NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not Europeon myself, I was just curious how the good folks in Europe feel.

I'm pro-European Union, which apparently puts me in the minority in the UK. I think it's an increadibly powerfull tool for improving Europe and ultimately the world if used correctly, it gives the member states vastly more barginning power than they have individually. The various arguments with the US over subsidies proove this.

Unfortunately the EU seems to have become more focussed on fiddling with minor things that should be left to national governments than acting as a free tade and political alliance.

As I said, I'm not Europeon, but if I was, I'd be worried. Think of the long, proud histories of these great nations, their triumphs, their contributions to the world, their individuality, their unique characteristics...all gone if the EU becomes too powerful. Which would mean no UK (provided it joins), no France, no Germany, or any other of the fine nations unfortunate enough to be having their sovereignty sapped away by that power-hungry bureaucracy.

The UK's been an EU member state for a long time: The people who worry about loosing our soverignty (in this country) are the same people who think we should stop accepting assylum seakers.

I've got no problem with the EU, it doesn't make any difference to the "proud history" of my particular nation if we're part of a larger body. We (meaning the government, essentially) just need to realise that we can say "no" to the EU when ever we want. If something is detremental to our national interests we can just ignore it: No matter how many times the EU says the Spanish can fish in our waters they won't be doing any fishing if there's a frigate telling them to turn around.

As I said, I'm not Europeon, but if I was, I'd be worried. Think of the long, proud histories of these great nations, their triumphs, their contributions to the world, their individuality, their unique characteristics...all gone if the EU becomes too powerful. Which would mean no UK (provided it joins), no France, no Germany, or any other of the fine nations unfortunate enough to be having their sovereignty sapped away by that power-hungry bureaucracy.
You miss the point. The countries are the "owners of the treaties". Decisons are mainly made by the council of ministers (of the national countries) or by the council of the head of states. In difference to the issue they either require unanimity (foreign policy, defence policy, tax policy, education, e.g.) or a qualified majority (economic issues, trade, common market).
The main duty of the EU commission is to enshure the Common market, to conduct the trade policy on the guidelines of the head of governments and to administrate the funds the members have agreed and signed to give of the EU. It is a huge bureauracy: well: as any other national bureaucracy.
But with out it the Common market in Europe wouldn´t work. Without the close cooperation and the binding inside this instituition Europe could fall back in its dark past: nationalism and wars could be the consequence.
So: I´m in favor of the EU. But not of all its policies. But the answer is not: get rid of the EU but to reform it. I´m not satisfied with the government of my country. But I don´t want to get rid of my country and declare my region independent because of it: That seperatism doesn´t make sense. Instead of I want to change the country and the EU.

I'm not Europeon myself, I was just curious how the good folks in Europe feel.

I've always wondered why Americans are so scared of the EU, do they see it as a threat or something?

As I said, I'm not Europeon, but if I was, I'd be worried. Think of the long, proud histories of these great nations, their triumphs, their contributions to the world, their individuality, their unique characteristics...all gone if the EU becomes too powerful. Which would mean no UK (provided it joins), no France, no Germany, or any other of the fine nations unfortunate enough to be having their sovereignty sapped away by that power-hungry bureaucracy.
Thats not gonna happen. And even if it would, it's preferable to Americanisation. Now that would truely be the end of above mentioned nations.

I've always wondered why Americans are so scared of the EU, do they see it as a threat or something?

To us? No. To Europe? Oh, yes.

That seperatism doesn´t make sense. Instead of I want to change the country and the EU.
True, but unfortuantely too many people think that pulling out is the only answer, certainly in the UK. Here people moan about everyone in Poland being able to get jobs here, but apparently lack the intelligence to realise that they could all go and get jobs in Poland if they wanted.

It's a little worrying, but I'm fairly sure the UK won't be pulling out any time soon. Which is just as well, as we're a major power within Europe and have the ability to improve it for the better.

The UK's been an EU member state for a long time: The people who worry about loosing our soverignty (in this country) are the same people who think we should stop accepting assylum seakers.In the UK that's largely true (UKIP and the Daily Mail anyway, the Democracy Movement aren't too bad). In other countries though the main opposition has been from the left and Greens. The popular opposition to the EU summit in Gothenburg was actually called by anti fascists.

I've got no problem with the EU, it doesn't make any difference to the "proud history" of my particular nation if we're part of a larger body. We (meaning the government, essentially) just need to realise that we can say "no" to the EU when ever we want. If something is detremental to our national interests we can just ignore it: No matter how many times the EU says the Spanish can fish in our waters they won't be doing any fishing if there's a frigate telling them to turn around.I'm against the EU but not for any reasons do do with national soverignty. I don't think an entity of its size can ever be meaningfully democratic. I suspect strongly it's a subtle attempt at empire building. I think the powers given to Europol are very dangerous indeed. I am hostile to it forcing all member states to follow a hardline freemarket economic policy, regardless of the wishes of their population and I'm highly uneasy about the implicit racism in the attempts to build a "fortress Europe". Sorry. That was a bit of a rant. :)

To us? No. To Europe? Oh, yes.
Why?

I love Europe and Europeans and I am proud of being European, if you are American you can be afraid of our massive EU economy as you want. We are here to stay and socialism owns you.

Why?

Surely it undermines its member-nations' sovereignty at least a little?

I'm not Europeon myself, I was just curious how the good folks in Europe feel.
I am not a fan of the EU in its current form. It is way too much bureaucracy and useless policies to be considered the ultimate future for Europe. It is a good start though and I do not fear that our culture or language or achievements will be lost. History has already been written and by being part of a larger body, we do not lose our own characteristics. Germany is a federation made with the 16 states -among them Saxony, Bavaria, Berlin, Hamburg, etc. All of these have their own characteristics and language dialects while all being German. The same would be if Germany was member of the EU and the EU being the unified Europe, that it is not yet.

So no, I am not afraid of it. The benefits and increased power it will give the European people in the world, are worth it. So long as each nation keeps its voice to say "no" if things are not acceptable. After all, its just another democracy, just on a larger scale.

The entire process of decision making needs to be streamlined though and the people need to have more say in the matters being discussed in Brussels. Right now it is too detached from the ordinary people who do not see the value of the combined Europe.

I love Europe and Europeans and I am proud of being European, if you are American you can be afraid of our massive EU economy as you want. We are here to stay and socialism owns you.

I'm not afraid of the massive economy. I'm afraid of the EU because it sets dangerous precedents for other regional mergers, such as the proposed FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), all of which eventually could lead to world government. Then, it would be so long, USA, so long, UK, so long, Germany, so long, France, etc.

I've always wondered why Americans are so scared of the EU, do they see it as a threat or something?

I am American AND a member of the EU. I hold an Irish Passport; if asked to choose between the US or Ireland, I'd burn my US passport.
I'm not necessarily afraid of the EU per se, I am all for better trade, a stronger economy (especially now that Ireland has pulled out of its 3rd World status) and all that good stuff. I am more afriad of the EU becoming a centralized super-power (which could abuse its powers) like America is. Of course no one expects this to happen...but no one expected a man to come along and steal a presidency right under the people's noses either.

I'm against the EU but not for any reasons do do with national soverignty. I don't think an entity of its size can ever be meaningfully democratic. I suspect strongly it's a subtle attempt at empire building. I think the powers given to Europol are very dangerous indeed. I am hostile to it forcing all member states to follow a hardline freemarket economic policy, regardless of the wishes of their population and I'm highly uneasy about the implicit racism in the attempts to build a "fortress Europe". Sorry. That was a bit of a rant. :)
You've got a point with the meanfully democratic point, but as national governments have the final say over what gets implimented in their country that (in theory) means how the idea was proposed becomes less of an issue.

The European Parliment strikes me as a massive waste of money - all the important treaties are negoitated by the national governments so why bother electing and paying a lot of people to sit in Brussels? I'm in favor of the EU as a free trade and political alliance, anything more seems un-necessary, my government was chosen by the electorate of my country to make the laws for my country.

True, but unfortuantely too many people think that pulling out is the only answer, certainly in the UK. Here people moan about everyone in Poland being able to get jobs here, but apparently lack the intelligence to realise that they could all go and get jobs in Poland if they wanted.

It's a little worrying, but I'm fairly sure the UK won't be pulling out any time soon. Which is just as well, as we're a major power within Europe and have the ability to improve it for the better.
.
Furthernmore there is a transitional period for the entire EU of 3 years: Individual countries HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROLONG THAT TWO TIMES FOR 2 YEARS. That means that a nation can keep the labours out till 2011. My country - Germany - is using this opportunity. Austria as well. As far as I know the British government doesn´t want to use that option due to the fact that it is not so concerned about the immigration of labour. After all: you are more far away. Anyway: they should criticize the British government for not using this option. But of course: it is much more easy to criticize the EU and blame it for everything worse, since most people know very little how it works. The Anti-EU sentiment in Britain seems to be like Anti-Americanism, which is common on the continent. More passed on prejudice than on facts.

Surely it undermines its member-nations' sovereignty at least a little?
Only if the member nations allow it to undermine their soverignty, if the national governments say "no" there is nothing the EU can do to force them to impliment a decision. The French are quite keen on this, they seem to ignore a lot of what the EU comes up with. I like that approach: If it doesn't benefit my country why should my government go along with it?

I can live with a strong Europe if the nations hand over power to their regions too.

I'm not afraid of the massive economy. I'm afraid of the EU because it sets dangerous precedents for other regional mergers, such as the proposed FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), all of which eventually could lead to world government. Then, it would be so long, USA, so long, UK, so long, Germany, so long, France, etc.

The EU will counterbalance the US. This is why they are afraid. Bush sticking his nose in EU business - Chriac will beat the shit out of him if he tries it again.

:mp5: Però amb el Català com a idioma reconegut !!*!! :headbang:

I'm not afraid of EU, but against it. (I live in Norway, which is not an EU member.)

The reason I'm against EU is the gigantic bureaucracy, the diffiulty of the european contries to cooperate (as seen in UN) and the that the free trady is essentially blocking out non members. And this trade blockage is a big part of what keeps the developing nations of the third world supressed.

European Union = True Socialist Values

United States of Israel Mk. 2 = Capitalist Scum

And we still have a bigger economy!!

I am not a fan of the EU in its current form. It is way too much bureaucracy and useless policies to be considered the ultimate future for Europe.

As a matter of tedious fact, the "too much bureacuracy" of which you (and UK Europhobes such as the editors of The Daily Mail complain) is comparatively small: there are less than 20,000 direct employees of the Commission in Brussels. That's fewer than are directly employed by Kent County Council -- the lasy County Council in England run by Thatcherite Conservatives who hate the public service and have privatised as much of it as they can. And if they can't get their labour force below the Brussels total, then what exactly is this "too much bureaucracy" of which you're complaining?

Perhaps we could have a poll to see how many can spell Europeans?

Only if the member nations allow it to undermine their soverignty, if the national governments say "no" there is nothing the EU can do to force them to impliment a decision. The French are quite keen on this, they seem to ignore a lot of what the EU comes up with. I like that approach: If it doesn't benefit my country why should my government go along with it?
You have to follow EU law if you are a member. That are the rules. And countries follow it: if not that goes before the European Court. If countries would change what rules they want to apply that would undermine the common market. For example: France would give additional subsidies to his farmers, other countries would give more subsidizes (they need permissions for them if they exceed some amount, e.g.) to business. That would damage and hurt the common market. So you have to follow the rules.
If you don´t want to follow that system there is the possibilty to leave the EU. By the way: The draft EU constituition explicitly states the right of the members to leave the EU if they wish so.
But you have to make a choice: Being a member of the EU, applying to its rules and regulations but also participating on the common market or leaving it because of its regulations: but than you would of course lose complete access to the market. You have to make a choice. You can´t have it both ways. It´s for you to decide what you think is better.
In my opinion it would be the utmost stupidity to leave the EU and its market. So far no EU member has ever left. But of course: if Britain decides to join NAFTA??? That would be the only alternative for Britain as I see it.

I'm not afraid of EU, but against it. (I live in Norway, which is not an EU member.)

The reason I'm against EU is the gigantic bureaucracy, the diffiulty of the european contries to cooperate (as seen in UN) and the that the free trade is essentially blocking out non members. And this trade blockage is a big part of what keeps the developing nations of the third world supressed.

"Gigantic bureaucracy" -- see my response to Gigatron. "Free trade is blocking out non-members" -- I recall that Norway twice voted not to to join the EU, so you really have no grounds for complaint.

On the other hand, I agree with you that EU tariff barriers exclude imports from Less Developed Countries, who in many cases can produce them at cheaper prices than the EU. The EU's sugar subsidy regime is a glaring case in point: we pay beet farmers in East Anglia ludicrous amounts of money to grow crops which then have to be dumped on world markets at below cost (because no one on the EU wants to buy the sugar) while denying market share to sugar cane farmers in Africa and the Caribbean, who can produce it much cheaper but are driven out of business by the dumped beet.

I've always wondered why Americans are so scared of the EU, do they see it as a threat or something?

Some of them certainly do. If the Euro replaces the dollar as the world's default reserve currency, then the US economy is, to put it technically, screwed. Take, for instance, oil. Almost all oil is traded in US dollars, therefore to buy it, you're shoring up the US trade defecit. The only member of OPEC to trade oil in Euros rather than dollars was Iraq. Oops, that one didn't last long. OPEC have in fact been pressing for a transfer to the Euro since 2002, and some theorists have the recent Gulf War exploits as a diplomatic overture to persuade them otherwise.

I reckon that the EU is a gd organisation to benefit from. it allows free trade between member states. however some of it;s rules and regulations are questionable. i.e. just how mnay countries does each one benefit? The thing the UK has to think about is are we getting more benefit for us or giving it to the rest of the members and losing out in the long run. I personally would prefer the UK not to be a member of the EU. We wud still have trading capabilities, but without the same strict regulations which can be quite annoying. And i do see the point some ppl are makign about france breaking the rules. Especially with the British Beef fiasco. I think the UK wud be better off out of the EU as we are economically strong enough to survive without being a member and so on. I suppose we shalle find out what the country thinks when Blair gets his refurendum on the new EU constitution he is drawing up.

