We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
Just because the countries have the same currency does not mean they are under the rule of a single national government. If this is incorrect please actually justify instead of just "I know you are but what am I, and you're wrong!"
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the EU is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
Yeah, it is.
That's a good response, fleshing it out isn't necessary I guess so I'll just lay back and say you're right....
Did I misunderstand what you mean by state-system? I assumed that you refer to a "political system". The EU at the moment has a fixed political structure with trias politica where the executive part is (for the moment and in some cases) left to the individual member states. It would soon have a constitution and even firmer definition of it's functioning. Did you mean something different?
Are you saying that the EU is governed by a party and that it isn't actually just a way of policing countries, in a very small and insignificant way I might add, whilst not actually having any laws outside of economic and trade policies which the countries can actually choose not to follow?
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
Just because the countries have the same currency does not mean they are under the rule of a single national government. If this is incorrect please actually justify instead of just "I know you are but what am I, and you're wrong!"
And I'm asking you to explain how the EU is disqualified from being considered a single national government, albeit a very weak one.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
Just because the countries have the same currency does not mean they are under the rule of a single national government. If this is incorrect please actually justify instead of just "I know you are but what am I, and you're wrong!"
Fair enough I can understand that, but the idea of states is normally placed under the heading of how US states are named, and the EU basically just makes general guidelines that countries can choose to follow, a country can easily just ignore the EU and do what they like.... and get a sternly written letter.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the EU is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
Yeah, it is.
That's a good response, fleshing it out isn't necessary I guess so I'll just lay back and say you're right....
Did I misunderstand what you mean by state-system? I assumed that you refer to a "political system". The EU at the moment has a fixed political structure with trias politica where the executive part is (for the moment and in some cases) left to the individual member states. It would soon have a constitution and even firmer definition of it's functioning. Did you mean something different?
Are you saying that the EU is governed by a party and that it isn't actually just a way of policing countries, in a very small and insignificant way I might add, whilst not actually having any laws outside of economic and trade policies which the countries can actually choose not to follow?
You're way off. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Directives are binding. There is no opting out.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
Just because the countries have the same currency does not mean they are under the rule of a single national government. If this is incorrect please actually justify instead of just "I know you are but what am I, and you're wrong!"
And I'm asking you to explain how the EU is disqualified from being considered a single national government, albeit a very weak one.
Because there is no single national government within the EU. It's made up of countries who choose someone to sit at the head of the table once every few years to act as basically the Speaker like in the house of commons. There is no ruling body over the EU.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
Just because the countries have the same currency does not mean they are under the rule of a single national government. If this is incorrect please actually justify instead of just "I know you are but what am I, and you're wrong!"
And I'm asking you to explain how the EU is disqualified from being considered a single national government, albeit a very weak one.
Because there is no single national government within the EU. It's made up of countries who choose someone to sit at the head of the table once every few years to act as basically the Speaker like in the house of commons. There is no ruling body over the EU.
The European Parliament isn't a ruling organization?
Because there is no single national government within the EU. It's made up of countries who choose someone to sit at the head of the table once every few years to act as basically the Speaker like in the house of commons. There is no ruling body over the EU.
The European Parliament isn't a ruling organization?
However their powers as such are limited to the competencies conferred upon the European Community by member states. Hence the institution has little control over policy areas held by the states and within the other two of the three pillars of the European Union.
That's from wikipedia I know and obviously it uses the term "member states", but that's not states as we're discussing them (or as I am, as they just mean "parts" of the EU, basically the same as saying member countries). They have little to no control over policy areas.
Because there is no single national government within the EU. It's made up of countries who choose someone to sit at the head of the table once every few years to act as basically the Speaker like in the house of commons. There is no ruling body over the EU.
The European Parliament isn't a ruling organization?
However their powers as such are limited to the competencies conferred upon the European Community by member states. Hence the institution has little control over policy areas held by the states and within the other two of the three pillars of the European Union.
That's from wikipedia I know and obviously it uses the term "member states", but that's not states as we're discussing them (or as I am, as they just mean "parts" of the EU, basically the same as saying member countries). They have little to no control over policy areas.
How does that disqualify the EU from being considered a nation? If anything that sounds very similar to the early United States. Strip the 14th Amendment from the Constitution and the Feds can't do shit.
I'm pretty sure you can just not do it, and there's nothing the EU can do, apart from maybe kick you out of the EU.
How does that disqualify the EU from being considered a nation? If anything that sounds very similar to the early United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation I honestly can't dispute what you just said, because it is incredibly broad whilst at the same time not really being part of what I was trying to discuss.
