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.
Which definition of a "nation" are you using here? Because the one he was referring to requires common history, cultural self-identification and language.
Most people who want power should not have it, yet these people float to the top. The petty arguments at city hall level aren't much different from the petty crap at world governance, sadly.
Petty arguments at city hall are generally WORSE. And pettier.
The minds are smaller (the 'cream' having floated to a higher level of governance) and less people are watching.
There's a EU directive requiring 50% of television broadcasts to be produced within the EU. Sweden is currently at a mere 45%.
I hate the thought of mandating a quote of a certain type of content, and so does the entire Swedish mindset. There will be a huge uproar if the government suddenly has to force TV channels to broadcast European content, and it goes against the free market that commercial TV channels are in -- and that's why there are so many American shows broadcasted in Sweden. Watchers want it.
There's a EU directive requiring 50% of television broadcasts to be produced within the EU. Sweden is currently at a mere 45%.
I hate the thought of mandating a quote of a certain type of content, and so does the entire Swedish mindset. There will be a huge uproar if the government suddenly has to force TV channels to broadcast European content, and it goes against the free market that commercial TV channels are in -- and that's why there are so many American shows broadcasted in Sweden. Watchers want it.
If you did that in Australia...well we'd probably solve obesity because Australian produced TV and movies generally suck and people need to wake the fuck up to this fact.
There's a EU directive requiring 50% of television broadcasts to be produced within the EU. Sweden is currently at a mere 45%.
I hate the thought of mandating a quote of a certain type of content, and so does the entire Swedish mindset. There will be a huge uproar if the government suddenly has to force TV channels to broadcast European content, and it goes against the free market that commercial TV channels are in -- and that's why there are so many American shows broadcasted in Sweden. Watchers want it.
It's the standard run of the mill protectionism with a dash of old man yelling at clouds about the lose of culture thrown in. I'm optimistic that kind of crap will run it's course and be done with eventually, at least in this particularly egregious form..
There's a EU directive requiring 50% of television broadcasts to be produced within the EU. Sweden is currently at a mere 45%.
I hate the thought of mandating a quote of a certain type of content, and so does the entire Swedish mindset. There will be a huge uproar if the government suddenly has to force TV channels to broadcast European content, and it goes against the free market that commercial TV channels are in -- and that's why there are so many American shows broadcasted in Sweden. Watchers want it.
It's the standard run of the mill protectionism with a dash of old man yelling at clouds about the lose of culture thrown in. I'm optimistic that kind of crap will run it's course and be done with eventually, at least in this particularly egregious form..
Actually, I think it's small things like these that are causing quite a lot of trouble - it's about a conflict of mindsets. Sweden has a pretty high opinion of itself as open to globalism and lacking in populist opinions about nationhood and "national stock". In France they subsidize farmers at the expense of the free market and the potential livelihood of poor African farmers, and they also dabble a lot in measures to protect the language from any anglican influence. Now, as I said, these are merely mindsets (seeing as European nations in reality share and lack the virtues and sins of others to a degree they don't want to admit) but the fact of the matter is that many Swedes have grown up with reliable, independent and very Swedish public service television.
Imposing anything on TV channels we identify ourselves with feels a bit as if nations on the continent are forcing us to go along with their arbitrary ideas of cultural protectionism and favoring of inter-EU producers. They need to make arguments in favor and also offer some quid pro quo, lest there be resentment among some people.
Dude, that sucks. Are they trying to raise the suicide rate? Because if we have to watch shows made in Finland, the suicide rate is going to skyrocket.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It's basically just American sitcoms/CSI over and over and over with a streak of early 90's sitcom reruns every now and then.
And a lot of short lived gameshows.
:x
Have you watched the TV of other European countries? For example, Italian TV? Because in that case you must really think an abundance of pretty average titties can excuse any other possible flaws.
Aaaand with roughly two weeks to go until voting day, the Naysayers are stepping up their campaign with eyecatching posters full of half-truths and pure bullshit.
