SPD sellout complete: Merkel becomes chancellor

[Colon™]

Originally posted by C0ckney with 5 million on the dole!

3.99 million (as I posted a bit higher up )

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
spiff, your 3rd post on page 8 illustrates very clearly one of things that is central to the EU, and which you somehow seem to have missed. the fact that the EU is a group of 25 independent, sovereign states, each with its own beliefs, concerns and national interests. it shouldn't come as a shock that these different countries are going to be concerned about different things. britain with near to full employment, is hardly likely to be as concerned about unemployment as germany, with 5 million on the dole! that's what i think is great about the EU, 25 countries with many differences in the way they see things, coming together to trade freely.

Trade is not amazing in any way. We traded with Germany with nearly no barrier prior to WW1. Ever since mercantilism went out of fashion, trade hasn't been such a fantastic achievement as you make it out to be.
Actually, trade is among the most simplistic forms of contact between two people. Europe currently has infinitely better with the Erasmus student exchange programme, which considerably improves the contact between different population. The mobility of the people will also make it possible that people get to know each other, and even get married and have children, across boundaries. This is a much greater achievement than trade, as far as making these 25 countries understand each other is concerned.

Trade is nice to make money, sure, and can contribute to some extent to the mix of ideas and of people. But it's infinitely less interesting in this regard than other things Europe is already doing.

in all your posts you are comparing britain's vision of the EU to your own utopian (or more accurately, hellish ) vision of it, but this is wholly worthless. what is worth looking at is what france does and its leaders vision of the EU. france uses the EU in pursuit of its own interests, to protect its failing industries and farmers (see 'bra wars' and the CAP), it is not alone in doing this, but it is a major offender.

This is clear. Ever since Mitterrand left, we pushed no genuine vision for Europe. The only "visionary" thing that mattered to Chirac was to create a bloc Europe that could stick it to the US. Otherwise, our EU policy was about keeping France and Germany at the heart of the EU decision process (despite the fact that we had no new project since the completion of the Euro), and keep the CAP

However, the utter mediocrity of the French leaderhsip shouldn't hide the fact that the French population can seriously support a political union. And that once our leaders full of French delusions of grandeur leave, there will also be acceptance that things can't go our way whenever we want. At least, that's my opinion.

when french leaders talk about a 'european' view or policy, they mean a french one imposed on other countries, chirac is the obvious example, but he's hardly the first french leader to hold such views.

It's slightly more subtle than that. When I hear the word "imposing", I think that the one who imposes is aware that he's encountering resistance. France is too arrogant to understand that our model isn't universal
I'm exaggerating: there is much soul searching currently occuring in France - we will soon completely stop to see ourselves as a universal model. However, it is true that there are many things we don't understand why they are opposed. Nobody in France knows that the Brussels technocracy copies the French bureaucratic model (and actually, plenty of people yell against the technocracy there).

On foreign policy, the almost immediate rejection of the French-German diktat over the Iraq war led to quite a bit of questioning about politicians. There was recently a disputed EU diplomatic issue (lifting the weapon embargo on China), but even Chirac eventually understood he should lay low instead of making a new diktat.

oh dear. going off the deep end ain't the half of it. do you seriously think that europe mainly focusing on free trade would lead to war? if yes if no, then why bother writing it.

A Europe mostly focusing on free trade wouldn't lead to war. However, a Europe mostly focusing on free trade, without the tools that prevent competition between member states, will not create the conditions of pereptual peace, which I think are in our reach.

Yes, laugh at the concept of "perpetual peace". But do you think that Burgundy will ever declare war against Paris again? I don't. Ever since France has been unified, and ever since the Burgundians have felt treated like any other Frenchman, there has been no territorial rivalry anymore. The territorial rivalry has been killed, never to return.

This is something we are on the brink of achieving in Europe. Without a single drop of blood. But to achieve this, trade isn't nearly enough. We need to get to know each other for real - this si why the Erasmus student exchange programme is so great-, we need to live together, not as rivals, but as friends.

If you create a system where countries compete against each other (and not simply companies that are evaluated by the consumer on their own merits), you will keep the national rivalries alive and well.

