|
| Thread: The Euro-American War |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted May 07, 2004 02:07 AM |
|
|
The Euro-American War
Yesterday (in fact 6 days ago), 1st of March, the European Union accepted 10 new member states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia, Chec Republic, Malta, Hungary, Cyprus [only the Greek part]). With this act, the EU dared to cross the Iron Curtain and it’s on her way of uniting the entire continent in a powerful economic and political global force. (The Balkan will enter last, if at all.)
While there’s still a wide economical disparity between the old and new member states, this is certainly an important political event, which quite possibly will mark a new era in world’s global politics.
Along these lines go the negotiations for the first European Constitution. Although there are some difficulties in its draft, this is indeed a step which will put the countries members of EU in a new legislative frame. The EU, each year gains yet more and more characteristics of a state, rather than an organization.
Looking from the present moment, EU is clearly far from the federation state, such as the USA is. And it’s questionable whether this will happen in the future at all.
However, what do you think are the prospects of the EU? Is it headed to be a powerful actor on the scene of international policy, or does it lack the unifying force of culture in order to bring decisions in the name of all member states, that eventually leading to falling apart? Even more, can we talk about a European culture in general given the various different peoples living in the EU?
If you think that the European countries will get over their bad attitudes and quarrels with one another, and succeed in forging one state to represent them all in the future multipolar world (the other poles of global power being China, India, Japan, even Russia), do you think it will be a major rival of the US or a trustworthy partner? Is it possible that history has another Cold War (Euro-American this time) in store for us?
There are already signs of the emerging rivalry between EU and USA. Take the issue about the International Criminal Court, or that about the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Even the War in Iraq, although there seems to be a division between Euros themselves, but it’s possible that in the future a common stance on similar problems, might be achieved, given the general political climate in Europe (Britain aside. I’m not even sure that British want to be in EU).
The question for the Americans would be: Do you fear the growing power of the EU, or do you see it as a partner? Do you think that there are chances of a rivalry of the ranks of the Russian-American one during the Cold War, taking place in the near or distant future and why or why not?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted May 07, 2004 02:15 AM |
|
|
Coz I know what you're gonna say...
I guess I'm lucky to write my posts in Word and not directly here. You never know when they might need you. Such as now. Here's the one I had as a response to your discussion.
OK everybody. Leave Dr Pepper alone for now. All I can say so far is that you barely even touched the crucial topic here. But let me kick your asses one by one. 
Privatehudson,
Looks like my assumption about Britain not so fond of EU was right. Yeah, you do say “EU is such a good concept”, but you sound far too skeptical compared to those dudes in the EU Parlament or most European experts and politicians (all except British). I know there are currently far too little elements for the EU to be called a state, but I’m positive that all steps taken so far are not in the wrong direction. It’s just that there’s much job to be done left. It is also another issue whether you want Europe to function like state in the near or distant future, or would you rather it to have only economic issues to deal with and leave each European nation the soverignity to make its own decisions about political matters.
Could you explain further on “the CAP (what exactly you don’t like about it? We should be the ones complaining, you know), the Fisheries system (Look@ us. We have no see.)”? Also, what is that about “lack of proper democracy”? There is a democratically functioning body in EU – the European Parlament. And you can’t expect one European government to immediately replace the national governments. It’s supposed to be a slow and stable process.
Another thing that caught my eye, is that you seem insecure whether the EU should accept new member states. Am I correct? And what is it with injustice and inequality? You mean between different countries, or in the newly accepted ones?
Do you really can’t see the benefits of a united Europe? Well, how could you after all. You are, just as you said (and George Michael in his awesome video) – an American poodle. Somehow, it seems to me that Britain doesn’t organically belong in EU. But hey, if Eastern European countries can adapt, why can’t you? All you need is a little more optimism and less American dependence.
Consis,
Quote:
I believe that's all the EU is at current. A bunch of politicians that saw an opportunity in the unification of European currency. Basically, I think a bunch of European bankers started thinking 'outside the box'. They will soon learn, as we Americans have in the past, that it takes more than a group of ambitious bankers to create an economically stable alliance.
you don’t know much about the European idea, do you? It has been around since the 14th century, with thinkers such as Voltaire and Descartes promoting the concept of unified Europe. It’s not just a “monetary and bankers Union”. It is an economic powerhouse, with certain possibilities to develop into an important political and military actor in international scales. Even more, it unites people culturally and if that idea comes true, I think it’s closest to the ideal we all share about a world without borders where cultures coexist and cooperate together.
