|
| Thread: The Euro-American War |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Panzar-Budda
Tavern Dweller
|
posted June 09, 2004 09:41 AM |
|
|
offtopic
This is kind of offtopic but very interesting (atleast to me).
The population of Sweden is around 9 million, that around average of a large city in the US. Still, Sweden have a better national icehockey team.
How could this be ?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted June 09, 2004 11:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd be happy to see that. But, if refferendums are nowhere (when was the last time you had a refferendum? Yeah, I know, hard to remember), than there's nothing left but to turn to polls for sensing the public pulse
I never trust polls, no matter what they say, I trust what I see and hear around me. Polls are easily "rigged" one way or the other depending on who is doing it.
Quote:
It's not a general dislike of EU, but the limiting of EU's field of influence to the point of retaining national soverignity. Another proof as you saw it yourself, would be the euro, which also could be considered as one of the initial elements of European integration, and it was initially rejected.
The British government of the time rejected it for a simple reason. At the time it began, the British economy was out of line with the requirements to join, therefore to do so would have seriously damaged both our economy and quite possibly the Euro also as we would fail to live up to the requirements during the first few years. There is some feeling of limiting their influence, but this is almost entirely driven through the fact that a pessemistic press often only report the bad things about the EU such as rules on the straightness of Bananas and so on. Of course people seeing that will wonder what ability such an organisation will have to govern the whole of europe, but as I said, the public here are woefully underinformed.
Quote:
Also, you asked where did I get the info about British; it's from reporters from UK and experts' views on the issue.
Interesting, however I would suggest that there are experts saying exactly the opposite of those supporting you, which begs the question of which are more expert?
Quote:
Well, although you try to minimize the importance of foreign policy, it is one of the most imortant (if not the most important) aspect of alliance, and that as the first step to unification and integration. Sweden, (i think not in the euro zone) is after all very much European, in terms of foreign policy, social issues etc. So any comparisson of the type "Look at Sweden. They are anti-europe too." is out of the question.
Well if we're talking foreign policy, try Spain, a pro-american (until the recent elections) country backing the invasion of Iraq as a senior partner. What I am saying is that there are other countries that do not comply with the general "euro" foreign policy, or do not join in either the EEC or the Euro, however the British of course get the rap for it. No matter that other countries do or did the same of course. Either way you look at it, Britain is not alone in either case, yet Britain is the one, usually the only one called "Anti-european". I guess I shouldn't be suprised anymore by it, it just goes to show that no matter what we just get the blame anyway...
I also would suggest that foreign policy is not the first indicator of integration, first I would suggest economic and cultural ties are more important and should come first as it fosters similar foreign policy and supporting eachother through shared interest and values. Furthermore from a purely selfish viewpoint, each member country will be more likely to be interested in joining the European integration if there is a benefit to doing so. Since at this moment in time there is no obvious direct external threat that would require a unified foreign policy, people will see more benefit in a unified currency and system whereby all countries profit from the whole.
And yes I rarely have time to answer, unlike a fair few of the younger members here, I work full time, and on top of that I do a fairly large amount of voluntary work outside of that. If replies take time it's because there are more important things on this earth than arguing on the internet 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 01:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is some feeling of limiting their influence, but this is almost entirely driven through the fact that a pessemistic press often only report the bad things about the EU such as rules on the straightness of Bananas and so on. Of course people seeing that will wonder what ability such an organisation will have to govern the whole of europe, but as I said, the public here are woefully underinformed.
I take it that you personally are against this tendency to limit EU's ingerencies in national policy, however, lack of objective information or not, the fact remains that thr general mood in Britain is not very Euro-integrating one. One bird does not make spring.
The point would be it's not the reason that matters; it's the result, and currently the result is not vary promising in terms of European uniting, at least on Britain's side. I only wish those pro-European elements to have more influence in the public and eventually prevail. So, good luck on the elctions for the European Parlament.
Quote:
Interesting, however I would suggest that there are experts saying exactly the opposite of those supporting you, which begs the question of which are more expert?
You can as well say that there are experts on every issue that disagree with themselves. So I guess, much like anyone else, I am more influenced by the things they tell us. The more experts with different opinions there are, the merrier, because that way you can wage arguments on both sides and bring a decision on the presented arguments. But don't use this against me, cause the impression about the majority of Brits being in a somewhat skeptical haze is pretty much obvious. No need for experts here. 