However the latest statistics show that the Yes campaign is still winning out, with 53% of people polled intending to ratify the treaty and only 26% intending to vote no. There is still a large number of voters (21%) that are as yet undecided.
It's basically just American sitcoms/CSI over and over and over with a streak of early 90's sitcom reruns every now and then.
And a lot of short lived gameshows.
:x
Have you watched the TV of other European countries? For example, Italian TV? Because in that case you must really think an abundance of pretty average titties can excuse any other possible flaws.
You have my interest now.
I know it's not terribly relevant, but I am made as hell at myself for immigrating to what seems like the one goddamn place in the world that doesn't have AXN.
Yes, that makes me a tool, I suspect, but I miss Sony Television. I really do. Goddamn you Sony, brainwashing me as a child into this situation.
It's basically just American sitcoms/CSI over and over and over with a streak of early 90's sitcom reruns every now and then.
And a lot of short lived gameshows.
:x
In that case you're watching commercial-run network channels broadcasted from outside the national borders. I suggest switching channel or go here. ;-)
Aaaand with roughly two weeks to go until voting day, the Naysayers are stepping up their campaign with eyecatching posters full of half-truths and pure bullshit.
Allegedly, even if we are given guarantees regarding abortion, if this petition gathers 1 Million signatures we would have Irish abortion laws looked at and possibly scrapped in a european court.
Aaaand with roughly two weeks to go until voting day, the Naysayers are stepping up their campaign with eyecatching posters full of half-truths and pure bullshit.
Allegedly, even if we are given guarantees regarding abortion, if this petition gathers 1 Million signatures we would have Irish abortion laws looked at and possibly scrapped in a european court.
Grandma I cannot explain.
Euthanasia.
Coir are adopting a similar theme to Sarah Palin's "Death Panels" outburst a while back, basically if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified then all the OAP's will be considered useless and be promptly put to death by the new EU superstate.
And I completely agree with you about there being bullshit on both sides of the arguement. I hate how the Yes side are depicting this doomsday scenario that will supposedly occur if Ireland votes down the Treaty a second time.
That's more or less the end of it, isn't it? The holdout Presidents have been basically banking on Ireland saying no and now they're more or less going to have to finalize everything and whatever other paperwork is required for it to come into force in 2010?
That's more or less the end of it, isn't it? The holdout Presidents have been basically banking on Ireland saying no and now they're more or less going to have to finalize everything and whatever other paperwork is required for it to come into force in 2010?
Poland and the Czech Republic still have to ratify the treaty. The Czech are expected to ratify it now that it's been passed in Ireland but Poland is expected to be a bit more difficult. On top of that, there are several British political parties pushing for a referendum on the treaty for the UK, although whether or not they will be successful remains to be seen.
So they are allowed to continue pretending a two-week lump of cells is comparable to a human being, and they can continue living under the illusion that allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same privilege is not completely fucking idiotic and contradicting if you know your bible, which, I'm sure, these soc-cons would love to tell me that they do. Anything else while we're at it? Lick your boots, a little kow-towing to soothe your sensitive fucking feelings?
Hey, here's an idea, Sweden has already ratified the thing but we should threaten to revoke the decision unless we are promised that we can deny Irish citizens the right to marry if they ever move to Sweden! That, too, is completely amoral and utterly solipsist but, look, do you want the Lisbon treaty or not?
If they want to hamper social progress because of religious concerns then there are plenty of continents for them to snuggle up to, but here in Europe I'd like to see some damned reality-based decision-making.
So they are allowed to continue pretending a two-week lump of cells is comparable to a human being, and they can continue living under the illusion that allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same privilege is not completely fucking idiotic and contradicting if you know your bible, which, I'm sure, these soc-cons would love to tell me that they do. Anything else while we're at it? Lick your boots, a little kow-towing to soothe your sensitive fucking feelings?
