NationStates Jolt Archive

For years I have been a Eurosceptic. And I have several reasons. I refuse to accept any authority exerted over me by a group of people who were not elected in my country. I refuse to accept that Britain should have to pay towards subsidies awarded to French farmers. The EU should not have a flag nor an anthem, which it currently has, as those are marks of nationhood. I believe that the EU is a corrupt, power-hungry sore on the face of the continent and we should either return to the Common Market or Britain should leave completely. *Now lets discuss*

Shut up and bow to the uber-lords of Brussels. All hail Brussels.

For years I have been a Eurosceptic. And I have several reasons. I refuse to accept any authority exerted over me by a group of people who were not elected in my country. I refuse to accept that Britain should have to pay towards subsidies awarded to French farmers. The EU should not have a flag nor an anthem, which it currently has, as those are marks of nationhood. I believe that the EU is a corrupt, power-hungry sore on the face of the continent and we should either return to the Common Market or Britain should leave completely. *Now lets discuss*

If Britain wants to leave, the door is open.

I personally greatly appreciate the EU, mainly as it gave me the possiblilty to go and work in another member state without any hassle at all.
I like that Euro as it made international money transfers so much easier (I remember the days you couldn't mail order anything for another country because the banks would ask for twice the amount in fees)
Me, I feel more like an EU national than a German national or Irish, so let's keep that flag.

I refuse to accept any authority exerted over me by a group of people who were not elected in my country.

*cough* House of Lords.

i believe the EU is an instrument of peace, of mutual cooperation and benefit, and believe their authority is granted as member states accept it.
i believe that together we can stand stronger than individually, at least economically speaking.
i would rather have a single Federal European country than individual states all trying to out-do each other, self-perpetutating through ridiculous notions such as national pride and beliefs that we are actually different from each other.

i believe the EU is an instrument of peace, of mutual cooperation and benefit, and believe their authority is granted as member states accept it.
i believe that together we can stand stronger than individually, at least economically speaking.
i would rather have a single Federal European country than individual states all trying to out-do each other, self-perpetutating through ridiculous notions such as national pride and beliefs that we are actually different from each other.

*stands up and applauds :)

Hail Brussels!

(UK)

I think the EU Is just fine, I like the freedom of trade and the fact that you can work in other contries much easier. I'm just not keen on where all of our money goes, that's all. A huge, and I mean several millions, amount of money goes on spanish transport.. Transport! Roads! We pay for Spain's roads!

The EU should really rethink where they put their money.

*stands up and applauds :)
*fluffles* :fluffle: :fluffle: :D

I have also been Anti-EUropean for a while, my reason is because the EU is a threat to national sovereignty. I have no opposition to having one market of the continent, but the EU has gone to far. What idiot came up with the Maastricht Treaty (the treaty that founded the EU) anyway.

(UK)

I think the EU Is just fine, I like the freedom of trade and the fact that you can work in other contries much easier. I'm just not keen on where all of our money goes, that's all. A huge, and I mean several millions, amount of money goes on spanish transport.. Transport! Roads! We pay for Spain's roads!

The EU should really rethink where they put their money.

And Italy finances environmental projects in the UK... what's your point? Everybody helps finance everything.

Link (http://www.southwestukbrusselsoffice.com/eu_projects_first_projects_4.htm)

I have also been Anti-EUropean for a while, my reason is because the EU is a threat to national sovereignty. I have no opposition to having one market of the continent, but the EU has gone to far. What idiot came up with the Maastricht Treaty (the treaty that founded the EU) anyway?

So because the people of your city weren't the only ones to elect the PM, you shouldn't be subjected to his rule?
If flags are a mark of nationhood, why do they have this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_137.htm)? Or this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_183.htm)? Or this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_140.htm)? Or this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_207.htm)?
I could list a bunch more, but that might become spam...

*cough* House of Lords.

You should get that cough looked at. It sounds serious.

sorry for the double post.