However their powers as such are limited to the competencies conferred upon the European Community by member states. Hence the institution has little control over policy areas held by the states and within the other two of the three pillars of the European Union.
That's from wikipedia I know and obviously it uses the term "member states", but that's not states as we're discussing them (or as I am, as they just mean "parts" of the EU, basically the same as saying member countries). They have little to no control over policy areas.
How does that disqualify the EU from being considered a nation? If anything that sounds very similar to the early United States. Strip the 14th Amendment from the Constitution and the Feds can't do shit.
The definition "nation" is being used here, and I don't really know what to do.
I'm defining state more by the way the US uses it, not just the term meaning "province" or "part of". Sure, Wales could be called a state, or Scotland then, or even Northern Ireland.
I'm pretty sure you can just not do it, and there's nothing the EU can do, apart from maybe kick you out of the EU.
Your understanding of international relations, politics and justice is dangerously close to a freezing temperature. I'm also not even remotely sure why you linked all the above articles, but frankly, I'm past caring.
I'm pretty sure you can just not do it, and there's nothing the EU can do, apart from maybe kick you out of the EU.
How does that disqualify the EU from being considered a nation? If anything that sounds very similar to the early United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation I honestly can't dispute what you just said, because it is incredibly broad whilst at the same time not really being part of what I was trying to discuss.
You're saying that the EU is not a country because it doesn't have any real teeth when it comes to controlling the actions of the various States that comprise it. I'm asking why/how/where having such coercion is necessary in order to be considered a country.
The Articles of Confederation and the very early United States Constitution barely allowed any influence on the affairs of the sovereign States that comprised it and yet it was still considered to be its own nation/country. Early China had numerous periods of time when constituent lords controlled their own parcels of land without concern to the dictates of the Emperor, however it was still considered 'China.' Hell, medieval Europe with the various nobles having their own fiefdoms that they had complete control over didn't preclude singular States, of which they were a constituent, from being recognized. Why does this not hold true for the EU?
Your understanding of international relations, politics and justice is dangerously close to a freezing temperature. I'm also not even remotely sure why you linked all the above articles, but frankly, I'm past caring.
O.k, I'll take you out of the "discussing" box of the idea of D&D, and put you into the "whining little twat who just wants to win an argument" category. Sorry I thought I was discussing something with the idea that maybe being proved wrong would mean I learn something.
I'm defining state more by the way the US uses it, not just the term meaning "province" or "part of". Sure, Wales could be called a state, or Scotland then, or even Northern Ireland.
You're saying that the EU is not a country because it doesn't have any real teeth when it comes to controlling the actions of the various States that comprise it. I'm asking why/how/where having such coercion is necessary in order to be considered a country.
The Articles of Confederation and the very early United States Constitution barely allowed any influence on the affairs of the sovereign states that comprised it and yet it was still considered to be its own nation/country. Early China had numerous periods of time when constituent lords controlled their own parcels of land without concern to the dictates of the Emperor, however it was still considered 'China.' Hell, medieval Europe with the various nobles having their own fiefdoms that they had complete control over didn't preclude singular states of which they were a constituent from being recognized. Why does this not hold true for the EU?
Because it's ruling body isn't really a ruling body, it is merely an entity used to moderate the ideas of the members. A "democratic" country has a ruling body that makes the rules and passes them by the constituent parts before acting on them, with the members agreement sure. I don't think of the parts of China as they were as states under the rule of a country head as the US had them, and I can see your point with the medieval fiefdoms, as the ruling body created laws unto which the fiefdoms had to follow whilst they also instigated their own private laws.
I'm thinking it's not a country in itself though as it's unlike the US in how the ruling body is set up with an elected leader (elected by the people), over a country who has the same political set up and systems, with the same laws. I may just be defining "states" differently to you, but I agree with some of what you're saying.
You're saying that the EU is not a country because it doesn't have any real teeth when it comes to controlling the actions of the various States that comprise it. I'm asking why/how/where having such coercion is necessary in order to be considered a country.
The Articles of Confederation and the very early United States Constitution barely allowed any influence on the affairs of the sovereign states that comprised it and yet it was still considered to be its own nation/country. Early China had numerous periods of time when constituent lords controlled their own parcels of land without concern to the dictates of the Emperor, however it was still considered 'China.' Hell, medieval Europe with the various nobles having their own fiefdoms that they had complete control over didn't preclude singular states of which they were a constituent from being recognized. Why does this not hold true for the EU?