Quote:
Well if we're talking foreign policy, try Spain, a pro-american (until the recent elections) country backing the invasion of Iraq as a senior partner.
But there is one problem though. Spain's right-wing government supported the war, not the current legitimate (on the Iraq war) one. Anyway, I agree that Spain is an important country that shouldn't afford to stand side by side to USA. But UK's bigger. And unlike UK, the Spanish convincing majority was strongly against the war, leaving no place for questioning the political orientation of the Spanish people.
On the other hand, the general course of the UK is overall pro-American. They are "allies". Both the Labour and the Conservatives would support Americans in their actions, although people that protest are on the rise recently. But that percentage is still not comparable to the percent in other countries where people are against the war. Heck, even my country sent a small symbolic group of soldiers in Iraq, when they were presses by the US ambassador. In a climate when even 85% were against the War in Iraq! The American way of practicing democracy and respect of soverignty and independence, I guess. But, it would be irrational to think that Macedonia is just as responsible as the UK for such actions. The British responsibility consists in historical role of the British and their ties with other nations, the status of a world powerful and developed country that she enjoys, the important role in world affairs etc.
Quote:
I also would suggest that foreign policy is not the first indicator of integration, first I would suggest economic and cultural ties are more important and should come first as it fosters similar foreign policy and supporting eachother through shared interest and values.
Agreed. But you cannot possibly work for integration in a state (not talking only about economy, but a complete state) without having a common foreign policy in advance that would act according to both countries common interests and values. Not having a common foreign policy would mean not having common interests and values, which is a thing that allies and much more, future federal states must not put into question.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 01:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I take it that you personally are against this tendency to limit EU's ingerencies in national policy, however, lack of objective information or not, the fact remains that thr general mood in Britain is not very Euro-integrating one. One bird does not make spring.
That is much to do with the reasons I mentioned, for the time being the British, with justification see the EU as being unable to run itself due to it's problems, and see the British economy not in line with the Euro-nations, therefore integration will damage both. To a lesser degree there is aspects of the population against integration on historical/pseudo-nationalistic grounds, but most people are sensible enough to steer clear of this.
Quote:
The point would be it's not the reason that matters; it's the result, and currently the result is not vary promising in terms of European uniting, at least on Britain's side.
Agree and disagree, the result is important, but the reasons are vital. People need persauding that the problems the EU is causing will be dealt with (at least soon) before we consider throwing away our soverieignty to a bunch of people who have nothing better to do than decide on the straigtness or otherwise of a Banana. If the EU and the politicians of the country do not address the reasons for the skepticism/genuine concern then no-one will be persauded to change their minds will they? The reasons drive the results, the British are not so much anti-EU as they are concerned about it, and so far neither the EU nor the politicians seem to care that much about the concerns.
Quote:
But there is one problem though. Spain's right-wing government supported the war, not the current legitimate (on the Iraq war) one. Anyway, I agree that Spain is an important country that shouldn't afford to stand side by side to USA. But UK's bigger. And unlike UK, the Spanish convincing majority was strongly against the war, leaving no place for questioning the political orientation of the Spanish people.
That is an interesting assumption there considering the closeness of the election, the leader deposed (who's name escapes my memory) wasn't soundly beaten in the election at all, which indicates that though many people were against the Iraq conflict, the issues that affected their vote were more complex than that. This also links to the fact that Foreign policy is just one way of integration, and possibly the most difficult, but not necessarily the most important issue that the people of the EU worry about.
Quote:
But, it would be irrational to think that Macedonia is just as responsible as the UK for such actions. The British responsibility consists in historical role of the British and their ties with other nations, the status of a world powerful and developed country that she enjoys, the important role in world affairs etc.
True, but Macedonia should be held responsible for it's own affairs also, unless the UK or US physically threatened a country with sanctions or stopping in trade then the country is mostly repsonsible for it's own policies and it's politicians should bear the responsibility for it. Macedonia is not as responsible for the war, but it is responsible for agreeing to be involved in it as opposed to siding with the other EU nations against it.