Also removing us from the EU wud allow more free trade with outsider nations. well in theory at least.

On the point about oil i think main trade shud be done in euros. Although i on;t want the UK to adopt the Euro, the Euro using countries house a larger population than the USA and so their currency shud be used. Some may point out why not use the chinese currency or the indian currency. Well, they don;t use as much oil as the more developed countries do. The main trade in Oil is in Europe and the US i believe. although correct me if i am wrong.

Anyway GDA2 out.

I'm against the EU but not for any reasons do do with national soverignty. I don't think an entity of its size can ever be meaningfully democratic. I suspect strongly it's a subtle attempt at empire building. I think the powers given to Europol are very dangerous indeed. I am hostile to it forcing all member states to follow a hardline freemarket economic policy, regardless of the wishes of their population and I'm highly uneasy about the implicit racism in the attempts to build a "fortress Europe".
My views exactly. I think that the EU is shifting too far to the right, and I don't like the "fortress Europe" idea either.

European Union = True Socialist Values

United States of Israel Mk. 2 = Capitalist Scum

And we still have a bigger economy!!
You really are deluded. There is nothing socialist about the EU. Maybe some individual countries are moderately socialist, but the EU pursues a very liberal, big business, free market agenda.

By calling the United States of America, or Israel (I don't know which country you're referring too) "scum", you're just flaming. And the EU naturally has a bigger economy, we have a bigger population.

My views exactly. I think that the EU is shifting too far to the right, and I don't like the "fortress Europe" idea either.
You really are deluded. There is nothing socialist about the EU. Maybe some individual countries are moderately socialist, but the EU pursues a very liberal, big business and free market agenda.
By calling the United States of America, or Israel (I don't know which country you're referring too) "scum", you're just flaming. And the EU naturally has a bigger economy, we have a bigger population.
That actually what I like about the new tendencies. In the end of the 90s there was a tendency towards the left (Britain, France, Germany, Italy and many others). 13 countries out of 15 with left-wing governments. That was in 1998. Thats over now. Conservatives are in the majority now (Italy, Austria, even France and more) and hopefully there is also regime change in Germany in 2006. There is a new wind in Europe and the enlargement brigns more free-market ideas in the EU, since the East Europeans have enough of communism and socialism.
I say YES TO A FORTRESS EUROPE and I say NO TO IMMIGRATION OF POOR AND UNSKILLED REFUGEES: KICK THEM OUT.
Europe needs to shift from the left more to the right. The replacement of the left-winger Prodi by Barroso is a symbolic sign of this change.

And with that I wish you a Good night.

I say YES TO A FORTRESS EUROPE and I say NO TO IMMIGRATION OF POOR AND UNSKILLED REFUGEES: KICK THEM OUT.
You wouldn't happen to read a news paper owned by Murdock (sp?), would you?

If only these people understood the benefits of Immigration to the economy - rather than the one off Daily Mail stories.

And I'm sick of America - I really am - I have said before and I will say it again, do not get involved in our own affairs. Look at the problems in your own 3rd World Country before you start trying to put words in peoples mouths along the lines of: "YOU PEOPLE ARE WELL SCARED OF THE EU BECAUSE YOU REALLY WANT TO JOING US AMERICANS AND BECOME PART OF USA RIGHT?????"

George Bush has no right to come to Europe and say 'I hope Turkey is given an accession date soon' - It is none of his business - and whats more they only want Turkey to be in the EU so they will have another puppet like the Polish to try and counterbalance some of the great work being done by The French and Germans.

This proves how dumb non Europeans are.....
You know nothing about europe.........

How can you scared of the EU?

I am a European you n00b.

You can be 'scared' of the EU because it presents a credible threat to America's imperialistic aims.

I am a European you n00b.

You can be 'scared' of the EU because it presents a credible threat to America's imperialistic aims.

I'm not talking about you.....
I'm talking in general....

besides, it's good that a second superpower is forming to deal with the USA

Yep, we need a counterbalancing force and The EU is it. I think Europeans should be more united.

Glad to see me and Gigatron aren't alone in this. :)

I'm not talking about you.....
I'm talking in general....

besides, it's good that a second superpower is forming to deal with the USA
Yes, both good AND bad. Do we really want to see another America? I am so sick of how much trouble SUPER AMERICA has caused lo these past few decades. However it would be nice for there to be another superpower just to show the US that they're not the only ones.

And let's not forget the former USSR vs SUPER AMERICA...Cold War anyone?

ugghhh.....

I have to say I'm not afraid of it like I used to be. I see the EU as a machine for the better. It unites the historically war-torn continent, and it contributes greatly to the global economy. But for reasons too complex to put into one post, I fear what it may do in the foreign affairs arena.

Yes, both good AND bad. Do we really want to see another America? I am so sick of how much trouble SUPER AMERICA has caused lo these past few decades. However it would be nice for there to be another superpower just to show the US that they're not the only ones.

And let's not forget the former USSR vs SUPER AMERICA...Cold War anyone?

ugghhh.....

But the USSR was..... eh..... :eek:
I'm beginning to se a pattern here....

the USSR = A Union of Nations under one flag and under one belif
the EU = A Union of Nations under one flag and not under one belif
-------------------------------
:eek:

I've always wondered why Americans are so scared of the EU, do they see it as a threat or something?

I think a lot of Americans are afraid of the EU. A giant economic powerhouse is the last thing big corporations in the US want. More competition.

Personally, I don't have problem with it.

I think a lot of Americans are afraid of the EU. A giant economic powerhouse is the last thing big corporations in the US want. More competition.

Personally, I don't have problem with it.
More competition? If you didnt notice yet, globalization has already opened all markets for American corporations. They are exploiting the workers here as much as anywhere else in the world.

More competition? If you didnt notice yet, globalization has already opened all markets for American corporations. They are exploiting the workers here as much as anywhere else in the world.

Sad, but true.

More competition? If you didnt notice yet, globalization has already opened all markets for American corporations. They are exploiting the workers here as much as anywhere else in the world.

You're probably right. Quite honestly, I don't know nearly enough about it. My general impression is that if Europeans are able to compete economically with Americans, everyone benefits, from the standpoint of increased quality and lower prices on consumer goods.

It makes Americans nervous when someone else ups the ante in terms of quality and value. Take for instance the trouncing American auto manufacturers took in the 70s and 80s when Japan offered cars that were of higher quality at lower prices. The introduction and acceptance of these foreign made cars was only possible when Japan became economically large enough to compete on a global scale. While not perfectly anologous, the Japanese example proves that a strong economy and large workforce forced the US and the rest of the world to take them seriously. This is the case with the EU. A unified Europe, a huge economic network of countries to rival the U.S. can only benefit consumers.

Now workers, that's another story. Free markets are always built on the backs of the workers. It doesn't have to be this way, and it shouldn't. Workers must always be free to form unions, governments must always be watchful of exploitation and the population must be vigilant. Hell, I don't know. Are there ever any easy answers?

You wouldn't happen to read a news paper owned by Murdock (sp?), would you?
You are British, aren´t you???
So, by the way I would like to urge you to inform yourself of the EU. If the European court says Britain has to allow Spanish fishing in its waters YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. And by the way: Britain did. The only thing you can do - of course - is also to start fishing in Spanish waters. Thats freedom of movement and labour. And that are the rules.
If you don´t like them you should think about leaving the EU.
If countries would be allowed to chose the rules they want to follow hardly anyone would exist because one country may be not so happy with that, breaches it and as a reprisal others would breach other rules.

There is only one choice. Either staying in the EU, complying with its rules and taking its advantages or leaving it and being deprived of its advantages and about its rules as well. That the choice and that are the two alternatives. There is no third way.

You are British, aren´t you???
So, by the way I would like to urge you to inform yourself of the EU. If the European court says Britain has to allow Spanish fishing in its waters YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. And by the way: Britain did. The only thing you can do - of course - is also to start fishing in Spanish waters. Thats freedom of movement and labour. And that are the rules.
If you don´t like them you should think about leaving the EU.
If countries would be allowed to chose the rules they want to follow hardly anyone would exist because one country may be not so happy with that, breaches it and as a reprisal others would breach other rules.

There is only one choice. Either staying in the EU, complying with its rules and taking its advantages or leaving it and being deprived of its advantages and about its rules as well. That the choice and that are the two alternatives. There is no third way.

How dare you get involved in European affairs. You are an American - and it is a simple as that. Do we tell you how to run NAFTA, or deal your diplomatic relations with Mexico? I understand you Americans and your fear of the EU, you see it as a threat to your imperialism, and so you should.

No. So stay out of our business.

Pooling together of waters has many benefits. As does the CFP, it means fishing is now a sustainable business, (not run that will run out of resources in 20 years) and that all nations waters are open to trade, and as we all know, free trade is an excellant thing.

The people who worry about loosing our soverignty (in this country) are the same people who think we should stop accepting assylum seakers.


I have no time for the EU, for a whole host of reasons, partly because of loosing sovereignty, but there is far more to it than that, though I cannot be bothered to go into it really. It is a dangerous system, particularly for Britain.

However, I noticed that in your post you seem to be sneering at people who don't think we should accept asylum seekers. Why? Immigration is the biggest threat to the British people's future, and, Roach-Busters, to your people's future as well.

Renard, I don't know whether you realise - perhaps you are just doggedly walking the line of political correctness - but the home office statistics show that by 2060, British people (by which, at the risk of you calling me a racist, I mean White British people) are going to be a minority in Britain.
In my mind there is something fundamentally flawed about that, and I do not enjoy being sneered at, or called names for saying it. I don't know if you have children, but, personally, I want mine to live their lives in a nation where they are not a hated minority.

And Roach-Busters, it's coming even sooner to your country. The entire Western world is suffering because of the leftwing idiots who run us.

EU :mp5:
IMMIGRATION :mp5:
LEFTWINGERS :mp5:

So stop the practice of hating minorities.

Now workers, that's another story. Free markets are always built on the backs of the workers. It doesn't have to be this way, and it shouldn't. Workers must always be free to form unions, governments must always be watchful of exploitation and the population must be vigilant. Hell, I don't know. Are there ever any easy answers?
The unions are much more powefull in Europe than they are in the USA, especially in countries like France. Strong unions are one of the best ways to counter balance strong corporations.

You are British, aren´t you???
Yep.

So, by the way I would like to urge you to inform yourself of the EU. If the European court says Britain has to allow Spanish fishing in its waters YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. And by the way: Britain did. The only thing you can do - of course - is also to start fishing in Spanish waters. Thats freedom of movement and labour. And that are the rules.
If you don´t like them you should think about leaving the EU.
If countries would be allowed to chose the rules they want to follow hardly anyone would exist because one country may be not so happy with that, breaches it and as a reprisal others would breach other rules.

There is only one choice. Either staying in the EU, complying with its rules and taking its advantages or leaving it and being deprived of its advantages and about its rules as well. That the choice and that are the two alternatives. There is no third way.
Yes, I'm aware of all that, I have examined the EU as part of college reports, although I admit I'm not as familliar with it's executive structure as I would like to be. I'm familliar with the many benefits that free trade and free movement have given all Europeans which to me is far more important than arguments over fisheries and agricultural subsidies (which I would remove, by the way).

I have no time for the EU, for a whole host of reasons, partly because of loosing sovereignty, but there is far more to it than that, though I cannot be bothered to go into it really. It is a dangerous system, particularly for Britain.

However, I noticed that in your post you seem to be sneering at people who don't think we should accept asylum seekers. Why? Immigration is the biggest threat to the British people's future, and, Roach-Busters, to your people's future as well.

Renard, I don't know whether you realise - perhaps you are just doggedly walking the line of political correctness - but the home office statistics show that by 2060, British people (by which, at the risk of you calling me a racist, I mean White British people) are going to be a minority in Britain.
In my mind there is something fundamentally flawed about that, and I do not enjoy being sneered at, or called names for saying it. I don't know if you have children, but, personally, I want mine to live their lives in a nation where they are not a hated minority.

And Roach-Busters, it's coming even sooner to your country. The entire Western world is suffering because of the leftwing idiots who run us.

EU :mp5:
IMMIGRATION :mp5:
LEFTWINGERS :mp5:

Don't worry - people like this are in the minority in Britain, as shown by many polls most Britains are for the idea of The EU.

Unfortunately you get the occasional crackpot that will have suicidal tendancies if the notion of 'his great pound' being abolished is brought up.
These people also tend to be incredibly pro-america - and have a wish to be the '51st state', thier ignorance is thoroughlly highlighted in this point.

Renard, I don't know whether you realise - perhaps you are just doggedly walking the line of political correctness - but the home office statistics show that by 2060, British people (by which, at the risk of you calling me a racist, I mean White British people) are going to be a minority in Britain.

Then you'll know what it feels like to be a minority.

Could you please provide a credible source for this. I often see it claimed, but have never seen it justified.

BNP scum :mp5:

BNP scum :mp5:

Damn right.

But I think an issue with the BNP is that we should not implement these new laws to halt thier freedom of speech. Doing so would only result in thier actions and ideology being driven further underground - which would doubtless lead to more violence and ammunition for thier 'British people are being persecuted in thier own country' argument.

However, I noticed that in your post you seem to be sneering at people who don't think we should accept asylum seekers. Why? Immigration is the biggest threat to the British people's future, and, Roach-Busters, to your people's future as well.
I maintain the biggest threat to Britain's future is political apathy, that may just be me.

Renard, I don't know whether you realise - perhaps you are just doggedly walking the line of political correctness - but the home office statistics show that by 2060, British people (by which, at the risk of you calling me a racist, I mean White British people) are going to be a minority in Britain.
I've not come across that before now, and it doesn't really bother me, this country has been immigrated to and invaded so many times that no-one here is "100% British": Working on the assumption that only white people can be British (which is... rather odd) then we'll still be the largest minority, who cares?

In my mind there is something fundamentally flawed about that, and I do not enjoy being sneered at, or called names for saying it. I don't know if you have children, but, personally, I want mine to live their lives in a nation where they are not a hated minority.
So it's time to address the underlying problems that make that kind of behaviour acceptable: It's not. There's also the implication that it's alright for someone else to be sneered at etc, but I'll assume that wasn't deliberate.

