SPD sellout complete: Merkel becomes chancellor

[chequita guevara]

How'd Lithuania get in then?

[Saras]

We foooled them all BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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?

I remember than an EU country can be ostracized, expelled from the decision process etc (after a complex procedure that require unanimity of all the other members IIRC), but that it cannot be expelled from the union in itself.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Originally posted by Sandman
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.

To continue: There have been two main attempts at making the world more peaceful through negociation: the Society of Nations and the UN. And in this regard, bioth have been failures: the only thing that prevented a major war between the superpowers is MAD, definitely not the UN. The UN also failed at preventing cold war conflicts occuring at the margins: Korea, Vietnam, and countless military interventions in each sphere of influence (plus the French interventions in Africa). The UN is ineffective to prevent the Clash of Civilizations that seems to be mounting.

In contrast, the European Community has been extremely efficient at preventing conflict among its members. Unlike the UN, the EC has succeded in promoting the idea that no member country should try to solve a problem through war. In a continent like ours, this is an immense achievement. This comes from the fact that all member states had tangible benefits from being and remaining in the EC (except Germany which paid for everything out of guilt).

The dream of a united Europe and of a united World were both completely out of reach one century ago. The latter still is, but the former isn't anymore.

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.

It's not quite that. I want a world that is increasingly peaceful, where trust relationships can strive just like they are attempting to do in Europe.

However, the day I die of old age, we won't be reaching it at all. There will be the pettiness and the bloodletting of bloc politics, between the US, China, and probably India and Russia. Unless there is a worldwide catastrophe, these countries just won't suddenly trust each other. Especially if the doomsday scenarios are true, and if we reach critical scarcity for resources like fresh water or oil.

I think Europe, as the most novel political project ever undertaken, can greatly contribute to creating a climate of trust between countries. Because we have been able to settle our squabbles through discussion for decades, we have a constructive vision of diplomacy (and a loathe of the use of force) which, in this world of realpolitik, sets up apart of any actual and potential world power.

Currently, Europe is trying to negociate with Iran so that they give up their nuclear programme. For the first time ever, our negociation attempts are not considered as some hippie useless thing by the United States. It is a huge difference with previous attempts of European negociation, which were never taken seriously by the US (Kosovo and Iraq).

If we have a stronger diplomatic voice, we will be able to push for constructive politics in a much stronger fashion. However, in order to reach such a situation, we need to have an efficient structure, and we need to agree on whether we want a common foreign policy or not. Such a thing would need a significant bond of trust between Europeans, and it can only come with a feeling of looyalty toward Europe.

Also, you see the feeling of loyalty toward Europe as simply nationalism for a bigger nation. I completely disagree with such a thing, but for the sake of discussion, I'll take it as fact here. Even if the loayalty to Europe leads to the creation of a European nationalism, it is not only that. It is something completely new as well:

In the past, patriotism/nationhood/nationalism were feelings either created on an ethnico-cultural basis, or created by a central authority (19th century France is especially clear-cut in this regard). The only exceptions are Switzerland, where different ethnical groups united in their love of freedom from the neighbouring despots; and to a lesser extent the US, where the American dream and the melting pot united the whites in a fairly short time. But even the US had a strong ethnico-cultureal component in the creation of its nation (the WASPs)

Europe, if it can overcome millenia of warfare between feuding lords, and then feuding nations, so that the populations can see a greater whole rather than their parochial interest, will act as a model for every other future group of countries that try to settle their scores. Just like, in today's world, all those interested in reconciling with a bitter past enemy are looking at the French-Gemran reconciliation as a model.

Furthermore, if we manage to have people shift their vision of "general interest" from a national perspective to a European perspective, we can learn a things or two. And we can try to repeat the trick, when time is rife, so that people now see the interest of the world as the "general interest"*.

For now, we should strive to make it happen in the EU, because there is a chance that such happens here.


