Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Well, if were going to be perfectly accurate, no. Empires have ruled Europe for Millenia. Rome, Mongols, German, French, Holy Roman, Russian, Austrian, British, Viking, Ottoman, Macedonian.

Hell, Polands been partioned multiple times, and Germany wasn't unified till Bismark. The tide of nationalism changed things, but remember for a while peasants didn't care. Just a different person to pay taxes too.

[Thecard]

Well, if were going to be perfectly accurate, no. Empires have ruled Europe for Millenia. Rome, Mongols, German, French, Holy Roman, Russian, Austrian, British, Viking, Ottoman, Macedonian.

Hell, Polands been partioned multiple times, and Germany wasn't unified till Bismark. The tide of nationalism changed things, but remember for a while peasants didn't care. Just a different person to pay taxes too.

They aren't peasants right now, and they didn't matter, to be frank.  And no empire ruled all of Europe.  Ever.  Even the Romans couldn't get northern Britain.  And after that, the whole dark ages thing wiped out any unification besides the church.  Not that the Romans were all that unified.

[Helgoland]

Huh, this is more euro-sceptical than I would have expected. And most of that scepticism seems to come from us Europeans as well - say, is Scriver a troll or just very passionate? (No offense - it's a serious question.)

Of course we have the different cultures and languages and legal and political traditions, and that will hopefully not change anytime soon - but the trouble currently is that there is no central power that can impose serious sanctions. Most of the current troubles come from just that: Someone not doing what they should - and not being stopped.
England will not be England without the queen? Let them have their queen! France will not be France without dirigist economical policies? Let them do that all they want? Greece would not be Greece without massive deficit spending, ruinous amounts of corruption and inefficience and the everlooming threat of needing large amounts of assistance? Stop them right there - they cannot do stuff that would hurt the others. We need subsidiarity: The central government does all that is done better by the central power than by the states. That means we keep national educational systems, national parliaments, national culture - but we get a twelve-star regulatory body for the finance sector, a twelve-star foreign policy and twelve-star foreign aid programs; a twelve-star army and a twelve-star parliament; and one twelve-star flag, as a reminder that Einstein was wrong and human stupidity is, in fact, not infinite.

Also, to anyone who thinks that it's for all times impossible, watch this video of ten thousand Japanese singing Beethoven's 9th, part of which is the European anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paH0V6JLxSI
And keep in mind that this is halfway across the globe!

[Lagslayer]

Posting to watch.

[misko27]

Well, if were going to be perfectly accurate, no. Empires have ruled Europe for Millenia. Rome, Mongols, German, French, Holy Roman, Russian, Austrian, British, Viking, Ottoman, Macedonian.

Hell, Polands been partioned multiple times, and Germany wasn't unified till Bismark. The tide of nationalism changed things, but remember for a while peasants didn't care. Just a different person to pay taxes too.

They aren't peasants right now, and they didn't matter, to be frank.  And no empire ruled all of Europe.  Ever.  Even the Romans couldn't get northern Britain.  And after that, the whole dark ages thing wiped out any unification besides the church.  Not that the Romans were all that unified.

My point is they haven't been natijn-states since the dawn of man, festering with nationalistic pride/rage. It's a relatively new concept.

Now, having said that, it will never happen. Same thing as if you started redrawing of US State lines.

Massive Political Flame War.

[scriver]

Still no answer to why we should want a "European" identity. No reason why we should want to be in a USE.

For one, it would leave Europe in a much more powerful state. You'd have more influence on world politics because you'd be more than a confederation.

And why would we want that? Especially when it meaner we'd loose all power at home.


[/quote] I'm not exactly sure what it is you want politically, but the EU being more integrated would give you the chance to spread it farther. [/quote]

No. A USE would mean getting neoliberalism and racism crammed down our throats from the south. The idea that Britain, France, Germany, or hell, anyone would give a damn about what tiny little Sweden thinks, and a Swede even more, is completely unrealistic. It doesn't exist on this earth.

 

Really, I see absolutely no reason why we should surrender our freedom to a bunch of liberal arseholes who is hellbent on only serving themselves.

.....What definition of liberal are you operating under here?

We're talking about Europe, so of course I'm using the European definition.

The younger generations, those who are too young to remember the Iron Curtain, those tend to oppose the EU. Not a value judgement, just an observation.

This is wrong. The opposition isn't just among the youngest generation. Your professor was probably a unionist schweinhund. Seeming as Germany is one of those countries who don't give a damn about the laws except when it benefits them, it wouldn't surprise me if he has a fundamentally skewed view of how the EU works because of that.