And Roach-Busters, it's coming even sooner to your country. The entire Western world is suffering because of the leftwing idiots who run us.

EU :mp5:
IMMIGRATION :mp5:
LEFTWINGERS :mp5:
Roach busters?

I love Europe and Europeans and I am proud of being European, if you are American you can be afraid of our massive EU economy as you want. We are here to stay and socialism owns you.

LOL..oh..oh..whew..thanks..I needed that laugh first thing in the morning, Quite frankly I'm amazed the EU has lasted as long as it has, Europeans by and by haven't been able to agree on pretty much of anything for at least a millenia....so..go ahead..believe in the invicibility of the EU economy..I'll then let you know when the next McDonald's is going to open in Brussels, Paris, or Rome...and you can tell me when..well...ahmmm..I can't recall the latest European franchise over here to do well..care to enlighten me?

Seeing as the only point you make is about Corporations succeses (of which you don't benefit - so your trumpetting only makes you appear even more ignorant). I really don't see a general point to reply to.

Oh well, ignorance is bliss as they say.

Seeing as the only point you make is about Corporations succeses (of which you don't benefit - so your trumpetting only makes you appear even more ignorant). I really don't see a general point to reply to.

Oh well, ignorance is bliss as they say.

Ahmmm..psstt...not that you'd know...but I benefit pretty well...each month when the dividend check hits the mailbox...profit-sharing..gotta love it. I love how you glossed over the point I was trying to make..Your much vaunted EU..and it's might economic powerhouse and how we in the US should fear it..ahuh...not likely...but you Euros can dream...everyone must have a dream...I guess that is yours.

Oh well...none so blind that will not see as they say.

I have no time for the EU, for a whole host of reasons, partly because of loosing sovereignty, but there is far more to it than that, though I cannot be bothered to go into it really. It is a dangerous system, particularly for Britain.

However, I noticed that in your post you seem to be sneering at people who don't think we should accept asylum seekers. Why? Immigration is the biggest threat to the British people's future, and, Roach-Busters, to your people's future as well.

Renard, I don't know whether you realise - perhaps you are just doggedly walking the line of political correctness - but the home office statistics show that by 2060, British people (by which, at the risk of you calling me a racist, I mean White British people) are going to be a minority in Britain.
In my mind there is something fundamentally flawed about that, and I do not enjoy being sneered at, or called names for saying it. I don't know if you have children, but, personally, I want mine to live their lives in a nation where they are not a hated minority.

And Roach-Busters, it's coming even sooner to your country. The entire Western world is suffering because of the leftwing idiots who run us.

EU :mp5:
IMMIGRATION :mp5:
LEFTWINGERS :mp5:

lol, what kind of political tripe have you been fed in your lifetime? immigration can't hurt a country, it can only increase the cultural diversity. its racist scum natives of the country (who are nearly always a small minority with very loud voices) who hurt the country by attacking immigrants both physically and verbally, trying to scare new ones off. but then again, im a white australian whos lived most of his life in england, so what do you expect from someone who's country consists almost entirely of immigrants.

and as to your attacks on left wing politics, yes extreme left wing policies can be bad, but socialism is better for a populace than un-regulated capitalism, where abuse of the work force is common.

anyway, as you can no doubt guess from all that, im pro-EU, it brings free-trade to already developed countries, which is the only circumstance its of any benefit, and is indeed a great benefit. ill admit tho that i dont know a huge amount about its workings, or many of its other policies. however, i dont give a rat's arse about loss of sovrenity, because quite frankly, if the EU was to become a unified state, we'd still elect our leaders, just for a much larger area.

I'm not afraid of the massive economy. I'm afraid of the EU because it sets dangerous precedents for other regional mergers, such as the proposed FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), all of which eventually could lead to world government. Then, it would be so long, USA, so long, UK, so long, Germany, so long, France, etc.


Not true, you have the USA, but you still have texas.

Or, more aptly, the Faroes still have a national identity, but are governed by Denmark.

World government wouldn't remove national identity unless the majority of the world's population wanted it to.

I can't be bothered to argue with you in honesty. I have my opinions, you have yours. It is ironic how the people who preach tolerance are always the least tolerant people.

I can't be bothered to argue with you in honesty. I have my opinions, you have yours. It is ironic how the people who preach tolerance are always the least tolerant people.

You're welcome to have your opinions as long as you don't put them into practice.

I can't be bothered to argue with you in honesty. I have my opinions, you have yours. It is ironic how the people who preach tolerance are always the least tolerant people.
God forbid I should ask you to provide evidence for your claims. :rolleyes:

And when have I preached tolerence?

I don't mind the EU - as long as they stick to trade and nothing else. I have no objections to a common market and it mostly benefits us and Europe. The trouble is, they're not satisfied with stopping there - they have a habit for trying to interfere with the UK's home affairs. British home affairs are only of concern to the British public.

I think we should renegotiate our membership for the EU - one where we participate in the economic affairs but stay out of everything else. If they refuse , all we have to do is veto everything that goes through Europe until they buckle to our demands.

LOL..oh..oh..whew..thanks..I needed that laugh first thing in the morning, Quite frankly I'm amazed the EU has lasted as long as it has, Europeans by and by haven't been able to agree on pretty much of anything for at least a millenia....so..go ahead..believe in the invicibility of the EU economy..I'll then let you know when the next McDonald's is going to open in Brussels, Paris, or Rome...and you can tell me when..well...ahmmm..I can't recall the latest European franchise over here to do well..care to enlighten me?
I'm not sure that a franchise is a particularly good example to quote here: Yes profits go back to the US but a McDonalds in London is doing more good for the British economy than the US'. Simply by employing people who spend their money in the UK, and subcontracting British firms who supply fuel, electricity, the building etc.

And fair enough England my England I don't see how anyone was oppressing your opinion though, just disagreing with it.

Don't worry - people like this are in the minority in Britain, as shown by many polls most Britains are for the idea of The EU.

Unfortunately you get the occasional crackpot that will have suicidal tendancies if the notion of 'his great pound' being abolished is brought up.
These people also tend to be incredibly pro-america - and have a wish to be the '51st state', thier ignorance is thoroughlly highlighted in this point.

If this is in fact the case, and most people are for the EU, why do polls consistenty show that Blair would lose a referendum on the EU constitutional Treaty? He is postponing it until after the next election! Now, I am not a proffessor in Political Sciences, but even I can see that if the majority of Britons favoured the EU, then Blair would be able to hold the referendum, win it easily, and then win yet another large-majority election. By postponing it until after the election, he is admitting that he knows that he will lose it- imagine the difficulty he would encounter trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him, if he had backed something that they rejected!

Please do not use nonsensical prejudices, but actually post something which consists of factual evidence.

BTW- I like the EU, and hate America as much as the next person. How dare Bush tell Europe what to do! Has he no respect for the nations' individuality?!

There is only one choice. Either staying in the EU, complying with its rules and taking its advantages or leaving it and being deprived of its advantages and about its rules as well. That the choice and that are the two alternatives. There is no third way.

That is in fact not true- it is meant to be the case, but many member-nations ignore certain rules. The 35-hour working week (i.e. 9am-4pm, including 1 paid hour for lunch) was introduced as an EU directive and law, yet it has not been ratified in the UK. Nicholas Sarkozy, the ever-more charismatic and influential French Finance Minister is now looking at removing this directive from the French legislature. Germany also ignores directives on driving speeds, and lorry-registration, and yet Germany, France and the UK are still in the EU! There is always a third way, and a fourth, fifth and so on ad infinitum way. To argue otherwise is ludicrous

I think there needs to be a long run up before any referendum on the European Constitution: At the moment there's too little information. In fact, last time I looked, the EU didn't even have an up to date copy on their website.

BTW- I like the EU, and hate America as much as the next person. How dare Bush tell Europe what to do! Has he no respect for the nations' individuality?!
Of course he doesn't. Haven't you figured that out by now?

That is in fact not true- it is meant to be the case, but many member-nations ignore certain rules. The 35-hour working week (i.e. 9am-4pm, including 1 paid hour for lunch) was introduced as an EU directive and law, yet it has not been ratified in the UK. Nicholas Sarkozy, the ever-more charismatic and influential French Finance Minister is now looking at removing this directive from the French legislature. Germany also ignores directives on driving speeds, and lorry-registration, and yet Germany, France and the UK are still in the EU! There is always a third way, and a fourth, fifth and so on ad infinitum way. To argue otherwise is ludicrous
You are wrong. If the EU commission decides to take it for the European Court the country has to comply (see for example Germanys change to allow drinks to be firmed as beer although they don´t fulfill the requirements of the German brewery law of 15... (I don´t know). I think it is unnecessary to say that the German government tried anything against doing it. However it didn´t change: The European Court ruled against Germany. However: since them companies advertise that the fulfill the 15... brewery law. Actually: there is still almost no beer which is in defiance of this law. So: ironically: it was actually a good thing for marketing for the breweries.
Anyway: you are right that if the EU commission doesn´t decide to take it for the European court it can stand. But it is their choice (of course they decide sometimes from doing so for political reasons). If they decide to go to the European Court and that rules in their favour the country has to comply.
And as a matter of fact: The EU limits for working hours for workers (with several exceptions) are 48 hours per week (on average in six months). 35-hour-week has nothing to do with it. That was a stupid idea of the French socialists which was only introduced in France when they were in power there (1997-2002). It is good that the French conservative finally repeal that law.

There is a heavy discussions about prolonging working hours in Europe. Due to the financial difficulties the state governments of the German states have ordered there staff to work 42 hours in future (by getting the same pay as before). And in some companies even the unions agreed to longer working hours (without more pay - yet reducing the production cost and increasing competetivness), like by Siemens or Daimler.
Finally market economic reforms begin on the continent. And if there is "regime change" in Germany in 2006 and conservatives and liberals take over you can expect even more and tougher reforms of the social security system and the welfare state then now. There is a new wind going through Europe.

If this is in fact the case, and most people are for the EU, why do polls consistenty show that Blair would lose a referendum on the EU constitutional Treaty? He is postponing it until after the next election! Now, I am not a proffessor in Political Sciences, but even I can see that if the majority of Britons favoured the EU, then Blair would be able to hold the referendum, win it easily, and then win yet another large-majority election. By postponing it until after the election, he is admitting that he knows that he will lose it- imagine the difficulty he would encounter trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him, if he had backed something that they rejected!

Please do not use nonsensical prejudices, but actually post something which consists of factual evidence.

BTW- I like the EU, and hate America as much as the next person. How dare Bush tell Europe what to do! Has he no respect for the nations' individuality?!

I think the issue with the constitution is largely based around misconceptions - largely pursued by the tabloid media.

I understand your point, but on a side note I don't see the connection between polls relative to the issue of the EU itself, and the The Constitution. Many agree with policies the EU adopts, or should I say - tries to adopt but some critics will pursue the rhetoric of the vote winning 'our good 'ole pound!' when it has no real bearing on the situation as a whole. Unfortunately the tabloids are largely bias and will pursue any story of some poor old fisherman not being able to milk stocks dry in 20 years, just so he can make profits. Sustainability and the Environment are hated by right wingers, so they use policies such as the CFP as much as possible (even though they are doing good). But then again you get some left wing critics who actually construct a coherent argument against The EU - largely based on thier opposition to any form of an undemocratic Federal State - these views, although I disagree with them, are good examples that not all EU critics are patriotic Englishmen who want to eat thier "Good old beans and sausages without the interference of the EU!!!"

Ahmmm..psstt...not that you'd know...but I benefit pretty well...each month when the dividend check hits the mailbox...profit-sharing..gotta love it. I love how you glossed over the point I was trying to make..Your much vaunted EU..and it's might economic powerhouse and how we in the US should fear it..ahuh...not likely...but you Euros can dream...everyone must have a dream...I guess that is yours.

Oh well...none so blind that will not see as they say.

Despite your interesting ability to make strange onomatopaeic noises at the start of every 'argument' you really fail to make any points - apart from the fact you like getting dividends - which as far as I can tell, has no bearing on the argument in question.

If this is in fact the case, and most people are for the EU, why do polls consistenty show that Blair would lose a referendum on the EU constitutional Treaty? He is postponing it until after the next election! Now, I am not a proffessor in Political Sciences, but even I can see that if the majority of Britons favoured the EU, then Blair would be able to hold the referendum, win it easily, and then win yet another large-majority election. By postponing it until after the election, he is admitting that he knows that he will lose it- imagine the difficulty he would encounter trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him, if he had backed something that they rejected!


I think Blair did a VERY SMART MOVE. First he didn´t want a referendum at all. Then he realized that the conservatives would use that in the election campaign against him. I don´t think that he would lost the election because of that but it might have caused a few votes. So to make his reelection even more shure he decided to go for a referendum and to held if after the next election. There is nothing smarter what he could have done.
Whether he wins it?? We´ll see. I doubt it though. But than he can either resign and leave it to Mr. Brown to go ahead or he stays in office and makes a second attempt in two or three years after the failed one.

I don't mind the EU - as long as they stick to trade and nothing else. I have no objections to a common market and it mostly benefits us and Europe. The trouble is, they're not satisfied with stopping there - they have a habit for trying to interfere with the UK's home affairs. British home affairs are only of concern to the British public.

I think we should renegotiate our membership for the EU - one where we participate in the economic affairs but stay out of everything else. If they refuse , all we have to do is veto everything that goes through Europe until they buckle to our demands.

I believe the EU should get involved in other things than trade.Otherwise it will become like another America.
Environmental issues, human/worker's rights, even a rapid response force.

even a rapid response force.

In total agreement here. I'd go even further - A United European Army.

In total agreement here. I'd go even further - A United European Army.
hahaha. And that without a working CFSR (if you know what I mean), hahahaha.
Ridiculous. That´s almost as silly as the idea of an UN army. No nation would be willing to give troops under a command they are not in charge of.

Ahh one of the old 'WHY SHUD WE D!5BAND N4TO IS IZ WELL GUD CUZ OUR M8's TEH AMERICANS ARE IN 1T!!!!!!!!!!@ONE!32!'

Go EU, Go! (but a little more social Europe :fluffle: would be nice).

PS, Anyone saw my Manuel (from Barcelona :headbang: )?

SMW.

What????? Please use words and letters to express what you mean.

