NationStates Jolt Archive

Honest speculation please no flaming.

Because, at present, the soverignty loss is not that significent. Although there is the constitution...

As Europeans are all sort of subjects (they have fewer rights than US citizens) I don't think it matters that much to them.

Wealth. The decrease in national borders will increase the flow of goods and services, loss of trade barriers...sounds good to me.

Wealth. The decrease in national borders will increase the flow of goods and services, loss of trade barriers...sounds good to me.

What Europeans motivated by profit? Never, there not like us in the US you know. They have "morals".

I have to wonder about the UK though. For them the transistion is probably going to be the toughest because of the incompatibility of their legal systems and the rest. (Still Louisiana manages).

Honestly? For me, the answer is: Because I doubt the Austrians, Belgians, Danes, Dutch, French, Germans, Irish, Swedish and British are that much dumber than we are. That, and from my PoV the (mostly economic, sometimes political) positive effects of integration just plain outweigh the negative (having to deal with some of the inane regulations passed in the EU).

As Europeans are all sort of subjects (they have fewer rights than US citizens) I don't think it matters that much to them."Subject" as in "one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state", synonym to "citizen"? Yeah. I'm sure you have a nice, indisputable table comparing a complete list of (generally accepted civil, political and other) rights of US citizens against those of citizens of various EU member countries, so would you care to provide it?

Honestly? For me, the answer is: Because I doubt the Austrians, Belgians, Danes, Dutch, French, Germans, Irish, Swedish and British are that much dumber than we are. That, and from my PoV the (mostly economic, sometimes political) positive effects of integration just plain outweigh the negative (having to deal with some of the inane regulations passed in the EU).

Yah, you all are pretty much monist democracies over there right? (In other words rights are not really entrenched like the US, but rather granted by the legistlative body). So I suppose it doesn't make much difference because you are all democracies.

Yah, you all are pretty much monist democracies over there right? (In other words rights are not really entrenched like the US, but rather granted by the legistlative body). So I suppose it doesn't make much difference because you are all democracies."Monist democracy"?

How do you consider the rights of US citizens to be "entrenched"? Because they are set in the Bill of Rights, ie. in your constitution? How's that different from the rights of citizens of certain European countries which are also set in the respective constitutions, or even in legislation other than constitution? I know my basic civil rights are defined in my constitution in a way very similar to those in the US.

Well, if done properly, it should make some things a bit simpler. Hopefully, they'll manage to make things work out somehow. I don't know for certain whether the best route is forming a single nation because, sadly, my understanding of these things is barely if at all above that of the average Jack. However, I can see how it might be more efficient to supervise some aspects of European politics through a single governmental body.

If there are any EU opponents out there, let's hear what you have to say. I, for one, would be very interested in hearing more about this issue so that I can get a better grasp on the pros and cons.

I don't know what the situation is in Europe, but I've noticed that a lot of pro-european people in the UK are in some kind of delusional fantasy world where EU politicians are sincere in their wishes to create a better continent, rather than put their snouts farther down the trough. Domestic politicans are no different, but I think that the opportunities for abuse of power is far greater when a politician rules over an entire continent (which is whereit's going unless something is done). I also think that these abuses of power would manifest itself by making the UK the EU's chief whipping boy.

Thankfully the people in the UK willing to hand the country over to the EU are in a minority and I can't see the EU constitution ever being ratified here.

As Europeans are all sort of subjects (they have fewer rights than US citizens) I don't think it matters that much to them.Actually, the Europeans are generally more liberal than the US, so this isn't really the case. However, it would be true to say that an unfortunate number of EU member states have more than their share of bullshit laws. Hopefully, they'll be able to work some of those little glitches out in the future, but it's going to take a great deal of time and effort on everyone's part.

"Monist democracy"?

How do you consider the rights of US citizens to be "entrenched"? Because they are set in the Bill of Rights, ie. in your constitution? How's that different from the rights of citizens of certain European countries which are also set in the respective constitutions, or even in legislation other than constitution? I know my basic civil rights are defined in my constitution in a way very similar to those in the US.

Well then you have a problem if you surender your soveriegnty don't you? I can't imagine all those constiutions are identical.

I wasn't taking a jab at europe. I was pointing out that in the US we have less political freedom (our government is more restricted, so can do less which is how we keep our rights), and in Europe the is more political freedom (you protect your rights through the ballot box).

from what I've seen, amending European constiutions, where the exists is trivailly easy compared to the US.

I don't know what the situation is in Europe, but I've noticed that a lot of pro-european people in the UK are in some kind of delusional fantasy world where EU politicians are sincere in their wishes to create a better continent, rather than put their snouts farther down the trough. Domestic politicans are no different, but I think that the opportunities for abuse of power is far greater when a politician rules over an entire continent (which is whereit's going unless something is done). I also think that these abuses of power would manifest itself by making the UK the EU's chief whipping boy.

