SPD sellout complete: Merkel becomes chancellor

[Spiffor]

ok, thanks for the clarification

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It may sound reasonable from their perspective. From my perspective, it is terrible, as it is a considerable dumbing-down of the European dream. It is actually a lack of European dream. The EU needs a dream if it is to succeed in the long run. If not, the EU will be just a dumb diplomatic agreement that will dissolve at some point with the ebb and flow of internaitonal politics.

So in conclusion, ladies and jelly spoons… America, you have the American Dream, you have the American Dream! We haven’t got the European Dream yet, that’s what we’ve got to get; we’ve got to get a dream to build on. You have the American Dream; the dream is to be born in the gutter, and raise, and grow up and get all the money in the world and stick it in your ears and go ( blows raspberry ) The American Dream! A fantastic dream of money in your ears and swimming through fivers. The American Dream!

In Europe… I don’t know, we haven’t got a dream yet. Well, the dream was… ( mimics sleeping and dreaming ) “Oh… get off, you ****in’…! Flag. No!” ( wakes up with a gasp )

“Hilda, Hilda, wake up, Hilda!”

“What is it, Dr. Heimlich, you waking-up type person?”

“I’ve dreamed the European Dream. I dreamt that every country in Europe spoke a different language and they hated each other… Oh, that’s true, isn’t it? Yes.”

That was the dream, but now, maybe now, the dream is to be in the South of Europe – to be in Greece, in Italy, in Spain, and to be on a moped with no helmet on, riding along, going, “ciao!”

That’s a pretty cool dream; it’s not much of a dream, but it’s as good as we’ve got so far, and it’s pretty funky, ‘cause when you die… you look a mess, but I don’t know, I just like it. ( mimics riding on a Vespa ) ‘Cause you’re in a ****ing hairdryer. There’s dogs walking faster than you! It’s just pretty damn cool for me. That’s the European Dream, thank you very much. Good night.

[BlackCat]

@ OzzyKP - sometimes it semes like that is an accurate description of the european dream.

More realistically, the european dream is "no more wars between european countries".

[C0ckney]

ozzy

spiff,

Trade is not amazing in any way. We traded with Germany with nearly no barrier prior to WW1.

i disagree. this isn't simply pierre sending a couple of barrels of wine to berlin or hans flogging a few bruehwursts in paris. it's a common market, with free movement not just of goods, but also of labour, capital and to a certain extent services, across 25 countries. you might not like competition, being a Godless commie and all, but this free trade brings prosperity to all europeans. i think that's a great achievement myself. britain has been at the forefront of efforts to complete this single market by liberalising services within the EU.

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.

it's interesting to note that two of the most euro sceptic countries (britain and denmark) gave workers from the 10 new members full rights straight away, whereas all the integrationalist usual suspects refuse to do so until 2011! britain is coping fine with this, so i think we can safely dismiss most french concerns about poles, in any case, it's not as if they haven't given themselves enough time to adapt...

the point you make about competition suggests that you don't think it's beneficial, that's just plain wrong from my point of view. the wider point here is that the EU will lose jobs anyway, we live in a globalised world, company that can make things cheaper in poland or the baltics will go there, but they can make them even cheaper in india or china, so the EU as a whole will lose these jobs. this is a challenge that all european countries have to face, but the way to do it is not by propping up failing industries and stifling competition.

i disagree with your idea of a european identity. for people to really feel european they have to have such an identity, but the fact is that we don't share a common language, history or culture. i have far more in common with an australian than i do a frenchman, a spaniard will have more in common with a mexican than with a greek, someone from portugal will feel more at home with a brasilian than with a finn. this is not easy to overcome, nor i think is there any particular benefit in doing so. in my first year of uni i lived with two guys who were here on erasmus, nice chaps (for foreigners ) but did living with them make me feel more european? not a bit, i'm english, first, last and always, and i am certainly not alone in thinking that. within the EU we are all very different, that's not to say that we can't work together on a number of things, but that finding a real common identity is an impossible and IMO undesirable goal.

Compare the behaviour of the New Members last June, when they accepted to have their subsidies cut for the sake of solving the British-French row, to Thatcher's "I want my money back".

thatcher was trying to stop france and others in the EC ripping us off we STILL pay more into the EU than france with the rebate, without it we would pay many times more. also british politicians have said on numerous occasions that we would be willing to give up the rebate as part of a review of EU finances, including the CAP. predictably france is not interested in doing this, because it's convenient for french politicians to bleat on about britian's rebate when the pressure is on them.

in principle i wouldn't have any great problem with some countries integrating further on their own and leaving the rest of us to concentrate on trade and the like. however in practice this is very unlikely to happen, and so we have the result that france and their ilk are trying to force britain and others down a route of further integration that we simply don't want. in view of this if all the british government does in the next 10 years is to stall, delay and otherwise frustrate attempts at further political integration, then i'll be reasonably happy.

[Spiffor]

in my first year of uni i lived with two guys who were here on erasmus, nice chaps (for foreigners ), but did living with them make me feel more european?

I actually wouldn't expect you to feel much more European unless you had definitely befriended one of them, or married one of them or something.
But what about them? They were in contact with a bunch of Englishmen (and I guess with a bunch of expats from all around Europe). Are they feeling solely loyal to their country and nothing beyond?

not a bit, i'm english, first, last and always, and i am certainly not alone in thinking that.