Further the British could claim with much justification that since at this time there is no joint foreign policy needs or requirements, that we are free to choose what policy suits the British interests best. France and Germany did after all, many euro nations sided with the US and UK also, so what we have essentially is a split in the EC, and whether the Iraq war was right or not, we should not blame just the UK for that split, similarly Germany and France did not agree with our foreign policy either, since there is no set EU policy at this time, it is unfair to suggest that the UK is to blame for splitting the EU on the issue as some pundits have done.
Further the figures (from polls, so who knows if they hold any truth) show the British were divided over the issue and many of us believe we should not bow to US policy all the time. However when the alternative is an EU fraught with problems and division it is not so easy a thing to simply enter into a European alliance as it first appears.
Quote:
Not having a common foreign policy would mean not having common interests and values, which is a thing that allies and much more, future federal states must not put into question.
I disagree, foreign policy can have many different aspects, and IMO countries should not have to tow the "party" (EU in this case) line on all of them to share values. We share many values with the EU nations at the moment, as do they internally, that does not end over the disagreement on Iraq alone.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 12, 2004 02:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is much to do with the reasons I mentioned, for the time being the British, with justification see the EU as being unable to run itself due to it's problems, and see the British economy not in line with the Euro-nations, therefore integration will damage both.
Hmmm, first it was not getting adequate information, now this. Make up your mind, ph.
Btw, I think now it's the right time to briefly comment on those things that you consider "problems" of the EU and that move countries (in fact, imho, it's only one country) away from further integration.
Quote:
True, but Macedonia should be held responsible for it's own affairs also, unless the UK or US physically threatened a country with sanctions or stopping in trade then the country is mostly repsonsible for it's own policies and it's politicians should bear the responsibility for it.
Absolutely, but you see PH, both largest parties and parties of the minorities alike, all agree that we should support the War in Iraq. There's only one Socialist in the Parlament that voted against it. 
At the same time, 85% don't support the war. How absurd! But it's probably because governments know that they should suck in to big countrues, while ordinary people here really have much more imoprtant things to take care than some god forsaken desert country. Although we do have about 10-20 soldiers there.
Quote:
France and Germany did after all, many euro nations sided with the US and UK also, so what we have essentially is a split in the EC, and whether the Iraq war was right or not, we should not blame just the UK for that split, similarly Germany and France did not agree with our foreign policy either, since there is no set EU policy at this time, it is unfair to suggest that the UK is to blame for splitting the EU on the issue as some pundits have done.
I see your point here. But, here's what it is.
If we say that Europe should move towards integration, than that indicates trying to reach a common ground for many of the issues. The point is that I, and the large majority of the citizens of the European Union are against the support for the War. The countrues who move away from that general mood are those that move towards USA. So, it's not Germany and France "that are wrong", it's the UK, since you're the one who move away (disagree) from the general European policy (in this case, because we lack it - public opinion).
Quote:
Further the figures (from polls, so who knows if they hold any truth) show the British were divided over the issue and many of us believe we should not bow to US policy all the time. However when the alternative is an EU fraught with problems and division it is not so easy a thing to simply enter into a European alliance as it first appears.
I'm confused now. You say that although there are many who believe UK should not support USA, it's hard not to do, since the alternative is a European alliance?! It's not a misinterpretation, it's what you said. 
Maybe you didn't mean it, but when connecting those two sentences, that's what it implied.
Quote:
We share many values with the EU nations at the moment, as do they internally, that does not end over the disagreement on Iraq alone.
It's not about Iraq. It's about the general American alliance policy. There's not one single question (except the ICC) that UK is opposed to USA. And one of the most imortant roles of a future European confederation would (should) be, as I stated in my longer than usual post, to be a rival of the USA. I cannot see how is that possible with Britain backing every freaking decision the American government does.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 12, 2004 12:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hmmm, first it was not getting adequate information, now this. Make up your mind, ph
Sorry, it's all three, and the lack of information impacts on those two, example, all we hear (usually) here in the UK is about banana straightening rules and so on, not about the good aspects, so we are lead to believe that the EU only does this kind of thing for us.
Quote:
At the same time, 85% don't support the war. How absurd! But it's probably because governments know that they should suck in to big countrues, while ordinary people here really have much more imoprtant things to take care than some god forsaken desert country
With respect, neither France or Germany are small countries, therefore your politicians had an alternative to their choice of supporting the US. Therefore the 85% of you should make your feelings felt in the next elections. I would doubt though that it would make such a huge impact as foreign policy plays a rather small role in deciding people's votes.
