SPD sellout complete: Merkel becomes chancellor

[C0ckney]

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?

spiff, we can't look far into the future and predict what is going to happen. maybe there will be a great european war in 500 years time or whatever, anything could happen, but it's all pie in the sky, not worth talking about. the only thing worth discussing is what is going to happen in the foreseeable future, things which we can predict or make educated guesses at. war in europe (within the EU) in inconceivable and there is NOTHING at all to suggest even the slightest chance of it happening, therefore it can be safely dismissed for the purposes of serious discussion.

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 could be a whole thread in itself but briefly, canada's fate was firmly attached to that of britain's, up until the end of world war two. for a more specific analysis you'd have to ask a canadian, but the firm foundation is there.

more generally you can't surgically separate the components of an identify and look at them in isolation, history, culture etc. all come together to form the identity that people feel attached to. these identities take time to form, but the foundations must be present for them to do so, and with 'europe', these simply do not exist. nor can a 'greater' identity be created and imposed over national ones, there are examples in history of this being tried and failing miserbaly, the best and most recent being yugoslavia. here you had the leaders of that country trying to create a 'yugoslav' identity to supersede croats, serbs, bosnians etc. but people never forgot their identities, created and fostered over time by shared history, ethnicity, culture, language and religion, and this proved fatal to the new 'higher' identity. the point for the EU here is that a 'european' identity would lack any foundation, people wouldn't feel attachment or loyalty to the idea, it would be a wholly artificial construction. your idea of a 'demos' is frankly very weak, europeans do share some ideals, things like freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, but we have these already at a national level. further we share our values with most of the western world, but this is not a reason to suggest a union with america or new zealand.

it's undesirable as well as being impossible. look at countries who have more than one strong identity, look at belguim, look at canada, look at the lengths they have to go to keep their countries running smoothly. then consider how many different identities we have within the EU, would european children have to learn twenty odd languages at school? or shops have signs in every tongue? and that's the very thin end of the wedge. it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see a vast amount of practical difficulties with keeping the whole thing afloat, it simply wouldn't be worth it.

ozzy made a very good point earlier in thread. i daresay most people wouldn’t mind a united europe if it was run according to their ideals and beliefs, but not one run by that bloody idiot next door! saying that people support a ‘political’ europe is one thing, but the devil is in the detail.

[C0ckney]

sandman

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
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.

This is why I don't think it is wise to expel the UK altogether (not that it is possible either). I can sometimes say it when I'm especially pissed at what the UK is doing to Europe, but when I do, it's because of anger.

However, this is why I support a two-tier Europe, and this is also why I support the right to secede. The British do not want to be dragged along in a political Union. Yet, most Europeans want a political Union. Do the other Europeans have to wait for the British to stop their tantrum before going further? Do the British have to sacrifice their dear sovereignity to a Europe they mostly dislike?

No. If we are to build something new, we need to build it with those who want to build something, and we shouldn't force those who refuse to build something. You're talking about fascism, but I think that holding the UK in a political union against its wishes is the closest thing to fascism we have pondered in this thread. Because it goes against the self determination of peoples.

I do not think that a two-tier Europe would be a catastrophic message. I do not think that making a political Union without the UK, for lack of support in the UK, would be a bad message. At the contrary: it would be a message that the EU respects the wishes of the people. That would be a great novelty in Europe, since it has always been built by the political leaders rather than by the people so far.

And it could prove that you can build something like the EU while heeding to the principles of democracy. If anything, I think that giving the possibility for the Brits to remove themselves from a political union -because the British do not want it- is a good way to make the whole thing much more democratically legitimate.

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.

At the contrary, I think it is much more important in a modern political arrangement than in an old-fashioned one. In old political arrangements, a country was made by military might. Loyalty was less of an issue, simply because the use of force was a fairly effective way to keep the empire together.

This model collapsed with the self determination of peoples. Austria-Hungary and the Soviet Union died thanks to this principle. Therefore, in order to build a political system, loyalty* to the system must exist in the population to begin with. Because we don't force them anymore. If the people don't feel anything for their political system, it certainly shows that the political system isn't fit for them.

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.