If you’re talking about the American-British alliance, it’s miniscule compared to the things European countries have in common. There is the European string necessary to bind them in one wholeness, be it a state or not. Time will tell.
Quote:
I'm simply saying that when push comes to shove, my country cannot hope to win a military engagement overseas, like the ones we face today, without Brittish support.
That is so not true. No offence PH, but British participation in US military interventions is barely a symbolical one. The political support is what matters. (I don’t mean symbolic in numbers, but the Americans would succeed 100% even without anyone’s military support) Unless you need British about reading maps. (good one, PH)
Wolfman,
Quote:
It took the US almost 200 years to make it to Superpowerdom.
Again, this comparison is so inappropriate. There’s huge difference between USA and EU (look at the pic up there if you don’t believe ). It’s not just about asses and thongs, there’s the issue of the population compositions and separate countries getting together through cooperation. The US, although a federation, is an organic completeness.
And just for the record, EU doesn’t need 200 years to make it to “Superpowerdom”. At the present, it’s the biggest economic power in the world. The biggest one currency market. It can take only several years for those countries to unite politically and when that happens, EU will be even more powerful than the US in political terms (or at least behind its heels).
Bjorn and celfious,
Peace is fine. We all want peace. But, this is not ideal world. It is certain as it is that the sun will rise tomorrow, that there’s no chance the world will live peacefully until at least 100 years. During that time, many countries will rise and many will fall. One that might come to prominence is the EU. The question I raised was not about war between Europe and America (it’s just a marketing trick to attract customers), but whether you think EU will “remain” (because remaining implies a present state of partnership, I’m not sure if I’m 100% correct here) to be a partner to the US, or will they become rivals. And whether Americans look with fear on the process of EU strengthening or are they supportive towards it. But be honest.
Wow, done kicking asses. How do ya all feel?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 07, 2004 02:49 AM |
|
|
Humble Request: Please Repost If Available
I know that Svarog had saved some of his posts from other threads. I am hoping that the others who were posting and debating in this thread saved theirs as well. This was one of the most interesting threads I have had the pleasure to read since I have been a member. Very insightful and thought-provoking posting.
Thanks for your wonderful posts in this topic! You guys rock!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 07, 2004 08:54 AM |
|
|
Well...
 Something about George Michael. I think he's gay...maybe.
I like Brittish people.
Europe = greedy bankers and politicians.
We all caught up? Good.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted May 07, 2004 01:48 PM |
|
|
I didn't save mine no, and I'm not that sure I can be bothered retyping it. To summarise I said that Savrog was jumping to conclusions about my/my countries attitude to Europe and I also pointed out some of the specific problems I had with it, whilst still saying that if they could iron those problems out first I would be happy to be part of the process.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 02:29 PM |
|
|
PH, what conclusions did I bring about your country's stance towards EU? A fact is that Britain is by far the most skeptical of all EU members (both politicians and public sentiment). I just asked you to tell what problems you see, EU's prospects about the future and its future relation with USA? I asked about your opinion, and that of all those other people who think that this is an important issue to be discussed. Don't be so negative.
I have all of your posts in this thread saved on hard drive. I'll post them later coz I'm not home at the moment (I'm on some session about USA and we have FREE internet). But will leave out the part about Dr Pepper though.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 04:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PH, what conclusions did I bring about your country's stance towards EU? A fact is that Britain is by far the most skeptical of all EU members (both politicians and public sentiment).
Your entire tone in the (current) second post rather smacks of assumption and/or twisting what I said into proving what you wanted to about what Britain is, to you just an "anti-european american dependant poodle". Given that my first post was in fact in favour of european integration it seems hard to work out how you came to this conclusion. Unless you were talking about the country as a whole, but you fail to seperate clearly personal comments in you second post from general comments about the country.