Quote:
If we say that Europe should move towards integration, than that indicates trying to reach a common ground for many of the issues. The point is that I, and the large majority of the citizens of the European Union are against the support for the War. The countrues who move away from that general mood are those that move towards USA. So, it's not Germany and France "that are wrong", it's the UK, since you're the one who move away (disagree) from the general European policy
But there are other european nations prepared to side with us. As much as we'd like to think of our countries as democratic and responding to the public's wishes, the foreign policy is not usually a represenatative of this, nor do people vote purely on that issue as has been seen. Therefore, whilst the British action was against the population in one way, it was not against the governments of europe any more than the Franco-German action was. People will not purely vote on the single issue of foreign policy, and whilst it's good to unify our FP, all governments share the responsibility for this, not just european governments saying "well you don't match ours so shove off".
Quote:
I'm confused now. You say that although there are many who believe UK should not support USA, it's hard not to do, since the alternative is a European alliance?!
Exactly, but because the current European alliance is impossible due to the problems I have outlined.
Quote:
It's not about Iraq. It's about the general American alliance policy. There's not one single question (except the ICC) that UK is opposed to USA. And one of the most imortant roles of a future European confederation would (should) be, as I stated in my longer than usual post, to be a rival of the USA. I cannot see how is that possible with Britain backing every freaking decision the American government does.
Innacurate, the British do disagree with the US on a number of issues, and to be frank reign them in on a number of things also. Trade wars are frequent between the two nations, we disagree on the issue of future foreign policy, specifically over Syria. We don't support their stance over the war crimes courts, or over the environment. Historically we have argued on certain issues also, usually the middle east and specifically Israel. What you see as backing every freaking decision is no more accurate than me saying every Macedonian comes from Greece
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 17, 2004 02:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
With respect, neither France or Germany are small countries, therefore your politicians had an alternative to their choice of supporting the US. Therefore the 85% of you should make your feelings felt in the next elections.
Absolutely they had alternatives, but they are a$$holes. Now what? How do you suggest we punish them, when there's only one parlamentarian out of 120 that was against the war?
Quote:
With respect, neither France or Germany are small countries, therefore your politicians had an alternative to their choice of supporting the US. Therefore the 85% of you should make your feelings felt in the next elections.
Point taken. But there is a second argument about the same thing I forgot to mention (about why is Britain held responsible for acting against European integration, in the sphere of foreign policy, as the principal manifestation of that integration). The principles on which the European Union is based are the rule of law, cultural tolerance and prefernce of peace to war. All of these were breached with the intervention in Iraq, so therefore Britain as well as other supportive countries (including mine) can be directly held responsible for spitting on the principles of European Union, and consequently European integration.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm confused now. You say that although there are many who believe UK should not support USA, it's hard not to do, since the alternative is a European alliance?!
Exactly, but because the current European alliance is impossible due to the problems I have outlined.
Even though that alliance might have some issues (which I ask you for the 10th time to name them), that should be completely independant of other non-related foreign questions. You mustn't make excuses that you can't agree with EU about Iraq, simply because EU leads the wrong policy about bananas. That would be plain stupid.
Quote:
Innacurate, the British do disagree with the US on a number of issues, and to be frank reign them in on a number of things also. Trade wars are frequent between the two nations, we disagree on the issue of future foreign policy, specifically over Syria. We don't support their stance over the war crimes courts, or over the environment. Historically we have argued on certain issues also, usually the middle east and specifically Israel.
Think as you will, but I'm afraid that's not how the rest of the world views you.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 19, 2004 03:39 AM |
|
|
Hey PH, you'll forget this one again.
Again Blair's opposing Chiraque today on the conference. From British sources medias report that the British "don't want a superstate, but each state to maintain the right for its own decisions". So there, what I told you..
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 30, 2005 12:17 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 29 May 2005
|
Speak Of The Devil . . . .
Quote:
French President Jacques Chirac has acknowledged French rejection of the EU Constitution, a result that affects the political future of 25 European nations.