Here's an example: there is a pending EU legislation that says that, for short jobs abroad, you are under the legal framework of your home country. What it practically means for me is that, when I'm looking for interim job in Paris, I can hear "Sorry, you're French, you're costing 40% more than the Pole who asked for the job". If I'm looking for distance job in Warshaw (translating texts from English to French), I could hear "sorry, but you're French, and thus you're too expansive - I cannot afford the taxes". How do you think I'll react? I'll be discriminated on grounds of my nationality in my own country as well as in the others. OF COURSE I'll be resentful. And of course I'll be thinking "**** them all - now France should be taking care of itself instead of taking care of the Poles".

Now, I took the example of France and Poland, because it is a current one. But such a process will be all over the place, as soon as you allow countries to compete against each other. The roles will be reverted the day the French gov ****s over the workers enough so that they become more financially interesting than the ones in Poland. Heck, even today's Poles aren't shielded from the risk. 58% of them fear that the EU will lead to a transfer of jobs to countries with lower production costs. And even with such a high figure, they're the country the least afraid of it after Lithuania.

Now, I made my case that a EU focused mostly on trade won't prevent national rivalries, and could even help worsening them.
Does it means that war will arise out of it? No. Of course not. We don't fight wars over unemployment.
However, trade also doesn't contribute to build a longlasting peace. A longlasting peace can only be built with comprehension, trust, and the will to cooperate that we can make permanent. And a mere free trade zone achieves nothing of the sort.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I really hope that we'll be able to part our merry way, and that the Brits can undertake their project to completion, without destroying ours.

Hasn't the number one goal of British foreign policy over the last several hundred years been to keep a balance in Europe and stop any one country from getting too powerful?

Just walking away and letting the continent form their massive superstate seems to oppose this. So naturally they stick around to much things up and stop you guys from getting your way. Mission accomplished.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Hasn't the number one goal of British foreign policy over the last several hundred years been to keep a balance in Europe and stop any one country from getting too powerful?

Just walking away and letting the continent form their massive superstate seems to oppose this. So naturally they stick around to much things up and stop you guys from getting your way. Mission accomplished.

Indeed. And this is why there is a wild distrust of Britain when it pretends to be a constructive froce for Europe, at least in France.

You will find very few people in rance who do not believe that Britain's aim is to make Europe as weak as possible.

I bet it is the same in many countries that have a history of dealing with the English.

[Az]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Hasn't the number one goal of British foreign policy over the last several hundred years been to keep a balance in Europe and stop any one country from getting too powerful?

Just walking away and letting the continent form their massive superstate seems to oppose this. So naturally they stick around to much things up and stop you guys from getting your way. Mission accomplished.

Precisely.

[Spiffor]

Oh, and Az, thanks for the support . It's not always easy to stand up against so much opposition (including people I do like).

Your support helps me think that I am not being a complete dumbass

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Indeed. And this is why there is a wild distrust of Britain when it pretends to be a constructive froce for Europe, at least in France.

You will find very few people in rance who do not believe that Britain's aim is to make Europe as weak as possible.

I bet it is the same in many countries that have a history of dealing with the English.

IIUC, most of UKs trade is with Europe. UK really doesnt have the option to not be at least part of a free trade area with Europe. Now I suppose UK could withdraw from the EU and be part of the Free trade area only (there are some countries that already have that status, no?) IIUC that is the goal of Euroskeptics in the Conservative party. But that would mean UK industry would effectively be subject to rules that the UK would have no say in making - certainly not the most desirable situation. IIUC THAT is the principle reason why Britons who are unenthusiastic about the EU superstate project (like moderate Tories, and perhaps Blairites) want to remain in the EU - not for offshore balancing reasons. AFAICT the Britons who most fear the EU superstate are among those who want to leave the EU entirely.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I think the Brits who want a political Europe are extremely marginal. I also think that there is something deep in the Scandinavians (whom I otherwise admire for their fantastic social-democratic societies), that makes them also much more reluctant than most for such a thing..

it seems to me that attachment to soveriegnty among european states is very much related to how viable/desirable sovereignty has been over the last hundred years or so.