And again, assumption breeds ignorance. A number of other countries in the EU have rejected the Euro, a number of others outside of the EU/Euro have anti-european governments or parties who enjoy support. No-one suggests for example that Sweeden do not belong in Europe or the EU if they wished to be. Yet the UK is singled out as the anti-european capital of the world. IMO the UK is not anti-european, nor in particular are it's mainstream politicians. What we have done in the past has been to argue against various parts of the EU that are wrong and need reform, or legislation that is bad. That doesn't count to me as anti-european, it counts to me as sensible. Arguing against the Franco-German block doesn't make you anti-european. You also assumed that I was against other nations joining, why I cannot work out how you thought that. Unless again you failed to be clear about whether you meant me or my country.
The fact is right now we have a prime minister in power with a considerable majority who has long made it absolutely clear that he is in favour of the EU and the euro and is now doing what he can to be in favour of this constitution. It is true that a good proportion of the people here through bad press are anti-EU, but mostly IMO because of the lack of information on it. Ignorance again, something I dislike intensely. Blind optimism will not make a unfied europe work. "having a little faith" is not all there is to bringing the countries together. It is the duty of the member states to speak out when they see problems and corruption. If you wish to call that skeptical, then feel free.
Quote:
just asked you to tell what problems you see, EU's prospects about the future and its future relation with USA? I asked about your opinion, and that of all those other people who think that this is an important issue to be discussed. Don't be so negative
Which I gave. Which you used to jump to conclusions about me or my country. As I pointed out in the post that has since disappeared, I am in favour of the EU further integrating. I am NOT in favour of integration going ahead at the moment on the simple basis that the EU is sorely in need of reform, the new member states need to be brought to some economic level closer to the existing states and that people who are against europe in some countries will need these things to happen first. If those things do not happen, this IMO will lead to the integration happening then falling apart when countries fail to prosper from it and corruption does not cease or be acted on.
You had turned my posts into "don't be so negative and stop relying on the US". Hence why I am correcting you. I'm not being negative here either, I'm sick of being misinterpreted, so I'm clarifying things. I'm quite pro-european, but I'm not in favour of the EU stumbling along forever without ironing out the many issues it has. Nor am I in favour of optimism getting us through these things, they won't.
And if you don't mind I would prefer you to send me the post you have that I made so I can post it.  I'll send you an e-mail address for that use through IM.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 03:36 AM |
|
|
I wrote at least 1 more reply btw... dunno if you have that. It clarified my position as I stated in the more recent posts.
Anti-European? Only because you want them to be I guess...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 03:39 AM |
|
|
Too bad that pic is gone....that one explained quiet well the difference
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 03:40 AM |
|
|
Check This Out
I found the following info about foreign economies and their respective Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on an Australian Politics website. It is a quite informative site, here is the URL if you would like to peruse it: http://www.australianpolitics.com/foreign/trade/03-01-07_largest-economies.shtml
Largest World Economiesas of Jan 7, 2003
No. / Country / GDP $US billions
1 . USA ............ 10,208
2 . Japan ........... 4,149
3 . Germany ......... 1,847
4 . United Kingdom .. 1,424
5 . France .......... 1,307
6 . China (exc.HK) .. 1,159
7 . Italy ........... 1,089
8 . Canada ............ 700
9 . Mexico ............ 618
10. Spain ............. 582
11. Brazil ............ 504
12. India ............. 481
13. Korea ............. 422
14. Netherlands ....... 380
15. Australia ......... 357
16. Russian Federation. 310
17. Taiwan ............ 282
18. Argentina ......... 269
19. Switzerland ....... 247
20. Belgium ........... 227
Definition of Gross Domestic Product (GDP):
The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.
GDP = total spending (consumer, invest, gov) + exports - imports
Now, what does all this mean? Well, if I combined my limited knowledge of economics with basic mathematical concepts, it looks to me as if the European Union will have to recruit a few more members in order to match the United States GDP (see below):
United States = $10,208 billion
Germany, UK, France, Italy , Spain, Netherlands, Belgium = $6,954 billion
(1,847 + 1,424 + 1,307 + 1,089 + 582 + 380 + 227 = 6,856)
Perhaps if you added in the GDP of the remaining EU States that did not make the Top 20, and then include a hypothetical EU embargo or boycott on US imports, then perhaps the EU would rival the US economically.