Of course he doesn't. Haven't you figured that out by now?

Wait just a damn minute..if you tell us not to interfere in European affairs, then by thunder be consistent and keep your mouth shut bout our affairs in Iraq and here.

Our affairs are internal, we don't tell you to spend more money on welfare in your third world country do we?

You recieve critiscm for your foreign policy - which has an effect upon all of us.

Now please go and find a hole and die :D

I don't have much access to what Europeans think,but this thread has enlightened me.I didn't realize how disliked Americans were in Europe,or at least by these Europeans.I don't think the EU would ever work out.I mean when has Europe ever been able to get along with one another before.Don't worry about Bush everyone hates him over here too and he'll be gone this November.Oh,and let's no forget that even with our massively downsized military we can still own any nation/nations there are.

Our affairs are internal, we don't tell you to spend more money on welfare in your third world country do we?

You recieve critiscm for your foreign policy - which has an effect upon all of us.

Now please go and find a hole and die :D

Excuse me..your affairs affect us as well....please..let's not be guilty of using a double standard thank you very much...

As for me finding a hole and dying...please..by all means..you first..I am after all..a mannerd individual...

But the USSR was..... eh..... :eek:
I'm beginning to se a pattern here....

the USSR = A Union of Nations under one flag and under one belif
the EU = A Union of Nations under one flag and not under one belif
-------------------------------
:eek:


exactly

I believe the EU should get involved in other things than trade.Otherwise it will become like another America.
Environmental issues, human/worker's rights, even a rapid response force.
If anything, the more powerful the EU gets and the more sovereignty is taken from individual nations, the more like America it would become.

As for the idea of a united EU army, do any Brits here really want to have their soldiers put under the command of a foreign power? Would you really want British troops be put under the command of a French general for example? The only thing they could teach us is how to wave a white flag ;) :D

I think Blair did a VERY SMART MOVE. First he didn´t want a referendum at all. Then he realized that the conservatives would use that in the election campaign against him. I don´t think that he would lost the election because of that but it might have caused a few votes. So to make his reelection even more shure he decided to go for a referendum and to held if after the next election. There is nothing smarter what he could have done.
Whether he wins it?? We´ll see. I doubt it though. But than he can either resign and leave it to Mr. Brown to go ahead or he stays in office and makes a second attempt in two or three years after the failed one.

Kybernetia you are so obviously not-British that it hurts. Anyone who lived in Britain, and read anything other than the tabloid (i.e. gutter) press would know that there is no way thet Blair would ever resign in favour of Brown- the only way that Tony Blair will stop leading the country, is in a general election defeat.

To all of those people in Britain with more than an ounce of sense, it is plain to see that the delaying tactics of Blair are exactly those- delaying tactics! Why would someone delay something?! Because they know that it will have negative consequences. Labour will most probably win the next election (which galls me), yet there vote share will be tiny- possibly only 35% of the vote! For a non-coalition party in power, that would be a record. Blair will never win a vote on the EU constitution- I think that the appointment of Mandelson as Britain's EU commissioner shows how truly desperate Blair is to surround himself with cronies.

Even Michael Hesseltine, who twisted the knife in Maggie's back, has acknowledged that any campaign supported by Blair and Mandelson is doomed to failure. He has also said that he will never support a campaign which includes them- if he got any more pro-european he would explode! This shows that, like Bush, Blair is poisoning his country's political system

Wait just a damn minute..if you tell us not to interfere in European affairs, then by thunder be consistent and keep your mouth shut bout our affairs in Iraq and here.

Your affairs in Iraq are not yours- they are the Coalition's. The coalition is not America, whereas the EU is the EU. The EU's admissions policy is an internal one which has nothing to do with non-EU nations. You do not see Japan urging us to make Mongolia an EU nation (them joining makes as much sense as Turkey!). This shows that America is the only country arrogant enough, and Americans the only people stupid enough, to believe that they can influence what other great powers will do- the EU made you back down over your steel prices! collectively, we are one Hell of a lot stronger than you- so, why don't you move to Texas, where hopefully you will get shot in the face immediately (hopefully). BTW- take all the other American scum (leaving Hillary Clinton and Oprah behind) with you.

Your affairs in Iraq are not yours- they are the Coalition's. The coalition is not America, whereas the EU is the EU. The EU's admissions policy is an internal one which has nothing to do with non-EU nations. You do not see Japan urging us to make Mongolia an EU nation (them joining makes as much sense as Turkey!). This shows that America is the only country arrogant enough, and Americans the only people stupid enough, to believe that they can influence what other great powers will do- the EU made you back down over your steel prices! collectively, we are one Hell of a lot stronger than you- so, why don't you move to Texas, where hopefully you will get shot in the face immediately (hopefully). BTW- take all the other American scum (leaving Hillary Clinton and Oprah behind) with you.

I beg to differ..the affairs in Iraq..as it pertains to the US are our business, and it certainly would had the UK decided not to put boots on the ground.

And what affects the EU...economics or admissions affects how we deal with that region..so as I said..let's not be guilty of using a double standard shall we?

Kybernetia you are so obviously not-British that it hurts. Anyone who lived in Britain, and read anything other than the tabloid (i.e. gutter) press would know that there is no way thet Blair would ever resign in favour of Brown- the only way that Tony Blair will stop leading the country, is in a general election defeat.

So, who is the "crown prince" then. Is there another candidate except Brown. And if Blair doesn´t bring victories to Labour any more wouldn´t the party try to replace him????
Under what circumstances would he resign: After a defeat in a referendum, after two defeats?????
And how long would he stay in office. It´s a tough job thoug. I don´t think forever. Well: he can´t biologically. But given the situation of the British opposition - as far as I know it (I remember the defeat of Hague in 2001) it seems unlikely that they get themself together any time soon.

So, who is the "crown prince" then. Is there another candidate except Brown. And if Blair doesn´t bring victories to Labour any more wouldn´t the party try to replace him????
Under what circumstances would he resign: After a defeat in a referendum, after two defeats?????
And how long would he stay in office. It´s a tough job thoug. I don´t think forever. Well: he can´t biologically. But given the situation of the British opposition - as far as I know it (I remember the defeat of Hague in 2001) it seems unlikely that they get themself together any time soon.

I think that if Blair loses the refurendum he will resign.

God forbid I should ask you to provide evidence for your claims. :rolleyes:

And when have I preached tolerence?

OK, here is a story, from unarguably one of the most left wing papers in Britain, stating that whites will be a minority in Britain within this century.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,363783,00.html

It really doesn't matter how long it takes, unless you are a selfish short sighted kind. Whether it be my kids, grandkids, or greatgrandkids, I don't want them to have to live as a minority in the nation their ancestors built.

And at current rates it looks fairly certain that the demographic will change, with 100,000+ Brits leaving every year, and 250,000+ (that is a very conservative figure) foriegners coming in.

OK, here is a story, from unarguably one of the most left wing papers in Britain, stating that whites will be a minority in Britain within this century.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,363783,00.html

It really doesn't matter how long it takes, unless you are a selfish short sighted kind. Whether it be my kids, grandkids, or greatgrandkids, I don't want them to have to live as a minority in the nation their ancestors built.
.

The same ancestors who are decendants of people from Norway, Normandy, Saxony and Rome?

I beg to differ..the affairs in Iraq..as it pertains to the US are our business, and it certainly would had the UK decided not to put boots on the ground.

And what affects the EU...economics or admissions affects how we deal with that region..so as I said..let's not be guilty of using a double standard shall we?

You do not deal with the EU as one entity- it is not one sovereign nation! You grant Poland "favoured nation status"- you don't grant this to the EU. You do not say "this year, we want to export $4billion and import $3 billion from the EU in goods"- you say "this much from the UK (a country!), this much from France ( a country!) etc. Stop applying your American 2-dimensional views upon Europe- you could never understand what it is like to come from somewhere like Europe (even though most of your descendents are from Europe).

Also, America is NOT THE ONLY NATION involved in Iraq, and Britain is not the only other nation there- each nation has been stationed in separate parts, and they all control those areas- any issues that affect the city of Basra are dealt with by the British, with Fallujah it is the US, Poles and Spanish. Please do not respond to this post with more hyper-nationalistic, FOX news-fed crap, but form a coherent and intelligent argument (if you have the mental faculties to perform such a task!)

Also, America is NOT THE ONLY NATION involved in Iraq, and Britain is not the only other nation there- each nation has been stationed in separate parts, and they all control those areas- any issues that affect the city of Basra are dealt with by the British, with Fallujah it is the US, Poles and Spanish. Please do not respond to this post with more hyper-nationalistic, FOX news-fed crap, but form a coherent and intelligent argument (if you have the mental faculties to perform such a task!)
Didn't Spain pull it's troops out?

So, who is the "crown prince" then. Is there another candidate except Brown. And if Blair doesn´t bring victories to Labour any more wouldn´t the party try to replace him????
Under what circumstances would he resign: After a defeat in a referendum, after two defeats?????
And how long would he stay in office. It´s a tough job thoug. I don´t think forever. Well: he can´t biologically. But given the situation of the British opposition - as far as I know it (I remember the defeat of Hague in 2001) it seems unlikely that they get themself together any time soon.


Blair would only resign if he lost in a general election! He is not the sort of person who would resign over a referendum loss (he has not the character to do so). Labour will not indefinately govern this country- they will probably win the next election, but would only survive for 2-3 years , like Thatcher. Blair would then probably still remain Labour leader- if he did not, there are many challengers to Brown. Blairites (of whom there are many) could choose Margaret Beckett, Prescott (roflmao!), or many others (God Forbid John Reid!)
If Blair lost the referendum, he may well have to call a new election (there would be a vote of no confidence, which would probably be passed), and then, if he won this, his cause for leadership is strengthened. If he lost this, he could then resign as Leader OF THE LABOUR PARTY, but would not be resigning as Prime Minister, because he would no longer hold this post!

I am tired of responding to Bloody Americans- if you read the top of the page carefully, then you will see that this is a Poll for EUROPEANS! Yet another typical example of American interventionism, possibly the main cause for their International hatred and ridicule...

Didn't Spain pull it's troops out?

Spain hasn't yet removed all troops from Iraq. Also, when discussing the coalition, I was referring to the government of Aznar's Partido Populario, which lost the March election to Zapatero's PSOE (Partido Sociolista Organizacion Espanol, I think?!). The after-war coalition is vastly different to that pre-war, with the inclusion of South Korean and Japanese troops, amongst others

The idea that we should support the EU Empire, solely because it pisses off America is politically illiterate. The CIA helped fund the European Movement at its conception. (See http://www.wcml.org.uk/internat/euromove.htm, http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/rrtalk.htm and http://www.globalbritain.org/BOO/HowTheySungIt.htm)

I've always wondered why Americans are so scared of the EU, do they see it as a threat or something?


i'm not sure either... but they don't realize that the EU is exactly what the US used to be. we didn't become a single nation until after WWI or II (not quite sure and i want to cover my butt). we were run as single nations with a centralized treaty making body.

The EU's successes are understated terribly. I heard somebody on these boards saying - "I dont think the EU will work" - hah, its been working for the prievous 30 years. America should be scared, a real union of nations as powerful as those in Europe would be a great thing.

The EU's successes are understated terribly. I heard somebody on these boards saying - "I dont think the EU will work" - hah, its been working for the prievous 30 years. America should be scared, a real union of nations as powerful as those in Europe would be a great thing.

That's because successful initiatives drawn up by the EU then get hyjacked at national level, eg a EU initiative to reduce the numbers of chemicals in the home, when reaching national level, will turn to UK (for example) initiative to reduce chemicals in the home.
Another reason is that it's usually only the EU's failiures that get the tabloids attention.

That's because successful initiatives drawn up by the EU then get hyjacked at national level, eg a EU initiative to reduce the numbers of chemicals in the home, when reaching national level, will turn to UK (for example) initiative to reduce chemicals in the home.
Another reason is that it's usually only the EU's failiures that get the tabloids attention.

Very true - The Tabloids (apart from the Mirror - Never will forget that 'Bold Europe!' headline) are really anti-european simply because of patriotism and their wish to declare 'ALLEGIANCE TO TEH QUEEN!!' rather than the boogiemen in Brussels.

The EU's successes are understated terribly. I heard somebody on these boards saying - "I dont think the EU will work" - hah, its been working for the prievous 30 years. America should be scared, a real union of nations as powerful as those in Europe would be a great thing.

Yeah.....European nations working together for a common goal. Right....They all get along so well with each other. Their exploits during the 20th century do not bode well for success, but I wish them luck, they are going to need it.

Yeah.....European nations working together for a common goal. Right....They all get along so well with each other. Their exploits during the 20th century do not bode well for success, but I wish them luck, they are going to need it.

Oh I'm sorry - The European nations haven't been at War for 60 years. But how many Wars has America launched on its own continent (The War on Central America under Reagan springs to mind). Now go and eat your freedom fries and pledge allegiance to the Bush.

Oh I'm sorry - The European nations haven't been at War for 60 years. But how many Wars has America launched on its own continent (The War on Central America under Reagan springs to mind). Now go and eat your freedom fries and pledge allegiance to the Bush.

True it has been awhile, but when you guys throw a war, you do it on a grand scale. As for "wars," the US has not been in a "war" since 1945 when we gate crashed your last party. There have been interdictions and other "operations" on a daily basis somewhere in the world almost every day since, 99% of which never make the news. ;)

Is everyone going to just ignore my referenced sources on CIA involvement in the EU project then? NWV, how about you?

Well thats mainly relative to the fact that at the time America wanted a strong Europe to fight its War against Communism. It saw the flashpoint line across Europe and decided that it would need to unite states to support it in the event of a War - It's all part of the Marshall Plan.

Us Euros have proven we like the EU, just look at the poll. A strong Europe is better for all just like a weak America is.

i would like an united europe
with common laws

but with the same borders
(more an indication of the language and culture then to countryborders)

i also wouldn't like to see an country like turkey in it
since they are just to much different from europe
it would also be a huge jumpingboard for middleasians to enter europe

i also wouldn't like to see an country like turkey in it

America will try its utmost to get Turkey in (although its none of thier business) because Turkey will pretty much counterbalance France and Germany. And The US will have another puppet (along with Poland) in the EU.