~Any comments or criticisms? I think it's a good thing. The French people are not so easily swayed by money and profit as some capitalist Americans are(ENRON). This bodes well for E.U. reforms, which I have felt were needed all along.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 30, 2005 12:56 AM |
|
|
Personally, I feel somewhat ambiguous about this entire constitution thing. Sure, it was a piece of legislation that would have cemented the neo liberalist regime of the current EU, and it was way to heavy on the economic area in comparison the the social* (refer to my latest post in Socialists' Lounge to see my opinions about this).
However, I am a great supporter of European integration - not particularily because of the same reasons that most other Norwegian socialists (that the EU can be a counter weight to the US - to this I usually just reply, "Yeah, right."), but because I recognise the potential the EU has, as a federal European Union which can be used to support higher social standards throughout the world.
Of course, this is only possible if the parties to the left of the Social Democrats get a majority of the governments in Europe, plus in the EU Parliament, but if you don't dream you're not alive, eh?
So, to the constitution and how the Franch refusal of the thing most likely will affect the rest of Europe, imo.
Let's face it - without France, there's no Europe. Sure, the Germans may have a bigger population, and a more advanced and prosperous economy (perhaps not lately, but...). The British have never really been part of Europe - they've been holding on to their status with one foot within and one foot outside for centuries now, and little makes it look as if that's gonna change anytime soon.
France is the Heart of Europe, and has been so since 1648. It goes without saying that this country is a rolemodel for other countries. Now that the constitution has been rejected there, it's more likely that other countries will reject it too. Because what's the reason of having European integration if it's integration without France?
Ugh, this was a bad post. Gotta see if I can find some more stuff to elborate with...
*However, how much of a difference it would make, is unclear, since it is basically just a gathering of all the old treaties. The constitution would make an impact on European society, but more in a cultural and mental way than a "real" way.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 01:06 AM |
|
|
I didn’t expect the French to be the ones against it. It was more like a British type of thing to do. Not that they would hesitate to do the same to be honest. This is indeed a major blow for the European project, but certainly not the apocalyptic proportions some cynical analysts seem to suggest. It would take some period of inner consolidation, revision of some ideas within, but it wont be too long before the Constitution is up on the table again, I believe. There are already speculations that France might decide to change the referendum procedure for passing such type of legislature and send it directly to the parliament, which could be a point for discussion for the presidental campaigns, though personally I doubt they’d have the guts to do it. I don’t think other countries will copy France because it’s an important country, but they might be encouraged by this luxury that the French allowed themselves. I hope the Dutch wont do the same tomorrow and help this important paper be killed, cos it could postpone our European future even more. The biggest consequences from this would be for the struggling candidate member-states, including Macedonia here. If EU turns their attention to internal matters, we are the ones staying out waiting for the bar to start running again. Whats more scary is the fact that the resentment towards the Constitution is an indication of xenophobia among the European public to a degree and protectionist nationalism, which reflects both in the cultural/political sphere (where the political right locates the problem) and the economy (for which most conservative socialists hold a grudge). This can also be interpreted as a message by the public to the leaders that EU expansion should slow down considerably. Today, when Solana (high commissary for EU foreign policy) was asked in what way will the French non affect the Balkan countries, he said that “he hoped the processes wont stop and the EU would take responsibility for the promises from the Thesaloniki Summit”, but Solana being the optimist that he is, who knows what will happen.
I already explained throughout this thread why i’m so supportive of a united Europe, and this document was a first brave step towards it. Unfortunately, we’ll lose some precious time evidently. The cultural integration and the possibilities a united continent could offer are priceless. Granted, countries should be careful and not rush into things (creating the legal and political system should take all the time it needs), but the reason why I’m disappointed is that I have a feeling that the rejection isnt a result of a careful and thoughtful approach, but of conservative nationalism that unfortunately will likely plague Europe for a long time in the future.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 02:03 AM |
|
|
Actually, the majority of the people who voted "non" in France were people who traditionally vote for the leftist parties. Polls have suggested that they did this in an attempt to prevent the liberalization processes in France, which is basically costing them their jobs. Not exactly what I'd call xenophobia, but on the other hand, you've got the lepenians who are against the constitution because they fear that it'll open up for Turkish membership.