Hey, here's an idea, Sweden has already ratified the thing but we should threaten to revoke the decision unless we are promised that we can deny Irish citizens the right to marry if they ever move to Sweden! That, too, is completely amoral and utterly solipsist but, look, do you want the Lisbon treaty or not?
If they want to hamper social progress because of religious concerns then there are plenty of continents for them to snuggle up to, but here in Europe I'd like to see some damned reality-based decision-making.
I am sorry we had the nerve to have a different opinion to you.
So they are allowed to continue pretending a two-week lump of cells is comparable to a human being, and they can continue living under the illusion that allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same privilege is not completely fucking idiotic and contradicting if you know your bible, which, I'm sure, these soc-cons would love to tell me that they do. Anything else while we're at it? Lick your boots, a little kow-towing to soothe your sensitive fucking feelings?
Hey, here's an idea, Sweden has already ratified the thing but we should threaten to revoke the decision unless we are promised that we can deny Irish citizens the right to marry if they ever move to Sweden! That, too, is completely amoral and utterly solipsist but, look, do you want the Lisbon treaty or not?
If they want to hamper social progress because of religious concerns then there are plenty of continents for them to snuggle up to, but here in Europe I'd like to see some damned reality-based decision-making.
I am sorry we had the nerve to have a different opinion to you.
Are you playing the martyr over the Catholic Church's (hint: Which Irish city is the Vatican City located within?) oppression of homosexuals and pregnant women?
Do I misunderstand you, or are you being massively hypocritical?
Are you playing the martyr over the Catholic Church's (hint: Which Irish city is the Vatican City located within?) oppression of homosexuals and pregnant women?
Do I misunderstand you, or are you being massively hypocritical?
It was meant to be sarcastic.
I am for gay marraige and against abortion, if thats what your asking, but my beliefs are probably suited to a different thread. I just intensely dislike the way he suggests we are out of contact with reality because our laws are more conservative than other countries.
Unless I have completely misread what he said, he basically said that he is all for choice but since our choice is different we should go find some other countries to hang out with. :rotate:
We said no to lisbon, we asked for guarantees in certain areas which we were given, then we ratified it. I don't see why he should paint us as a backward nation for it.
EDIT: Fixing some errors. I cannot type to save my life.
So they are allowed to continue pretending a two-week lump of cells is comparable to a human being, and they can continue living under the illusion that allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same privilege is not completely fucking idiotic and contradicting if you know your bible, which, I'm sure, these soc-cons would love to tell me that they do. Anything else while we're at it? Lick your boots, a little kow-towing to soothe your sensitive fucking feelings?
Hey, here's an idea, Sweden has already ratified the thing but we should threaten to revoke the decision unless we are promised that we can deny Irish citizens the right to marry if they ever move to Sweden! That, too, is completely amoral and utterly solipsist but, look, do you want the Lisbon treaty or not?
If they want to hamper social progress because of religious concerns then there are plenty of continents for them to snuggle up to, but here in Europe I'd like to see some damned reality-based decision-making.
I am sorry we had the nerve to have a different opinion to you.
You can't have "opinions" about human rights. Basically, allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same is eternally and unquestioningly stupid to a psychotic degree, and saying that abortion should always be illegal is likewise detached from reality.
I'm not "disagreeing" with you (as if this was some little issue like parking fine levels or the idea of a flat tax) - I'm wondering what other aspect of reality will need to be rejected in order to satisfy the social regressives and anti-secularists of Europe. If you can act as if a lump of cells is infused with some humanity you are capable of believing anything.
I consider people capable of ignoring reality to be liabilities who should not be encouraged or molly-coddled. I'm sorry if I have the nerve to not bow down to the wisdom of partially applying biblical code and equating a fucking McNugget with a woman's liberty.
"I just intensely dislike the way he suggests we are out of contact with reality because our laws are more conservative than other countries."