I have also been Anti-EUropean for a while, my reason is because the EU is a threat to national sovereignty. I have no opposition to having one market of the continent, but the EU has gone to far. What idiot came up with the Maastricht Treaty (the treaty that founded the EU) anyway.That was the original idea all along, silly. Schumann came up with it when they started the ECSC.

i believe the EU is an instrument of peace, of mutual cooperation and benefit, and believe their authority is granted as member states accept it.
i believe that together we can stand stronger than individually, at least economically speaking.
i would rather have a single Federal European country than individual states all trying to out-do each other, self-perpetutating through ridiculous notions such as national pride and beliefs that we are actually different from each other.

I'm with you on everything except the peace thing. The EU has never done anything to promote peace (or war).

I'm with you on everything except the peace thing. The EU has never done anything to promote peace (or war).No, nothing at all. :rolleyes:
Not like Germany and France hated eachother after World War 2...[/sarcasm]

That was the original idea all along, silly. Schumann came up with it when they started the ECSC.
That makes the whole EU idea even more stupid.

i believe the EU is an instrument of peace, of mutual cooperation and benefit, and believe their authority is granted as member states accept it.
i believe that together we can stand stronger than individually, at least economically speaking.
i would rather have a single Federal European country than individual states all trying to out-do each other, self-perpetutating through ridiculous notions such as national pride and beliefs that we are actually different from each other.

I accept the EU is clearly an organisation of peace. However, I do not feel it provides mutual benefit. Benefits for some greatly outweigh those provided unto others.
If this were an economic question, the old "Common Market" system would be more sensible, as it does not presume to tell people how to run their country.
As for your point of nationalism, and I do apologise for leaving this thread so early on but I am quite unwell, I beg to disagree. If federal Europe was a better-organised democratically elected organisation then perhpas I would accept it. What I cannot accept is the current system where 80% of laws passed in Britain are derectives from Brussels, written by officials.
You may feel that nationhood is something to be discarded, and I respect that, as from previous posts I have come to view you as a very sensible poster, but I think such remarks are impractical.

No, nothing at all. :rolleyes:
Not like Germany and France hated eachother after World War 2...[/sarcasm]

Or the whole 1500 years before that...
Not that we aren't the second generation in central Europe in the history of mankind that hasn't seen yet seen a war in their own country...
60 years of peace in Europe. Show me one time in history where this has happened before. To me, that is the EU's greatest achievement, although it may not have been a priority in its policies.

That makes the whole EU idea even more stupid.Which shows that you've probably never heard of the theory of functionalism.

And Italy finances environmental projects in the UK... what's your point? Everybody helps finance everything.

Link (http://www.southwestukbrusselsoffice.com/eu_projects_first_projects_4.htm)

The amount of money donated by each country is unfair proportioned. Spain, for example, des not contribute anything near what it receives from the EU. Britain contributes a lot more than it gets back, which was originally one of the reasons for the rebate.

Or the whole 1500 years before that...
Not that we aren't the second generation in central Europe in the history of mankind that hasn't seen yet seen a war in their own country...
60 years of peace in Europe. Show me one time in history where this has happened before. To me, that is the EU's greatest achievement, although it may not have been a priority in its policies.

The EU itself has not prevented war. There is simply no stomach for it anymore. There has been nothing since the Second World War which has caused a big enough disagreement between nations. If anything, it is the relative stability and economic recovery after the war in many nations, combined with the presence of the USSR in the east which prevented any further warfare. This has nothing to dowith the EU.

The amount of money donated by each country is unfair proportioned. Spain, for example, des not contribute anything near what it receives from the EU. Britain contributes a lot more than it gets back, which was originally one of the reasons for the rebate.BullSHIT. Britain has the rebate, as you said. Britain doesn't have to pay nearly as much as Germany or France or the Netherlands, and even less comparatively. That's why the rebate is such crap. It needs to get scrapped, if not frozen. It seems that most of the sceptics are British, and yet its the Brits that are milking the EU more than anyone else. Looks like someone gets all pissy when they don't get the arm after they've already gobbled the whole hand when all that was offered was a small finger.