Well thats mainly relative to the fact that at the time America wanted a strong Europe to fight its War against Communism. It saw the flashpoint line across Europe and decided that it would need to unite states to support it in the event of a War - It's all part of the Marshall Plan.

Thats partly correct. The US wanted to unite the European nations against the Soviet Union. More importantly, the US wanted to station troops in Europe to fight any war with the Soviet Union on European soil. Had we not done so the European armies would have been crushed and there would be no second normandy invasion if that had happened. Europe would have been ground under Stalins boots just like Eastern Europe was. Then Stalin would have turned toward the US. So it was in everyones interest that we did this. So our European friends who are constantly angry at the US should remember sometimes just what the US has done for them in the past and would do again. I wonder if the reverse would be true, but I seriously doubt it.

in other words
us picked out europe as their battleground so they wouldn't have to fight on their own soil

in other words
us picked out europe as their battleground so they wouldn't have to fight on their own soil
Very observant. It's a little thing Americans like to overlook. And then whine about how we should be gratefull. Cause they did it all just out of the goodness of their oil gusseling combustion engines.

Very observant. It's a little thing Americans like to overlook. And then whine about how we should be gratefull.

No whining here. Thats exactly what we did...and it made sense. Of course if we had not, you guys would probably not be here. Stalin wanted to march right across Europe and really, the only thing stopping him was the US. So while you might despise the US and all it stands for...the fact remains that history is what it is and cannot be changed.

I am tired of responding to Bloody Americans- if you read the top of the page carefully, then you will see that this is a Poll for EUROPEANS! Yet another typical example of American interventionism, possibly the main cause for their International hatred and ridicule...

First off, Kybernetia isn't American, Kybernetia is German. I think.

Secondly, shutup. Really. This pathetic bigotry and rampant anti-American sentiment is both pointless and absurd. All of you Americanophobes simply love to criticise America for being domineering, bigoted, small-minded, insular and aggressive. Well, can you guess what you're also guilty of?

Attacking America for the sake of attacking America is shamelessly ridiculous. You seek to condemn an entire nation of 280 million people, of all political, cultural and racial persuasions, with a lazy, prejudiced comment, and then expect to maintain the moral high ground. How dare you. You have a bloody great cheek. You are guilty of committing one of the grossest acts of hypocrisy to perpetrated by Europeans in recent years, and I hope that you are thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Idiots like you make me embarassed to be a European.

All of you, grow up and quit bashing America. It's not big, it's not clever and it's not justified. If you are going to criticise another country, specify which citizens of that country you're attacking, and don't just throw blanket statements around like fucking confetti.

No whining here. Thats exactly what we did...and it made sense. Of course if we had not, you guys would probably not be here. Stalin wanted to march right across Europe and really, the only thing stopping him was the US. So while you might despise the US and all it stands for...the fact remains that history is what it is and cannot be changed.


ok wait a minute

so they had just fought a war
millions of russians were killed
the country was like half destroyed
and you think the russians were about to conquer europe that had his whole army assembled?

the fact remains that history is what it is and cannot be changed.

And thats very unforunate for the US.

Afghanistan Trap.

Nicaragua.

War on Central America.

Vietnam.

Iraq.

Support of hardline dicatorships in the Arabic World.
E.t.c

No whining here. Thats exactly what we did...and it made sense. Of course if we had not, you guys would probably not be here. Stalin wanted to march right across Europe and really, the only thing stopping him was the US. So while you might despise the US and all it stands for...the fact remains that history is what it is and cannot be changed.
If Stalin realy would have set his mind to march across Europe the US ground forces would have been flattned. Or do you think the "mighty" Sherman would have stopped them? Or any other "suberb" US military equipment?

ok wait a minute

so they had just fought a war
millions of russians were killed
the country was like half destroyed
and you think the russians were about to conquer europe that had his whole army assembled?

Russia had several million men under arms still. They not only COULD have, they WOULD have done so. The US and Russian armies were really the only armies of any size in Europe at the surrender. Who else could have stopped the Russians? The French? The Italians? The Swiss? No, Stalin would have marched in if he thought he could get away with it.

Russia had several million men under arms still. They not only COULD have, they WOULD have done so. The US and Russian armies were really the only armies of any size in Europe at the surrender. Who else could have stopped the Russians? The French? The Italians? The Swiss? No, Stalin would have marched in if he thought he could get away with it.

*yawns* And they say propoganda is American history classes is 'ineffective'.

And thats very unforunate for the US.

Afghanistan Trap.

Nicaragua.

War on Central America.

Vietnam.

Iraq.

Support of hardline dicatorships in the Arabic World.
E.t.c


Yes, and I can quote as many if not more things that European countries have done...much WORSE things. But what would be the point? You would just deny, deny, deny....

lol dude

how about look at it this way

russia had only a few million exhausted an traumatisezed yound men left behind
they were thousands miles away from home and had just won a war that utterly destroyed half of the world

and they were about to attack their only allies in the war
in a totally ruined country

while they had this huge neighbour with an army of the same size as them and that wants to expand ? (talking about china)

If Stalin realy would have set his mind to march across Europe the US ground forces would have been flattned. Or do you think the "mighty" Sherman would have stopped them? Or any other "suberb" US military equipment?

I doubt they would have been flattened. The US had just as many men under arms at the time and an untouched arms industry. Plus the atomic bomb. Russia had none of those.

Yes, and I can quote as many if not more things that European countries have done...much WORSE things. But what would be the point? You would just deny, deny, deny....


we have allready accepted

while they had this huge neighbour with an army of the same size as them and that wants to expand ? (talking about china)

China was not expansion minded until the communitsts took over in 1948. They were still fighting their civil war...

I doubt they would have been flattened. The US had just as many men under arms at the time and an untouched arms industry. Plus the atomic bomb. Russia had none of those.

*kuch* i wouldn't be to sure that russia didn't had a boms yet

I doubt they would have been flattened. The US had just as many men under arms at the time and an untouched arms industry. Plus the atomic bomb. Russia had none of those.
They used the 2 bombs they had on Japan. As for the US soldiers....well...let's just say the Italians would have done as well against the Russians as the Americans would have. The Americans probably had a little edge to the Italians, they were better indoctrinated.

we have allready accepted

Just remember, the US is a product of European expansion and colonialism. We are a product of European intolerance and for the longest time were isolationist, but we were dragged screaming onto the world stage. You guys obviosly do not understand the American people and I would doubt that you have ever even been here. I on the other hand have lived in Europe for several years so I understand you better than you might think.

Just remember, the US is a product of European expansion and colonialism.
And we are ashamed of that. Although the real blame in this lies with the French.

They used the 2 bombs they had on Japan. As for the US soldiers....well...let's just say the Italians would have done as well against the Russians as the Americans would have. The Americans probably had a little edge to the Italians, they were better indoctrinated.

Yeah....just the two right? There were 15 built before the end of 1945. The USSR did not test their first one until 1949. That was a great deterrance to Stalin. Plus the Fulda Gap is quite easily defended and his tanks would have had to go through there in any invasion of the west.

And we are ashamed of that. Although the real blame in this lies with the French.


for donating that statue of 'liberty'?

i really don't see it with americans and their 'freedom' they always have to see freedom this freedom that

like to show the ppl you have freedom

but actually the american thing is full of censorship and their isn't as nearly as much freedom as in europe

like how the hell can you base a whole politic system on only 2 parties?

Yeah....just the two right? There were 15 built before the end of 1945. The USSR did not test their first one until 1949. That was a great deterrance to Stalin. Plus the Fulda Gap is quite easily defended and his tanks would have had to go through there in any invasion of the west.


strange

by the end of wwII they were in berlin if i'm not mistaken

And we are ashamed of that. Although the real blame in this lies with the French.

Lets not forget the Spanish....I live in a former Spanish colony. Lets not forget the British, the original 13 colonies were theirs. Lets not forget the Germans, the midwest was colonized by a great many of them. lets not forget the Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, they settled in the North Central areas. But first and foremost....lets not forget the people who were here first, my ancestors. They were exposed to biological agents brought over by the Europeans. Smallpox, malaria and other diseases that were not found here. How many millions died as a result? No, the US is not perfect, but we have never commited such acts as those the Europeans committed here in the name of their "kings."

for donating that statue of 'liberty'?

i really don't see it with americans and their 'freedom' they always have to see freedom this freedom that

like to show the ppl you have freedom

but actually the american thing is full of censorship and their isn't as nearly as much freedom as in europe

like how the hell can you base a whole politic system on only 2 parties?

Actually there are several other parties. I am neither a Republican noe a Democrat....I am a member of the Libertarian Party.

As for freedom....what is freedom?

strange

by the end of wwII they were in berlin if i'm not mistaken

They were. I guess the people of West Berlin might forget the airlift that kept them from starving and freezing, but again, we can forget that.

Lets not forget the Spanish....I live in a former Spanish colony. Lets not forget the British, the original 13 colonies were theirs. Lets not forget the Germans, the midwest was colonized by a great many of them. lets not forget the Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, they settled in the North Central areas. But first and foremost....lets not forget the people who were here first, my ancestors. They were exposed to biological agents brought over by the Europeans. Smallpox, malaria and other diseases that were not found here. How many millions died as a result? No, the US is not perfect, but we have never commited such acts as those the Europeans committed here in the name of their "kings."
Actually I was reffering to the French for aiding the US in their unjust war against England.

Actually there are several other parties. I am neither a Republican noe a Democrat....I am a member of the Libertarian Party.

As for freedom....what is freedom?

go see braveheart

Actually I was reffering to the French for aiding the US in their unjust war against England.

The French only helped because they were against the British, they were not "Pro" American. They wanted to control the US but Ben Franklin refused to give them a voice in negotiating the Treaty of Paris in 1781.

Unjust war...you really have very little knowledge of the colonial days and what life was like under George III.

go see braveheart

Seen it...just more Europeans fighting over turf.

Seen it...just more Europeans fighting over turf.


wow
you totally don't get the meaning of the movie

i geuss it was the same with america
just some fighting over turf

it's probably the same with the middle east

maybe they don't want american militairy bases in their country

wow
you totally don't get the meaning of the movie

i geuss it was the same with america
just some fighting over turf

it's probably the same with the middle east

maybe they don't want american militairy bases in their country

My point is that freedom is subjective. What one person defines freedom as, another might not. We Americans define it with our Bill of Rights, the same does not hold true in other countries. There is no one single definition.

The French only helped because they were against the British, they were not "Pro" American. They wanted to control the US but Ben Franklin refused to give them a voice in negotiating the Treaty of Paris in 1781.

Unjust war...you really have very little knowledge of the colonial days and what life was like under George III.
Eitherway. The real blame for the US existing today lies with France. And yes. Unjust war. As the colonials were just unwilling to pay their taxes.

My point is that freedom is subjective. What one person defines freedom as, another might not. We Americans define it with our Bill of Rights, the same does not hold true in other countries. There is no one single definition.


so what you are saying

that for example
iraqees could have had in their eyes freedom under saddam

As the colonials were just unwilling to pay their taxes.

NO NO NO!!!

You got it all wrong!

According to American History teacher's accounts. It was all about a War of FREEDOM!!!! (Editor's note: This statement is historically inaccurate).

Eitherway. The real blame for the US existing today lies with France. And yes. Unjust war. As the colonials were just unwilling to pay their taxes.

Thats funny....they would have been glad to pay their taxes if George III had given them a voice in Parliament. Had he done so we might still be members of the commonwealth and the British Empire might never have fallen.

NO NO NO!!!

You got it all wrong!

According to American History teacher's accounts. It was all about a War of FREEDOM!!!! (Editor's note: This statement is historically inaccurate).
Oh right....I forgot. Damn..I must have read a liberal atheist source...

Thats funny....they would have been glad to pay their taxes if George III had given them a voice in Parliament. Had he done so we might still be members of the commonwealth and the British Empire might never have fallen.
Oh, now the British empire has fallen cause America wasn't part of it anymore?

so what you are saying

that for example
iraqees could have had in their eyes freedom under saddam

If thats how they defined freedom. People in North Korea believe themselves to be free too...does the fact that we think otherwise make them wrong? Of course they are starving to death and live under a repressive regime, but does even that make them wrong?

Oh right....I forgot. Damn..I must have read a liberal atheist source...

Nah it was probably commie :D

Oh, now the British empire has fallen cause America wasn't part of it anymore?

I did not say that, but what if America had not become an independent country?

I did not say that, but what if America had not become an independent country?

then their probably was alot more peace in the world

Nah it was probably commie :D
Well, aren't liberal atheists and commies the same?

then their probably was alot more peace in the world

Well lets see....WWI...nope, that would have happened anyway....WWII...ditto. No, I think the two most violent wars in the history of man would have still happened. Although more people might have died due to US involvement earlier as part of the British Empire.

I did not say that, but what if America had not become an independent country?
It would probably have the same status as Canada or Australia-New Zealand by now.

Well lets see....WWI...nope, that would have happened anyway....WWII...ditto. No, I think the two most violent wars in the history of man would have still happened. Although more people might have died due to US involvement earlier as part of the British Empire.


lets see

why you think wwI would have happend

since england would have a huge amount of colonies

you know
even belgium had a colony

it was only like 30 times bigger orso then belgium itself

It would probably have the same status as Canada or Australia-New Zealand by now.

Thats probably true now, but the past 200 years would have been very different and who knows how the world might have changed. The British Empire might NOT have fallen and may have gotten even bigger. What if's are like that....

lets see

why you think wwI would have happend

since england would have a huge amount of colonies

you know
even belgium had a colony

it was only like 30 times bigger orso then belgium itself

Well, WWI would have happened even IF the US was still part of the British Empire. Events in Sarajevo would not have changed.

EVERY European country had colonies, they were stealing the natural resources of the people who lived there.

Well, WWI would have happened even IF the US was still part of the British Empire. Events in Sarajevo would not have changed...


you seem to forget that france would also have his colonies
and spain and portugal to

england would control alot of the asian countries
africa
and america

what could germany possibly do?

they would be stupid to war

Well, WWI would have happened even IF the US was still part of the British Empire. Events in Sarajevo would not have changed...
The murder of the Arch Duke wasn't the cause of the war. It was just the last drop sort of speak. Tensions in Europe build up long before. But for 40 years they were kept in check by the colonial system. All major powers were to busy to carve out an empire. After there was no more land left to colonise these tensions returned to Europe. Step 1 and 2 were the Balkan war and the Marroco crisis.