Germany and Italy are late unifiers, where nationalism was seriously contested by both local loyalties, and transnational ones. In both soveriegnty in general, and nationalism in particular, had fairly negative consequences. The low countries, and the smaller eastern european states, have seen that their soveriengty is largely illusory, when the great powers they are squeezed between are playing naughty.

Therefore its not surprising that those most attached to sovereignty are the Brits, the French, the Scandinavians and the Poles. And that for both the Poles and the French, the EU may look superior to soveriegnty. Both France and Poland border Germany, and the question they have had to face since 1991, is how to resolve the German Problem (which is the relative power of Germany compared to any other European country) For both the EU project looks like the best approach, even as they both still value their sovereignty, and so want to use the EU in ways that maintain their interests.

UK and Scandinavia simply are in a different strategic position.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Shredded for levity...

...my attacks on the Rosbifs is pure banter....

...Brits overwhelmingly support just a big free-trade area and little else (or even nothing else). I have felt extremely little emotional loyalty to the idea of Europe...

...A system cannot be democratic when it's based on haggling....

...the British vision for Europe, as it is extremely limited, is horrible for someone like me who hopes that there will never be a major war anymore between European countries....

Remember, free trade isn't a vaccine against war.

Your attacks on British people are flat-out nasty. Who cares if they're 'banter'? Replace 'Rosbif' with another ethnic slur of your choice and see how they look.

Your serious explanation is little better. Are we seriously to believe that mere 'free-trade areas' cause wars, whilst some sort of European pseudo-nation will be immune? You gave France and Burgundy as an example - my counter-example is every nation or similar arrangement that has ever existed.

Similarly, your claim that a system is not democratic if it's based on haggling. Ever heard of coalition governments?

And finally, emotional loyalty to Europe. Patriotism, in other words. It's like you want to turn Europe into some sort of sad, reactive parody of America. With wee badges.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
Your attacks on British people are flat-out nasty. Who cares if they're 'banter'? Replace 'Rosbif' with another ethnic slur of your choice and see how they look.

It works well with "Yanks" as well. The difference between the English-French banter, and racist slur is that there is an equality betwwen us. We throw mud at each other. In our common history, there hasn't been one population consistently oppressed by the other. It's nothing like a racist slur against ethnical groups that are in a position of de facto inferiority.

You may want to wonder why you're the only Brit here (among many) who is seriously offended by my Rosbif talk. Answer: that's because the others take it for what it is: an opportunity to have fun themselves by throwing mud at the French .

Your serious explanation is little better. Are we seriously to believe that mere 'free-trade areas' cause wars, whilst some sort of European pseudo-nation will be immune?

I don't think Free-trade areas cause wars. However, I'm saying that their effect at preventing a war are very small. This is why the founding fathers of the European construction in 1946, though very favourable to a free trade area, envisioned it only as a stepping stone toward something more, which needed a free trade area to work.

You gave France and Burgundy as an example - my counter-example is every nation or similar arrangement that has ever existed.

Could you please tell me which territorial war was fought within Britain since the unification? I can think of civil wars to change the ruler of Britain as a whole, but I can't think of two territories feuding with each other. Similarly, I don't think there has been any internal war in Germany ever since it had its de facto unity. Same for italy.

Similarly, your claim that a system is not democratic if it's based on haggling. Ever heard of coalition governments?

Coalition governments tend to haggle over the platform that on an ideological basis (i.e. which course of action should be beneficial to the country as a whole). They do not haggle over the pecuniary interests of the Province from which they come.
When a local-interest-based haggling happens (such as when a US senator will vote on a bill depending on the Pork his state receives), it is actually pretty dysfunctional, as the voters don't get their opinions heared. Simply because it's not the opinions that are weighted in.

And finally, emotional loyalty to Europe. Patriotism, in other words. It's like you want to turn Europe into some sort of sad, reactive parody of America. With wee badges.

Emotional loyalty to Europe is not necessarily patriotism, and it definitely doesn't have to be nationalism/jingoism.
An emotional loyalty to a community is about feeling part of that community. It is about willing to build something with the other people in that community. It is about generally trusting other people in this community.
Such a feeling is essential so that people don't think "the Rosbifs are only out to get us" / "the Frogs are only out to get us" / "the Poles are only out to get us" / "the Turks are only out to get us" etc.
Without it, populations will only have their national interests in mind, and they'll project that all other Europeans also have their national interests in mind. And they'll project that the others won't hesitate to **** them over if it fits their country's interest.