Thankfully the people in the UK willing to hand the country over to the EU are in a minority and I can't see the EU constitution ever being ratified here.Personally, I put unrealistic pessimism about human character and unrealistic optimism about human character in the same box. It's the same error in different wrappers.

As Europeans are all sort of subjects (they have fewer rights than US citizens) I don't think it matters that much to them.

For years I have doubted European snobbery towards Americans. Now after reading this I can see that snobbery was well founded.

Well then you have a problem if you surender your soveriegnty don't you? I can't imagine all those constiutions are identical.Whether the constitutions are at this point identical doesn't matter, as long as laws and regulations passed through the EU do not conflict with any single constitution. Only in a very extreme case could such a thing occur, considering the kind of things generally jotted down in constitutions (they usually don't delve into details much, whereas the EU certainly does).

I wasn't taking a jab at europe. I was pointing out that in the US we have less political freedom (our government is more restricted, so can do less which is how we keep our rights), and in Europe the is more political freedom (you protect your rights through the ballot box).Depends on the particular nationstate. The Finnish constitution does put several limitations, but admittedly those aren't quite as hard to change as I expect the Articles of the Constitution are.

from what I've seen, amending European constiutions, where the exists is trivailly easy compared to the US.Again, depends heavily on the particular nationstate. By the numbers, the amending the Finnish constitution is exactly as difficult as amending the US constitution: a two-thirds majority of the legislative body is required. The US has a bicameral Congress while Finland has a unicameral Parliament, which makes it a bit harder in the US, but Finland also has a far larger variety of parties (and thus of political views) in the Parliament, which evens the score.

Conservatism in the sense of wanting to preserve the old way of life is, I assume, not nearly as common in Europe as in the US, which goes a long way to explain why changes in our constitutions occur rather more often, if and where they do.

For years I have doubted European snobbery towards Americans. Now after reading this I can see that snobbery was well founded.Every culture is judged by its idiots. This will never change.

Whether the constitutions are at this point identical doesn't matter, as long as laws and regulations passed through the EU do not conflict with any single constitution. Only in a very extreme case could such a thing occur, considering the kind of things generally jotted down in constitutions (they usually don't delve into details much, whereas the EU certainly does).

Depends on the particular nationstate. The Finnish constitution does put several limitations, but admittedly those aren't quite as hard to change as I expect the Articles of the Constitution are.

Again, depends heavily on the particular nationstate. By the numbers, the amending the Finnish constitution is exactly as difficult as amending the US constitution: a two-thirds majority of the legislative body is required. The US has a bicameral Congress while Finland has a unicameral Parliament, which makes it a bit harder in the US, but Finland also has a far larger variety of parties (and thus of political views) in the Parliament, which evens the score.

Conservatism in the sense of wanting to preserve the old way of life is, I assume, not nearly as common in Europe as in the US, which goes a long way to explain why changes in our constitutions occur rather more often, if and where they do.

To ammend our constitution you need two thirds of the congress (federal legistlature) and three quaters of the fifty states. It's virtually impossible. A tiny minority can nearly always block any ammendment.

Remember around 1789 when there were 13 newly independent nations in North America, and they bickered and bitched at each other until they all realized that if they all sacrificed a bit of their sovereignty, they could form a much stronger united nation? I wonder how that turned out for them.

For years I have doubted European snobbery towards Americans. Now after reading this I can see that snobbery was well founded.

Read your passport if you have one NBG. You sir, are legally a subject of her britanic majesty.

Also you have no rights other than those granted by tradition. Any of which, like the right to silence, can be stripped from you by a simple parliamentary majority.

At least I actually know something about your country.

Personally, I put unrealistic pessimism about human character and unrealistic optimism about human character in the same box. It's the same error in different wrappers.
Nothing pessimistic about it, it's just thinking realisticly. After the activities of politicians throughout history, do you need any more evidence?

I have my opinions on why the EU exists, and the problems with it. First of all the EU exists so that the countries that at one time were hostile to one another are now more friendly, i.e. Germany and France. For the majority of the countries though the motivation is money driven. It is not easy for small countries to compete independently onrie the international stage and are more successful as blocks. This is what both South America and South East Asia are moving towards. It aslo gives former soviet bloc countries more prestige and legitimization in the eyes of its people and other European countries, since it brings more opportunity for its people to become successful and prosperous.

The main problem with the EU is obviously that it is dominated politically by France and Germany the largest member states.

I have my opinions on why the EU exists, and the problems with it. First of all the EU exists so that the countries that at one time were hostile to one another are now more friendly, i.e. Germany and France. For the majority of the countries though the motivation is money driven. It is not easy for small countries to compete independently onrie the international stage and are more successful as blocks. This is what both South America and South East Asia are moving towards. It aslo gives former soviet bloc countries more prestige and legitimization in the eyes of its people and other European countries, since it brings more opportunity for its people to become successful and prosperous.

how would you feel if we expanded NAFTA?