Whoa, dude....dial back on the fury. Actually, he was pessimistic that it would ever work long-term and found it "cute" that Americans were so optimistic about the EU. Though he tried his best to keep his attitudes out of the instruction (his personal views were obtained over pints of beer at the bar across the street after class).

I'm personally in favor of greater European integration, but that's easy for me to do as a non-resident. I figure it'll help counterbalance the US when we're at our dumbest, and help the US when the chips are really down. Certainly in the 1990's, there was enthusiasm in the US for the European Union because it saves us time and money for Europe to be able to deal with shit on their turf rather than us doing it (plus, many Americans secretly wished for less geography to have to learn...)

You might as well favour greater American integration into China or Russia.

Por quoi? I could see the analogy if you had said North American Union (which I wouldn't be that opposed to), but forming a trans-continental integration doesn't make sense. Integrating a number of smaller polities on the same landmass (ok, Scandinavia and the UK can argue they're not on the same landmass) does make sense, at least to me.

I realize that the EU elicits strong opinions, but dang...

Yeah, I'm sorry, that was a bit strong. As for you thinking the comparison doesn't fit, then imagine instead all of your US "integrating" under Texas. Great, huh?

Huh, this is more euro-sceptical than I would have expected. And most of that scepticism seems to come from us Europeans as well - say, is Scriver a troll or just very passionate? (No offense - it's a serious question.)

Of course we have the different cultures and languages and legal and political traditions, and that will hopefully not change anytime soon - but the trouble currently is that there is no central power that can impose serious sanctions. Most of the current troubles come from just that: Someone not doing what they should - and not being stopped.
England will not be England without the queen? Let them have their queen! France will not be France without dirigist economical policies? Let them do that all they want? Greece would not be Greece without massive deficit spending, ruinous amounts of corruption and inefficience and the everlooming threat of needing large amounts of assistance? Stop them right there - they cannot do stuff that would hurt the others. We need subsidiarity: The central government does all that is done better by the central power than by the states. That means we keep national educational systems, national parliaments, national culture - but we get a twelve-star regulatory body for the finance sector, a twelve-star foreign policy and twelve-star foreign aid programs; a twelve-star army and a twelve-star parliament; and one twelve-star flag, as a reminder that Einstein was wrong and human stupidity is, in fact, not infinite.

Also, to anyone who thinks that it's for all times impossible, watch this video of ten thousand Japanese singing Beethoven's 9th, part of which is the European anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paH0V6JLxSI
And keep in mind that thiis is halfway across the globe!

Just passionate. I have that signature for a reason, you know. And no, you can't have a government above the state governments and still pretend the state governments have power. Especially if the super-government control the economy. That means they automatically controls all other policies as well. And seriously, army? What about those countries who doesn't want one, or who believes in neutrality?

Oh, and seriously, those Japanese people singing a song which happens to be the "European anthem" (who the hell decided that, anyway?) is supposed toe prove what, exactly? Nothing. It means nothing.

[Thecard]

Yeah, I sing the Canadian anthem all the time, doesn't mean I'm Canadian.

Does it?  I don't know how you guys work up north.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. A USE would mean getting neoliberalism and racism crammed down our throats from the south. The idea that Britain, France, Germany, or hell, anyone would give a damn about what tiny little Sweden thinks, and a Swede even more, is completely unrealistic. It doesn't exist on this earth.

You've got some serious issues, scriver.

We're talking about Europe, so of course I'm using the European definition.

Let me rephrase that: Not being engrossed in European or Swedish politics, I'm going to need you to explain a little more in depth what you see as liberals and why you think they want to destroy your freedom.

[Thecard]

We're talking about Europe, so of course I'm using the European definition.

Let me rephrase that: Not being engrossed in European or Swedish politics, I'm going to need you to explain a little more in depth what you see as liberals and why you think they want to destroy your freedom.

Yeah, I don't know what a European liberal is either.  But try to say it as nicely as possible.

[Helgoland]

Oh, and seriously, those Japanese people singing a song which happens to be the "European anthem" (who the hell decided that, anyway?) is supposed toe prove what, exactly? Nothing. It means nothing.

Why the quotation marks? IT is the anthem, after all - just without the words. And it wasn't meant to prove anything: It was meant to show that there is something greater than national identity, something that is present in every human on the planet. That goes for every last one of ya, regardless of your race, color, or your creed. (Attention, OOC quote! )
And that, I guess, is what being a European liberal is about; just think Karl Popper, the liberal razorblade. Although a European liberal in the Scrivean sense may be something altogether different

I'm german, I should mention, and I live in the west of the country. I'm a great fan of the west and the north of Germany! And I loathe the bavarians (except for the ones I have met ) with every fiber of my being - does that mean I want them out of Germany? A "Kleinstdeutsche Lösung"?

