Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A United Europe?

DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
edited November 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
So a friend of mine linked me to this documentary, The Real Face of the European Union and its struck me profoundly as a load of shit. The gist of it is that the EU is a conspiracy 60 years old to create a single European nation and take way Englands independence, it starts off with pictures from World War 2 and talks about how the nazi's also wanted to create a single state and then goes on to bring up Winston Churchill and nostalgic speeches on what the United Kingdom used to be.

Considering the thing way things are going its highly likely that we are in fact heading towards a single state, and quite frankly I'm in favor of it. But the way its portrayed is that its a plot to destroy some sort of heritage that exists in England. I'm a big opponent of nationalism and even patriotism, I think pining towards some sort of lost supremacy is counter to progress and yes even peace.

It brings up a lot of faults with the EU, corruption, inability of nations to independently set interest rates (if they use the Euro) and EU control of fishing and enviromental policy but fails to point out that the reason for the EU having control of those policies is to enforce them more efficiently by making all nations adhere to the same fishing restrictions you can ensure that fishing is sustainable. The corruption is an issue though, the fact that every month the EU headquarters is packed up and moved between two capitals is mindboggingly stupid but apparently nobody's been able to settle the dispute of where to keep it. Airline ticket pilfering is more an issue of individual corruption because you can claim you paid whatever you want for a ticket and just fly economy and its been a big scandal in Denmark at least.

But yeah, you guys watch it and let me know what you think, personally it struck me as fear mongering, riling up nationalists and a way to shore up votes. If the UK did in fact leave the EU they'd be in shits creek because like it or not their economy is entirely tied to the rest of us and working on their own they'd simply not have access to the infrastructure and networks that the EU now has.

Demiurge on
DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
«1345678

Posts

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited August 2009
    Well. It is kinda-sorta heading that way. And there's a serious deficit of democratic influence over the decisions made in the EU.

  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    As an American, I hope this doesn't happen, because IIRC the EU already has a bigger combined GDP than the US. What will we crow about if we can't call ourselves the one superpower anymore?

  • TamTam I hate art I love artRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    In general, interdependence and unification seem like good ideas to me, but I confess I don't know much about this particular issue.

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    As an American, I hope this doesn't happen, because IIRC the EU already has a bigger combined GDP than the US. What will we crow about if we can't call ourselves the one superpower anymore?

    You can still jerk off to the fact that you spend more on your military budget than the rest of the world combined.

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm uncomfortable with the thought of having my laws dictated by a union in which making holocaust denial illegal has some real traction with some of the largest members.

  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User
    edited August 2009
    As an American, I hope this doesn't happen, because IIRC the EU already has a bigger combined GDP than the US. What will we crow about if we can't call ourselves the one superpower anymore?

    China beat you there years ago.

    As for a single United Europe, or perhaps indeed the theoretical idea of a United States of Europe, the likelyhood of such a Europe occuring is rather slim, or indeed the likelyhood of it occuring with the United Kingdom on board is even more slim. To put it bluntly there's too many people with difference ideals, opinions and wishes for a European Government to really control it properly. Disaster can already be seen in the current system. Did you know for instance that the British ratings system now has to be ratified because of European policy that has caused a loophole allowing kids to buy 18 rated games and movies in stores without any sort of prosecution or method to stop them? Thank you EU.

    Do you know that the EU's fishing laws are so draconian they're putting shipping groups out of business in Scotland; effectively killing a very important trade to Scottish import/exports? Thank you EU.

    In the end I could rattle these off and become just as bad as the website, but the website with its biasness does have a sense of truth. The recent European elections has shown how ineffective the democratic system is. The recent Lisbon treaties that were ratified up and ousted by Ireland are being ratified and sent through a referendum again! Why? Because those damn Irish will answer the question right!

    And then there's the corruption...

    No I can't see a United Europe ever occuring or working. We just don't all agree with each other, and we have too many needs and opinions that differ from one another. It's not like the American system of Congress and Senate and states, which is a bit more sound. It's quagmire of political problems and mud that is annoying alot of people.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Considering the thing way things are going its highly likely that we are in fact heading towards a single state[...]
    Not a chance in hell. Far too much entrenched nationalism.

    sig.png
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    WMain00 wrote: »
    As an American, I hope this doesn't happen, because IIRC the EU already has a bigger combined GDP than the US. What will we crow about if we can't call ourselves the one superpower anymore?