*An aside note. You might tell that we are already seeing signs of that, with things such as the Johannesburg conference on development, or with the G8 of Gleneagles and the corresponding Live8. I tend to disagree: some sort of global awareness is mounting among a few people that really get to know the issues from abroad. But most of what I could see was more a "good samaritan" attitude toward the poor rather than a conscious internationalism. At least in France, poverty in Africa is nearly always charicatured (you won't ever see a healthy and peaceful African kid attending school on TV, except when a charity wants to show its success), and the "help Africa" attitude seems to be more about feelgood than about internationalism.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spiffor
*An aside note. You might tell that we are already seeing signs of that, with things such as the Johannesburg conference on development, or with the G8 of Gleneagles and the corresponding Live8. I tend to disagree: some sort of global awareness is mounting among a few people that really get to know the issues from abroad. But most of what I could see was more a "good samaritan" attitude toward the poor rather than a conscious internationalism. At least in France, poverty in Africa is nearly always charicatured (you won't ever see a healthy and peaceful African kid attending school on TV, except when a charity wants to show its success), and the "help Africa" attitude seems to be more about feelgood than about internationalism.

Wouldn't getting rid of the CAP be the best way to get a real international approach that will benefit Africa?

As for the secession thing, that's good news. Its tilted my opinion more towards favoring the EU (not like my opinion counts of course).

Ultimately I don't have a problem with super-nations or even a one world government. In theory at least. America (in theory, again) is a land unified by ideals not ethnicity or relgion or other things that once tied nations together. So if American ideals were embodied in a world government, I'd be in support of that. Note of course that I mean American ideals as I interpret them, not the ones of that damn ****** next door.

Of course, American ideals (and even more so my view of American ideals) are in a distinct minority internationally. So whatever form of government that were to emerge if we all put in our lots together would inevitably be far too socialist, too bureaucratic and too authoritarian for my tastes. (it'd probably be more pro-youth rights than my stupid ass country though, so that'd be good at least).

Globalization is starting with economies, but its quickly including everything else. I think larger and larger nations, through such processes as the EU are inevitable. Technology brings us all closer together and makes larger not only easier, but preferable. I accept it less as a romantic notion, and more as something I recognize that is unaviodable.

That being said I'm scared of it, not because of the idea of unity, but because the government most of the world would create would be anti-thetical to my beliefs (many at least, not all). Were I on the other side of things and anticipating a government that matches my tastes including all the people of the world I'd be a strong backer of it. The only possible solution this leaves me (not that I intend to get off the couch and work on it, I've got enough on my plate) is to support an active America active in reforming the politics of the UN (or any other proto-supranational body) to conform with American ideals. Hopefully going about it less heavy handedly (and thus more effectively) than our dumbass leader, but the idea I suppose is the same.

Perhaps (making blind assertions here) this is part of the UK's perspective on the EU. They recognize the eventuality of it (whether they want it or not) so are attempting to make it more amenable to their ideals. Not necessarily to sabatoge it (though that may be the case) but to make it better (from their perspective). At least that's what I'd do.

If after many earnest efforts it failed, and the others failed to see the light and instead tried to impose their views on the UK (or US) then having that secession clause makes all the difference.

Those are my incoherant ramblings. Take them for what their worth (not much no doubt). I have been reading this thread with interest.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Note of course that I mean American ideals as I interpret them, not the ones of that damn ****** next door.

HEY!

[OzzyKP]

I meant the house on the other side of me...

[Ecthy]

Don't you people remember how everyone jumped on Austria because they formed a government farther to the rigth than was expected by a quasi-German country? So much for reacting to change in a member country. Not banned, but they were diplomatically isolated.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Don't you people remember how everyone jumped on Austria because they formed a government farther to the rigth than was expected by a quasi-German country? So much for reacting to change in a member country. Not banned, but they were diplomatically isolated.

Nah, don't you start to blur the picture - that was a quite legit action made by socialistic parties in europe

[BeBMan]

Re "US of E"

In 1923, the Austrian Count Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the Pan-Europa movement and hosted the First Paneuropean Congress, held in Vienna in 1926.

Yup, and Wilfried Loth, Der Weg nach Europa, (The Way To Europe) writes it was Coudenhove-Kalergi himself wo created the term, which is mentioned first 1923 in his journal "Paneuropa" that was printed in Vienna too (Loth cites the exact edition, page numbers etc)

Hey Spiff, did you know there was an attempt to form a union between the UK and France in 1940?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

of course people in mainland europe have some feeling of being european, they are after all living on the european continent. because of britain's history and the fact we are an island we don't feel as 'european', this stands to reason.

i don't think however that a vague feeling of being 'european' among the people of mainland europe, indicates any great love for the EU or a desire to be in a united europe.