Any direction towards breaking atificial (national) boundaries is a good thing.

To ammend our constitution you need two thirds of the congress (federal legistlature) and three quaters of the fifty states. It's virtually impossible. A tiny minority can nearly always block any ammendment.Right you are, my bad. I was just describing what is necessary to initiate an amendment.

Anyway, do you wish to elaborate on the earlier comment about Europeans having "fewer rights than US citizens"? I'm sure some (honest) flames could be squeezed out of that.

Any direction towards breaking atificial (national) boundaries is a good thing.
Even if it's done in way designed purely for the good a small elite of corrupt politicians?

Why do the states give up their sovereignty and stay in the U.S.? Maybe it's because things work better when people are working together.

Well, that's because the states do not have seperate identities, loyalties, and languages. You can't unify France and Britain; It's like to unify a computer and a brick.

Well, that's because the states do not have seperate identities, loyalties, and languages. You can't unify France and Britain; It's like to unify a computer and a brick.

I think I could probably unify a brick with your computer quite easily.

It's like to unify a computer and a brick.Nokia 9210 Communicator, a.k.a 'The Brick' (http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,1522,,00.html?orig=/phones/9210/)
(You asked for it...)

Well, that's because the states do not have seperate identities, loyalties, and languages. You can't unify France and Britain; It's like to unify a computer and a brick.
They did. Louisiana as always maintained its French legacy. A number of the states where not loyal to the crown to begin with, they started off as colonies of people of dissent. if anything the US is a product of both France and Britain

I think I could probably unify a brick with your computer quite easily.
Yes, but the results wouldn't be pretty...Unless you're a luddite...

They did. Louisiana as always maintained its French legacy. A number of the states where not loyal to the crown to begin with, they started off as colonies of people of dissent. if anything the US is a product of both France and Britain
Yeah, but neither side was really entrenched there. It was not France and Britain unifying; it was their colonies. Besides, Lousiana was never really controlled that much, and sold off quickly.

Besides, Lousiana was never really controlled that much
http://www.mohonasen.org/grade5/lpurch1.jpg

about expanding NAFTA good question. I am canadian and this is important, it can't happen. The U.S. the creators of free trade are actually under attack from those within who oppose free trade since it affects american jobs. It might be good for Canada but would cause America even more headaches.

about expanding NAFTA good question. I am canadian and this is important, it can't happen. The U.S. the creators of free trade are actually under attack from those within who oppose free trade since it affects american jobs. It might be good for Canada but would cause America even more headaches.

Well in order to compete with the EU the US, Canada and Mexico are going to have to do it sooner or later, everyday I look at the figure and the EU market just keeps making these incredible leaps and bounds due to the decrease of their trade barriers. The Americas need to do the same.

Trust me they'll regret it when foreign beaurocrats start making laws that blanket their litttle towns and they have no say. Can you say ugly revolt, oh yes you can..........

http://www.mohonasen.org/grade5/lpurch1.jpg
You miss my point. I meant they were never fully under control; most of the Louisian purchase was simply wilderness, or under the control of Indians.

Trust me they'll regret it when foreign beaurocrats start making laws that blanket their litttle towns and they have no say. Can you say ugly revolt, oh yes you can..........
Yeah, especially considering that "Brussels" has already become synonymous with "oppresive bureacracy"...

Because they don't see it as loss of national sovereignty. We see it as pooling of sovereignty as a unification thing. It isn't that we are unilaterally giving up our sovereignty to other countries; it's a multilateral sharing of sovereignty in order to further unify our economic union. It's not like we don't get to represent ourselves in the parliament we elevate our sovereignty to.

Read your passport if you have one NBG. You sir, are legally a subject of her britanic majesty.

Also you have no rights other than those granted by tradition. Any of which, like the right to silence, can be stripped from you by a simple parliamentary majority.

At least I actually know something about your country.

And yet you know nothing about the Council of Europe and what it means to be a member of it?

Because they don't see it as loss of national sovereignty. We see it as pooling of sovereignty as a unification thing. It isn't that we are unilaterally giving up our sovereignty to other countries; it's a multilateral sharing of sovereignty in order to further unify our economic union. It's not like we don't get to represent ourselves in the parliament we elevate our sovereignty to.
The whole concept of pooled sovereignty is something dreamed up EU politicians to fool the public into thinking it's a give and take sitauion when in fact they're just robbing nations of their right to self determination and putting us further under the superstate jackboot. As for this wonderful parliament of yours, there's not really much point in it. Real power is vested in the unelected Commission and Council of Ministers. All the MEPs do is talk endlessly and have fun claiming on the expense accounts, while not doing any real work.

