To begin with, it's arguable whether the concept of European unity is novel, let alone revolutionary. There's plenty of precedence for supranational political entities on the continent of Europe. The Roman Empire was one, Charlemagne's empire another. Napoleon and Hitler both attempted to unify Europe under a single authority. A bit about that here. (www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/infoservice/download/pdf/eu/eu_identity.pdf)

It seems to me that Clarke's law is based upon a very flawed, assumption, namely that every revolutionary idea is inherently sound and bound to succeed. That simply isn't the case. Communism was a revolutionary idea (quite literally). That certainly didn't work. OTOH representative democracy was also a revolutionary concept that evoked the responses predicted by Clarke's Law. Whether the same can be said of the EU remains to be seen.