EVERY European country had colonies, they were stealing the natural resources of the people who lived there.
Like the US didn't. Their entire country was a colony were they stole land and resources from the original inhabitants. And then they went after land outside of the Americas. Like the Phillipines. US troops also participated in quashing the boxer rebellion in China.

you seem to forget that france would also have his colonies
and spain and portugal to

england would control alot of the asian countries
africa
and america

what could germany possibly do?

they would be stupid to war

Germany had colonies in Africa and one in the Pacific if I recall correctly. had the US NOT gained independence, more colonies would have been carved out of Central and South America. It was the Monroe Doctrine that stopped that, that would not have happened...and then MAYBE WWI might have been postponed...or stopped altogether. So lets recap...the US gains independence and stopps European colonialism in the Americas, thus precipitating WWI. I just KNEW we would find a way to blame it on the US afterall!! ;)

Like the US didn't. There entire country was a colony were they stole land and resources from the original inhabitants. And then they went after land outside of the Americas. Like the Phillipines. US troops also participated in quashing the boxer rebellion in China.

The Phillippines were won from Spain in the Spanish-American war. Also, the US granted the Phillippines their independence. The same is true of Cuba, but they squandered theirs.

The Phillippines were won from Spain in the Spanish-American war. Also, the US granted the Phillippines their independence. The same is true of Cuba, but they squandered theirs.

Batista was much better though. I liked the way he only cared about the richest 1% and Cuba became 'America's richboy Playground'. Stupid prolateriats for rising up - Whats wrong with a dollar a day and being The US's puppet.
[/Sarcasm]
You American's actually believe that people like your Batista regime? Just like you think people like your S. Vietnam Regime as well eh?

The murder of the Arch Duke wasn't the cause of the war. It was just the last drop sort of speak. Tensions in Europe build up long before. But for 40 years they were kept in check by the colonial system. All major powers were to busy to carve out an empire. After there was no more land left to colonise these tensions returned to Europe. Step 1 and 2 were the Balkan war and the Marroco crisis.

Thats true. Europe was a mess and things got out of hand. A two-bit Crown Prince from a dying empire takes a bullet and millions die. Could such a thing happen today?

Batista was much better though. I liked the way he only cared about the richest 1% and Cuba became 'America's richboy Playground'. Stupid prolateriats for rising up - Whats wrong with a dollar a day and being The US's puppet.
[/Sarcasm]
You American's actually believe that people like your Batista regime? Just like you think people like your S. Vietnam Regime as well eh?

"Our" Batista regime? Cuba was and is a sovereign nation. That the people allowed dictators to flourish is their own fault. Jose Marti would turn over in his grave at the thought.

The Phillippines were won from Spain in the Spanish-American war. Also, the US granted the Phillippines their independence. The same is true of Cuba, but they squandered theirs.
Only after a bloody war that the US waged on the Pillipino's. And they didn't become independant until 1946.

Thats true. Europe was a mess and things got out of hand. A two-bit Crown Prince from a dying empire takes a bullet and millions die. Could such a thing happen today?
Well, you saw what happened after a couple of planes flew into a couple of buildings. Now imagine somebody, let's say from the middle east, kills a certain hick from Texas.

Well, you saw what happened after a couple of planes flew into a couple of buildings. Now imagine somebody, let's say from the middle east, kills a certain hick from Texas.

Yeah, that would probably be it for the nations of the middle east....Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia would become the next few states. LOL

Yeah, that would probably be it for the nations of the middle east....Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia would become the next few states. LOL


i don't think america would dare to attack the saudi's

who would pay them their dirty money then?

Saudi Arabia

What?

Oh right! The dictatorial brutal regime that you promote!

Why doesn't the rhetoric of liberation work with the Saudi Arabian people then?

Only after a bloody war that the US waged on the Pillipino's. And they didn't become independant until 1946. Really? The Spanish were the colonial masters and after that war they became a US territory much like Puerto Rico and Guam are today. I think you will find that they preferred to be a US territory to being a Spanish colony.

What?

Oh right! The dictatorial brutal regime that you promote!

Why doesn't the rhetoric of liberation work with the Saudi Arabian people then?

Oh boy....do you know ANYTHING about the middle east? The Saud family controls everything in Saudi Arabia. How many people are citizens of Saudi Arabia vs how many live and work there? The same is true of Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar AND Oman.

Really? The Spanish were the colonial masters and after that war they became a US territory much like Puerto Rico and Guam are today. I think you will find that they preferred to be a US territory to being a Spanish colony.
Realy?
Filipino-American war (http://www.filipino-americans.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?url=filamwar.html)

Oh boy....do you know ANYTHING about the middle east? The Saud family controls everything in Saudi Arabia. How many people are citizens of Saudi Arabia vs how many live and work there? The same is true of Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar AND Oman.

you seem to forget that the saudi family is good friends with bush and so and they pay the goverment 1.4 billion dollar orso in dirty money yearly?

Realy?
Filipino-American war (http://www.filipino-americans.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?url=filamwar.html)

Yes, the continuation of the Spanish American war. The funny thing is that now the Phillippines wants the US Navy to come back. They realized AFTER they forced them to leave that a large part of their economy was based on the navy being there. Vieques in Puerto Rico is another place learning that hardship now.

Yes, the continuation of the Spanish American war.
No. It was the continuation of the Fillipino war of independence. Which the Americans wouldn't grant them.

you seem to forget that the saudi family is good friends with bush and so and they pay the goverment 1.4 billion dollar orso in dirty money yearly?

Friendships are one thing, but that only goes so far. The Saudi's are also a target of Bin Laden and if you think Europe would not suffer if he is successful you might want to rethink that position. Europe gets more oil from them than the US does.

Can't you just admit that Bush occasionally makes mistakes? Is he really a messenger of God in your eyes who is totally infallable and shouldn't be criticised?

Moron American.

No. It was the continuation of the Fillipino war of independence. Which the Americans wouldn't grant them. Thats one way of looking at it, another is that it was an uprising that had to be squashed. Either way, the US DID turn the country over to the people, and what did they do with it? Give it to corrupt Generals and other despots.

Can't you just admit that Bush occasionally makes mistakes? Is he really a messenger of God in your eyes who is totally infallable and shouldn't be criticised?

Moron American.

Hmph? So which country were you born and which one do you live on?

Can't you just admit that Bush occasionally makes mistakes? Is he really a messenger of God in your eyes who is totally infallable and shouldn't be criticised?

Moron American.

Sure he makes mistakes...so do many on here who purport to know things when they don't. I did not vote for Bush in 2000, but he is a better choice than Kerry by far.

Now thats two times you have resorted to namecalling...so thats two for me.

Thats one way of looking at it, another is that it was an uprising that had to be squashed.
Which brings us back to the US acting like any other colonial power and therefor has no moral highground when they whine about Europeans and their colonies.

Either way, the US DID turn the country over to the people,
As did the Europeans.

and what did they do with it? Give it to corrupt Generals and other despots.
Who was a loyal US puppet.

Which brings us back to the US acting like any other colonial power and therefor has no moral highground when they whine about Europeans and their colonies.

In some ways this is true, but on a MUCH smaller scale.


As did the Europeans.

The Europeans were forced out by how many wars for independence? When was the last colony returned? 1997 I believe? Hong Kong?


Who was a loyal US puppet.

Thats true, had they not been their days would have been numbered. He may be a bad guy, but he is "our" bad guy. ;)

In some ways this is true, but on a MUCH smaller scale.
The size of it is irrelevant. The US, if they hadn't gotten into the colonisation game so late, would have had done exactly the same as Britain, France etc...



The Europeans were forced out by how many wars for independence? When was the last colony returned? 1997 I believe? Hong Kong?
Haven't you read that site? The US didn't grant the Fillipines partial independence untill after a bloody war. So whats your point? Hong Kong was leased for 99 years. Thats different.




Thats true, had they not been their days would have been numbered. He may be a bad guy, but he is "our" bad guy. ;)
So was Saddam.

The size of it is irrelevant. The US, if they hadn't gotten into the colonisation game so late, would have had done exactly the same as Britain, France etc...

Thats possible, but we will never know.

Haven't you read that site? The US didn't grant the Fillipines partial independence untill after a bloody war. So whats your point? Hong Kong was leased for 99 years. Thats different.

Leased yes....but how did that lease come about. Something about an opium war I believe. britain forcing the Chinese to buy their opium and forcing drug use on the Chinese.


So was Saddam.

Yes, and he crossed that line didn't he? So did Noriega. ;)

Thats possible, but we will never know.
Looking at how they tried to annex the Fillipines shows that it is a certainty.



Leased yes....but how did that lease come about. Something about an opium war I believe. britain forcing the Chinese to buy their opium and forcing drug use on the Chinese.
The lease was for the New territories. They were simply leased. The second Opium war was 30 years earlier.




Yes, and he crossed that line didn't he? So did Noriega. ;)
Just shows that beeing a friend of the US is just as dangerouse as beeing it's enemy.

so thats two for me.

Two dicks?

You should get a doctor to see that! :D :D :D

Wasn't this meant to be a forum about the EU, and for Europeans? Why the f*ck are Americans here?! You aren't European! F*ck off you dirty American scumbags, go marry ur cousins!

America was directly responsible for WWII in several ways. Firstly, if in 1919, Wilson had not been such a wet blanket, with his "14 point plan", then clemenceau would have stole the shit out of germany, and made them think twice!

Also, if it wasnt for the greedy Republican scum, then the Wall Street Crash would never have happened. By allowing a completely unregulated stock market to swell unnaturally, and by raising import tarriffs to ludicrous levels, America completely f*cked international trade. As a direct result of the depression, Germany and Japan elected fascist, militant governments, and Mussolini was able to consolidate his positions. Also, the League of Nations would have been strong enough to fight the world if the F*cking isolationist scum would only have bothered to join.

I hope that every single American realises that they caused countless tens of millions of deaths, and never again says "we saved you twice!"

I'm not afraid...
The EU is one of the greatest things to happen to Europe.

Wasn't this meant to be a forum about the EU, and for Europeans? Why the f*ck are Americans here?! You aren't European! F*ck off you dirty American scumbags, go marry ur cousins!

America was directly responsible for WWII in several ways. Firstly, if in 1919, Wilson had not been such a wet blanket, with his "14 point plan", then clemenceau would have stole the shit out of germany, and made them think twice!

Also, if it wasnt for the greedy Republican scum, then the Wall Street Crash would never have happened. By allowing a completely unregulated stock market to swell unnaturally, and by raising import tarriffs to ludicrous levels, America completely f*cked international trade. As a direct result of the depression, Germany and Japan elected fascist, militant governments, and Mussolini was able to consolidate his positions. Also, the League of Nations would have been strong enough to fight the world if the F*cking isolationist scum would only have bothered to join.

I hope that every single American realises that they caused countless tens of millions of deaths, and never again says "we saved you twice!"

Funny, funny stuff. You should be on stage with an act like that.

Funny, funny stuff. You should be on stage with an act like that.
He should be in school teaching history :)

He should be in school teaching history :)

He might be. Of course there are two different sides to every story. ;)

I favour a big and strong E.U. not only as a counterweight for the U.S.A., but also as a preventive measure: In the future we will have to deal with enormous competition from China. The Chinese are already destabilising the market. I hope the WTO can make them walk in line.


:mp5: Però amb el Català com a idioma reconegut !!*!! :headbang:
I don't speak Catalan but I'll hazard a guess: You want Catalunya recognised as a nation?
Btw I've been to Andorra. Nice place. Lots of em... Tobacco. and tobacco advertisments.

As I said, I can live with a big strong EU if in return, the importance of the individual nations is transferred not only to a supranational level but also to a regional level. Nations like France, Belgium and Spain should remain, but mostly for economic reasons only. For marketing reasons. I'll explain: Foreigners hardly know Belgium, so why should we expect them to know Flanders (part of Belgium).

yes because its fat, bloated and corrupt.
and filled with politicians who are fat, bloated and corrupt.

46% majority.

I'm afraid you are wrong Robert Kilroy Silk.

Funny, funny stuff. You should be on stage with an act like that.

What is it in my argument that is an "act"? Every single part of what I said is true, when relating to history. Just because all you ever learn at school is how to make the world hate you, and about cowboys and Indians, and you justify slaughtering all of the Buffalo (a bit like someone coming along and destroying every single house, supermarket, clothes store etc for you), and nearly exterminating the true Indigenous American race, by saying "those Injun Sunsabitches! They scalped us!" You make me sick. Please admit that America is the most despicable nation on this planet- only corporate America could fore children in Nicaragua to work for next to nothing, to produce cheap jeans. The American people never protest or boycott this in any large numbers, yet you form its greatest market!

Also, whatever European nations did in the past, was done in a time when that sort of thing was considered normal- now we are enlightened, each European nation has apologised to their colonies (and paid compensation in some cases), yet the USA continues to screw them over. Diego Garcia forms a perfect example. The USA cannot justify its actions by saying "you used to do it!"- people used to operate without anaesthetic, but you don't see us returning to that do you?!

What is it in my argument that is an "act"? Every single part of what I said is true, when relating to history. Just because all you ever learn at school is how to make the world hate you, and about cowboys and Indians, and you justify slaughtering all of the Buffalo (a bit like someone coming along and destroying every single house, supermarket, clothes store etc for you), and nearly exterminating the true Indigenous American race, by saying "those Injun Sunsabitches! They scalped us!" You make me sick. Please admit that America is the most despicable nation on this planet- only corporate America could fore children in Nicaragua to work for next to nothing, to produce cheap jeans. The American people never protest or boycott this in any large numbers, yet you form its greatest market!

Also, whatever European nations did in the past, was done in a time when that sort of thing was considered normal- now we are enlightened, each European nation has apologised to their colonies (and paid compensation in some cases), yet the USA continues to screw them over. Diego Garcia forms a perfect example. The USA cannot justify its actions by saying "you used to do it!"- people used to operate without anaesthetic, but you don't see us returning to that do you?!