Nothing pessimistic about it, it's just thinking realisticly. After the activities of politicians throughout history, do you need any more evidence?Nowadays, politicians in developed nations seem to be becoming more practical. They are probably looking out for their own interests first and foremost, but what is good for them isn't necessarily bad for those who elected them. I think that they can be best understood by analyzing their motives realistically, taking in all of the factors that you know of. Sensible people are generally fairly predictable when you get right down to it.

Cynics are generally defeated idealists who still cling pathetically to their old ideals with some part of their mind. They generally call themselves realists.

The whole concept of pooled sovereignty is something dreamed up EU politicians to fool the public into think it's a give and take sitauion when in fact they're just robbing nations of their right to self determination and putting us further under the superstate jackboot. As for this wonderful parliament of yours, there's not really much point in it. Real power is vested in the unelected Commission and Council of Ministers. All the MEPs do is talk endlessly and have fun claiming on the expense accounts, while not doing any real work.

I'm afraid I think you're right, you'll lose your identity and your freedom. Savvy polititions are doing what years of war could not do. Millions have died trying to prevent whats happening right under our noses.

I think it would be a good idea if NAFTA is really at a disadvantage to Europe, but it really is at a disadvantage as a result of the economic policy of the United States. If America changed its policy of trying to maintain a low dollar than it would not be a problem. Another reason why Expansion won't happen is because in large part no other country in the americas wants to join an organization that is ovewhelmingly dominated by one country. Both America and Canada wanted to create an Americas free trade zone. They achieved very little except for a few free trade agreements with individual countries like Chile.

P.S. Canada is a computer united with the brick that is QUEBEC.

I'm afraid I think you're right, you'll lose your identity and your freedom. Savvy polititions are doing what years of war could not do. Millions have died trying to prevent whats happening right under our noses.And once things have settled down, the laws will slowly become less intrusive but more effective, and not much will really be changed in the long-term. A state has nothing to gain by being unduly oppressive.

Except world domination

The EU is already spreading their tentacles to try to control American companies. If american companies are not off limits then what is?

And once things have settled down, the laws will slowly become less intrusive but more effective, and not much will really be changed in the long-term. A state has nothing to gain by being unduly oppressive.
Come on, you don't honestly think that when the powerbrokers get their iron grip on the continent, they would just suddenly let go out of the kindness of their hearts? Of course the sate has something to gain from oppression. It means that the politicians who run the state can indulge in their power fantasies and run things according to their personal ideologies, irrespective of the suffering it may cause and the damage it would do to society.

I dont mean to be a fear monger I'm just posing questions

Personally I don't like the EU, however I really don't think it presents a threat to national sovereignty.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter, an EU government would not be any more or less oppresive then the curremt systems. Except there would probably be more red tape

In response to the original question:

Because national sovereignty means nothing. It is absolutely abstract concept, especially in Europe where there are no clear borders between countries in almost all senses. We united because we are, each alone, powerless. In the same way the Americain states gave up their sovereignty to become a more potent entity, which consequently has benefited all those states.

To say that national sov. is abstract is just rediculous. Look at a map someday. Visit a couple of the places on there and see how they're different from each other.

why not just spread the EU across the atlantic and ask the USA to join then. See my sarcasm......... After all we're just europeans a couple generations removed.........

To say that national sov. is abstract is just rediculous. Look at a map someday. Visit a couple of the places on there and see how they're different from each other.
You'll just see borders and how different people live. I could take a map of the North-West of England, see the lines seperating Merseyside, Lancashire, Manchester, et al. I could also go to Lancashire and see distinct differences between there and Liverpool. Doesn't prove that Nat.Sov. exists though

Trust me they'll regret it when foreign beaurocrats start making laws that blanket their litttle towns and they have no say. Can you say ugly revolt, oh yes you can..........
You make two assumptions that are false. The first one is that Brussels has power to make blanket laws. It doesn't. Just like Washington, it's power is limited to issues that affect the whole union, mostly related to trade. States and local governments still have final say in their administrations and local affairs.

The second is that the local citizens have no say. That's also false. Just like in the US, the citizens elect and send representatives to the European congress, or they are appointed by an elected government. In any instance, people can still decide to go against the UE in certain issues, like the UK's and Sweden's refusal to adopt the Euro, or the immigration issues that came about from the entrance of Eastern European countries into the EU.

In reality, European nations have lost very little sovereignity, if any, while getting a lot back in return.

Wealth. The decrease in national borders will increase the flow of goods and services, loss of trade barriers...sounds good to me.
quite. we are, and have been seeing the fall of the geographically-centered nation-state and the rise of the modern 'economy-state' where less emphasis is placed on national borders as the sole - or at least primary determinant - means of national definition. thats my take on it anyway. (wow that sounded half intelligent :p )
as a result, we are more ready to pool resources and work together in increasing unity - political and economic - to reach a healthier and more stable economic situation. that, and lasting peace.

whats so great or important about being nationalistic anyway?