Because it's ruling body isn't really a ruling body, it is merely an entity used to moderate the ideas of the members. A "democratic" country has a ruling body that makes the rules and passes them by the constituent parts before acting on them, with the members agreement sure. I don't think of the parts of China as they were as states under the rule of a country head as the US had them, and I can see your point with the medieval fiefdoms, as the ruling body created laws unto which the fiefdoms had to follow whilst they also instigated their own private laws.
I'm thinking it's not a country in itself though as it's unlike the US in how the ruling body is set up with an elected leader (elected by the people), over a country who has the same political set up and systems, with the same laws. I may just be defining "states" differently to you, but I agree with some of what you're saying.
"democratic" doesn't really need to be in there.
But, again, prior to the 14th Amendment Federal laws really only applied to Federal lands, and international agreements/treaties/whatever. Aside from economic issues (excises, taxes, inter-State commerce) it really couldn't do fuckall to its constituent parts. Not to mention the fact that most of its leaders weren't elected by the people for quite some time.
The EU just doesn't seem that significantly different from the US circa 1800 that would prevent calling it a nation/state/country.
But, again, prior to the 14th Amendment Federal laws only applied to Federal lands, and international agreements/treaties/whatever. Aside from economic issues (excises, taxes, inter-State commerce) it really couldn't do fuckall to its constituent parts. Not to mention the fact that most of its leaders weren't elected by the people for quite some time.
The EU just doesn't seem that significantly different from the US circa 1800 that would prevent calling it a nation/state/country.
Then maybe the EU will become a series of States as the US is now, in the future. But at this moment in time I do not see it that way, and I can't see it going forward to something like that unless the countries gain instability and need an empowered higher ruling government. Plus the countries in themselves are much more advanced, politically and economically, than the single US States ever were back then.
But, again, prior to the 14th Amendment Federal laws only applied to Federal lands, and international agreements/treaties/whatever. Aside from economic issues (excises, taxes, inter-State commerce) it really couldn't do fuckall to its constituent parts. Not to mention the fact that most of its leaders weren't elected by the people for quite some time.
The EU just doesn't seem that significantly different from the US circa 1800 that would prevent calling it a nation/state/country.
Then maybe the EU will become a series of States as the US is now, in the future. But at this moment in time I do not see it that way, and I can't see it going forward to something like that unless the countries gain instability and need an empowered higher ruling government. Plus the countries in themselves are much more advanced, politically and economically, than the single US States ever were back then.
So basically you don't consider the EU to be a singular country, even though the US was always considered a singular country despite not really having much control over its sovereign member States in the beginning, because of the Industrial Revolution?
But, again, prior to the 14th Amendment Federal laws only applied to Federal lands, and international agreements/treaties/whatever. Aside from economic issues (excises, taxes, inter-State commerce) it really couldn't do fuckall to its constituent parts. Not to mention the fact that most of its leaders weren't elected by the people for quite some time.
The EU just doesn't seem that significantly different from the US circa 1800 that would prevent calling it a nation/state/country.
Then maybe the EU will become a series of States as the US is now, in the future. But at this moment in time I do not see it that way, and I can't see it going forward to something like that unless the countries gain instability and need an empowered higher ruling government. Plus the countries in themselves are much more advanced, politically and economically, than the single US States ever were back then.
So basically you don't consider the EU to be a singular country, even though the US was always considered a singular country despite not really having much control over its sovereign member States in the beginning, because of the Industrial Revolution?
No, I don't see it as a singular country because it isn't ruled as the US is in the way it rules its subsequent states. I'm going to bed now, but If you want to continue you can PM me. Thanks though.
But, again, prior to the 14th Amendment Federal laws only applied to Federal lands, and international agreements/treaties/whatever. Aside from economic issues (excises, taxes, inter-State commerce) it really couldn't do fuckall to its constituent parts. Not to mention the fact that most of its leaders weren't elected by the people for quite some time.
The EU just doesn't seem that significantly different from the US circa 1800 that would prevent calling it a nation/state/country.
Then maybe the EU will become a series of States as the US is now, in the future. But at this moment in time I do not see it that way, and I can't see it going forward to something like that unless the countries gain instability and need an empowered higher ruling government. Plus the countries in themselves are much more advanced, politically and economically, than the single US States ever were back then.
So basically you don't consider the EU to be a singular country, even though the US was always considered a singular country despite not really having much control over its sovereign member States in the beginning, because of the Industrial Revolution?