I just intensely dislike the way you dare to think of my attack on your country's insane demands as a common political reaction. My adversity to your ideals do not lie on that spectrum, you hear me? Look, do you think men with long hair ought to be banned? Do you think people who fuck animals ought to be killed rather than jailed? No? Then why do you think gays shouldn't be married in church? What gives you and your landsmen the right to selectively apply the bible? Huh? If you can't answer that, then you have no right to complain about my criticism of Ireland.
It's all or nothing with the bible, for tryst's sake! Otherwise it is no longer a divine document but a lodestone around humanity's ankle from a disgusting era where women were raped as punishment for being raped.
"Unless I have completely misread what he said, he basically said that he is all for choice but since our choice is different we should go find some other countries to hang out with."
I'm all for human rights and at least building a society around grade-school logic but if a bunch of emotional fucking plebeians are going to sulk then fine I'll guess I'll just have to wait for the socially regressive segment of Europe to die off and then spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to destroy the traces of idiocy they managed to stash away in their children when their senses of skepticism were still non-existent (I'm not saying this is the origin of your opinions).
Saying that abortions should always be illegal is like saying a woman is worth no more than a zygote. I wonder what a mind that can conceive of such an analogy after receiving a basic modern education is otherwise capable of conceiving.
What has happened is fucking evil, and dangerous. I'm so damnably hateful of the endless relativism that this age has forced upon us I almost wish Sweden had opted out, rather than have to suffer the humiliation of standing alongside nations that can't even realize that homophobia is just as disgusting as racism, no matter the simpering religious veneer. We might as well not fucking bother with creating a union if we have to deny reality to get all the sensitive god-botherers to tag along.
I already said I have nothing against gay marriage, in fact I can safely say if there was a referendum about it right now it would probably be allowed.
You can't have "opinions" about human rights. Basically, allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same is eternally and unquestioningly stupid to a psychotic degree, and saying that abortion should always be illegal is likewise detached from reality.
You show the typical parochialism of a European liberal who seems to think that their own views on certain social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are the end-all and be-all. The fact that people in other countries have different views from your oh-so-advanced Scandinavian ideals may rock your world, but that just shows how insular that world is.
I'm not "disagreeing" with you (as if this was some little issue like parking fine levels or the idea of a flat tax) - I'm wondering what other aspect of reality will need to be rejected in order to satisfy the social regressives and anti-secularists of Europe. If you can act as if a lump of cells is infused with some humanity you are capable of believing anything.
The idea that all human life is deserving of protection seems like a pretty strong stand in support of human rights. But, I guess you only support human rights for human beings who are convenient to you.
It's all or nothing with the bible, for tryst's sake! Otherwise it is no longer a divine document but a lodestone around humanity's ankle from a disgusting era where women were raped as punishment for being raped.[/B]
It's not up to you to decide how Catholics interpret their religious texts. As a non-Catholic, your (and mine) views on that are wholly irrelevant. Who asked you, anyway?
I'm all for human rights and at least building a society around grade-school logic but if a bunch of emotional fucking plebeians are going to sulk then fine I'll guess I'll just have to wait for the socially regressive segment of Europe to die off and then spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to destroy the traces of idiocy they managed to stash away in their children when their senses of skepticism were still non-existent (I'm not saying this is the origin of your opinions).
Snobbery combined with traces of fascism. How charming.
Saying that abortions should always be illegal is like saying a woman is worth no more than a zygote.
Human life is human life. Not all of us have been brainwashed into the culture of death that you seem to love so much.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
You can't have "opinions" about human rights. Basically, allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same is eternally and unquestioningly stupid to a psychotic degree, and saying that abortion should always be illegal is likewise detached from reality.
You show the typical parochialism of a European liberal who seems to think that their own views on certain social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are the end-all and be-all. The fact that people in other countries have different views from your oh-so-advanced Scandinavian ideals may rock your world, but that just shows how insular that world is.