You make two assumptions that are false. The first one is that Brussels has power to make blanket laws. It doesn't. Just like Washington, it's power is limited to issues that affect the whole union, mostly related to trade. States and local governments still have final say in their administrations and local affairs.

The second is that the local citizens have no say. That's also false. Just like in the US, the citizens elect and send representatives to the European congress, or they are appointed by an elected government. In any instance, people can still decide to go against the UE in certain issues, like the UK's and Sweden's refusal to adopt the Euro, or the immigration issues that came about from the entrance of Eastern European countries into the EU.

In reality, European nations have lost very little sovereignity, if any, while getting a lot back in return.

The EU is not that bad right now, I'm just saying it's a very slippery slope.

"Monist democracy"?

How do you consider the rights of US citizens to be "entrenched"? Because they are set in the Bill of Rights, ie. in your constitution? How's that different from the rights of citizens of certain European countries which are also set in the respective constitutions, or even in legislation other than constitution? I know my basic civil rights are defined in my constitution in a way very similar to those in the US.

Well, here in America rights can't be taken away. You can't be held without charge for example. That's why we do that in other countries.

And here in America you have the inalienable right to speak your mind, and if you don't like that you can shut the hell up and go live in Iraq!

You'll just see borders and how different people live. I could take a map of the North-West of England, see the lines seperating Merseyside, Lancashire, Manchester, et al. I could also go to Lancashire and see distinct differences between there and Liverpool. Doesn't prove that Nat.Sov. exists though
it also doesn't mean that those people, living in other nations, are any different from us. they may live differently, have different customs and cultures, may speak differently, may even use different money and be more, or less, wealthy than you are. they are still people just like you and me, worthy of respect and tolerance. the EU is perhaps the pinnacle of tolerance in the world - maybe not in a complete free liberties sense, but in a tolerance of each nations' and their people's differences. the EU builds on our similarities and the strengths of our differences.

You make two assumptions that are false. The first one is that Brussels has power to make blanket laws. It doesn't. Just like Washington, it's power is limited to issues that affect the whole union, mostly related to trade. States and local governments still have final say in their administrations and local affairs.

The second is that the local citizens have no say. That's also false. Just like in the US, the citizens elect and send representatives to the European congress, or they are appointed by an elected government. In any instance, people can still decide to go against the UE in certain issues, like the UK's and Sweden's refusal to adopt the Euro, or the immigration issues that came about from the entrance of Eastern European countries into the EU.

In reality, European nations have lost very little sovereignity, if any, while getting a lot back in return.
You're right, they don't have power to make blanket laws... yet. Don't doubt for one second that they won't attempt to pursue these sorts of powers though.

As for citizens having no say, they don't. The EU parliament doesn't really do anything. It doesn't hold any real sway over EU policy and is only designed to make the public think they're represented, as well as giving jobs to Europe's political refuse.

And yes, we can overrule the EU on issues, but how long will this last? It's obvious that the grand ambitions for the EU is for them to be able to impose laws on us, regardless of wether they're good for us. All you have to do is look at the behaviour of European politicians to see that they have always been intending to remove our vetos.

In response to the original question:

Because national sovereignty means nothing. It is absolutely abstract concept, especially in Europe where there are no clear borders between countries in almost all senses. We united because we are, each alone, powerless. In the same way the Americain states gave up their sovereignty to become a more potent entity, which consequently has benefited all those states.

Yes, there have been individual states who thought that their national sovreignty was important, but they learned differently after the civil war. Being part of the United States carries such benifits of not having the American Government send troops to raze your towns and burn your fields. Except for California.

The EU has yet to demonstrate any such benifit to its potential members, but each member seemed to know it intuitivly when convincing other countries to join their respective imperial commonwealths.

Well, here in America rights can't be taken away.

Well in America and other western democracies the right to assembly and certain rights of privacy are being eroded for the greater good.

As an Englishman and proud of it, I'm happy to announce I'm not willing to give up my national sovereignty...I'd rather be UK than EU thank you very much...although a free England would be nice too...

As an Englishman and proud of it, I'm happy to announce I'm not willing to give up my national sovereignty...I'd rather be UK than EU thank you very much...although a free England would be nice too...
In what sense of the word free so you mean?

Say for example France, for instance......
Pushes through strong EU wellfare benefits so that all of their unemployed losers can still afford expensive french wine and snails. Then all of the french decide to quit working. The rest of the EU will be forced to fund Alcohilic snail eaters with their tax dollars.

The EU is already spreading their tentacles to try to control American companies. If american companies are not off limits then what is?
Buh?

Would you be referring perhaps to the EU saying something about how Microsofts European division sells products in Europe while violating European competititon rules? (that being the most high-profile case I can think of.)

I don't see whats tentacly about that. European markets, European rules. And as long as the drive for more free trade continues I will not complain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1665000/images/_1666068_euflag_eu_300.jpg
Obligatory picture of EU flags.