    China beat you there years ago.

    As for a single United Europe, or perhaps indeed the theoretical idea of a United States of Europe, the likelyhood of such a Europe occuring is rather slim, or indeed the likelyhood of it occuring with the United Kingdom on board is even more slim. To put it bluntly there's too many people with difference ideals, opinions and wishes for a European Government to really control it properly. Disaster can already be seen in the current system. Did you know for instance that the British ratings system now has to be ratified because of European policy that has caused a loophole allowing kids to buy 18 rated games and movies in stores without any sort of prosecution or method to stop them? Thank you EU.

    Do you know that the EU's fishing laws are so draconian they're putting shipping groups out of business in Scotland; effectively killing a very important trade to Scottish import/exports? Thank you EU.

    In the end I could rattle these off and become just as bad as the website, but the website with its biasness does have a sense of truth. The recent European elections has shown how ineffective the democratic system is. The recent Lisbon treaties that were ratified up and ousted by Ireland are being ratified and sent through a referendum again! Why? Because those damn Irish will answer the question right!

    And then there's the corruption...

    No I can't see a United Europe ever occuring or working. We just don't all agree with each other, and we have too many needs and opinions that differ from one another. It's not like the American system of Congress and Senate and states, which is a bit more sound. It's quagmire of political problems and mud that is annoying alot of people.

    You know what you're describing? Federalism. Europe would be even more of a mess were it not for the common market and security/political cooperation frameworks. It's very likely west germany and italy wouldn't have integrated well into NATO for political and economic reasons in the absence of european integration.

    The European Commission and Council of Ministers function a lot like the executive and the senate. The parliament would probably have real power if anyone took EP elections seriously.

    Who the fuck cares if england's rating systems has to go through a commissioner? If you don't like it, you can leave the EU. But that has such economic and political consequences that you guys happily are net payors into the system, like France and Germany. You're also the only country to throw a tantrum about the CAP such that you get cash rebates back, and you get all sorts of preferential treatment, almost to the point where we see a "two-speed" europe.

    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.

    fwKS7.png?1
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I don't see it happening in the near future. Too many actual nations with individual histories, governments, and languages. I could see the current union strengthening a bit, but not out right unifying any time soon.

    PSN: allenquid
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Considering the thing way things are going its highly likely that we are in fact heading towards a single state[...]
    Not a chance in hell. Far too much entrenched nationalism.

    Eh, I could possibly see an increase in 'regionalism' come about eventually if relations go cold with other large nation-states. Europe v Russia or China or even the US as a source of pride and abloo bloo bloo. Identifying as European and then French/Parisian or whatever doesn't mean you can't still mock the Welsh same as being American rather than whatever doesn't mean you can't still mock Alabama.

    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't see it happening in the near future. Too many actual nations with individual histories, governments, and languages. I could see the current union strengthening a bit, but not out right unifying any time soon.

    Outside of semantics is the difference between those that significant?

    tea-1.jpg
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    I thought Western Europe didn't like being run by individual, bureaucratic, culture spanning, centralized committees. Soviets... if you will.

    But I guess I could be wrong.

    Fairly certain I'm not, though.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't see it happening in the near future. Too many actual nations with individual histories, governments, and languages. I could see the current union strengthening a bit, but not out right unifying any time soon.

    Outside of semantics is the difference between those that significant?
    Wait, which? There are, like, five different adjectives up there.

    PSN: allenquid
  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User
    edited August 2009
    WMain00 wrote: »
    As an American, I hope this doesn't happen, because IIRC the EU already has a bigger combined GDP than the US. What will we crow about if we can't call ourselves the one superpower anymore?

    China beat you there years ago.

    As for a single United Europe, or perhaps indeed the theoretical idea of a United States of Europe, the likelyhood of such a Europe occuring is rather slim, or indeed the likelyhood of it occuring with the United Kingdom on board is even more slim. To put it bluntly there's too many people with difference ideals, opinions and wishes for a European Government to really control it properly. Disaster can already be seen in the current system. Did you know for instance that the British ratings system now has to be ratified because of European policy that has caused a loophole allowing kids to buy 18 rated games and movies in stores without any sort of prosecution or method to stop them? Thank you EU.