The amount of money donated by each country is unfair proportioned. Spain, for example, des not contribute anything near what it receives from the EU. Britain contributes a lot more than it gets back, which was originally one of the reasons for the rebate.

As far as I remember this year's numbers, Germany is still the number one "giver". But, yes, Britain gives more than it recieves, because it is, together with Germany, one of the richest countries.
The idea of mutual benefit is that the richer helps the poorer, thus enabling the poorer country to grow their own economy.
Take Ireland as an example : EU money helped finance the economical boom. Irelands economy grew from almost 3rd world standarts to one of the strong economies in Europe. So far, it recieved more than it gave. That is going to change from next year on.

*cough* House of Lords.

yes, but at least the house of lords does *pretend* to democractic.

I should also point out that the UK net contribution even after the rebate is the second highest.

There is simply no stomach for it anymore.And why? Because of the ECSC.

yes, but at least the house of lords does *pretend* to democractic.Unlike the EU, which *is* democratic...

For years I have been a Eurosceptic. And I have several reasons. I refuse to accept any authority exerted over me by a group of people who were not elected in my country. I refuse to accept that Britain should have to pay towards subsidies awarded to French farmers. The EU should not have a flag nor an anthem, which it currently has, as those are marks of nationhood. I believe that the EU is a corrupt, power-hungry sore on the face of the continent and we should either return to the Common Market or Britain should leave completely. *Now lets discuss*

sigh. We have a non-elected leader.
We get a rebate.

So because the people of your city weren't the only ones to elect the PM, you shouldn't be subjected to his rule?
If flags are a mark of nationhood, why do they have this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_137.htm)? Or this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_183.htm)? Or this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_140.htm)? Or this one (http://www.webmaster-tool.co.uk/flag-animated/flags_207.htm)?
I could list a bunch more, but that might become spam...

Although I am just intelligent enough to understand your point here, I must say it is irrelevant. There have been concerns for years that the EU is trying to create a "superstate." The presence of a flag and an anthem for the EU are examples of the attempts that have been made to make the organisation look more like an indepenent state. The EU now has a constitution, currency and a parliament, which in my view are steps towards creating a nation.Th flag and anthem fit this theme. Flag and Anthems are marks of nationhood, although they can clearly be used for other things. I have not recently heard of the Red Cross issuing 80% of a nation's laws. Have you?

And why? Because of the ECSC.
Um no, because the last war resulted in over fifty million deaths and the attempted destruction of an entire race. The scars left by the last war, dissuade us from fighting another. Read the reasons I have given. Surely someone living in Germany would understand what I have written.

Unlike the EU, which *is* democratic...

which aspect of the democracy do you most like? The Council of Ministers (who actually hold any power)? the Commissioners (who make the policies that the council decide on)? or The Parliament (with only the power to approve the selection of commission presented to it and the EU budget in a similar all or nothing fashion).

I always thought that Britain didnt really have a reason to join the EU what the point really

The amount of money donated by each country is unfair proportioned. Spain, for example, des not contribute anything near what it receives from the EU. Britain contributes a lot more than it gets back, which was originally one of the reasons for the rebate.
But that was not always the case (Britain did for a while receive a lot more than it paid) and might not always be so. Countries economies change. Just because Britain is in a position of strength now doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

Example:
In the seventies until the middle of the eighties Britain was the sick man of Europe. It's economy was useless, British products were crap (British fitting: if 4 screws were needed only 3 were put in), and internally it was a time of strife and discontent. In the early eighties Britain received a lot of EU money.
Nowadays Britain is economically very strong and is indeed a net payer. However, it also still receives a lot of funds and subsidies. Britain also has a reduced payment rate (thanks to Thatcher), meaning that if it had to pay according to its abilities, the sum would be much higher.

Germany on the other hand was extremely strong during the seventies and eighties, but ran into deep economic troubles triggered, but not exclusively caused, by the re-unification process. It is now in the throws of an economic depression. Yet it is still a net payer.