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.

i struggling to see what your case is i'm afraid. sandman dealt with your potty war and 'albania' arguments pretty well, so maybe you could restate your case (as i am, actually interested ).

the wider point about identities, people's national identities have had years, usually centuries to develop, and have solid foundations. people have a shared history, ethnicity, language, culture, and often religion as well. there are countries that don't conform to this, but they are exceptions that prove the rule, and in each have their own real foundations. this is why there isn't and can't be a 'european' identity, there's no real foundation to build it on, some woolly idea about 'belonging to something bigger' just isn't good enough.

damn need to go to work, will return to this.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hey Spiff, did you know there was an attempt to form a union between the UK and France in 1940?

The Horrors, the horrors!

[Ecthy]

A modest proposal by Churchill

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
of course people in mainland europe have some feeling of being european, they are after all living on the european continent. because of britain's history and the fact we are an island we don't feel as 'european', this stands to reason.

Exactly, though there is not only that. The Irish feel overwhelmingly more European than you, but there are different histories. Britain has historically always seen the continent as a threat, so it certainly accounts for something.

i don't think however that a vague feeling of being 'european' among the people of mainland europe, indicates any great love for the EU or a desire to be in a united europe.

These are not identical phenomena.
"Europe" is an idea, while the EU is a concrete institutional arrangement with its flaws. A united Europe scares the populations who care a great deal for their sovereignty, even if they feel generally European. And one can love Europe with little loyalty, if Europe has shelled heaps of money in one's pocket.
However, despite not being identical, these phenomena are closely related. Especially in the case of Britain: Britons are consistently the ones who feel the least loyalty to Europe, the ones who are the least willing to enter a political Europe, the ones who have the worst image of the EU, the ones who trust the EU the least.

There is quite a relationship between these factors and the feeling of being European or not. The Swedes, the Finns, the Austrians also feel less European than most, and are in the bottom for most of these factors.

So yes, there is a relationship between these phenomena.

i struggling to see what your case is i'm afraid. sandman dealt with your potty war and 'albania' arguments pretty well, so maybe you could restate your case (as i am, actually interested ).

I don't see how Sandman challenged my case about war. He considers "loyalty to Europe" as a new nationalism that can lead to wars with other blocs in the future. I have seen his worries about that (IIUC, he's s strongly internationalist), but I haven't seen arguments of his that makes us any less subject to realpolitik in the current situation, than if we have a higher loyalty toward Europe. Since I don't consider my case for war challenged by Sandman (and definitely not "shredded"), I will only repeat what I said.

If we are to have peace between our countries in the far and very far future, regardless of the political or economic crises that are bound to happen, we need to think there is a bigger picture than the nation-state. We need to stop thinking in terms of "us" and "them" on a national basis. If not, a political crisis or economic crisis could make the national hatreds resurface, and pit us against each other.

I'm not saying it'll happen in the near future. I'm saying that, if we don't see beyond our national interests, we won't root out the potential causes for an intra-European war, whether it occurs in 2050 or in 3600.
You may think that making projects "forever" is the most absurd pipe dream you've ever heard. However, talking about millenia, what was the last time Athens and Sparta went to war with each other? Do you think they'll go at war against each other at any time in the future?


As to the Albania argument. Sandman didn't shred it either. He said that Britain isn't Albania. Indeed. In Britain, you don't have a nearly tribal structure where you only trust your family members and the inhabitants of your village. You don't naturally expect someone from another district to try to **** you over (at least, not on the grounds of his location). You are above such petty parochialism. That's because you're British, and you can relate to other Britons.

Europe implies a change of scale. The "small" unit to which you felt loyalty, in the past, was the village, the city, or the province. That's because the "big" unit progressively became the small kingdom, big kingdom, or even the nation state.
Now, the "big" unit realistically is Europe, and maybe in the far future, the "big" unit will realistically be the world. When Europe is the "big" unit, the nation state is the "small" one. To think in terms of solely the interests of your country, when you're a member of the EU, is just as petty as merely thinking about your village when you're in a country. This is parochialism at another scale. And we can see that the societies that didn't go above their parochialism in the past (like Albania) are very unsuccessful.