No, I don't see it as a singular country because it isn't ruled as the US is in the way it rules its subsequent states.
Sure, now in the 21st Century. It was not always like that. Hell, we fought a civil war in part because of issues arising from it not being like that.
From what I understand, the English are already having an identity crisis drowning in all things American, Irish, Scottish, etc. so I'm not too sure they'd want to hop on any bandwagon that would further dilute their sense of identity.
I also understand that places like Italy or Belgium have enough trouble getting along in their own country due to having very old memories of city-states and things of that sort. I know that times are changing but we are talking about nations with very long lasting perceptions and memories of their neighbors so I can't imagine a fully united Europe in the next 100 years even.
Its a lot more complicated that than, the identity crisis is more for those that consider themselves exclusively 'English', as obviously there is a fair bit of mixing between the various countries within England and on top of that you've a got a whole bunch of other identities that would take precedence (I'm a Londoner, I'm a Brummie etc). Those that are left don't really have an identity, because someone has to be everyone else and there's obviously no real cohesive thing tying people from Nottingham to people in Brighton that doesn't apply to Cardiff or Dundee.
Basically 'British' was the identity of the nation, but now that a lot of effort has been made to recognise Scottish and Welsh (the latter being a bit of a caricature of the former, the requirement to labeled place names in welsh has led to some places that had never had a welsh name, to have a new name made up for the sake of the signs. Occasionally where there was never a welsh name, or any original name being completely lost over a hundreds of years) those that don't have their own thing are feeling left out. Doesn't help that the people desperate to be English over British generally aren't the best at PR and most commonly associated with football hooligans or (ironically!) the BNP.
England is actually the only state in the union not to have its own national athem. But in fairness we do generally tend to leave out the verse in the British athem about fucking over the Scots...
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
Yes, but Massachusetts is a state within a country, much like Wales is a "country" within the UK. It's the name of a place. The UK is called the UK because it's ruled by a monarchy, and the whole "Great Britain" thing came from the country conquering and thinking it was Berty Big Bollocks. If the country becomes a single state within a united ruled Europe it wold no longer be under monarchistic rule and so would therefore no longer be named the UK.
No, Great Britain is a geographical term for the Island (and 'Great' to distinguish from Lesser Britain, though since the latter is now generally called Brittany people get confused), and the UK came about through a series of contigent and silly political compromises. Becoming part of a stronger federal organisation wouldn' rule out keeping the monarchies - look at malaysia with their regional Sultans who take turns being the head of state.
From what I understand, the English are already having an identity crisis drowning in all things American, Irish, Scottish, etc. so I'm not too sure they'd want to hop on any bandwagon that would further dilute their sense of identity.
Not so much, its people losing an English self-definition for a more general British one (and that identity is well enough defined) due to a more mobile and connected population - there's certainly no sense of losing identity to Ireland, Scotland or the US. Indeed its the reaction against the 'becoming British' trend that has made people try and strengthen the Welsh and Scottish identites (or slightly romanticised versions thereof) while no one is making an effort with the English one(s).
I think nationhood, surprisingly, is more defined by the perceptions and cultures of citizens than by legal definitions.
The reason no one uses that is there's no objective measure of perception or culture, while there is a pretty cut and dry body of law that says whether or not one entity has agreed to join with others to make a larger entity.
I think nationhood, surprisingly, is more defined by the perceptions and cultures of citizens than by legal definitions.
The reason no one uses that is there's no objective measure of perception or culture, while there is a pretty cut and dry body of law that says whether or not one entity has agreed to join with others to make a larger entity.
Sure, of course, from a legal point of view. But if you changed Europe's laws tomorrow to be the same as the US, the new Europe wouldn't work as a nation-state, because the people don't believe themselves to be part of the same society.
Equally, the US has laws and structure which could be applied to a loose confederation of nations, but the people of the USA think of themselves as one nation, and this makes it effective as such.
You can legally define an area as a nation, but whether it continues to be a nation tomorrow is not so simple. Yugoslavia is one example of this.
I think nationhood, surprisingly, is more defined by the perceptions and cultures of citizens than by legal definitions.
The reason no one uses that is there's no objective measure of perception or culture, while there is a pretty cut and dry body of law that says whether or not one entity has agreed to join with others to make a larger entity.
Sure, of course, from a legal point of view. But if you changed Europe's laws tomorrow to be the same as the US, the new Europe wouldn't work as a nation-state, because the people don't believe themselves to be part of the same society.