    Do you know that the EU's fishing laws are so draconian they're putting shipping groups out of business in Scotland; effectively killing a very important trade to Scottish import/exports? Thank you EU.

    In the end I could rattle these off and become just as bad as the website, but the website with its biasness does have a sense of truth. The recent European elections has shown how ineffective the democratic system is. The recent Lisbon treaties that were ratified up and ousted by Ireland are being ratified and sent through a referendum again! Why? Because those damn Irish will answer the question right!

    And then there's the corruption...

    No I can't see a United Europe ever occuring or working. We just don't all agree with each other, and we have too many needs and opinions that differ from one another. It's not like the American system of Congress and Senate and states, which is a bit more sound. It's quagmire of political problems and mud that is annoying alot of people.
    You know what you're describing? Federalism. Europe would be even more of a mess were it not for the common market and security/political cooperation frameworks. It's very likely west germany and italy wouldn't have integrated well into NATO for political and economic reasons in the absence of european integration.

    The European Commission and Council of Ministers function a lot like the executive and the senate. The parliament would probably have real power if anyone took EP elections seriously.

    Which nobody is likely to if the European Parliament continue to act so ham-fistedly on affairs of state. That and the recent EP elections showed how totally devoid of any reasoning there is in the system of electing the ministers. It's a case of "join the party group you like the most," at which the parties are likely to go "Hey ho, i'll join the one who has most control!"
    Who the fuck cares if england's rating systems has to go through a commissioner? If you don't like it, you can leave the EU.

    I imagine alot of retailers, parents and members of pariament care...
    But that has such economic and political consequences that you guys happily are net payors into the system, like France and Germany. You're also the only country to throw a tantrum about the CAP such that you get cash rebates back, and you get all sorts of preferential treatment, almost to the point where we see a "two-speed" europe.

    That's just how our Government is at the moment. We believe ourselves to be the top dogs, we probably have every reason to in the same arrogant blunt way that the US beliefs itself to be top dogs. It's just how politics works.
    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.

    HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't see it happening in the near future. Too many actual nations with individual histories, governments, and languages. I could see the current union strengthening a bit, but not out right unifying any time soon.

    Outside of semantics is the difference between those that significant?

    Wait, which? There are, like, five different adjectives up there.

    The last set.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.

    HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.
    yes, you do. this is what happens when you enact laws of that sort of nature. the only catch is when it affects enough people that the temporary problem doesn't correct itself, the government should be stepping in to lend a hand

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    The last set.
    Ah. I essentially don't see them becoming anything parallel to the U.S. right now. I could see them taking further steps in that direction, but I can't imagine giving up their sovereignty on all matters to a central government that all the other countries get to vote on. At least not inside the next week.

    PSN: allenquid
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ronzo wrote: »
    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.

    HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.
    yes, you do. this is what happens when you enact laws of that sort of nature. the only catch is when it affects enough people that the temporary problem doesn't correct itself, the government should be stepping in to lend a hand

    In 50 years we'll just buy a drop of fish blood at the store, and create the fish at home with our Mattel Clone-o-matics.

  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The last set.
    Ah. I essentially don't see them becoming anything parallel to the U.S. right now. I could see them taking further steps in that direction, but I can't imagine giving up their sovereignty on all matters to a central government that all the other countries get to vote on. At least not inside the next week.

    Nice called, it wants its treaty back. :)

    Absolute and qualified majority voting is the norm on many issues, most of them economic and noncontroversial. This has made it a lot easier to get things done, as compared to when heads of state had to meet and agree unanimously on everything. Desmond Dinan's book recounts a story about its terrible effects on policymaking, anecdotally illustrated by the Irish then-PM sitting in a corner with his fingers in his ears as Thatcher railed against dairy subsidies for interminable hours.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union is a good explanation for it.

    The fact that you didn't know much about this is the EU's biggest problem. 5 decades of intergovernmental agreements and organic institutional development has made the entire thing very wonkish and opaque. I bet the number of people in the EU who can differentiate a regulation from a directive number in the 6 figures, at best. This factor has engendered a lot of hostility to the EU, out of all proportion of what it can do. They need better PR and transparency. At the moment, it's a real contradiction: euroskeptics talk out of both sides of their mouth, calling for "more democracy" - i.e. direct representatives with more power, as well as trying to roll back EU competency.

    fwKS7.png?1
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    WMain00 wrote: »
    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.
    HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.