Until that time, I would like to ask that all you slim, trim, hard-working Europeans please continue to consume McDonalds and drink Coca Cola, while looking forward to the day when a Wal-Mart comes to your little corner of the world. 
Love, Peace, and Happiness!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 03:47 AM |
|
|
Stupid Americans...
Yeah, check out that math, y'all. Stupid American!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 03:48 AM |
|
|
And what was this about? Are you saying that USA is better becouse its ritcher?
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 09, 2004 03:53 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 9 May 2004
|
What day is 2day?
OK, lads, what I promised. Since I didn’t see PH repost his, I dared to include his letters also. An authoritative warning expected pretty soon… 
As I said, no Dr Pepper!
Plus we’ve got that insightful pic back now. (thongs are so insightful ) I missed it so much.
Happy Day of Europe. (It’s today!!!)
PRIVATEHUDSON:
Hmm, Britain might not want to be in the EU huh? Well....
The biggest problem with the Brits and the EU at the moment is a terrible lack of unbiased information on it. In a short length of time we will vote on the EU constitution, when the overwhelming majority of people in this country don't know anything whatsoever about it! Given that the Labour party will put out information only in favour of it, and that the opposition tories will only put out information against it, it becomes insanely difficult to get the "truth" about what we vote on.
I actually don't mind the EU as a concept myself, but however, the way it has been and continues to be run is bordering on farcical at times. The CAP, the Fisheries system, the woefull lack of proper democracy and the abysmal internal accountability of the EU are all things against it. I personally take the view though that we should not just sit and complain about it, but rather change it where we can, however, IMO, the early lack of involvement (partly thanks to De Gaulle's hatred of the British, partly thanks to British isolationism) from the UK has doomed us to watch the Franco-Germans dominating the scene. To me there are too many things wrong with the EU right now to decide to further integrate the countries in the future. These problems must be addressed, as a system like the EU trying to unite countries were vast inequality and injustice still exists will be doomed to fail. Countries will only involve themselves in any united europe if they can see a benefit, right now, to many countries, and many people in my country there is little benefit.
There are some in the UK who wish to pull out of Europe, they mainly see the bad elements of the EU (and there are many to be fair) whether those elements be justified or not. Realistically though, none of the major parties would ever contemplate it. Britain is though heavily tied to the US politically and economically and I doubt that will change a huge deal soon.
To have any real role in the world the EU must cease to be what it is now and become a super-state if you like. I believe this could work, but not anytime soon. A unified europe though under one real democratic system would be a major player in the world, especially given it's combined military power, it's combined economic might and population would rival america's to say the least.
EURO NAZI:
EU vs US?
this is proof, choose what you like:
WISEMAN:
I agree with Hudson.A journey to well-functionig system will be very long for EU.It`s a possibility that we`ll never see the whole Europe unified in a single super-power.
CONSIS:
My Personal Opinion
Quote:
What do you think are the prospects of the EU? Is it headed to be a powerful actor on the scene of international policy, or does it lack the unifying force of culture in order to bring decisions in the name of all member states, that eventually leading to falling apart?
Financially speaking, the prospects are very attractive. However that's all I see it as.
The alliance between Americans and the British is built on more than money. A good deal of our relationship is based on trust and sacrifices that both our countries have made for each other despite many fundamental differences.
I believe that's all the EU is at current. A bunch of politicians that saw an opportunity in the unification of european currency. Basically, I think a bunch of european bankers started thinking 'outside the box'. They will soon learn, as we americans have in the past, that it takes more than a group of ambitious bankers to create an economically stable alliance.
My point is that even though the EU is an attractive economical business venture we americans need more in an alliance, as I'm sure the British do as well. Trust is earned, not given.
WOLFMAN:
It took the US almost 200 years to make it to Superpowerdom.
But seriously, these things take time.