Equally, the US has laws and structure which could be applied to a loose confederation of nations, but the people of the USA think of themselves as one nation, and this makes it effective as such.
You can legally define an area as a nation, but whether it continues to be a nation tomorrow is not so simple. Yugoslavia is one example of this.
Today, yes, but this was not always the case. And the world hasn't stopped turning just yet.
Of course, in that it's a political process for creating and changing laws. The laws codify everything, but there needs to be political will to get the ball rolling.
It'll actually be interesting to see how Europe responds to this current down turn. France and Germany have started to pull out, but the rest of the EU is still struggling and what I hear getting tossed around is that the problem is that the EU as a whole didn't have a coordinated enough plan and didn't have the muscle to push through the kinds of policies that would have made this a lot more painful for them. If that takes hold it could be the impetus to strengthen the central government.
From what I understand, the English are already having an identity crisis drowning in all things American, Irish, Scottish, etc. so I'm not too sure they'd want to hop on any bandwagon that would further dilute their sense of identity.
I also understand that places like Italy or Belgium have enough trouble getting along in their own country due to having very old memories of city-states and things of that sort. I know that times are changing but we are talking about nations with very long lasting perceptions and memories of their neighbors so I can't imagine a fully united Europe in the next 100 years even.
Its a lot more complicated that than, the identity crisis is more for those that consider themselves exclusively 'English', as obviously there is a fair bit of mixing between the various countries within England and on top of that you've a got a whole bunch of other identities that would take precedence (I'm a Londoner, I'm a Brummie etc). Those that are left don't really have an identity, because someone has to be everyone else and there's obviously no real cohesive thing tying people from Nottingham to people in Brighton that doesn't apply to Cardiff or Dundee.
Basically 'British' was the identity of the nation, but now that a lot of effort has been made to recognise Scottish and Welsh (the latter being a bit of a caricature of the former, the requirement to labeled place names in welsh has led to some places that had never had a welsh name, to have a new name made up for the sake of the signs. Occasionally where there was never a welsh name, or any original name being completely lost over a hundreds of years) those that don't have their own thing are feeling left out. Doesn't help that the people desperate to be English over British generally aren't the best at PR and most commonly associated with football hooligans or (ironically!) the BNP.
England is actually the only state in the union not to have its own national athem. But in fairness we do generally tend to leave out the verse in the British athem about fucking over the Scots...
Okay so let's expand this further into the topic at hand. You have the English inside the UK feeling kinda left out or at least fractured and then you have all these individual countries inside the UK with a strong sense of national identity. Then externally the British as a whole tend to align themselves, historically, with the Americans far more often than with the continent. On the flip side of that historically you have guys like De Gaulle who screwed England for a while out of the Coal and Steel community and an entire continent of countries who have picked up that the UK has pretty much aligned themselves more or less with the Americans. Plus the Euro isn't used in the UK from what I understand.
So the question is if a United Europe were to form, would the UK likely be a part of it? Can a serious United Europe form without the UK? Or would a United Europe follow the trend of recent history and start out with a strong French-German front with the UK being ostracized anyway?
After WWII the UK could not have joined Germany and France in any sort of union, and it was political suicide to even discuss the possibility. Ever since they have been in a love-hate relationship with the US, a relationship that even under Bush was stronger than their bond to Europe, and a bit one-sided, too.
So they only seriously considered Europe when their politicians realised this.
I'd say the biggest eye-opener was the Suez crisis where the US threathened to dump Pounds Sterling and thus the UK's economy. That made it clear the US and the UK were not equals.
Then there was the decolonization, the loss of their empire, running against the background of that. These are not merely practical issues, there's a lot of emotion caught up in them. And the internal nationalist revival didn't help much neither.
If for Germany and France the European project was a peaceful alternative to our history of wars, the UK only came to the party for pragmatical reasons, after the project had flourished, and then was reluctantly admitted after De Gaulle got kicked out. Their heart wasn't in it.
Recap: too chummy with the Yanks, living in the Imperial past, and hated by the French. The Love just isn't there...
so much for the UK, now for Europe.
We have the failed Lisbon Treaty, which is a blow to technocrats trying to get the EU functioning rather than to power-grabbing politicians. The next attempt will not necessarily be more democratic
We have the new member states, which started out real eager to join, but are coming back on all those ideals of democracy and human rights and stuff we made them promise to work on.
And the infighting! Not to mention some older member states are having issues too (Yeah, looking at you Italy, you stud you!).
The economical crisis is fanning the Nationalist flames and at one point those states that are not invested in democracy are going to want to get away from the restrictions of the rest.