I'm not "disagreeing" with you (as if this was some little issue like parking fine levels or the idea of a flat tax) - I'm wondering what other aspect of reality will need to be rejected in order to satisfy the social regressives and anti-secularists of Europe. If you can act as if a lump of cells is infused with some humanity you are capable of believing anything.
The idea that all human life is deserving of protection seems like a pretty strong stand in support of human rights. But, I guess you only support human rights for human beings who are convenient to you.
It's all or nothing with the bible, for tryst's sake! Otherwise it is no longer a divine document but a lodestone around humanity's ankle from a disgusting era where women were raped as punishment for being raped.[/B]
It's not up to you to decide how Catholics interpret their religious texts. As a non-Catholic, your (and mine) views on that are wholly irrelevant. Who asked you, anyway?
I'm all for human rights and at least building a society around grade-school logic but if a bunch of emotional fucking plebeians are going to sulk then fine I'll guess I'll just have to wait for the socially regressive segment of Europe to die off and then spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to destroy the traces of idiocy they managed to stash away in their children when their senses of skepticism were still non-existent (I'm not saying this is the origin of your opinions).
Snobbery combined with traces of fascism. How charming.
Saying that abortions should always be illegal is like saying a woman is worth no more than a zygote.
Human life is human life. Not all of us have been brainwashed into the culture of death that you seem to love so much.
So you're playing the martyr card too?
'Oh these fascists won't let me oppress women and gays like I want to!'
I'm extremely confused as to why an economic common market should give a fuck about abortion or gay marriage.
Implementing continental policy on social issues seems rather outside the scope of the EU.
I don't see this as entirely out of the question. The EU's had institutional creep (what institution doesn't) since its founding. That it's now experimenting with social policy kind of fits with moving from strictly economic concerns, into a more continental-union-type-thing-something.
I mean, you could almost argue that it was inevitable. The forces that would spur economic interdependence would eventually broaden to domestic-issue interdependence not just for economic concerns, but for harmonizing other concerns.
I'm extremely confused as to why an economic common market should give a fuck about abortion or gay marriage.
Implementing continental policy on social issues seems rather outside the scope of the EU.
I don't see this as entirely out of the question. The EU's had institutional creep (what institution doesn't) since its founding. That it's now experimenting with social policy kind of fits with moving from strictly economic concerns, into a more continental-union-type-thing-something.
I mean, you could almost argue that it was inevitable. The forces that would spur economic interdependence would eventually broaden to domestic-issue interdependence not just for economic concerns, but for harmonizing other concerns.
If they start infringing on sovereignty the whole thing will collapse very very very very quickly.
Even if the politicians don't care the citizens will be baying for blood. I know it's a terribly dirty word in Europe, but nationalism is very much alive and well over there, and the French won't take kindly to Germans writing their laws (as an example.)
Salvation122 on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I'm extremely confused as to why an economic common market should give a fuck about abortion or gay marriage.
Implementing continental policy on social issues seems rather outside the scope of the EU.
I don't see this as entirely out of the question. The EU's had institutional creep (what institution doesn't) since its founding. That it's now experimenting with social policy kind of fits with moving from strictly economic concerns, into a more continental-union-type-thing-something.
I mean, you could almost argue that it was inevitable. The forces that would spur economic interdependence would eventually broaden to domestic-issue interdependence not just for economic concerns, but for harmonizing other concerns.
If they start infringing on sovereignty the whole thing will collapse very very very very quickly.
Even if the politicians don't care the citizens will be baying for blood. I know it's a terribly dirty word in Europe, but nationalism is very much alive and well over there, and the French won't take kindly to Germans writing their laws (as an example.)
If they do it in large steps, well yea. But they're apparently comfortable with abrogating a measure of their sovereignty already, and if conditions are such that they feel it would improve their situation, more movements in that vein wouldn't be completely unfathomable.