PRIVATEHUDSON:
I'm not that sure how much "trust" does exist in the apparent special relationship between the two countries of the UK and US to be fair. The alliance as it exists has at times been a tenuous one and not entirely garunteed either. At numerous times one country has only supported the other when their national interest has been threatened (WWI/WWII being the best example of this) and at other times the "alliance" has not existed at all where there was no national interest to one side (Vietnam and the Falklands for example). It's not quite a brilliant string of hand in hand periods as this "trust" idea makes out. To a greater degree the British politicians realised after WWII that the Empire was not going to survive much longer and the only possible way of continuing to defend the UK was to rely on persuading the US that Nato continued to be a reasonable ideal. Even then it's possible to argue that the US supported this theory more because of their own interests than anything else. Russia occupying the industrial heartland of Europe was not exactly in American interests after all.
I don't doubt that there is something of a friendship between the two countries, but politicians pay attention to national interest, not friendships. Alliance is an over-used term when talking about US-UK involvement IMO. Here this "Friendship" is often seen more as the UK being the US' poodle, whatever the US deems it needs or wants from the UK we either support or do. Perhaps that's a little unfair, but the "friendship" is often seen as very one sided from here.
BJORN190:
We could all be friends in theory, if all countries where just alittle more humble and friendly, and don't fight so much about "who's best".
There's no real point in not cooperating. It's just hard to trust, especially if you're afraid. I heard that the USA has a culture of fear or something, because of all the news coverage of crimes.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering, and suffering is the path to the dark side. <-- old wisdom. Applicable on recent events? O_o
Lets all sit down and settle our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry icecream 
CONSIS:
PrivateHudson
Yes, yes, you have a point as usual. Ofcourse our relationship has been and will continue to be questionable. I was mostly speaking for myself.
Historically speaking, our two countries have supported each other quite a bit.
Wait let me guess what you'll say. Our relationship is also littered with just as many disagreements. Yes you're right again. Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for your country.
I also know that no one likes being yanked around the way Tony Blair has done with your people. He didn't receive enough support for the war in Iraq from the Brittish people I gather? If you think the U.S. president Bush is telling him what to do then I'd fully disagree there. I'd wager it's more likely upper echelon Brittish parliament than Bush's influence. That is not to say he doesn't have influence though. He is indeed a powerful man. He is also an easy scapegoat if you're a Brittish citizen watching the news.
I'm simply saying that when push comes to shove, my country cannot hope to win a military engagement overseas, like the ones we face today, without Brittish support. This country wouldn't support a war with such a high possibility of strategical losses unless we had another Pearl Harbor. Not even September 11th matched the amount of support that Pearl Harbor did.
I'm also linking your country's support for us with the respect that many americans have for the Brittish people in general.
PRIVATEHUDSON:
Quote:
If you think the U.S. president Bush is telling him what to do then I'd fully disagree there. I'd wager it's more likely upper echelon Brittish parliament than Bush's influence. That is not to say he doesn't have influence though. He is indeed a powerful man. He is also an easy scapegoat if you're a Brittish citizen watching the news.
I very much doubt that it's the higher echelons of the Labour party (ie the cabinet) as a good proportion of these are either very very silent on the whole issue or against the war overall such as the Chancellor and likely sucessor to Blair. I also don't blame Bush in the slightest, I blame Blair and others in the past for being so damned eager to shout back "how high" when the President of the time says "Jump!"
Quote:
I'm simply saying that when push comes to shove, my country cannot hope to win a military engagement overseas, like the ones we face today, without Brittish support.
True, someone has to read the maps for you to show you where the country is
Quote:
I'm also linking your country's support for us with the respect that many americans have for the Brittish people in general.
*shudders from memories of "Oh I just LOVE your country"*
BJORN190:
Instead of debating this back and forth forever, why dont we make a change and start it right now right here?
Im from Sweden, thats in Europe. Consis, you're from the USA. Lets be friends ok? That means we do our part.
Then the rest of you just follow our lead.
CELFIOUS:
Ok bjorn but I am one who prefers people who do also.
Meaning I do not prefer those who would rather hate others. I find them to be a few negative things.
If a war happens between EU and USA then the victor shall be without their potential friend, and they would probably be like 25% strong, and like.. You can figure what happens then. . WW3 of course. Theres no world flag of peace that people from no matter country can raise. I find that to be symbolic. And something the government should have thought of. I'm mad at the government, american too.