It just isn't a very appealing union at the moment if you're not dirt poor.
So even though I work at a thriving, democratic, hopeful European institution (Yay Parliament!) I can see the National politicians reaching for the emergency break.
As I said earlier in the thread, the United Kingdom is too entrenched in the political and indeed psychological idea of "Splendid Isolation." This entrenchment is effectively what kills any sort of real friendship with Europe and continues to make us turn more to the US. As has been pointed out though, the US has a tendency to treat us somewhat poorly, and we go along with it because we believe ourselves to be the big boys.
Really I hate this country. It's falling apart at the seams and decaying in a system that no longer functions in a country that no longer knows who it is. I really want to move to America/Canada.
As I said earlier in the thread, the United Kingdom is too entrenched in the political and indeed psychological idea of "Splendid Isolation." This entrenchment is effectively what kills any sort of real friendship with Europe and continues to make us turn more to the US. As has been pointed out though, the US has a tendency to treat us somewhat poorly, and we go along with it because we believe ourselves to be the big boys.
Really I hate this country. It's falling apart at the seams and decaying in a system that no longer functions in a country that no longer knows who it is. I really want to move to America/Canada.
I did like how in Jeremy Paxman's The English, he thought one of the defining characteristics of the modern English-British was the gloominess and resignation to a percieved national decay. Britain is a great country to live in compared to many of the other options, its just everyone bitches excessively instead of being all "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" or 'notre beau pays'.
I did like how in Jeremy Paxman's The English, he thought one of the defining characteristics of the modern English-British was the gloominess and resignation to a percieved national decay. Britain is a great country to live in compared to many of the other options, its just everyone bitches excessively instead of being all "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" or 'notre beau pays'.
Feel free to blame their media for this- even the beeb since restructuring is one giant suckfest.
To be fair English intellectuals haven't been the cheeriest of the bunch neither, but their popular culture is in a downward spiral you wouldn't believe.
To be honest the rest of the world is not much better, but british tabloids are ahead of the curve and much of the population seems to have given up on any sort of meaningful life.
I've got quite a few Brit expat friends, they're glad they don't live there anymore.
The euroskeptics are going to go mental over these proposals, especially those with strong nationalistic tendancies.
Eh. It says that individual nations are free to decide for themselves whether or how many to take, which is exactly the same as it would be if there were no EU. Doesn't mean people won't complain, but only the people that are in %100 complain mode, 24-7 anyway.
Edit: Mmm.. retracted upon application of brain cells to question.
Posts
EU directives have the status of "to be laws" and only exact implementation is left as choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_directive
Edit: Typos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
Are you saying that the EU is governed by a party and that it isn't actually just a way of policing countries, in a very small and insignificant way I might add, whilst not actually having any laws outside of economic and trade policies which the countries can actually choose not to follow?
And I'm asking you to explain how the EU is disqualified from being considered a single national government, albeit a very weak one.
You're way off. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Directives are binding. There is no opting out.
Because there is no single national government within the EU. It's made up of countries who choose someone to sit at the head of the table once every few years to act as basically the Speaker like in the house of commons. There is no ruling body over the EU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3026118.stm
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39305/story.htm
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10037
http://www.apmhealtheurope.com/story.php?mots=HIP&searchScope=1&searchType=0&depsPage=6&numero=1561&ctx=65f28c93cbf96ec31699677ea097ccc1
I'm pretty sure you can just not do it, and there's nothing the EU can do, apart from maybe kick you out of the EU.
The European Parliament isn't a ruling organization?
How does that disqualify the EU from being considered a nation? If anything that sounds very similar to the early United States.
That's from wikipedia I know and obviously it uses the term "member states", but that's not states as we're discussing them (or as I am, as they just mean "parts" of the EU, basically the same as saying member countries). They have little to no control over policy areas.
How does that disqualify the EU from being considered a nation? If anything that sounds very similar to the early United States. Strip the 14th Amendment from the Constitution and the Feds can't do shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation I honestly can't dispute what you just said, because it is incredibly broad whilst at the same time not really being part of what I was trying to discuss.
The definition "nation" is being used here, and I don't really know what to do.
I'm defining state more by the way the US uses it, not just the term meaning "province" or "part of". Sure, Wales could be called a state, or Scotland then, or even Northern Ireland.
Your understanding of international relations, politics and justice is dangerously close to a freezing temperature. I'm also not even remotely sure why you linked all the above articles, but frankly, I'm past caring.