Although I am just intelligent enough to understand your point here, I must say it is irrelevant. There have been concerns for years that the EU is trying to create a "superstate." The presence of a flag and an anthem for the EU are examples of the attempts that have been made to make the organisation look more like an indepenent state. The EU now has a constitution, currency and a parliament, which in my view are steps towards creating a nation.Th flag and anthem fit this theme. Flag and Anthems are marks of nationhood, although they can clearly be used for other things. I have not recently heard of the Red Cross issuing 80% of a nation's laws. Have you?


The EU doesn't have a constitution yet, although I think one will be necessary in the future. I would also appreciate a more direct democratic process, but I have little doubts that one will be established eventually.

However, if you feel that your country shouldn't be part of this "superstate in the making", why not use the democratic process to make it quit the EU? Just elect the right person.

Or the whole 1500 years before that...
Not that we aren't the second generation in central Europe in the history of mankind that hasn't seen yet seen a war in their own country...
60 years of peace in Europe. Show me one time in history where this has happened before. To me, that is the EU's greatest achievement, although it may not have been a priority in its policies.
precisely!

The EU itself has not prevented war. There is simply no stomach for it anymore. There has been nothing since the Second World War which has caused a big enough disagreement between nations. If anything, it is the relative stability and economic recovery after the war in many nations, combined with the presence of the USSR in the east which prevented any further warfare. This has nothing to dowith the EU.
before the wars: national sovereignty is king, nationalism and militarism going hand in hand... starts two horrific wars.

after the wars, thanks to the EU: emphasis on cooperation, forced to put aside hatred and "differences" to rebuild under the Marshall Aid plan from which the very beginnings of the EU, the ECSC and EurAtom were created. emphasis on multilateral diplomatic solutions to the foreign affairs of member nations (and soon to be the EU itself)... nah none of that helped at all :rolleyes:

you say there is no "stomach for war anymore"... this is the EU's crowning achievement!!


I have also been Anti-EUropean for a while, my reason is because the EU is a threat to national sovereignty. I have no opposition to having one market of the continent, but the EU has gone to far. What idiot came up with the Maastricht Treaty (the treaty that founded the EU) anyway.
national sovereignty is an outdated concept. today, with globalisation as it is, nations (or economies) are so very much interdependent there is no single authroritative national sovereignty...
thats imo anyhow

BullSHIT. Britain has the rebate, as you said. Britain doesn't have to pay nearly as much as Germany or France or the Netherlands, and even less comparatively. That's why the rebate is such crap. It needs to get scrapped, if not frozen. It seems that most of the sceptics are British, and yet its the Brits that are milking the EU more than anyone else. Looks like someone gets all pissy when they don't get the arm after they've already gobbled the whole hand when all that was offered was a small finger.

First of all I don't think that this requires that kind of language. If you want to be juvenile then please continue. Britain pays more than France actually. Germany contributes the most because it has the largest population and so this is only fair. Britain should not have to pay more than France, which it des even with the rebate, as they have very similar populations. France receives the majority of the money it contributes back in the form of farming subsidies. Milking??? What exactly are you talking about? Look at the figures and see how wrong you are.

Although I am just intelligent enough to understand your point here, I must say it is irrelevant. There have been concerns for years that the EU is trying to create a "superstate." The presence of a flag and an anthem for the EU are examples of the attempts that have been made to make the organisation look more like an indepenent state. The EU now has a constitution, currency and a parliament, which in my view are steps towards creating a nation.Th flag and anthem fit this theme. Flag and Anthems are marks of nationhood, although they can clearly be used for other things. I have not recently heard of the Red Cross issuing 80% of a nation's laws. Have you?I agree. The point is irrelevant.
A flag does not make a superstate.
Neither does an anthem.
Neither does a parliament (see arab league, UN, or OAU).
The EU has no common currency, which you may have noticed. I recall that the pound is still around.
A constituition? Nope, in case you haven't noticed, France and the Netherlands voted against it. This means that we DON'T have a constitution.
The EU will not be a "nation" anytime soon (though I honestly wouldn't mind). It is a "federation", whose executive, legislative, and judicial branches might have more power in the future, but it isn't going to be a "nation" within the next century or so.