Provided they don't do that whole EU Constitution pancake-flop again.
I'm extremely confused as to why an economic common market should give a fuck about abortion or gay marriage.
Implementing continental policy on social issues seems rather outside the scope of the EU.
I don't see this as entirely out of the question. The EU's had institutional creep (what institution doesn't) since its founding. That it's now experimenting with social policy kind of fits with moving from strictly economic concerns, into a more continental-union-type-thing-something.
I mean, you could almost argue that it was inevitable. The forces that would spur economic interdependence would eventually broaden to domestic-issue interdependence not just for economic concerns, but for harmonizing other concerns.
If they start infringing on sovereignty the whole thing will collapse very very very very quickly.
Even if the politicians don't care the citizens will be baying for blood. I know it's a terribly dirty word in Europe, but nationalism is very much alive and well over there, and the French won't take kindly to Germans writing their laws (as an example.)
...But sovereignty has already been ceded. European central bank? EU wide commissions and regulations on trade and commerce (i.e. monopoly laws)? Fisheries and agricultural regulation? Fuck, the system of EU courts and the EU Human Rights code is another area where member states have ceded their sovereignty to a continental body or set of standards. Ceding sovereignty is not an inherently bad thing.
Europeskepticism, by and large, often comes across as either (a) naive isolationism or misrepresenting geopolitical realities (the UK's "special relationship" with the US), or (b) ethnic nationalism which may or may not be fascist.
Why was there such opposition to Turkey*'s bid to join the EU? Crazy ethnic and religious nationalism lead by Austria and the Vatican, afterall Muslims aren't true Europeans and there's hardly any in Europe anyway, right? Not like millions in France alone or anything.
I'm not allowed to discuss the intellectually empty and completely soulless manner in which the Catholic church interprets its text because I am not a Catholic.
...
...
Modern Man, you are so dumb you make me want to wish I had two accounts here so I could ignore your ass twice.
Posts
Which definition of a "nation" are you using here? Because the one he was referring to requires common history, cultural self-identification and language.
But yeah there are crazies on both sides.
There's a EU directive requiring 50% of television broadcasts to be produced within the EU. Sweden is currently at a mere 45%.
I hate the thought of mandating a quote of a certain type of content, and so does the entire Swedish mindset. There will be a huge uproar if the government suddenly has to force TV channels to broadcast European content, and it goes against the free market that commercial TV channels are in -- and that's why there are so many American shows broadcasted in Sweden. Watchers want it.
It's the standard run of the mill protectionism with a dash of old man yelling at clouds about the lose of culture thrown in. I'm optimistic that kind of crap will run it's course and be done with eventually, at least in this particularly egregious form..
It's basically just American sitcoms/CSI over and over and over with a streak of early 90's sitcom reruns every now and then.
And a lot of short lived gameshows.
:x
Actually, I think it's small things like these that are causing quite a lot of trouble - it's about a conflict of mindsets. Sweden has a pretty high opinion of itself as open to globalism and lacking in populist opinions about nationhood and "national stock". In France they subsidize farmers at the expense of the free market and the potential livelihood of poor African farmers, and they also dabble a lot in measures to protect the language from any anglican influence. Now, as I said, these are merely mindsets (seeing as European nations in reality share and lack the virtues and sins of others to a degree they don't want to admit) but the fact of the matter is that many Swedes have grown up with reliable, independent and very Swedish public service television.
Imposing anything on TV channels we identify ourselves with feels a bit as if nations on the continent are forcing us to go along with their arbitrary ideas of cultural protectionism and favoring of inter-EU producers. They need to make arguments in favor and also offer some quid pro quo, lest there be resentment among some people.
Have you watched the TV of other European countries? For example, Italian TV? Because in that case you must really think an abundance of pretty average titties can excuse any other possible flaws.
However the latest statistics show that the Yes campaign is still winning out, with 53% of people polled intending to ratify the treaty and only 26% intending to vote no. There is still a large number of voters (21%) that are as yet undecided.