No problem It was in reply to C0ckney, who considered my arguments destroyed by yours. You are perfectly right to remain brief and to the point in your posts, otherwise this thread would look like a Berzerker thread


*I am under the impression that you load the word "loyalty" with fascistic undertones. Upon reading you, "loyalty" is just one step from nationalism and hatred of the other. This is definitely not true. Under the meaning of "loyalty" that I use (this is, the fact of feeling belonging to [political system]), pretty much everybody here has loyalty. Che is "loyal" to the US: the US is his country, he didn't give up on it. He wants the US to go in a better direction. Heck, even Kidicious is loyal to the US in the meaning I'm using.
Yet, Che and Kidicious aren't exactly fasists, are they? They aren't exactly extolling the merits of nationalism, are they? They won't defend the interests of their country no matter the situation, no matter the terrible consequences it can have on the others, eh?

An example of one who doesn't have any loyalty is Adagio: he hates it in Denmark, he wants to leave, but he doesn't really know where. He doesn't want to be a constructive force for Denmark, and if he had a choice, he would probably just leave on his own. If he does, more power to him

I can understand where the misunderstanding comes from . I've encountered the word "loyalty" (in English) in that meaning when looking for specialized books for my dissertation. Upon reading that book, the word "loyalty" (in English) lost its fascistic aspect for me.

[Provost Harrison]

Now you are just being utterly ridiculous Spiffor. Sometimes I am concerned whether your light-hearted ribbing of the British hints at something deeper

[DinoDoc]

He does view you as destructive scum.

[Provost Harrison]

Probably what Napoleon said as he fled Waterloo...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
war in europe (within the EU) in inconceivable and there is NOTHING at all to suggest even the slightest chance of it happening, therefore it can be safely dismissed for the purposes of serious discussion.

I'm sorry, it must be for living in a country where the far right gets 20%, but I can very well envision the rise to power of a demagogue who plays on the frustrations of the population, and who thinks that the best idea is simply to go take wealth where it is, i.e. in the neighbouring land who has stolen us for so long.

Maybe not in our generation, considering that we have grown up in a war-loathing society, but maybe in the next. The trauma of the world wars will only last so long.

more generally you can't surgically separate the components of an identify and look at them in isolation, history, culture etc. all come together to form the identity that people feel attached to. these identities take time to form, but the foundations must be present for them to do so, and with 'europe', these simply do not exist. nor can a 'greater' identity be created and imposed over national ones, there are examples in history of this being tried and failing miserbaly, the best and most recent being yugoslavia.

There is also an example of an amazing succes, and that is France (just look at how the French Basques behave in comparison to the Spanish ones). But I don't want to repeat the French cultural genocide in the EU, thanks.
Incidentally, the reason why the French cultural integration worked is not merely because of the cultural genocide (we weren't the only country to try that), but because the Republic also made a point at giving exactly the same chances in life to a Basque than to a Parisian. Now, this second part is something we could try to achieve in the EU.

here you had the leaders of that country trying to create a 'yugoslav' identity to supersede croats, serbs, bosnians etc. but people never forgot their identities, created and fostered over time by shared history, ethnicity, culture, language and religion, and this proved fatal to the new 'higher' identity.

What proved even more fatal is the rise of demagogues who claimed that "them" had ****ed "us" over. And who used weapons to make their point clear. Something that I definitely don't rule out if the EU is to continue for decades the way it is now.

the point for the EU here is that a 'european' identity would lack any foundation, people wouldn't feel attachment or loyalty to the idea, it would be a wholly artificial construction. your idea of a 'demos' is frankly very weak, europeans do share some ideals, things like freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, but we have these already at a national level. further we share our values with most of the western world, but this is not a reason to suggest a union with america or new zealand.

I'm honoured, but Demos is not my idea As to the union with extra-European western countries, I've heard about it several times actually. Quite a few Israelis would see themselves in the EU. Even quite a few Canadians could envision being in the EU.
And honestly, I think that if we ever have a free trade area between Europe and North America, most Brits will think the EU has no raison d'être anymore, because the glorious aim of the EU (a free trade area) will have transcended the borders of Europe.

it's undesirable as well as being impossible. look at countries who have more than one strong identity, look at belguim, look at canada, look at the lengths they have to go to keep their countries running smoothly.