All I know is I want to enjoy life with a beautiful girl but im being patient.. If im murdered or blown up, then I just hope my dreams come true. Life is kind of hard. The mind is so strong. I hope it lives with a GF and mabey other people in an after life.
PRIVATEHUDSON:
Allies?
Disclaimer: This is not meant to insult anyone or country, it's just a JOKE.
British General: Tally ho old chap! I hear we're about to kick off against those bally Iranians next, what?
American General: That's it, now the chief, that's uhmm President Bush to you, said that you would be able to support us
BG: That's correct old bean, now what was it you wished to know?
AG: Well we uhmmm, need to know where it is... our information sources on it seem rather sketchy, someplace near Iraq is all we have so far...
BG: Ahhhhh! Why didn't you say so old chap, one moment, I have a map right here, we used to own that place you know?
AG: Yeah yeah, cut the reminicing about the 18th century and get the map limey
BG: I say! You yanks never speak like gentlemen! ahhh here it is! Latest survey done by British army when we were last there...
AG: Uhmmm, Say, why does it have "here be dragons" in the top left corner then? You sure this is authentic and up to date?
BG: Sure! Dragon is a mispelling, it's meant to say "Weapons of mass destruction"
AG: Great! With these we will have those WMD's in no time!
BG: Calm down old chap, no need to hurry, pleanty of time for some afternoon tea and biscuits what?
AG: Uhmm, no thanks, got this little thing called a war to get on with you know? Frenchies to ignore, UN to stick fingers up to, you know the drill
BG: Oh, well never mind, I'm sure we'll have it over in no time, say could you guys remember this time remember to shoot at the ENEMY?
AG: Oh, sure, We'll do what we can to iron out those "accidents" this time. Bye!
BG: Toodle pip!
I liked it anyway Which I guess I should since I wrote it
Now after this, comes the second post, and after the previous post comes the next one. Sorry about the jumble, but at least we have all saved.
And that reminds me of one. When the devil and Jesus were surfing the net and the system crashed, Jesus still had all data on his PC. "How come?" asked the Devil.
-"Jesus saves!"
I guess you could say I'm a follower of Jesus now.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted May 09, 2004 04:10 PM |
|
|
The thing about EU is that its mainly a free-trade area.
It is based on echonomy more than politics. That is bad.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 10, 2004 04:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your entire tone in the (current) second post rather smacks of assumption and/or twisting what I said into proving what you wanted to about what Britain is, to you just an "anti-european american dependant poodle".
Hallo PH,
My entire tone in my second post is totally different than what you wrote. I can’t remember saying Britain’s (or yourself) “anti-European”. It would be totally wacky to say that, since after all Britain is in Europe. However, American poodle is well… a pretty suitable term for your country’s foreign policies (and I know how degrading it sounds. Sorry, I just want to get on your nerves a bit I guess. I know I’m not diplomatic, but it’s the truth.)
Now about your post being in favor of European integration, yes, I can say you do try, but the question I raised and I’ll do that again now is: Do you want Europe to function like state in the near or distant future, or would you rather it to have only economic issues to deal with and leave each European nation enough sovereignty to make its own decisions about political matters?
It is a notorious fact that Brits are in favor of the latter. That’s Blair’s stance on EU and I personally don’t believe there’s a major political party that is more in favor of EU integration than the Labour. Furthermore, if you take public opinion into account, you’d see that people are even more skeptical than the Prime Minister. Is it just me or did Blair really had a hard time confronting with the conservatives about the issue of a referendum on the European Constitution? And now when he finally agreed, many analysts predict him a tough fight about the Constitution. Polls say voters are not particularly enthusiastic. How do you personally feel about this and the question of sovereignty vs. economy?
Quote:
A number of other countries in the EU have rejected the Euro, a number of others outside of the EU/Euro have anti-european governments or parties who enjoy support. No-one suggests for example that Sweden do not belong in Europe or the EU if they wished to be. Yet the UK is singled out as the anti-european capital of the world.