    I could care less about Portugese and Spanish fishing vessels fishing illegally in the Grand Banks and other parts of the Atlantic ocean - if they all lost their jobs tomorrow thanks to new laws prohibiting their dangerous practices I would probably hold a party.

    PS: What do you tell the Newfoundland men and women who have had their livelihood damaged thanks to the (illogical, regressive, stupid?) EU ban on seal products?

    Narian.gif
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    ronzo wrote: »
    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.

    HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.
    yes, you do. this is what happens when you enact laws of that sort of nature. the only catch is when it affects enough people that the temporary problem doesn't correct itself, the government should be stepping in to lend a hand

    Wow. This leads even more credence to my USSR rhetoric above.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The last set.
    Ah. I essentially don't see them becoming anything parallel to the U.S. right now. I could see them taking further steps in that direction, but I can't imagine giving up their sovereignty on all matters to a central government that all the other countries get to vote on. At least not inside the next week.

    No, but if you would have told people standing in the ashes of Berlin that there wouldn't be any other wars between major European powers for the next 60+ years and that the EU would be what it is today they would have called you crazy. In the next half century I can see them easily becoming more or less what the US was in the 20's when the Federal government was weak in comparison to today. Maybe it becomes more centrally assertive or not and thus qualify as 'unified' rather than 'united,' but that seems like a distinction without much of a difference.

    tea-1.jpg
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yes but I don't expect that any time in the next two or three decades.

    I never said it wouldn't happen.

    PSN: allenquid
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The major issue with the European Union right now is that it's something that is difficult/inconvenient to democratize, and there's no real push for it.

    If they could get that squared away, it should go just fine.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Nationalistic tendencies in the EU are currently much to strong to allow much of a power shift to the european union, especially as it has just expanded into eastern europe, a move which has caused political problems in many western nations, especially with the currently empowered populistic and right-wing movements there.

    The problems in achieving such a government are great too. For instance, every EU nation has it's own standard of living, it's own tax system, it's own social securities. These are not easily homogonized at all.
    These differences are sizable barriers for further economic union.

    There is also the earlier mentioned problem of detachment. Due to the way the EU government is elected, most countries feel there is little to vote for, the turnout and interest is low. Basicly, every country holds election for an allotted number of parliament seats, and the parties group up into huge cross-country powerblocks with only the broadest of political similarities. (For instance, the Dutch parties D66 (a moderately left-wing, social liberal strongly pro democratic party, groups with the Dutch VVD, a right-wing, somewhat populist, somewhat xenofobe, economic party in the EU parliament because for both, that group is the "best match").

    The end result of this is that the EU makes for poor news unless it's something stupid, or locally bad. Furthermore, national politicians love to blaim the EU for any problems, in part because the voice of the EU is very weak, and probably won't respond strongly. This has brought us to the current situation, where the EU is seen by the public as a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck who do nothing but make life miserable for all of us. Even though much of EU policy is actually quite more pro-active than many nations that are part of it. (For instance, in the enviromental sector).

    The best part of the EU, by my standard, is the european court. They seem to deal very well with pan-european cases, and have a tendency to overrule shortsighted national laws.

    The worst part is the farming subsidies. But it's basicly a staring contest versus the USA, and France and Spain will probably never give them up.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Narian wrote: »
    WMain00 wrote: »
    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.
    HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.

    I could care less about Portugese and Spanish fishing vessels fishing illegally in the Grand Banks and other parts of the Atlantic ocean - if they all lost their jobs tomorrow thanks to new laws prohibiting their dangerous practices I would probably hold a party.

    PS: What do you tell the Newfoundland men and women who have had their livelihood damaged thanks to the (illogical, regressive, stupid?) EU ban on seal products?

    I'd advise Newfoundland to never join the EU. Then i'd tell them to take it up with the WTO. I'd think one's opinion on the ban depends on how you feel about killing seals.

    If you're concerned about animal cruelty in killing methods, then it's almost impossible to determine which seals were killed "humanely" and which weren't, and so the most efficient and easy solution is to ban all products, and reconsider the issue if Canada reforms its seal products industry.