On a more general note: go EU!
I do not see it as "give up their national sovereignty" as, ultimately, the member stats do not recognise any authority above them. it is not a matter of 'giving up' sovereignty. Its not a thing you have 'more' or 'less' of. Either you have it or you don't. What is important to me is that things that are better handled at the European level are done on the European level. That way, everybody wins.

Say for example France, for instance......
Pushes through strong EU wellfare benefits so that all of their unemployed losers can still afford expensive french wine and snails. Then all of the french decide to quit working. The rest of the EU will be forced to fund Alcohilic snail eaters with their tax dollars.
Yeah, cause that'll happen as soon as France developes a hive mind.

Yeah, cause that'll happen as soon as France developes a hive mind.
And ironically though, France is a net contributor* to the EU so the cute snail-eating story does not really work.

*Translation: this means France gives more money to the EU then it gets out of it.

In what sense of the word free so you mean?

Free as in dissolving the UK...the Scots want independence, let 'em have it...the Welsh can have it too. And Northern Ireland...I dunno, a kinda joint dependency or something until we can let it off the reigns or hand it back to the South.

I think it's a bit daft that Scotland and Wales (and N.Eire sometimes) get their own little Parliament type thingy (I know Wales has a general assembly) and England gets basically nothing...ah well.

Because they don't see it as loss of national sovereignty. We see it as pooling of sovereignty as a unification thing. It isn't that we are unilaterally giving up our sovereignty to other countries; it's a multilateral sharing of sovereignty in order to further unify our economic union. It's not like we don't get to represent ourselves in the parliament we elevate our sovereignty to.

I totally agree to this!
The EU doesn't take any of your personal rights-it just helps to combine the economy, political interests and so on..cause together they got more power and conflicts can be discussed together...

Well, here in America rights can't be taken away. You can't be held without charge for example. That's why we do that in other countries.

And here in America you have the inalienable right to speak your mind, and if you don't like that you can shut the hell up and go live in Iraq!

Joining the EU doesnt mean you give up your constitution. By the way you speak of human rights not different from the conditions to join the EU...
By the way i think peoples in america got less rights than in the EU, yeah even if you got the right to defend your property against french imperialists with a gun....

Come on, you don't honestly think that when the powerbrokers get their iron grip on the continent, they would just suddenly let go out of the kindness of their hearts? Of course the sate has something to gain from oppression. It means that the politicians who run the state can indulge in their power fantasies and run things according to their personal ideologies, irrespective of the suffering it may cause and the damage it would do to society.You can leech more wealth from a more prosperous country. Less intrusive laws tend to generate fewer malcontents. Politicians aren't out for power. They're out for wealth. Really disgusting amounts of wealth. Power is just a tool. Kindness really isn't needed. They just don't have anything to gain by making life difficult for the citizens.

Free as in dissolving the UK...the Scots want independence, let 'em have it...the Welsh can have it too. And Northern Ireland...I dunno, a kinda joint dependency or something until we can let it off the reigns or hand it back to the South.

I think it's a bit daft that Scotland and Wales (and N.Eire sometimes) get their own little Parliament type thingy (I know Wales has a general assembly) and England gets basically nothing...ah well.

Dissolving the UK would be extremely bad for all three regions economies, worst of all for wales, and second of all for scotland.

Yes Scotland does have its regional parliament, and wales has its assembly, but saying that England doesn't have anything is a little silly - with having the majority of the population of the UK AND being the seat of government in London, we get quite a bit. On a further note, John Prescott attempted to introduce regional assemblies for England, every region he attempted to introduce it to sent him packing.

I will agree with you however on being British and proud of it. This is my country, my nation, and I am proud to be a citizen of it. I vote, when I earn enough, I will pay taxes, I was born here and I intend to die here.

Joining Europe in a superstate might have certain economic benefits, but I'm not willing to sell our national identity and sovereignty for it.

The snail story is just a silly way of posing a serious question. And again the EU is not that all powerful YET!! Until they pass a law that it is illegal for member countries be a part of any non member military organization. NATO is dissolved, The chinese see their chance for and invasion and then.....

You're right, they don't have power to make blanket laws... yet. Don't doubt for one second that they won't attempt to pursue these sorts of powers though.
*scary music*
And in order to get that power they would need the support from... the states they are so sneakily trying to steal it from! NOES! If EU legislators deploy brain probes they could woe the population into a false sense of security and then.....

Uh. Oh, wait. That isn't going to happen.

As for citizens having no say, they don't. The EU parliament doesn't really do anything. It doesn't hold any real sway over EU policy and is only designed to make the public think they're represented, as well as giving jobs to Europe's political refuse.

How clever of you to see through this elaborate facade! So this means decisions are made by a combination of a Commission that takes initiatives, the people representing the national governments (accountable to the national parliaments you love so much)... and the EU parliament just co-legislates to make sure that the European interest and the interests of the people also represented (or they'll say no.). How.... fair?