Of course it doesn't. And I do support policies that would no be beneficial for my specific region; I support mostly policies that are beneficial for all who live here. How is that different from the European level? Being German, or Swedish, or Polish, or Greek does not mean bleeding the other countries for the sake of one's own - it means finding out what's best for all, while having a special affection for one's own country or people.

Just two more quick points, about the freedom and the neoliberalism things:
1) How would the EU take away freedom from you? Freedom - at least in the usual sense - refers to individual freedom; there is and can be no such thing as collective freedom. "A free people" usually meant "a people free from exploitation" in the past, and that meant "politically sovereign" as well back then. But who would honestly want to argue that the Northern countries will be exploited in the Union?
(Apparently nowadays everyone in the EU complains about oppression - except for those who are doing well economically; they commplain about having to pay )

2) Neoliberalism - I admit that there has been a lot of deregulation in the past. But deregulation and the EU are not causally related! When - if - we get a Union, we will finally have a representative democracy in Brussels (or somewhere else; a shift in location would make for a good change of image I guess), and be able to decide for ourselves what economic policies we will enact.

That being said, does anyone have an opinion about what a more perfect union would look like politically, once Europe gets its act together?

EDIT: I second what Oliolli said below.

[Oliolli]

We do not grow up thinking of ourselves as Europoean citizens. Your identity is that of your nation state, which is very different I gather from the US. A Texan is an American. A Californian is an American. A German is a Geman first (insert country of your choice), and European second, if at all.

I think of myself as European first and Finnish second...

I really have to modify my sigflags.

[scriver]

We're talking about Europe, so of course I'm using the European definition.

Let me rephrase that: Not being engrossed in European or Swedish politics, I'm going to need you to explain a little more in depth what you see as liberals and why you think they want to destroy your freedom.

Yeah, I don't know what a European liberal is either.  But try to say it as nicely as possible.

Since it's late and I quoting is such a hassle on the phone, I'll stick to the first quote from Wikipedia. It explains it adequately:

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."

"European" liberalism is is rightwing. Neo-liberalism is just libertarianism without the focus on private isolation.

@Helgoland: Don't talk to me as I think national identity is the most beautiful thing on earth - especially when all you're talking about is creating a European nation (because Pan-nationalism has worked out so well in the past >_>). I'm a progressive socialist. I believe in solidarity above and beyond all borders. That is jot what the EU stands for, no matter what they say. That's not what is on their agenda; money is. And I sure as hell don't want to see those people have power over my people and tear down everything people fought and died to build here. The only way I could see a European Nation was if the rest of Europe took after us northerners, but that's never going to happen. No money in solidarity.

As for liberalism being about freedom, yeah right, freedom for the rich. The freedom to oppress, to abuse, to treat yourself above others. We already had one 18th and 19th century, we don't need another. We already learnt that the only way to ensure freedom, ironically enough, is to have a government enforce it.

[Thecard]

Y'know, it's funny that you remind me of people who live here in Virginia, though you live in Europe.  Just goes to show that there are many schools of thought that you can find anywhere in the world.

[Starver]

Scratch this for the moment, it posted while I was editing, browser responding to control-keys strangely...  Will repost the full thing shortly. in a new post.

[Helgoland]

progressive socialist

socialist

I hate to sound like a Republican, but... if you're using that word in the Old World sense, it explains quite a lot. Don't take this the wrong way - I by no means want to insult you, but you seem awfully convinced that there's no way in hell that anything more powerful than the current administrative body (does that count as status quo bias?) could possibly be up to anything good.

I believe in solidarity above and beyond all borders.

May I suggest the term "grassroots socialism" for your political opinion? Just trying to find a good label, and you seem to have a bit of an anarchist (in the literal sense, i.e. rejecting state authority) element in your thought.

After having thought about this, I guess that we agree on the basic points - that there should be no overly great interference of government in people's lives; that we need government to protect our freedom; that this government needs to be controlled by the people. Let me ask you: Do you believe that in principle a state of about a billion people can be a state that is in this sense 'good'? And if yes: What should that state look like?

(I realise that there's a lot that's wrong with the current form of the EU; the subventions, red tape and lack of democratic control are the obvious examples. I was kinda hoping that people would come up with ideas how to improve it here )

(Also, scriver: You're dead wrong with your definition of liberalism - what you call 'liberalism' is, in fact, extreme laissez-faire; market fundamentalism and the abdomination that dares call itself neoliberalism come closer to what you mean. True liberalism means basically means 'My right ends where your right starts'; for further information consult your local wikipedia or ask your doctor or physician. )

Dammit, ninja'd - off to read that stuff, then.