    It may be bad for Newfoundland, but whether it's illogical, stupid or regressive depends on one's political viewpoints. That is something expressed via european political institutions, but not determined by them.

    fwKS7.png?1
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Nationalistic tendencies in the EU are currently much to strong to allow much of a power shift to the european union, especially as it has just expanded into eastern europe, a move which has caused political problems in many western nations, especially with the currently empowered populistic and right-wing movements there.

    The problems in achieving such a government are great too. For instance, every EU nation has it's own standard of living, it's own tax system, it's own social securities. These are not easily homogonized at all.
    These differences are sizable barriers for further economic union.

    There is also the earlier mentioned problem of detachment. Due to the way the EU government is elected, most countries feel there is little to vote for, the turnout and interest is low. Basicly, every country holds election for an allotted number of parliament seats, and the parties group up into huge cross-country powerblocks with only the broadest of political similarities. (For instance, the Dutch parties D66 (a moderately left-wing, social liberal strongly pro democratic party, groups with the Dutch VVD, a right-wing, somewhat populist, somewhat xenofobe, economic party in the EU parliament because for both, that group is the "best match").

    The end result of this is that the EU makes for poor news unless it's something stupid, or locally bad. Furthermore, national politicians love to blaim the EU for any problems, in part because the voice of the EU is very weak, and probably won't respond strongly. This has brought us to the current situation, where the EU is seen by the public as a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck who do nothing but make life miserable for all of us. Even though much of EU policy is actually quite more pro-active than many nations that are part of it. (For instance, in the enviromental sector).

    The best part of the EU, by my standard, is the european court. They seem to deal very well with pan-european cases, and have a tendency to overrule shortsighted national laws.

    The worst part is the farming subsidies. But it's basicly a staring contest versus the USA, and France and Spain will probably never give them up.

    The CAP sucks, as does American farm subsidies. But they're making slow progress on improving their impacts, by decoupling payments from production and pushing an ecological planning agenda.

    fwKS7.png?1
  • KartanKartan Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The EU as it is now has massive faults. For starters, I really don't see why it doesn't adopt the system of an upper house made up by representatives of the states and a lower house made up by directly elected politicians, which has been proven a good and workable system by pretty much every federal state in history.

    Why isn't the constitution (and we really need one, english/british sentimentalities be damned) ratified by a general european public vote?

    The way the EU appears now is more like a project by the various governments than a project by the european people, as it should be. that said, I don't see anything approaching a centralised state appearing on the european continent, but that doesn't mean that a federal state can't happen. Leave a lot of power with the various national governments, and keep the federal government contained to foreign questions (I really want to see a common european military and a unified foreign policy, quite possibly with a permanent seat in the UNSC) and providing a reasonably well regulated common market.

    The way I see it, is that the EU is the best way to ensure european interests are defended worldwide in the decades to come, because no one will listen if the netherlands or Sweden has a problem with China. Everyone will listen when the entire might of the european economy (and its military power, in some cases) are there to back it up.

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    kaliyama wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    WMain00 wrote: »
    Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.
    HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.

    I could care less about Portugese and Spanish fishing vessels fishing illegally in the Grand Banks and other parts of the Atlantic ocean - if they all lost their jobs tomorrow thanks to new laws prohibiting their dangerous practices I would probably hold a party.

    PS: What do you tell the Newfoundland men and women who have had their livelihood damaged thanks to the (illogical, regressive, stupid?) EU ban on seal products?

    I'd advise Newfoundland to never join the EU. Then i'd tell them to take it up with the WTO. I'd think one's opinion on the ban depends on how you feel about killing seals.

    If you're concerned about animal cruelty in killing methods, then it's almost impossible to determine which seals were killed "humanely" and which weren't, and so the most efficient and easy solution is to ban all products, and reconsider the issue if Canada reforms its seal products industry.

    It may be bad for Newfoundland, but whether it's illogical, stupid or regressive depends on one's political viewpoints. That is something expressed via european political institutions, but not determined by them.

    God don't start the seal debate, every single Canadian on these forums will come down with righteous fury.

    Basically, the seal hunt is not inhumane. It doesn't need reforms... because it is fine the way it is. Banning it is completely based on the fact that seals look "cute".

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Kartan wrote: »
    The EU as it is now has massive faults. For starters, I really don't see why it doesn't adopt the system of an upper house made up by representatives of the states and a lower house made up by directly elected politicians, which has been proven a good and workable system by pretty much every federal state in history.