You're saying that the EU is not a country because it doesn't have any real teeth when it comes to controlling the actions of the various States that comprise it. I'm asking why/how/where having such coercion is necessary in order to be considered a country.
The Articles of Confederation and the very early United States Constitution barely allowed any influence on the affairs of the sovereign States that comprised it and yet it was still considered to be its own nation/country. Early China had numerous periods of time when constituent lords controlled their own parcels of land without concern to the dictates of the Emperor, however it was still considered 'China.' Hell, medieval Europe with the various nobles having their own fiefdoms that they had complete control over didn't preclude singular States, of which they were a constituent, from being recognized. Why does this not hold true for the EU?
O.k, I'll take you out of the "discussing" box of the idea of D&D, and put you into the "whining little twat who just wants to win an argument" category. Sorry I thought I was discussing something with the idea that maybe being proved wrong would mean I learn something.
So am I.
Because it's ruling body isn't really a ruling body, it is merely an entity used to moderate the ideas of the members. A "democratic" country has a ruling body that makes the rules and passes them by the constituent parts before acting on them, with the members agreement sure. I don't think of the parts of China as they were as states under the rule of a country head as the US had them, and I can see your point with the medieval fiefdoms, as the ruling body created laws unto which the fiefdoms had to follow whilst they also instigated their own private laws.
I'm thinking it's not a country in itself though as it's unlike the US in how the ruling body is set up with an elected leader (elected by the people), over a country who has the same political set up and systems, with the same laws. I may just be defining "states" differently to you, but I agree with some of what you're saying.
"democratic" doesn't really need to be in there.
But, again, prior to the 14th Amendment Federal laws really only applied to Federal lands, and international agreements/treaties/whatever. Aside from economic issues (excises, taxes, inter-State commerce) it really couldn't do fuckall to its constituent parts. Not to mention the fact that most of its leaders weren't elected by the people for quite some time.
The EU just doesn't seem that significantly different from the US circa 1800 that would prevent calling it a nation/state/country.
Then maybe the EU will become a series of States as the US is now, in the future. But at this moment in time I do not see it that way, and I can't see it going forward to something like that unless the countries gain instability and need an empowered higher ruling government. Plus the countries in themselves are much more advanced, politically and economically, than the single US States ever were back then.
So basically you don't consider the EU to be a singular country, even though the US was always considered a singular country despite not really having much control over its sovereign member States in the beginning, because of the Industrial Revolution?
No, I don't see it as a singular country because it isn't ruled as the US is in the way it rules its subsequent states. I'm going to bed now, but If you want to continue you can PM me. Thanks though.
Sure, now in the 21st Century. It was not always like that. Hell, we fought a civil war in part because of issues arising from it not being like that.
Its a lot more complicated that than, the identity crisis is more for those that consider themselves exclusively 'English', as obviously there is a fair bit of mixing between the various countries within England and on top of that you've a got a whole bunch of other identities that would take precedence (I'm a Londoner, I'm a Brummie etc). Those that are left don't really have an identity, because someone has to be everyone else and there's obviously no real cohesive thing tying people from Nottingham to people in Brighton that doesn't apply to Cardiff or Dundee.
Basically 'British' was the identity of the nation, but now that a lot of effort has been made to recognise Scottish and Welsh (the latter being a bit of a caricature of the former, the requirement to labeled place names in welsh has led to some places that had never had a welsh name, to have a new name made up for the sake of the signs. Occasionally where there was never a welsh name, or any original name being completely lost over a hundreds of years) those that don't have their own thing are feeling left out. Doesn't help that the people desperate to be English over British generally aren't the best at PR and most commonly associated with football hooligans or (ironically!) the BNP.
England is actually the only state in the union not to have its own national athem. But in fairness we do generally tend to leave out the verse in the British athem about fucking over the Scots...
No, Great Britain is a geographical term for the Island (and 'Great' to distinguish from Lesser Britain, though since the latter is now generally called Brittany people get confused), and the UK came about through a series of contigent and silly political compromises. Becoming part of a stronger federal organisation wouldn' rule out keeping the monarchies - look at malaysia with their regional Sultans who take turns being the head of state.
Not so much, its people losing an English self-definition for a more general British one (and that identity is well enough defined) due to a more mobile and connected population - there's certainly no sense of losing identity to Ireland, Scotland or the US. Indeed its the reaction against the 'becoming British' trend that has made people try and strengthen the Welsh and Scottish identites (or slightly romanticised versions thereof) while no one is making an effort with the English one(s).