And yes, we can overrule the EU on issues, but how long will this last? It's obvious that the grand ambitions for the EU is for them to be able to impose laws on us, regardless of wether they're good for us. All you have to do is look at the behaviour of European politicians to see that they have always been intending to remove our vetos.

This is obvious... how? I don't really see that happenind you know. 'sides, its the national politicians who want to remove the vetoes because things actually need to get done without Luxembourg being able to block a common position.

The snail story is just a silly way of posing a serious question. And again the EU is not that all powerful YET!! Until they pass a law that it is illegal for member countries be a part of any non member military organization. NATO is dissolved, The chinese see their chance for and invasion and then.....

Please tell me you were not serious when writing this, uhm, prediction. For my faith in humanity. Please.

ok my last post is a bit outlandish, but I also think that this thing is bigger than we know.

its satire meant to invoke thought

it could be a good movie

Just a suggestion... you might want to put more of your thoughts in one single post instead of taking up three posts for saying:

"Okay, my last post is a bit outlandish, but I also think that this thing is bigger than we know. Think of it as satire meant to invoke thought. It could be a good movie!"

(grammar corrected.)

Then it would still be a small post, but less confusing. ;) Think before you post. It helps. It really does.

The snail story is just a silly way of posing a serious question. And again the EU is not that all powerful YET!! Until they pass a law that it is illegal for member countries be a part of any non member military organization. NATO is dissolved, The chinese see their chance for and invasion and then.....And then the Chinese would continue to sell their cheap commodities to them, gaining gratuitous amounts of wealth. The Chinese have no serious motivation to make war on their cash cows.

We are giving away national sovereignty to gain local sovereignty. Go research a bit over the Europe of Regions. It basically works like this: By having full economical integration (A common, harmonized market), each region of Europe can start to afford its own goverment. Now, some things, such as defense, need to be made in common so that such goverment form is possible. Already you see regions such as the basque and the people from corsica demanding their own European deputies. Indeed, the nations that constitute Europe will fade away, but not into a giant, centralized state. On the contrary, they will break into a miriad of regions, each exarcebating the difference of each region of Europe. We will have one single economy, one single Army, and very few "single" stuff, after that (since there isnt that many public goods that are made cheaper by integration). And we shall stay here, United in Diversity.

Don't worry. Its not a dream. Its greedy, power to the people stuff. People want the profit of their work, a united Europe can take care of that.

Read your passport if you have one NBG. You sir, are legally a subject of her britanic majesty.

Also you have no rights other than those granted by tradition. Any of which, like the right to silence, can be stripped from you by a simple parliamentary majority.

At least I actually know something about your country.Argh! I want to put this to rest finally. Some people outside of the UK seem to think that people born in the UK are subjects rather than citizens. To sort this out I have been kind enough to take a photograph of my Passport. Unfortunately the batteries on my camera died so I had to use my webcam and the lighting's bad. But it says -

Type: P
Code of Issuing State: GBR
Authority: UKPA
Date of Issue: 11th of July 2002
Nationality: British Citizen

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload1/Passport.JPG

*snip*
First off, yes, they need the support of the national governments. But it doesn't particularly matter which government there is as the politicians will be more concerned in doing what's good for their career (i.e. getting a cosy little position in the EU superstate) than what's good for their country. And there's no need to resort to mudslinging, I'm not one of the tin helmet brigade.

As for the situation with overruling us, it's obvious they will want to do that because of the way certain politicians (especially French ones) have been strongly in favour of removing vetos for the EU constitution. Even if there is a common position, if it's not in our interests it should be vetoed. As far as I'm concerned the EU is only any use for what we can get out of it. If we can't then it's use as expired.

And by the way, the reason that the veto power is going to be removed is a practical one: it would be impossible to take decisions on a europe with 25 with everyone agreeing. It was made so that things dont get paralyzed.

To ammend our constitution you need two thirds of the congress (federal legistlature) and three quaters of the fifty states. It's virtually impossible. A tiny minority can nearly always block any ammendment.

Chances are if you can get 2/3 of the Congressmen in both Houses to agree to it, 3/4 of the states will too. Because there are basically only 2 parties....so 2/3 requires bipartisan cooperation. Meaning, it wouldn't be hard for 3/4 of the states to ratify them.

Somewhere, my question to you is if you apply the same 'standards' to your own national government as you do to your .

"politicians will be more concerned in doing what's good for their career", "the EU is only any use for what we can get out of it. If we can't then it's use as expired," "Even if there is a common position, if it's not in our interests it should be vetoed." those seem to be arguments against states in general, rather then against the EU.

If you (mildly) disagree with some measure your government wants to do, would you question the general idea of having that government? And how would you translate your veto idea to the national level? After all, 51 percent of your MPs (probably an X minority of your population considering your system) can Brutally Opress (TM) the other half. Perhaps a veto for every single MP would be a good idea! Then nobodies interests would be hurt, after all.