Wow, you really know nothing about America do you? As a "native" American I can tell you that you are very uninformed, but thats to be expected. Afterall, how could you possibly know what you are talking about, you have never been to the US, much less lived here. I on the other hand HAVE lived and travelled extensively throughout Europe. So I might suggest you get to know your subject before you go too far into an argument. Destroying all the buffalo? Buffalo meat is always available in the stores and many resturants serve buffalo steaks. It is better than beef and has lass fat. Diego Garcia? Have you ever been there? I have. it is nothing but a rock in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Noone lives there except those stationed there. No, you have an intense dislike of the US and that is all there is to it. it clouds your judgement and blinds you to the facts.

Wasn't this meant to be a forum about the EU, and for Europeans? Why the f*ck are Americans here?! You aren't European! F*ck off you dirty American scumbags, go marry ur cousins!

Please, stereotypes get you nowhere.

America was directly responsible for WWII in several ways. Firstly, if in 1919, Wilson had not been such a wet blanket, with his "14 point plan", then clemenceau would have stole the shit out of germany, and made them think twice!

Hitler rose to power partially because the Treaty of Versailles was so hated by the Germans and he promised to reverse it. The French increased hated for the victors of the war by invading the Ruhr when the Germans fell behind with reparations.

Allowing Clemenceau to do what ever he wanted would ensure a very angry German population, which would have led to another war.

Also, if it wasnt for the greedy Republican scum, then the Wall Street Crash would never have happened. By allowing a completely unregulated stock market to swell unnaturally, and by raising import tarriffs to ludicrous levels, America completely f*cked international trade. As a direct result of the depression, Germany and Japan elected fascist, militant governments, and Mussolini was able to consolidate his positions. Also, the League of Nations would have been strong enough to fight the world if the F*cking isolationist scum would only have bothered to join.

This is alright, I miss read it first time.

Wasn't this meant to be a forum about the EU, and for Europeans? Why the f*ck are Americans here?! You aren't European! F*ck off you dirty American scumbags, go marry ur cousins!

Typical elitist attitude.

America was directly responsible for WWII in several ways. Firstly, if in 1919, Wilson had not been such a wet blanket, with his "14 point plan", then clemenceau would have stole the shit out of germany, and made them think twice!

Are you serious? Right, take even more from people and that will make them think twice. Yeah, it worked out really well didn't it?

Also, if it wasnt for the greedy Republican scum, then the Wall Street Crash would never have happened. By allowing a completely unregulated stock market to swell unnaturally, and by raising import tarriffs to ludicrous levels, America completely f*cked international trade. As a direct result of the depression, Germany and Japan elected fascist, militant governments, and Mussolini was able to consolidate his positions. Also, the League of Nations would have been strong enough to fight the world if the F*cking isolationist scum would only have bothered to join.

So because the US did not join the League of Nations it is our fault that it failed? The US had no real standing army before WWI and would NOT have gotten involved had it not been for European meddling in our affairs. Germany trying to stir Mexico into invading. So you are saying in effect that the US was the strongest nation on earth and should have gotten involved in the affairs of other nations....and at the same time you complain because the US IS involved in the affairs of other nations. Sort of psychotic don't you think?

I hope that every single American realises that they caused countless tens of millions of deaths, and never again says "we saved you twice!"

I think you might want to re-read your history. The US did not start any of the European wars. As for my ancestors, it was Europeans who came here and changed our lives. Now you want to blame us for that too. :rolleyes:

If the EU worked as it should, from the bottom-up, then it would be great. But there is a little too much federalism creeping in, which might look good in the short term for the EU but will ultimately make it as much of a bureaucratic mess as the US federal government.

In principle I love it!

Wow, you really know nothing about America do you? As a "native" American I can tell you that you are very uninformed, but thats to be expected. Afterall, how could you possibly know what you are talking about, you have never been to the US, much less lived here. I on the other hand HAVE lived and travelled extensively throughout Europe. So I might suggest you get to know your subject before you go too far into an argument. Destroying all the buffalo? Buffalo meat is always available in the stores and many resturants serve buffalo steaks. It is better than beef and has lass fat. Diego Garcia? Have you ever been there? I have. it is nothing but a rock in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Noone lives there except those stationed there. No, you have an intense dislike of the US and that is all there is to it. it clouds your judgement and blinds you to the facts.

That is precisely my point about Diego Garcia! I thank you, because your comment could not have been better put to undermine you- Diego Garcia was, until the 1970s (possibly 1980s, not 100% sure), inhabited by people known as "Diego Garcians". However, the USA decided that they wanted to build a military base there, and so shipped them all off of the island.

Also, I currently live in a small city called Sinking Springs, in Pennsylvania. I was born and raised in Britain, but for the last 3 years have lived here (im now 16). Also, I did not suggest that you killed all of the buffalo- you TRIED to, but failed. The buffalo was everything to the native Americans. Your comments about Europeans changing everything is true- however, they have since apologised for that. As I have already stated (it amazes me how you blatantly ignore some of the points that I make), the Europeans were acting in an age where subjugation and colonialism was accepted- so was slavery! Now neither of those are accepted (after all, the Gulf War stemmed from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait!), but the Americans still pursue colonialism.

Going back to my most potent point, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRAVELLED THROUGH EUROPE. THAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU EUROPEAN. I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AMERICAN ( I WOULD PUT A BULLET THROUGH MY BRAIN BEFORE I DID THAT!). THIS POLL IS FOR EUROPEANS ONLY- SO STOP BECOMING INVOLVED. Let America-philes argue pro-America, and let me and the hordes of America-phobes tell the rest of the world what a bunch of lazy, rude, idle people you are

(im now 16)

This answers a lot of questions. Plus, since you dislike the US so much....GO HOME!!

This answers a lot of questions. Plus, since you dislike the US so much....GO HOME!!

I cant wait to do so! Also, what do you mean "this answers a lot of questions?" this website is designed with young people in mind- I would be very concerned if I was much older than I am, and still bothered myself with computer games. Typical American- with an incredibly inferior mental capacity to all of the World's other inhabitants. I love the fact that 64% of Americans didnt know whethere Europe was East or West of them- that makes me laugh so much. You are a pathetic group of races, much distorted from the noble races that formed you. If you don't agree, may I suggest you read Henry James (especially Roderick Hudson/ Portrait of a Lady)- my english teacher nearly creamed his pants when he realised I read HJ, at 16

I cant wait to do so! Also, what do you mean "this answers a lot of questions?" this website is designed with young people in mind- I would be very concerned if I was much older than I am, and still bothered myself with computer games. Typical American- with an incredibly inferior mental capacity to all of the World's other inhabitants. I love the fact that 64% of Americans didnt know whethere Europe was East or West of them- that makes me laugh so much. You are a pathetic group of races, much distorted from the noble races that formed you. If you don't agree, may I suggest you read Henry James (especially Roderick Hudson/ Portrait of a Lady)- my english teacher nearly creamed his pants when he realised I read HJ, at 16

Yes, so when you get back to your socialist nation you can jump up and down and tell everyone how the big bad US was for you. Then, one day, and I hope it is soon, you will grow up and realize that the US is not the big monster that you think it is. However, I think you will always be oblivious of what the US really is, your statements have already shown that to be true.

A poll for Europeons: Are you afraid of the EU?

Stop bitching about other stuff you babies :P

LMAO- Britian is by no means a socialist nation. Also, you bandy that term like it is insulting! What is it with you Americans? If it is different, it is autmoatically wrong. I note with interest that you still show no recognition that this is for Europeans, and I still anticipate an interesting answer on the Diego Garcia issue- after shooting yourself in the foot, you have become mysteriously quiet. The only thing that awaits you in the future is a death in a drug-caused shootout- they seem to be about the only things that happen in America that are any good to the world (good because they mean we have a few less Americans to worry about).

LMAO- Britian is by no means a socialist nation. Also, you bandy that term like it is insulting! What is it with you Americans? If it is different, it is autmoatically wrong. I note with interest that you still show no recognition that this is for Europeans, and I still anticipate an interesting answer on the Diego Garcia issue- after shooting yourself in the foot, you have become mysteriously quiet. The only thing that awaits you in the future is a death in a drug-caused shootout- they seem to be about the only things that happen in America that are any good to the world (good because they mean we have a few less Americans to worry about).

No, then you obviously do not know enough about your own country. Drug caused shootout? I have never seen a shootout before, I do not frequent your neighborhood obviously. You are obviously angry because American girls won't have anything to do with you, funny that, because when I lived in the UK there were lots of easy girls around, they were freaking huge though with cankles....you know, ankles as big as knees. LOL

No, then you obviously do not know enough about your own country. Drug caused shootout? I have never seen a shootout before, I do not frequent your neighborhood obviously. You are obviously angry because American girls won't have anything to do with you, funny that, because when I lived in the UK there were lots of easy girls around, they were freaking huge though with cankles....you know, ankles as big as knees. LOL

I was exaggerating about the drugs, but America has one of the highest gun-related crime ratios in the world. Also, if I remember, only 20% of British people are obese, yet roughly 35-40% of Americans are. I have an American girlfriend (the only decent one i've ever met!), and we have been "dating" for 2 years- We are both Catholic, and we live in a lovely neighbourhood (come on, its pensylvania, not NY or Texas)!

You still refuse to address the issues that I defeat you on! Where is your mention of Diego Garcia, now that I have proved you wrong? Where is your admission that you have no right to post on this forum (not being European!) You cover your sadly lacking mental attributes in insults, hoping to achieve cheap laughs (cankles- I mean honestly- look out of the window- there is world out there!) You make me ashamed to call myself human

I was exaggerating about the drugs, but America has one of the highest gun-related crime ratios in the world. Also, if I remember, only 20% of British people are obese, yet roughly 35-40% of Americans are. I have an American girlfriend (the only decent one i've ever met!), and we have been "dating" for 2 years- We are both Catholic, and we live in a lovely neighbourhood (come on, its pensylvania, not NY or Texas)!

You still refuse to address the issues that I defeat you on! Where is your mention of Diego Garcia, now that I have proved you wrong? Where is your admission that you have no right to post on this forum (not being European!) You cover your sadly lacking mental attributes in insults, hoping to achieve cheap laughs (cankles- I mean honestly- look out of the window- there is world out there!) You make me ashamed to call myself human

Ok, since you insist...Diego Garcia was taken over by the UK...thats right the UK and they are the ones who evacuated the island of its inhabitants...not the US.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/dg.html

Although Diego Garcia once had a small native population, the inhabitants, known as the Ilois, or the Chagossians, were forced to relocate (1967–1973) so that the island could be turned into a military base—over the strong protestations of other Indian Ocean islands, who objected to having cruise missiles as neighbors. Most of the displaced Ilois were agricultural workers and fisherman. Uprooted and robbed of their livelihood, the Ilois now live in poverty in Mauritius's urban slums, more than 1,000 miles from their homeland. A smaller number were deported to the Seychelles. In 2000, a British court ruled that the order to evacuate Diego Garcia's inhabitants was invalid, but the court also upheld the island's military status, which permits only personnel authorized by the military to inhabit the island. The Ilois sued the British government for compensation and the right to repatriation, but in Oct. 2003 a British judge ruled that although the Ilois had been treated "shamefully" by the government, their claims were unfounded. The Ilois are expected to appeal.

I was exaggerating about the drugs, but America has one of the highest gun-related crime ratios in the world. Also, if I remember, only 20% of British people are obese, yet roughly 35-40% of Americans are. I have an American girlfriend (the only decent one i've ever met!), and we have been "dating" for 2 years- We are both Catholic, and we live in a lovely neighbourhood (come on, its pensylvania, not NY or Texas)!

You still refuse to address the issues that I defeat you on! Where is your mention of Diego Garcia, now that I have proved you wrong? Where is your admission that you have no right to post on this forum (not being European!) You cover your sadly lacking mental attributes in insults, hoping to achieve cheap laughs (cankles- I mean honestly- look out of the window- there is world out there!) You make me ashamed to call myself human

As for me posting here? I can post wherever I want to. As for obesity, you might want to check this out.

Ya just have to love it when you give them enough rope and they hang themselves.... ;)

Obesity Levels in USA

In America, 58 million adults are overweight; 40 million are obese and 3 million suffer from life-threatening obesity. Furthermore, 8 out of 10 over 25's are overweight and there has been a 76 percent increase in Type II diabetes in adults 30-40 yrs old since 1990.

Obesity Levels in the UK

In the UK, nearly two-thirds of men and over half of all women are now overweight - and 1 in 5 are obese (at least 30-45 pounds overweight). The level of obesity has tripled in the past 20 years, and is still rising. At this rate, by 2010 at least 1 in 4 adults will be obese. Thats 20% of adults that are obese. GET ON YOUR BIKES AND RIDE!!!

http://www.weight-loss-i.com/lose-weight/obesity-usa-uk.htm

As for me? I am a slim 155 pounds and eat anything I want to. I cannot gain weight at all no matter what I do. ;)

Who is quiet now?

In total agreement here. I'd go even further - A United European Army.
How is this a good idea? I don't want to be drafted into some EU army just to go and fight in some Iraq/Vietnam-esque War.

NWV, you seem to be intent upon turning the EU into a superstate, like the USA OR USSR. Why would we want to be another USA?

How is this a good idea? I don't want to be drafted into some EU army just to go and fight in some Iraq/Vietnam-esque War.

NWV, you seem to be intent upon turning the EU into a superstate, like the USA OR USSR. Why would we want to be another USA?
What makes you think there will be a draft?

Ok, since you insist...Diego Garcia was taken over by the UK...thats right the UK and they are the ones who evacuated the island of its inhabitants...not the US.
[/B]

It is true that they were removed by Britain- that is because we were willing to take them, America was not. There is an American base there, and the Prime Minister decided that, rather than sacrifice a strong relationship with the US (according to a poll out today, people would prefer to see us Allied to China rather than the US). We acted on the wishes of the American Government- the US economic and military hegemony causes British politicians to crap their pants at the thought of losing our unique relationship with it.