Nice try PH, but Sweden is not a match for the UK when it comes to standing side by side with America. The only decent match can be smaller countries (such as mine) that are brought before a difficult decision when US threatens with the carrot and the stick dilemma. No thank you, we’d rather have the carrot. You can’t blame smaller countries for that, when they haven’t got a bigger brother to turn to. Our European brothers are all quarreling with each other. Unite first and than Eastern Europe will join.
Quote:
You also assumed that I was against other nations joining, why I cannot work out how you thought that.
“These problems must be addressed, as a system like the EU trying to unite countries were vast inequality and injustice still exists will be doomed to fail. Countries will only involve themselves in any united Europe if they can see a benefit, right now, too many countries, and many people in my country there is little benefit.”
These were your words PH, or maybe I’m reading too much into things.
Quote:
I am NOT in favour of integration going ahead at the moment on the simple basis that the EU is sorely in need of reform, the new member states need to be brought to some economic level closer to the existing states and that people who are against europe in some countries will need these things to happen first. If those things do not happen, this IMO will lead to the integration happening then falling apart when countries fail to prosper from it and corruption does not cease or be acted on.
I absolutely agree with this, but if you hadn’t noticed I’m more inclined to talk about long-term objectives in this thread. I’m not an EU official after all to be preoccupied with current steps, but I’m more interested in the general direction of EU.
You’re not in favor of optimism? How about enthusiasm?
I mean, you mentioned the “problems” Europe has on several occasions (Common Agriculture Program, lack of democracy (?!) etc.). What exactly do you find problematic with EU in general?
(Personally I can’t find anything other than British food. )
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2004 08:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, American poodle is well… a pretty suitable term for your country’s foreign policies (and I know how degrading it sounds. Sorry, I just want to get on your nerves a bit I guess. I know I’m not diplomatic, but it’s the truth.)
The truth from your opinion, I tend to see foreign policy from a bit less biased stance. The UK does not entirely follow the US round like a "poodle" and does follow it's own path in a number of areas. Like any ally though, especially when dealing with a stronger one from a weaker position, the US has to be considered and dealt with in friendly terms.
Quote:
Now about your post being in favor of European integration, yes, I can say you do try
Try... right. Re-read and try to find where I am anything like against european integration long term. I think you'll find me remarkably pro-europe and european integration, but at the same time unfortunately for the EU to practical to accept that it can suceed right now.
Quote:
Do you want Europe to function like state in the near or distant future, or would you rather it to have only economic issues to deal with and leave each European nation enough sovereignty to make its own decisions about political matters?
The first. Ultimately the goal would be unification to one state, then I guess to one world state in the remarkably distant future.
Quote:
It is a notorious fact that Brits are in favor of the latter. That’s Blair’s stance on EU and I personally don’t believe there’s a major political party that is more in favor of EU integration than the Labour
Wrong 1. There has not been a serious refferendum in this country for nigh on 40 years on europe. Given that and the startlingly unpopular nature of the current anti-european parties you might be suprised to find what percentage of Brits in a serious, informed vote would be pro-european.
Wrong 2. The Liberal Democrats are in favour of the Euro right now and are staunchly pro-european overall. Given that the conservative vote is in free-fall often, and that the liberal vote is rising it's unfair to rule them out as a major party.
Possibly wrong 3. If you assume the euro falls outside the latter (ie that most British believe the euro to be part of a euro-state and are against it) then Blair's stance on the EU is not to be against the Euro, in fact he is pro-euro.
Quote:
Furthermore, if you take public opinion into account, you’d see that people are even more skeptical than the Prime Minister
Again I point to a lack of serious vote taken on this in recent times. I would also like to point out that Blair has absolutely no secret of his pro-euro stance and has been consistently voted into power twice now with thumping majorities. People against this vital issue would be inclining away from him, not to him.
Quote:
Is it just me or did Blair really had a hard time confronting with the conservatives about the issue of a referendum on the European Constitution?
Nothing new, conservatives have always been anti-european. Given that they've been thumped twice in elections and the opinion polls you place value in (one assumes given your knowledge of the British has to be based on something more than opinion) have consistently despite his problems placed Blair higher than Howard it doesn't seem to count for much.