Of course, these sides easily mix, but...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 02:20 AM |
|
|
Its what I said - conservative socialists who opt for nationalist protectionism, which has little in common with socialist principles, actually the worst degraded part of it. The hell if they are leftist. Left doesnt mean always right. I mean... This last one sounded bad, no?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 02:50 AM |
|
|
So, you're prefering the "race to the bottom" way to go, eh? That surely is in the pirit of Marx, at least. Revolution'll come quickly then, but it's doubtful if such a revolution would be led by the left - more likely extreme right, since the Social Democrats have those "dirty hands".
Myself, I'm more in favour of raising the standards of other countries rather than reducing our own (although this of course has to be reduced some, if the globe's to survive at all). And I'm not sure if removing all economic baoundaries are the way to go.
I'm all for free movement of labour, but when they come to a country, they should be paid by that country's tariffs, not by those of the workers' homeland. The Bolkenstein Directive is in other words not the way to go, if you ask me, and this constitution would have been a big step towards implementing that abomination into the EU legislation.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 03:07 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 30 May 2005
|
I'm not talking about the Bolkenstein directive. Surely, many services areas have to be under state control. I'm talking about economic sectors, which under current law are protected (or in some cases, even heavily subsided) by the govs, while at the same time poorer countries struggle with simple export placement. Labour movement is also a huge issue, and open borders would mean just that, what many right-wingers fear.
The nasty thing is that this protectionism is on national basis and thus discriminates other countries' nationals.
EDIT: I want a united Europe with more or less equally developed regions, which after that would function as a true socialist federation. Keep dreaming...
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 03:28 AM |
|
|
Ah, just communication problems, then.
I pretty much agree. Never too late to stop dreaming, eh?
I wrote a paper about Norwegian vs. European agriculture policies last term, and what I found was somewhat sickening. An average European cow actually earns more than half of the world's population.
Let me see if I can find the article where I found that...
http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art294
It's written by some "liberatrians" (God I hate those people - "rightwing anarchists" my ***), but apart from that, and from that they're American (they're no better themselves, but nevermind that, eh? Man, I hate hypocrisy!), it's an OK read...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 05:01 PM |
|
|
Speaking of cows
Quote:
An average European cow actually earns more than half of the world's population.
Yes, its better to be a cow in Europe than a citizen of the rest of the world. But its even more extreme here - its better to be a Macedonian cow, than a Macedonian, because cows recently got visa-free passports with which they’ll travel round Europe, and we still cant. Well, what can I say? Moo!
Terje, to me its perfectly understandable why many ordinary European people are against inter-state liberalization so to say, which could take away their jobs, so far parasiting on the discriminating economic disparity between different nations. But it takes a real vision to see that the European project in the long term could bring our people closer together and bring incredible benefits for us all. And at the moment, the nationalist reflex in both the left and the right is what prevents that. How I wish the leftists of Europe finally accepted that a strong socialist state should not feed itself on inter-national economic differences, but on class ones.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 11:03 PM |
|
|
This could be off-topic, but...
Yeah, and that's why I'm in principle is in favour of free trade. However, as things are today, I am not. For one thing, market economy as a theory for equalisation works only if people are economically equal to begin with - the entire theory takes for granted that everyone in the whole wide world are able to buy what they want to. That's basically why there's impossible for the market-run states to effectively aid people who are starving. The starving people simply aren't able to pay for their food, so the market will see no need (read: GAIN) for distributing anything to the starving regions.
Whereas in a planned/mixed economy, the government can say: "Those people need food. You fat folks over there, you'll have to make due with less. Send the food and some excess food from other places to the people who are starving. Or that's how it should work in principle, at least.
To turn this to the issue of jobs, wages, and liberalisation: The dogmas of Adam Smith claim that the people who are most fit for a task should perform it. Which sounds reasonable and all. However, the major problem withthis theory is that today, through the cheapness and easily moveable productive capital, the only "competition advantage" that really exists on most fields, excepting such things as science although such problems exist there too, is lower wages. So, the capital owners move their capital from high cost countries, to low cost countries, without any thought to what will happen to those who lose their jobs in the high cost countries. Just like they didn't contemplate the living conditions of those in low cost countries before outsourcing there. (Not that they necessarily care after outsourcing either, except when it comes to keeping unions, wages and general (and expensive! Never forget expensive!) standards of living down.)