What about India? They have several strong identities, they're more populated and less homogeneous than Europe. Yet, it seems to work fairly well.
As to the Canadians, as time goes by, they are having increasingly more identities, some of which are becoming "strong" identities as you put it. However, they seem to have developed a model that will make these identites non-threatening for the cohesion of their country. And Québec tendencially has less and less support for independance now.

then consider how many different identities we have within the EU, would european children have to learn twenty odd languages at school? or shops have signs in every tongue? and that's the very thin end of the wedge. it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see a vast amount of practical difficulties with keeping the whole thing afloat, it simply wouldn't be worth it.

There are 22 official languages in India. (specific to each State) and 2 official languages for the central administration. Somehow, it seems to be working, despite the fact that the Indians share neither their language, nor their history, nor their religion any more than Europeans do.

ozzy made a very good point earlier in thread. i daresay most people wouldn’t mind a united europe if it was run according to their ideals and beliefs, but not one run by that bloody idiot next door! saying that people support a ‘political’ europe is one thing, but the devil is in the detail.

This is a problem of the legitimacy of the system. Every system could theoretically collapse when the bloody idiot next door is running the show. The question is: what makes people accept that the one in power is the bloody idiot next door? Why aren't you planning a revolution when the country is going straight down the drain (accoridng to your perspective)?
Answer: that's because you accept that the holder of power is legitimate. If a despised leader just cancelled an election he'd lose in favour of your candidate, I bet you'd be rioting in the streets like many others. But if the despised candidate won fair and square, you moan, but you accept your defeat.
That's legitimacy. Legitimacy can have various sources depending on society (for example, the legitimacy of the king generally rests on tradition), but in today's world, the most frequent form of legitimacy is democracy. An a Europe-wide democracy could perfectly be possible, considering that the overwhelming majority of the population supports democracy on principle, and considering that our institutions are supposed to be committed to democracy.

I'm not saying that Europe is ready for a European democracy yet, but it's a worthy aim to achieve.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Now you are just being utterly ridiculous Spiffor.

Where exactly?
I've quoted plenty of figures that show that the Brits mostly reject the EU, and overwhelmingly reject a political union. What is so bad about making a two-tier Europe where the Brits aren't forced to go to further integration, and where the more integrative countries aren't forced to wait for the Brits?

Sometimes I am concerned whether your light-hearted ribbing of the British hints at something deeper

Europe is the only topic on which my Rosbif bashing is serious

Europe is my passion. It's my dream. And I consider that the British vision of Europe, for the overwhelming majority of the Brits, is the destruction of that dream. Even among the Brits who say they support Europe (though not all of them: you and El Freako don't belong to them, for instance, and I think Duke of York doesn't either), that support is about a free trade Europe and little else. In my view, it means their vision for Europe is just nothingness.


For all other topics, my Rosbif-bashing comes from ym love of stupid traditions, and of doing what's expected of me I am French, and it is my god-given duty to bash the Rosbifs dammit! (and to take the frog-bashing the Brits generously shell out )

[Provost Harrison]

Remember though, don't blow certain disagreements out of proportion. My country and your country have had political disagreements but they have mostly being in the context of self-interest (especially over rebates and agricultural subsidies). Personally I am sick of my government's constant procrastination on the issues.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Remember though, don't blow certain disagreements out of proportion. My country and your country have had political disagreements but they have mostly being in the context of self-interest (especially over rebates and agricultural subsidies). Personally I am sick of my government's constant procrastination on the issues.

Yes, same here. Chirac's clientelism with the CAP undermines Europe for plenty of reasons. And his complete lack of vision besides creating a "bloc Europe" (that is definitely untimely) has considerably contributing to stalling Europe. Now that Germany will dangle for 4 years doing nothing, Europe is pretty much doomed to stall for some time, unless the countries that have discovered the ambition to steer it (Italy, Spain, Poland) decide to give it a new breath.

I'd welcome it, as Europe would stop being dependent on French-German initiatives to go further When you consider the average age of the French president (the one in charge of all things "vision" in France), and when you consider the malaise in Germany, that would be a good news

[Provost Harrison]

It is going to be a slow time over the next years. And god help us if the Tories get back into power...I think we have come too far to let it fall apart. Unfortunately the EU has been the butt of a lot of jokes here (the straight bananas being one) and has tarnished their image, despite the huge amounts of good stuff they do (I know for a fact they put more money into my home city than the central government ever did). I have never understood the resentment...

[Spiffor]

I have never understood the resentment...

Well, the good news is that the hostility to the EU seems much much more important among the old than among the young. So hopefully, it will go the way of the dodo