An emotional loyalty to Europe doesn't have to be a school pledge, or some pretentious boasting about how European one is. It's not necessary at all. It is merely the idea of feeling European, of liking Europe, of seeing further than one's own country when pondering about the general interest. It's the idea that there is a bigger picture, a positive one.

You may think that such is a pipe dream, and a useless one at that for Europe to flourish. I strongly disagree. If you look at it, you'll notice that a narrowminded feeling of loyalty (loyalty to the village or to the family and nothing further) is strong in most areas of economical failure and social backwardness. Look at Corsica, look at Albania, look at Southern Italy. These are typically places where you think only of your interests and those of a small clique around you. These are typically places where you assume the guys from the next village won't hesitate to **** you over. And these are also places where economic and social progress is very bad.

I think there is potential in much of Europe that people shift their loyalties to a bigger picture, thus making relations within Europe much more pleasant. I do not think there is that potential in Britain (and actually, if Corsica was independant, there's no way I would let them in either ). And this is why I don't think the Brits are genuinely capable of being a constructive force in Europe, simply because they don't want to construct. At least for now. I hope it will change, but I am pessimistic.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It works well with "Yanks" as well. The difference between the English-French banter, and racist slur is that there is an equality betwwen us. We throw mud at each other. In our common history, there hasn't been one population consistently oppressed by the other. It's nothing like a racist slur against ethnical groups that are in a position of de facto inferiority.

You may want to wonder why you're the only Brit here (among many) who is seriously offended by my Rosbif talk. Answer: that's because the others take it for what it is: an opportunity to have fun themselves by throwing mud at the French .

I am seriously offended, you cursed frog

[Provost Harrison]

Seriously though Spiffor: I consider myself to be a European and would like to see greater unity between our nations. I am also very tired of my government being so wet about the whole thing...I certainly don't think that our current government has our best interests in mind any more than the European government too...

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

]
Could you please tell me which territorial war was fought within Britain since the unification? I can think of civil wars to change the ruler of Britain as a whole, but I can't think of two territories feuding with each other. Similarly, I don't think there has been any internal war in Germany ever since it had its de facto unity. Same for italy.

If you think civil wars are more pleasant than territorial wars, you should come to Virginia, where there many very impressive cemetaries I could show you. Id also show you the Petersburg lines, where we invented trench warfare, 50 years before that Archduke was assasinated at Sarajevo.


You may be confused as YOUR civil wars tend to be closely associated with international wars, from the Vendee, to the Paris Commune, to Vichy.

I dont suppose the unpleasantness in Germany in 1919 is generally called a civil war, is it? Of course I suppose most Germans expect theyre safer from that sort of thing INSIDE the EU than outside it.

[Atahualpa]

War is not a pleasant experience in general

An emotional loyalty to Europe doesn't have to be a school pledge, or some pretentious boasting about how European one is. It's not necessary at all. It is merely the idea of feeling European, of liking Europe, of seeing further than one's own country when pondering about the general interest. It's the idea that there is a bigger picture, a positive one.

You're making me cry, don't stop!

Spiffor for president

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If you think civil wars are more pleasant than territorial wars, you should come to Virginia, where there many very impressive cemetaries I could show you. Id also show you the Petersburg lines, where we invented trench warfare, 50 years before that Archduke was assasinated at Sarajevo.

I don't think civil wars are more pleasant than international wars. However, I also do not think that a unification process, when done sensibly (as is the case in the European project the founding fathers had), will trigger civil wars.

Besides, when the populations accept to trust each other, and when all consider the system to be legitimate (with our modern mindset, that would mean that all people feel their interests are taken into account, that their opinion matter, that they aren't ****ed over by a "them"-group that profits all by itself), civil wars are actually much less likely.
I think that a successful EU can lead to something like that in Europe. However, such a mutual comprehension, such trust, cannot simply arise as an offshoot of trade. Trade has its place to reach this aim, but we'll never reach it if we don't do more.