I can understand that you get the impression, considering that in Britain, only 31% of the population has at least some feeling of being European. Of course, nobody comes close to the Brits in that regard: the second country that feels the least European (in the EU15, I don't have the figures for the new members) is Finland, which joined only 8 years before the poll I use as a source. In Finland, only 43% feel at least somehow European. That's a huge gap, which shows that Britain isn't merely at the low end of a continuum, but is a different beast all by itself.

In the EU 15, there are actually more people that feel somehow European or stronger, than people who don't feel European at all (57% vs 40%).
But obviously, considering that you live in a country where the trend is more than reversed, I can understand that you don't see it in your everyday life.

Source: Page "36" (page 45 in Acrobat)

within the EU we are all very different, that's not to say that we can't work together on a number of things, but that finding a real common identity is an impossible and IMO undesirable goal.

I have made my case I to why I think it is necessary to have a common identity (which, I insist, doesn't mean having a same language, or an identical culture, but feeling to belong to something bigger than merely one's country).
I'm curious to see how such a thing would be undesirable.

[OzzyKP]

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.

I think everyone should learn something from the lesson of the American Civil War. That WAS a war between two territories, the north and the south. It emerged when the central governmented attemped to (or there was a suspicion they might) do something the south absolutely couldn't stand for. Now granted the central government was right (about ending slavery), but the principles raised are the same that could face a unified EU.

Would members nations have the right to leave the Union? The right of secession. That's the key question.

If political unification goes through and at some point down the road the central government proposes something so utterly distasteful to some of the member nations they decide to leave, with the others invade to bring them back?

If the ultimate goal is to avoid wars, then you'd think supporters of the EU would also support a secession clause in the Constitution to prevent such a war in the future.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Would members nations have the right to leave the Union? The right of secession. That's the key question.

The right to leaving the EU was written in the EU constitution. The prcedure was fairly complicated, but it was laid out.

Under the EU constitution, it was possible that one country leaves on its own accord, but it was impossible that a member state was outright expelled by the others.

[Sandman]

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.

Remember what I said about emulating America? They have a curious interest in what their founding fathers wanted as well. Despite the fact that they're dead, and the opinions of dead people do not matter.

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 find it ironic that you criticise backward parts of Europe, when it is that sort of backwardness which you're determined to preserve in France via the CAP. And yes, you've said that you'd replace it with a France supported subsidy - but such intra-EU protectionism would be a dagger thrust into the heart of the Europe.

And obviously Britain is nothing like Albania. As for Britain 'only looking out for itself', I would point out to the fact that the UK generally strongly supports all sorts of international agreements - debt relief, the ICC, Kyoto etc. The UK even offered to give up part of its base (sovereign territory) on Cyprus. I have trouble imagining France doing the same.

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.

The bigger picture is the world. Europe and the world were somewhat interchangable at the beginning of the last century - this is not the case today. Your view has Europe's internationalism merely as a staging post to the formation of a European nation, ready to jostle petulantly with America, China and India. A world of blocs and alliances.

Not a worthwhile goal, IMO. Europe has no realistic enemies, and shouldn't concern itself with the pettyness of nationalism. We should be building something new, not something old.

I would alter this view if Europe faced military aggression, however.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Under the EU constitution, it was possible that one country leaves on its own accord, but it was impossible that a member state was outright expelled by the others.

What if there's a military coup or something? Shouldn't being a democracy be a requirement for membership? What if the Communist Party of Apolyton comes to power in France? Won't the capitalist lackies want to throw you out?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
Remember what I said about emulating America? They have a curious interest in what their founding fathers wanted as well. Despite the fact that they're dead, and the opinions of dead people do not matter.

Not when they have good ideas. For example, the opinion of Albert Einstein or even Isaac Newton are still referred to

The reason I'm talking about the vision of the "founding fathers" here is not because these people have some holy aura. It's because these people had seen two world wars, and a failed attempt at creating a united Europe.

I find it ironic that you criticise backward parts of Europe, when it is that sort of backwardness which you're determined to preserve in France via the CAP.

Living in the country and parochialism aren't necessarily bound. If anything, I would think that parochialism in the French countryside has reduced because of the fact that many farmers owe their livelyhood to the CAP. However, I don't think it has much impact either way.

And yes, you've said that you'd replace it with a France supported subsidy - but such intra-EU protectionism would be a dagger thrust into the heart of the Europe.

Not if there is a common regulation, whose financial costs are supported by each member state (with subsidies to poor MS), which is what I want.

And obviously Britain is nothing like Albania.

Yes. I gave ALbania as an extreme example of parochialism. My contention is that the societies that went beyond their local parochialism are much better off. If we want Europe to be better off, we need to fight the "parochialism" at the European scale, i.e. the feeling of loyalty to the nation state, but the lack thereof to Europe.

As for Britain 'only looking out for itself', I would point out to the fact that the UK generally strongly supports all sorts of international agreements - debt relief, the ICC, Kyoto etc. The UK even offered to give up part of its base (sovereign territory) on Cyprus. I have trouble imagining France doing the same.

Funny, France has agreed to the same international treaties.

The bigger picture is the world. Europe and the world were somewhat interchangable at the beginning of the last century - this is not the case today.

At the beginning of the last century, a United Europe and a United world were also both equally pipe dreams. Gotta go, moore later.

[C0ckney]

at the beginning of this century, a united europe and a united world are still seen as (and are) pipe dreams...

[chequita guevara]

They're still good dreams.

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What if the Communist Party of Apolyton comes to power in France? Won't the capitalist lackies want to throw you out?

I remember there was a clause that 'immensely silly countries are automatically kicked out'. Let me see the document...

[Colon™]

That's a lie, otherwise we'd gotten rid of Italy ages ago.

[Saras]

They have special treatment.