Quote:
And now when he finally agreed, many analysts predict him a tough fight about the Constitution. Polls say voters are not particularly enthusiastic. How do you personally feel about this and the question of sovereignty vs. economy?
He's having a tough time for a simple reason, in ignorance of the facts people assume the worst. When some details come out I wouldn't be suprised to see it change somewhat. As for economy/soveriegnty I have repeatedly stated my favouritism for further integration and the loss of soveriegnty involved.
Quote:
Nice try PH, but Sweden is not a match for the UK when it comes to standing side by side with America.
An argument that would have some relevance....
IF it addressed the point I made properly. Which was not about US/Swedish relations but the Swedish view on europe. No-one bashes Sweden for it's isolationism from the EU, everyone bashes the UK for the same. Sweeden isn't even in the EU, let alone the Euro.
Quote:
These were your words PH, or maybe I’m reading too much into things.
Indeed they were, in simple terms I was saying that the EU must address the inequalities of it's members and upcoming members (whom I do not object to in any way if they are european) before further developing down the road of nationhood. It had nothing to do with other countries joining. The remark was saying that if we do add other nations, the need to reform the EU and balance the economies of these will be even greater. I believe it can be done though, as long as the EU reforms. I also made a typo, it should have said TO many countries... IE from many countries points of view. This may have lead to confusion sorry.
Quote:
I absolutely agree with this, but if you hadn’t noticed I’m more inclined to talk about long-term objectives in this thread. I’m not an EU official after all to be preoccupied with current steps, but I’m more interested in the general direction of EU.
Without righting the current wrongs the EU's future will be as corrupt and messy as it's current state. I don't want a corrupt nation of european powers, I do want a well organised nation of european powers. Putting it off to the very people benefiting from the corruption and problems and some future date will, IMO lead to nothing being done.
Quote:
You’re not in favor of optimism? How about enthusiasm
*rolls eyes*
I said something like, and more importantly meant that optimism will NOT solve the EU's problems. Optimism will not stop corruption or solve the CAP and fisheries issues. Optimism must go arm in arm with direct action of reform, not leading the way blindly forward into the future with nothing but unfounded hope.
Quote:
I mean, you mentioned the “problems” Europe has on several occasions (Common Agriculture Program, lack of democracy (?!) etc.). What exactly do you find problematic with EU in general?
That I'll adress when I have more time. It's important to note that none of the problems I have are things that cannot be resolved... if they try NOW.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 04:07 AM |
|
|
As much as i would like to see a Unified Europe, to keep the US in check, and vice-versa, it just isnt possible. The Cultural differences are wayyyyy too high. In the eastern europe, there are alot of muslims and jews, but in west, there are alot of christians. I doubt the French, German, and British people will be able to agree on stuff. It will fall apart faster than you can say United States of Europe.
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the eastern europe, there are alot of muslims and jews, but in west, there are alot of christians.
lol, you americans really have no idea about the rest of the world, do you? and you're not embarassed to show it. that i respect.
Probably there are more christians in eastern europe than in western, just for the record.
And another suspicious stats were given (by khayman i think). I sumed up EU memberstates' GDPs and I got a number equivalent to the American - about 8 point something thousands billion $ I think. So, no. USA is not significantly richer than EU.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 12, 2004 09:18 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 12 May 2004
|
America's Economy
Quote:
I summed up EU memberstates' GDPs and I got a number equivalent to the American - about 8 point something thousands billion $ I think. So, no. USA is not significantly richer than EU.
I would tend to agree with your calculations Svarog, however, our economy is not simply wealthy. It is also more stable than the EU prospectors. That's what I think of them as, "prospectors". Like gold prospectors, they aren't thinking long-term. There is indeed a very attractive wealth to be found in the EU, however, without the proper laws to regulate it and constant available public scrutiny then it is doomed to collapse on itself. It is very possbile that EU could become an oven of wild ravenous dogs stepping on each other to keep a grasp on their financial holdings. This is the greatest fear of capitolism without a set of laws that regulate it and a people who support a government that will enforce the laws.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
2Xtremetotake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 10:14 PM |
|
|
i didnt mean all of east europe..just more or less the southeastern parts, except greece. I thought Russia was full of jews anyways??
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
| |
|
|