Politics in general, and European politics in particular, are a matter of long-term gains and tradeoffs between nations that (in the end) mean everyone is better off. Other nations do not exist merely to orally please Britain over every single minor issue, nor does Britain exist to do the same to all the EU member states. Life works like that. However the kinds of decisions being made at the EU level will be made anyway. (Either at the national level or, if that is more effective and proportional, at the European level). Its better to have a voice, and I can assure you that Britain has an influential voice. Key decisions simply cannot be made without British support.

Of course, the pre-EU alternative is always open to you... lessee what we have. *opens grandmas old junk closset from 1945* Sanctions, war, silly arms races with Germany, some more war, threatning speeches, war...

it's obvious they will want to do that because of the way certain politicians (especially French ones) have been strongly in favour of removing vetos for the EU constitution.
Actually, there are other reasons for that. Maybe you should read up on EU politics. It is not about out-voting Britain but rather about coming to a consensus earlier because meetings do not have the threat of a veto looming over everything. 9/11, the struggle against terrorism, the expansion eastward and the challenges of the 21st century require decisive decisionmaking. In a Europe of 25 the process needs to be streamlined and that requires removing vetos. If something is really, really important to a nation then they will always maintain the possibility to either block it or opt-out. There is not EU military force that will come to occupy Wales for ransom, so the powerful but flawed image of a jackboot is wholly inappropriate.

Also, if politicians are only concerned in doing what's good for their career.... pro-Europeanness doesn't seem to be a real votewinner over there now does it? Well, I can tell you it isn't a real votewinner in other countries either. Moreover, the EU does not appoint its highest dignitaries. Either they are elected by the people, or appointed by national government. Unless said politician is rooting for some minor bureaucratic job in the NWO they are worse off. So national politicians creating a superstate so they get jobs? Hardly.

Do you all really think that it is possible for all of europe to come together into some kind of humanistic utopia, where everyone is equal and there are no wars. Look deep into your history books. I think it will probably end up just the way it did last time. Question When was the last time that peace prevailed in Europe, and how long did it last. How was the peace obtained. There is nothing new under the sun...... Including human nature

The Europeans wish to have one nation because when each nation was a Superpower, they started 2 world wars that destroyed them, and now they are influenced mostly by America. So, if they unite, they can become free of American influence.

AHA FINALLY SOME HONESTY!!!!

Yeah, thats why I always thought they wanted to unite.

Blessed Assurances posts make Knooty's poor brain said :(

I'm out of here.

The English, French, and Germans hate eachother, but they also miss being Superpowers. With the Americans, they cant be Superpowers with America still around, so they go to sacrifices, stop doing this: :mp5: and reunited. Someday, they might do this: :mp5: to the Americans, and Chinese.

Because they are civilized in a way that few have ever been.

So why is Texas or Hawaii joining the US?

Why does Australia not break free of the Commonwealth?


Why does someone join a club?

I totally agree to this!
The EU doesn't take any of your personal rights-it just helps to combine the economy, political interests and so on..cause together they got more power and conflicts can be discussed together...



Joining the EU doesnt mean you give up your constitution. By the way you speak of human rights not different from the conditions to join the EU...
By the way i think peoples in america got less rights than in the EU, yeah even if you got the right to defend your property against french imperialists with a gun....

Um you got that I was being sarcastic right? "you can say whatever you like in America, that makes it great, so if you want to talk bad about it you can shut the hell up and get out"? = ironic paradox.

My point was that having a constitution that says you have rights doesn't guarantee that those rights will be protected, and having a constitution that limits the governments power does nothing to guarantee that the government will respect those limits.

Take medical marijuana for example (one of my favorite examples of stupidity and hypocrisy in American law). The Federal government only has the power to make laws that regulate interstate trade. (it can do a few other things like run the post office and the army, but these are jobs, not powers). Yet it has made a law banning the use of marijuana, even the growth and use of marijuana by one person which is neither interstate, nor trade. It is the job of the supreme court to point out that marijuana laws are a matter for the individual states to decide upon, but as more and more states are legalizing marijuana for medical purposes we have a supreme court justice who has said that it counts as interstate trade because if you grow it yourself then you don't have to buy what you use from a drug dealer in another state, which is just a load of crap.

To brag that rights are guaranteed by our constitution is silly when we have an electorate that's asleep at the wheel.

Im soory, arrgh! im not that good in english :_(
But i just wanted to say that those basic rights are't touched by the EU... in the worst case you get more of them... *looking at Turkey *

Dont worry about your english bro, I agree Turkey will probably benifit from the EU. Thanks for your input

even thought my nation is future europe i still would not like to see my nation the UK be tied up by the french or the germans but i would like to see more togetherness and even unity between the UK and its Commonweath a United Commonweath i think would match the EU and the USA as super powers