Also, I know for a fact, that America has the highest obesity levels in the World- I believe that Britain comes a close third. The data tat you compared is completely incongruent. Challenging "who is quiet now?" makes me lmao. I do apologise that I have things to do with my time other than sit on the computer. I do not know how much I weigh, but last time I checked (about 1 month ago), it was 147 pounds.

Living in America (this land of shite, which stinks worse each day. I cant breathe properly. Please Congressmen, pass some form of environmental law!), I would have thought that you realised that you have very few Human Rights- I think that, whilst Guantanamo Bay is still open and used as it is, America can be the proud claimant of one of the worst Human Rights records in history- even Saddam executed his prisoners, rather than leaving them laying around!

How anyone can attempt to justify a nation that has 5% of the World's population (actually its a bit less than that), and that uses roughly 28% of its resources, a country that has the greatest rich-poor divides in the world, and an ever-decreasing standard of life (Britains actually rose last year!), completely defies belief. Also, a nation that can elect a film star as President, is surely completely twisted somewhere along the line (Don't even get me started on the South!)

It is true that they were removed by Britain- that is because we were willing to take them, America was not. There is an American base there, and the Prime Minister decided that, rather than sacrifice a strong relationship with the US (according to a poll out today, people would prefer to see us Allied to China rather than the US). We acted on the wishes of the American Government- the US economic and military hegemony causes British politicians to crap their pants at the thought of losing our unique relationship with it.

Also, I know for a fact, that America has the highest obesity levels in the World- I believe that Britain comes a close third. The data tat you compared is completely incongruent. Challenging "who is quiet now?" makes me lmao. I do apologise that I have things to do with my time other than sit on the computer. I do not know how much I weigh, but last time I checked (about 1 month ago), it was 147 pounds.

Living in America (this land of shite, which stinks worse each day. I cant breathe properly. Please Congressmen, pass some form of environmental law!), I would have thought that you realised that you have very few Human Rights- I think that, whilst Guantanamo Bay is still open and used as it is, America can be the proud claimant of one of the worst Human Rights records in history- even Saddam executed his prisoners, rather than leaving them laying around!

How anyone can attempt to justify a nation that has 5% of the World's population (actually its a bit less than that), and that uses roughly 28% of its resources, a country that has the greatest rich-poor divides in the world, and an ever-decreasing standard of life (Britains actually rose last year!), completely defies belief. Also, a nation that can elect a film star as President, is surely completely twisted somewhere along the line (Don't even get me started on the South!)

Actually the base at Diego Garcia is a UK base...the US leases it yes, but it is OWNED by the UK. As for taking the refugees? Read the article again. As for clean air, have you ever lived in London? Christ, they block the streets off to prevent cars from coming into the city because it is so overcrowded. Of course you being a mere child might have something to do with your lack of knowledge. I suggest you return home forthwith and educate yourself. Bash the US to your hearts content, but you are still here. When I lived in the UK it was like going back in time 50 years. The house I was living in was literally heated with coal, something that had ended in the US in the early 50's and was completely alien to me as I had only read about such things. It is STILL like that there. Do you know how much environmental damage is done by burning so much coal? The village I lived in stunk all winter of coal, and the smoke was so thick and acrid. Once you return to the UK, and I hope it is soon since you are SO unhappy here, THEN you will see the differences. Oh, and one more thing....in the UK...the one remaining forest is a tourist sight. Imagine that....a forest is a very rare thing there while we have thousands of square miles of forest. The UK is a great place, but it is hardly the utopia you seem to think it is. You also might want to read some Charles Dickens as well.

As I said, I'm not Europeon, but if I was, I'd be worried. Think of the long, proud histories of these great nations, their triumphs, their contributions to the world, their individuality, their unique characteristics...all gone if the EU becomes too powerful. Which would mean no UK (provided it joins), no France, no Germany, or any other of the fine nations unfortunate enough to be having their sovereignty sapped away by that power-hungry bureaucracy.

A little reactionary don't you think? The UK is full of these knee-jerk opinionated tabloid readers who are all convinced that we'll lose our national identity with greater involvement with the EU. Bullshit. What will they do? Take away the pound? (They can't make us do that, and to be fair it would probably benefit the country economically to use the Euro, but in the meantime, if we don't want to we don't have to...) Take away fish and chip shops? Make us change our flag? Change our language?

I didn't think so...

Yeah, the EU is a bureaucracy, but it holds us together and is beneficial to every member. If it's so bad why did Hungary, Estonia etc make such a huge song and dance about joining?

What the real worry is on the part of the yanks, who wonder whether they'll be able to boss us around for much longer. 'Oh no! If the EU get's too powerful they'll be able to tell us to fuck off, we can't have that!'

Think about it...

Bump

When I lived in the UK it was like going back in time 50 years. The house I was living in was literally heated with coal, something that had ended in the US in the early 50's and was completely alien to me as I had only read about such things.

When and where did you say. It is just I haven't been to a house in the UK still heated by coal.

Oh, and one more thing....in the UK...the one remaining forest is a tourist sight. Imagine that....a forest is a very rare thing there while we have thousands of square miles of forest.

What?

I've been to pleny of forests in the UK, and can think of a few more.

When and where did you say. It is just I haven't been to a house in the UK still heated by coal.
.
Probably in the 1960s or early 70s (well: in my country it changed during that time - in Britain may be a little latter 1970s)



I've been to pleny of forests in the UK, and can think of a few more.
There is not much forests in the UK though, only 10% of the land compared to 1/3 in France or Germany for example.

When and where did you say. It is just I haven't been to a house in the UK still heated by coal.

Go to the village of Woodford Halse, near Daventry in Northants and you will find plenty of homes heated by coal....or those terribly inefficient storage heaters. Actually....it was in 1989-1993. Things change so slowly there, I am sure it is still the same.

What?

I've been to pleny of forests in the UK, and can think of a few more.

Yeah....Nottingham forest...that was the only "true" forest I saw when I was living in the UK.

There is not much forests in the UK though, only 10% of the land compared to 1/3 in France or Germany for example.

Not supprising seeing as we have a similar population but half the land mass of France.

Not supprising seeing as we have a similar population but half the land mass of France.
True: but Germany is also smaller than France and has more than 20 million more people: After all about 230 people per km². But it still has 1/3 of its territory covered with forests.
But it may be due to your geography that you don´t have so much forests. Though 10% is a realy little.

Surely it undermines its member-nations' sovereignty at least a little?

So? a new nation would be formed. All european nations are amalgamations of territories. Germany, Britain, Italy. This is just the next step. Hopefully it will keep on going until all nations are united

So? a new nation would be formed. All european nations are amalgamations of territories. Germany, Britain, Italy. This is just the next step. Hopefully it will keep on going until all nations are united
For godness sake: an uniformed world without different cultures:
Jiang Zemin and Bush ruling the world together or what do you think????
That´s insane and hasn´t anything to do with the reality.

True: but Germany is also smaller than France and has more than 20 million more people: After all about 230 people per km². But it still has 1/3 of its territory covered with forests.
But it may be due to your geography that you don´t have so much forests. Though 10% is a realy little.

UK has 246 people per km2. Also UK has less forests as faming is more important. During a war, it is too easy to cut of the means of food supply. So it needs to be more food efficient. Or at least be able to provide for itself. Whereas france and germany would have land routes.

For godness sake: an uniformed world without different cultures:
Jiang Zemin and Bush ruling the world together or what do you think????
That´s insane and hasn´t anything to do with the reality.

Is there only one culture in the US? Or in any other mixed country? They may be a more uniform culture. So what? there would always be variety.
Hell no too people can agree. do u thing culture would be any different?

So? a new nation would be formed. All european nations are amalgamations of territories. Germany, Britain, Italy. This is just the next step. Hopefully it will keep on going until all nations are united
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Bad idea.

Is there only one culture in the US? Or in any other mixed country? They may be a more uniform culture. So what? there would always be variety.
Hell no too people can agree. do u thing culture would be any different?
I think the world is much to big to be forced under one government and state.
Even the EU is a heavy and difficult task although it only comprises of European countries who after all have many things in common. But even that is not going to be an union of state and not a super-state.
A world superstate is an illusion - by the way rather a nightmare.

Is there only one culture in the US?
There is pretty much one uniformed culture in the US. The shopping males look the same everywhere, the culture is simular (although of local differences) and everybody speaks the same language. That is not my vision for the future of Europe. I want an Europe of diversity with close cooperation of the nations but not a super state.
And it is even more crazy to suggest a super state for the whole world.

There is pretty much one uniformed culture in the US. The shopping males look the same everywhere, the culture is simular (although of local differences) and everybody speaks the same language. That is not my vision for the future of Europe. I want an Europe of diversity with close cooperation of the nations but not a super state.
And it is even more crazy to suggest a super state for the whole world.

But it does seem inevitable. Our whole history is base on empire building. whats to say it won't continue.

Language, culture does not bother me. Its the same as saying when germany became a single nation. The Bavarians did not lose their culture. Nor did the Prussians.
And all our cultures seem to me at least, to be amalgamations of previous cultures. That does not make our cultures bad or less diverse. So i don't see the problem.
Not trying to argue for the sake of it. Maybe i've got a blind spot or something, i just don't see the problem...not really anyway.

There is pretty much one uniformed culture in the US. The shopping males look the same everywhere, the culture is simular (although of local differences) and everybody speaks the same language. That is not my vision for the future of Europe. I want an Europe of diversity with close cooperation of the nations but not a super state.
And it is even more crazy to suggest a super state for the whole world.
There has to be cooperation though. Which framework do you suggest for that?

But it does seem inevitable. Our whole history is base on empire building. whats to say it won't continue.
Language, culture does not bother me. Its the same as saying when germany became a single nation. The Bavarians did not lose their culture. Nor did the Prussians.
And all our cultures seem to me at least, to be amalgamations of previous cultures. That does not make our cultures bad or less diverse. So i don't see the problem.
Not trying to argue for the sake of it. Maybe i've got a blind spot or something, i just don't see the problem...not really anyway.
He, we in Germany have somehow one single language - although of regional dialects.
You seem to follow the theory that everything can grow together. I disagree with that.
I agree though that empire building was and is an aspect of our history. But there was never an unified empire covering the whole world. There were big empires. And at the end they all collapsed: the Roman Empire, The Soviet Empire, e.g.
I don`t see a development where the world becomes one empire. On the conterary: there are today more nation states than in our -at least modern history- before on the world.



"There has to be cooperation though. Which framework do you suggest for that?"
Through bilateral or mulitlateral cooperation. The EU or WTO are examples for that. That however should follow the subsidiary principle. Only issues which can´t be resolved on the national level should be issues of the EU.
And the WTO is only responsible for trade disputes anyway.

He, we in Germany have somehow one single language - although of regional dialects.
You seem to follow the theory that everything can grow together. I disagree with that.
I agree though that empire building was and is an aspect of our history. But there was never an unified empire covering the whole world. There were big empires. And at the end they all collapsed: the Roman Empire, The Soviet Empire, e.g.
I don`t see a development where the world becomes one empire. On the conterary: there are today more nation states than in our -at least modern history- before on the world.



"There has to be cooperation though. Which framework do you suggest for that?"
Through bilateral or mulitlateral cooperation. The EU or WTO are examples for that. That however should follow the subsidiary principle. Only issues which can´t be resolved on the national level should be issues of the EU.
And the WTO is only responsible for trade disputes anyway.

Ok then. There is the example of spain and UK. Both are a mix of different cultures and languages. ok came together through war, but both seem to be better for it all in all

And the WTO is only responsible for trade disputes anyway.
Indeed.

I'm necessarily for a centralised government. Could be a confederacy or something similar.

Only issues which can´t be resolved on the national level should be issues of the EU.

I think you underestimate the number of issues which can't be resolved at the national level nowadays.

The only European countries afraid of the EU are ones that would rather catch their own cod, instead of letting the french and spanish catch it and sell it back to them.

The only European countries afraid of the EU are ones that would rather catch their own cod, instead of letting the french and spanish catch it and sell it back to them.
You know the cods migrate?

Hi guys. Could one of you help me out please? Looking for a thread about why capitalism works and communism does not. can anyone help at all?

Hi guys. Could one of you help me out please? Looking for a thread about why capitalism works and communism does not. can anyone help at all?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345283

Or click search and type your name as poster. That's what I do to retrieve the threads I've posted in.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Bad idea.

AAHH !!! The eternel cry of the powerless.
The E.U is not going to bring about a central world government. It is merely a massive gravy train with good intentions.
People need to belong to a group and have an identity singular to the surrounding populace (just made that up.sounds good tho'!) this talk of world government and the end of nation states?? oh please !!
Whats next tin foil on your head to protect from radiation..? Aliens..?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345283

Or click search and type your name as poster. That's what I do to retrieve the threads I've posted in.

Psylos... your a diamond, and anyone else who's answered as well thank you

You know the cods migrate?

I know nothing about cod, and couldn't really care less about it myself. I just never hear the end of people whining about why fishcakes have bugger all fish in them.

AAHH !!! The eternel cry of the powerless.

Lord Acton, Prime minister of the then superpower British Empire, was powerless?

The E.U is not going to bring about a central world government.

I hope not, our local one is bad enough.


It is merely a massive gravy train

Yes

with good intentions

Not sure about that at all.


People need to belong to a group and have an identity singular to the surrounding populace (just made that up.sounds good tho'!)

I don't think that statement has any meaning.


this talk of world government and the end of nation states?? oh please !!
Whats next tin foil on your head to protect from radiation..? Aliens..?
World govt is indeed an awful idea. The end of nation states is a fantastic one though.

I know nothing about cod, and couldn't really care less about it myself. I just never hear the end of people whining about why fishcakes have bugger all fish in them.Sorry I didn't get your intend... And still I don't. I was making the point though that fishing is an internationnal matter, because the cods do not know about borders, neither do the whales.

I'm not Europeon myself, I was just curious how the good folks in Europe feel.

Is England in Europe technically?

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Bad idea.

Better said, "power attracts the corruptible"

Better said, "power attracts the corruptible"
Also a good observation.

Why does George Bush (not to mention the Chinese president) cause so much suffering while the president of Luxembourg doesn't? Because he can.

Is England in Europe technically?Yes. And all the UK, and Ireland.

Of course UK is part of europe!

Far more than Hawaii is part of North America...!