You have my interest now.
I know it's not terribly relevant, but I am made as hell at myself for immigrating to what seems like the one goddamn place in the world that doesn't have AXN.
Yes, that makes me a tool, I suspect, but I miss Sony Television. I really do. Goddamn you Sony, brainwashing me as a child into this situation.
We already have those
Being fair, there is plenty of half truths and bullshit on both sides.
Not that i am excusing it, just pointing out boths sides are as bad as each other. :rotate:
http://www.makenoiseforfreechoice.eu/sign/participatory_democracy
Allegedly, even if we are given guarantees regarding abortion, if this petition gathers 1 Million signatures we would have Irish abortion laws looked at and possibly scrapped in a european court.
Grandma I cannot explain.
Euthanasia.
Coir are adopting a similar theme to Sarah Palin's "Death Panels" outburst a while back, basically if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified then all the OAP's will be considered useless and be promptly put to death by the new EU superstate.
And I completely agree with you about there being bullshit on both sides of the arguement. I hate how the Yes side are depicting this doomsday scenario that will supposedly occur if Ireland votes down the Treaty a second time.
Poland and the Czech Republic still have to ratify the treaty. The Czech are expected to ratify it now that it's been passed in Ireland but Poland is expected to be a bit more difficult. On top of that, there are several British political parties pushing for a referendum on the treaty for the UK, although whether or not they will be successful remains to be seen.
Hey, here's an idea, Sweden has already ratified the thing but we should threaten to revoke the decision unless we are promised that we can deny Irish citizens the right to marry if they ever move to Sweden! That, too, is completely amoral and utterly solipsist but, look, do you want the Lisbon treaty or not?
If they want to hamper social progress because of religious concerns then there are plenty of continents for them to snuggle up to, but here in Europe I'd like to see some damned reality-based decision-making.
Implementing continental policy on social issues seems rather outside the scope of the EU.
I am sorry we had the nerve to have a different opinion to you.
Are you playing the martyr over the Catholic Church's (hint: Which Irish city is the Vatican City located within?) oppression of homosexuals and pregnant women?
Do I misunderstand you, or are you being massively hypocritical?
It was meant to be sarcastic.
I am for gay marraige and against abortion, if thats what your asking, but my beliefs are probably suited to a different thread. I just intensely dislike the way he suggests we are out of contact with reality because our laws are more conservative than other countries.
Unless I have completely misread what he said, he basically said that he is all for choice but since our choice is different we should go find some other countries to hang out with. :rotate:
We said no to lisbon, we asked for guarantees in certain areas which we were given, then we ratified it. I don't see why he should paint us as a backward nation for it.
EDIT: Fixing some errors. I cannot type to save my life.
You can't have "opinions" about human rights. Basically, allowing men with long hair to marry while denying gay people the same is eternally and unquestioningly stupid to a psychotic degree, and saying that abortion should always be illegal is likewise detached from reality.
I'm not "disagreeing" with you (as if this was some little issue like parking fine levels or the idea of a flat tax) - I'm wondering what other aspect of reality will need to be rejected in order to satisfy the social regressives and anti-secularists of Europe. If you can act as if a lump of cells is infused with some humanity you are capable of believing anything.
I consider people capable of ignoring reality to be liabilities who should not be encouraged or molly-coddled. I'm sorry if I have the nerve to not bow down to the wisdom of partially applying biblical code and equating a fucking McNugget with a woman's liberty.
"I just intensely dislike the way he suggests we are out of contact with reality because our laws are more conservative than other countries."
I just intensely dislike the way you dare to think of my attack on your country's insane demands as a common political reaction. My adversity to your ideals do not lie on that spectrum, you hear me? Look, do you think men with long hair ought to be banned? Do you think people who fuck animals ought to be killed rather than jailed? No? Then why do you think gays shouldn't be married in church? What gives you and your landsmen the right to selectively apply the bible? Huh? If you can't answer that, then you have no right to complain about my criticism of Ireland.