It's really somewhat of a paradox:
Who are "we" to say that these jobs are "ours", and that "they" have no right to take them away from "us"?
versus
Who are "they" to say that "we" have no right to hold on to these jobs, when "they" are starving for lack of money and work, when "we" live in excess and wealth?
As you can see from this, this is also one of the main explainations to why international solidarity usually and sadly is thrown away, as soon as the Capitalists threaten to move factories unless the workers adapt to their demands. It is really their most important weapon aganist both reform and revolution. Although the latter may become a direct result of this splt and rule strategy, sooner or later...
This is the great challenge to modern socialists, if you ask me.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2005 06:52 PM |
|
|
I didn't want to create a new thread for this...
but at the risk of being offtopic, why is Norway not a member of the EU?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 01, 2005 08:05 PM |
|
|
Good question. We've had two referendums; one in 1972 and one in 1994. The no-people won both times.
Two of the major groups that voted no, are the fishermen and the farmers. The fishermen voted no because they don't want Portugese, Spanish, French, German, Danish, Scottish, Irish, Dutch or whatever, trawlers coming up into the Norwegian sea territories and turning the sea black (they do that perfectly well on their own, but that's another issue). The farmers, on the other hand, wants to keep their thorougly state-subsidised position on the Norwegian markets - Norway's really a country not very fit for (mass production) agriculture, so they rely on large subsidies to keep things going. It's both good for our active district policies, and to keep the traditional settlement patterns alive. If you compare Norway to Sweden in this respect, you'll notice that Sweden has no district policies - they weren't so lucky as to find oil that could pay for their political pet peeves. So whereas the interior of Sweden is almost bereft of people, the Norwegian interior is still alive, with lots and lots of tiny towns spread across the mountain valleys.
In addition to the farmers and fishermen, the socialists have traditionally been negative towards the EU. Sure, they call themselves Europeans, but at the same time they percieve the EU as a neoliberal project, filled with elitism and with a large democratic deficit. Social dumping is one of the main fears of the Norwegian left, since people have a tendency to start voting for the xenophobic and ultra rightwing Progress Party, once thigs start to go wrong.
Also, Norway's only been independent from Danmark and/or Sweden for less than a century since the Black Plague. (The 100th aniversary is next Tuesday, actually - this is the explaination behind my current siggy).) This has created widespread anatgonism towards anything even resembling loss of sovereignty, such as an EU-membership very much is. Of course, the people who use arguments such as this are often called "nationalists" by the political, economical and intellectual elites.
But I guess the reason that most people care about, is that if we became members, it'd be harder to hold back the "free flow of labour" (one of the "Four Freedoms" of the EU - the other three being capital, goods and services). We're already, in theory at least, obliged to open our borders to EU citizens, but since the Norwegian wage levels are extremely high, and e.g. Polish carpenters can be paid by Polish tariffs, we're allowed at least a minimum of protection. The Bolkenstein Directive (also known as the "Service Directive), however, would remove such protectionist measures. There's been strikes and lots of things like that in attempts to force the parliament into passing legslation that will secure foreign workers in Norway Norwegian wages, but these have been voted down by the righwing majority. Hopefully though, this will change after this autumn's elections...
In the meantime, there's little to separate us from the actual members, since we're members of a small group of countries (in addition to Norway, this group includes Lichtenstein and Iceland - Switzerland has an individual agreement with the EU). So, sice we're part of the European Economic Cooperation, we're obliged to make European legislation part of our own laws. There's been lots of grumbling about this, especially since Norway's actually the country, EU-members and non-members, who are "best" at executing orders from Brüssel. In exchange for this, we recieve access to the European Inner Market; an important market for e.g. our timbers, gas and farmed fish.
So, to sum things up: We're a kind of quasi-members. We have no representatives in the Eu Parliament, none in the Council, or any other high European bureaus. During our negotiations with the EU (these take part every year or so), we have to be meek, since the Norwegian economy would be suffering quite hard if they decide to throw up some tariff barriers to e.g. protect Scottish fish farmers against our far superior fish.
We also pay something like $250,000,000 to the EU every year, to help build up (or prop up) the economies of Eastern Europe.
I hope this cleared some things up for you, Conan?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
| |
|
|