Edit: What Tastyfish said.
The reason no one uses that is there's no objective measure of perception or culture, while there is a pretty cut and dry body of law that says whether or not one entity has agreed to join with others to make a larger entity.
Sure, of course, from a legal point of view. But if you changed Europe's laws tomorrow to be the same as the US, the new Europe wouldn't work as a nation-state, because the people don't believe themselves to be part of the same society.
Equally, the US has laws and structure which could be applied to a loose confederation of nations, but the people of the USA think of themselves as one nation, and this makes it effective as such.
You can legally define an area as a nation, but whether it continues to be a nation tomorrow is not so simple. Yugoslavia is one example of this.
Today, yes, but this was not always the case. And the world hasn't stopped turning just yet.
It'll actually be interesting to see how Europe responds to this current down turn. France and Germany have started to pull out, but the rest of the EU is still struggling and what I hear getting tossed around is that the problem is that the EU as a whole didn't have a coordinated enough plan and didn't have the muscle to push through the kinds of policies that would have made this a lot more painful for them. If that takes hold it could be the impetus to strengthen the central government.
Okay so let's expand this further into the topic at hand. You have the English inside the UK feeling kinda left out or at least fractured and then you have all these individual countries inside the UK with a strong sense of national identity. Then externally the British as a whole tend to align themselves, historically, with the Americans far more often than with the continent. On the flip side of that historically you have guys like De Gaulle who screwed England for a while out of the Coal and Steel community and an entire continent of countries who have picked up that the UK has pretty much aligned themselves more or less with the Americans. Plus the Euro isn't used in the UK from what I understand.
So the question is if a United Europe were to form, would the UK likely be a part of it? Can a serious United Europe form without the UK? Or would a United Europe follow the trend of recent history and start out with a strong French-German front with the UK being ostracized anyway?
So they only seriously considered Europe when their politicians realised this.
I'd say the biggest eye-opener was the Suez crisis where the US threathened to dump Pounds Sterling and thus the UK's economy. That made it clear the US and the UK were not equals.
Then there was the decolonization, the loss of their empire, running against the background of that. These are not merely practical issues, there's a lot of emotion caught up in them. And the internal nationalist revival didn't help much neither.
If for Germany and France the European project was a peaceful alternative to our history of wars, the UK only came to the party for pragmatical reasons, after the project had flourished, and then was reluctantly admitted after De Gaulle got kicked out. Their heart wasn't in it.
Recap: too chummy with the Yanks, living in the Imperial past, and hated by the French. The Love just isn't there...
so much for the UK, now for Europe.
We have the failed Lisbon Treaty, which is a blow to technocrats trying to get the EU functioning rather than to power-grabbing politicians. The next attempt will not necessarily be more democratic
We have the new member states, which started out real eager to join, but are coming back on all those ideals of democracy and human rights and stuff we made them promise to work on.
And the infighting! Not to mention some older member states are having issues too (Yeah, looking at you Italy, you stud you!).
The economical crisis is fanning the Nationalist flames and at one point those states that are not invested in democracy are going to want to get away from the restrictions of the rest.
It just isn't a very appealing union at the moment if you're not dirt poor.
So even though I work at a thriving, democratic, hopeful European institution (Yay Parliament!) I can see the National politicians reaching for the emergency break.
Really I hate this country. It's falling apart at the seams and decaying in a system that no longer functions in a country that no longer knows who it is. I really want to move to America/Canada.
I did like how in Jeremy Paxman's The English, he thought one of the defining characteristics of the modern English-British was the gloominess and resignation to a percieved national decay. Britain is a great country to live in compared to many of the other options, its just everyone bitches excessively instead of being all "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" or 'notre beau pays'.
Feel free to blame their media for this- even the beeb since restructuring is one giant suckfest.
To be fair English intellectuals haven't been the cheeriest of the bunch neither, but their popular culture is in a downward spiral you wouldn't believe.
To be honest the rest of the world is not much better, but british tabloids are ahead of the curve and much of the population seems to have given up on any sort of meaningful life.
I've got quite a few Brit expat friends, they're glad they don't live there anymore.
The euroskeptics are going to go mental over these proposals, especially those with strong nationalistic tendancies.
Eh. It says that individual nations are free to decide for themselves whether or how many to take, which is exactly the same as it would be if there were no EU. Doesn't mean people won't complain, but only the people that are in %100 complain mode, 24-7 anyway.
Edit: Mmm.. retracted upon application of brain cells to question.