It's all or nothing with the bible, for tryst's sake! Otherwise it is no longer a divine document but a lodestone around humanity's ankle from a disgusting era where women were raped as punishment for being raped.
"Unless I have completely misread what he said, he basically said that he is all for choice but since our choice is different we should go find some other countries to hang out with."
I'm all for human rights and at least building a society around grade-school logic but if a bunch of emotional fucking plebeians are going to sulk then fine I'll guess I'll just have to wait for the socially regressive segment of Europe to die off and then spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to destroy the traces of idiocy they managed to stash away in their children when their senses of skepticism were still non-existent (I'm not saying this is the origin of your opinions).
Saying that abortions should always be illegal is like saying a woman is worth no more than a zygote. I wonder what a mind that can conceive of such an analogy after receiving a basic modern education is otherwise capable of conceiving.
What has happened is fucking evil, and dangerous. I'm so damnably hateful of the endless relativism that this age has forced upon us I almost wish Sweden had opted out, rather than have to suffer the humiliation of standing alongside nations that can't even realize that homophobia is just as disgusting as racism, no matter the simpering religious veneer. We might as well not fucking bother with creating a union if we have to deny reality to get all the sensitive god-botherers to tag along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6J8Q1Q1ap4
Starting 1.05 into this clip explains is what I am trying to say.
The idea that all human life is deserving of protection seems like a pretty strong stand in support of human rights. But, I guess you only support human rights for human beings who are convenient to you.
It's not up to you to decide how Catholics interpret their religious texts. As a non-Catholic, your (and mine) views on that are wholly irrelevant. Who asked you, anyway?
Snobbery combined with traces of fascism. How charming.
Human life is human life. Not all of us have been brainwashed into the culture of death that you seem to love so much.
Rigorous Scholarship
So you're playing the martyr card too?
'Oh these fascists won't let me oppress women and gays like I want to!'
Also, what Sal said.
I don't see this as entirely out of the question. The EU's had institutional creep (what institution doesn't) since its founding. That it's now experimenting with social policy kind of fits with moving from strictly economic concerns, into a more continental-union-type-thing-something.
I mean, you could almost argue that it was inevitable. The forces that would spur economic interdependence would eventually broaden to domestic-issue interdependence not just for economic concerns, but for harmonizing other concerns.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
If they start infringing on sovereignty the whole thing will collapse very very very very quickly.
Even if the politicians don't care the citizens will be baying for blood. I know it's a terribly dirty word in Europe, but nationalism is very much alive and well over there, and the French won't take kindly to Germans writing their laws (as an example.)
If they do it in large steps, well yea. But they're apparently comfortable with abrogating a measure of their sovereignty already, and if conditions are such that they feel it would improve their situation, more movements in that vein wouldn't be completely unfathomable.
Provided they don't do that whole EU Constitution pancake-flop again.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
...But sovereignty has already been ceded. European central bank? EU wide commissions and regulations on trade and commerce (i.e. monopoly laws)? Fisheries and agricultural regulation? Fuck, the system of EU courts and the EU Human Rights code is another area where member states have ceded their sovereignty to a continental body or set of standards. Ceding sovereignty is not an inherently bad thing.
Europeskepticism, by and large, often comes across as either (a) naive isolationism or misrepresenting geopolitical realities (the UK's "special relationship" with the US), or (b) ethnic nationalism which may or may not be fascist.
Why was there such opposition to Turkey*'s bid to join the EU? Crazy ethnic and religious nationalism lead by Austria and the Vatican, afterall Muslims aren't true Europeans and there's hardly any in Europe anyway, right? Not like millions in France alone or anything.
*Constantinople forever!
...
...
Modern Man, you are so dumb you make me want to wish I had two accounts here so I could ignore your ass twice.