    Really? I find out bicameral system to actually be generally a negative aspect of Congress. And particularly for the States, but that's sort of a side issue.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited August 2009
    WMain00 wrote: »
    As an American, I hope this doesn't happen, because IIRC the EU already has a bigger combined GDP than the US. What will we crow about if we can't call ourselves the one superpower anymore?

    China beat you there years ago.

    Really? Pretty sure that's dramatically wrong. Unless you're just talking about China being a superpower, in which case, who knows, man, who knows?

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I suspect that at least part of the Euroscepticism in the UK is based on how the current National Government has handled it. The best example is their promise to hold a referrendum on the European Constitution, basically a huge, and quite confusing, series of reforms designed to consolidate power and introduce reforms. Said Constitution was turned down in Referendums in France and Holland, so the UK were off the hook.

    Three years later and we have the Treaty of Lisbon, which is widely perceived as the Constitution with a few cosmetic differences. The UK Government insisted it was not the Constitution, so they didn't have to have a referendum on it, and consequently ratified it. The anger I've seen at the perception of the Government weasling out of what was a major promise in their Election Manifesto, coupled with the inferred implication that we either couldn't understand the issue or would reach a democratic decision against the one Labour wants, is definately fuel to the anti-Europe fire. In short, we're feel we're being dragged into it, and the Government won't even let us have a say in the matter. Jeremy Clarkson, of all people, would actually vote yes if there was a referendum, but he's against joining in this way.

    Of course, I think the Lisbon Treaty is silly anyway. I've yet to hear of one person able to understand it perfectly. It would have been a simpler pill to swallow if they instead had a string of smaller agreements covering a different scope.

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited August 2009
    The Lisbon Treaty is being voted on again here in about 2 months, and it'll probably pass this time

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Lisbon Treaty is being voted on again here in about 2 months, and it'll probably pass this time

    That kinda rubs wrong with me too: They vote no, so now they have to vote again? Will this continue until they get the right answer?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Lisbon Treaty is being voted on again here in about 2 months, and it'll probably pass this time

    That kinda rubs wrong with me too: They vote no, so now they have to vote again? Will this continue until they get the right answer?

    That's how referenda work.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Yes but I don't expect that any time in the next two or three decades.

    I never said it wouldn't happen.

    A lot can change in two or three decades. Look at Germany post WW1, Europe in general post WW2, Japan post... what... 1860-1870 and then post WW1, then post WW2, China post WW2, post 1978, North/South Korea post Japan, America post 1929...

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • CristoCristo Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Let's look at it this way.

    Think of all the similarities between Denmark, Norway and Sweden. We essentially speak the same language, mostly have the same laws, extremely liberal population and so on and so forth.

    Now think about how fucking impossible it would be to join them all into one nation, the Kalmar Union (which existed at from the 16th to the 18th Century).

    Now multiply those difficulties by infinity, and that's how hard it would be to make a single European country.

    I don't really see the need either, I wouldn't be opposed an EU Military as someone pointed out before but what would be the point in making a single country that would probably never function?

    I mean Belgium has enough problems holding on Walloon ffs. What makes you think we could do it with 45 different nations and 500million people?

    Unlucky wrote: »
    So, after having read all of his stuff, Pony's officially my hero now. I wish I could be that callous towards humanity.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I think I'm getting confused by how people are using words or, at least, the definitions that they consider to be applicable for those words.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Mr. PokeylopeMr. Pokeylope Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I really doubt that the EU would hold together in the face of strong opposition. On paper it looks powerful but when it comes down to it, are the Germans and the French willing to die for Romania or the Baltic states? I want to say yes, but when I see stuff like the baltic gas pipeline that will keep the gas flowing to Germany while Russia puts the screws to Eastern Europe I know the answer is no.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I really doubt that the EU would hold together in the face of strong opposition. On paper it looks powerful but when it comes down to it, are the Germans and the French willing to die for Romania or the Baltic states? I want to say yes, but when I see stuff like the baltic gas pipeline that will keep the gas flowing to Germany while Russia puts the screws to Eastern Europe I know the answer is no.

    So you're saying that NATO is an impossibility?

    tea-1.jpg
«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.