It is realistic to expect that it will take time for Europeans to think more in terms of european interest rather than national interest. In history, it took a long time for people to have a national perspective instead of a local perspective. However, I don't see how you can construe the new "parochialism" (by my words) as something positive. Your following paragraph says that the aim of a European identity is impossible, but you don't explain what is so bad about it.

the wider point about identities, people's national identities have had years, usually centuries to develop, and have solid foundations. people have a shared history

I don't see how the European history is any less common than any national history. Used to bitter infighting? Check. Horrible abuses done by the victors over the losers? Check. Kings who exploited their population without remorse? Check (well, maybe not in Switzerland).
Do you Britons really have a common history btw? If you look at Scotland's history, will you read the same story as if you look at Anglia's history? I don't think so. (this observation is valid for every country).

ethnicity, language, culture, and often religion as well. there are countries that don't conform to this, but they are exceptions that prove the rule, and in each have their own real foundations.

What is the real foundation of Canada? I would find the "real foundation" of Europe (no more war!) more compelling than Canada's IMO.

this is why there isn't and can't be a 'european' identity, there's no real foundation to build it on, some woolly idea about 'belonging to something bigger' just isn't good enough.

That would be true, if we were trying to create a European nation, which would be culturally and ethnically tight-knit. However, it's not what the integrationists want. And nobody finds the concept realistic anyway.

The population that underlies a political system can indeed be a "nation", but it can also be what political scientists call a "demos". A "demos" is not ethincally or culturally tight-knit, but is willing to build something together, because it shares common values, or because it thinks it will build something better together than separately. When you look at the figures about a political Europe, there are 58% of the Europeans who favour the idea, and 28% against (34% for, 50% against in Britain), source page 122.
54% of the Europeans also think that their membership in the EU is a good thing, vs. 15% that think it is a bad thing (in Britain: 36% and 27% respectively).

I think the "Demos" is here.


Aside note, about my posts in this thread: I've often singled out Britain statistically. The main reason for that is to put things into perspective. The impression that you can get in Britain about the EU is very, very different from what you could get in other countries. The reason I so often insist about British statistics is to show you that Britain is really a specific beast, clearly the most Eurosceptic country in the Union. And that you shouldn't project the British perceptions of the EU to other countries.

[Sandman]

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

They were scientists, not politicians. It's quite different.

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.

I think that such forced protectionism in order to preserve the pure waste of ag subs would be economically disastrous. However, it's a discussion for another thread.

Funny, France has agreed to the same international treaties.

You know as well as I do that France had an easy ride with Kyoto because of its pro-nuclear policies.

Loyalty:

Let's break my objection into two parts; political and moral.

I already said that I'd support European nationalism in the context of serious military threat, just like I'd support nasty things like conscription, censorship and ID cards. However, no such threat exists. You say I haven't provided any arguments - I think that you should provide arguments yourself, beyond vague notions of oil-less or waterless futures. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on you.

Now, you talk extensively about the EU's good work, preventing war, promoting diplomacy and so on. Do you honestly think that an EU that has banished the UK because of a lack of loyalty will have a good influence on the world? Quite apart from losing an important member, it will send a terrible message out the world; The EU does not tolerate dissent. Which brings me to my second, moral objection.

Your notion that the inhabitants of the UK are insufficiently loyal to stay in the EU is ethically reprehensible. People should be able to hold different views to the mainstream (within reason) and being indifferent to the EU is obviously a perfectly reasonable view to have. We're not talking some sort of fascist coup within the EU here.

Just listen to yourself, demanding the purging of the UK because 'they're not loyal enough'. I cannot accept that a modern political arrangement (which the EU is) should be guided and governed with reference to who is 'loyal' and who isn't.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights could be used to support both our views, however, nowhere in the document is the word 'loyalty' to be found.

(and definitely not "shredded")

You misunderstand what I mean by 'shredded'. You write very, very long Whaleboyish replies which I can't be bothered to answer, so I just try and distill the core of what you're saying.