The EU doesn't have a constitution yet, although I think one will be necessary in the future. I would also appreciate a more direct democratic process, but I have little doubts that one will be established eventually.

However, if you feel that your country shouldn't be part of this "superstate in the making", why not use the democratic process to make it quit the EU? Just elect the right person.

I'm not actually the entire electorate, although if I were...

The amount of money donated by each country is unfair proportioned. Spain, for example, des not contribute anything near what it receives from the EU. Britain contributes a lot more than it gets back, which was originally one of the reasons for the rebate.
*cough Britain-centric narrow-mindedness cough*

whether or not this is true (not - re: rebate, etc), perhaps Spain needs the money more than we do. though i can tell you're not going to like that arguement lol
but to a socialist like me, there is no better reason than to help those who need it, and try and get all us european nations (though preferably the whole world) up to the same level (in terms of economy and living standards)

First of all I don't think that this requires that kind of language. If you want to be juvenile then please continue. Britain pays more than France actually. Germany contributes the most because it has the largest population and so this is only fair. Britain should not have to pay more than France, which it des even with the rebate, as they have very similar populations. France receives the majority of the money it contributes back in the form of farming subsidies. Milking??? What exactly are you talking about? Look at the figures and see how wrong you are.Show me the figures then and I might see how wrong I am. As far as I've heard, one of the economies that is doing best is compared to everyone else is paying comparatively less than anyone else, and it's not France I'm talking about.
It comes across as "greedy" when the country that has a whopper of a rebate happens to be the country that complains the most. That this might piss me off, since I come from the biggest contributer nation (who incedentally doesn't get as much representation in parliament as population should allow) shouldn't be that surprising.
And it wasn't me that used generalisations such as "the EU is Evil" in the first place.

I'm not actually the entire electorate, although if I were...

Well, that's democracy for you... ;)

However, if you feel that your country shouldn't be part of this "superstate in the making", why not use the democratic process to make it quit the EU? Just elect the right person.

I agree. Although I like Britain and loved living there, I never understood, why they didn't just leave the EU if they hate it so much. Either accept it in quiet desperation (it's the English way) or leave.

Actually, I think I know what the reason is: the economy. The British economy is so interwoven with Europe that it would be catastrophic for them if they left (just ask people in the business sector). One example is Toyota. Their biggest European car factory is in Britain. They announced several times that they would close it, were Britain to leave the EU, because then the whole excise and duty problem would arise anew.

And what is it about sovereignity, anyway? Don't believe that in our global economy that counts for much. Politically Britain has long lost the nimbus of a global player and is seen more as a US appendix. All that's left is the status of nuclear power and a seat at the UN Security Council.

I agree. The point is irrelevant.
A flag does not make a superstate.
Neither does an anthem.
Neither does a parliament (see arab league, UN, or OAU).
The EU has no common currency, which you may have noticed. I recall that the pound is still around.
A constituition? Nope, in case you haven't noticed, France and the Netherlands voted against it. This means that we DON'T have a constitution.
The EU will not be a "nation" anytime soon (though I honestly wouldn't mind). It is a "federation", whose executive, legislative, and judicial branches might have more power in the future, but it isn't going to be a "nation" within the next century or so.

If you read what I have written, which you don't seem to do, you will see that I pointed out that these things are clear indicators of attempts to reach nationhood. The UN and other world bodies you mentioned do not fulfill the same function as the EU parliament and so your argument there is irrelevant.
I had noticed that we've kept the pound. In fact, I've been fighting to keep it for several years actually. The Euro is a European Currency. It is something that works, with the EU to bind the nations of Europe into a single unit. It is, in real terms, the currency of the European Union, whether you accept this or not. Wrong again.
The fact that the constitution has not been ratified does not mean that it does not exist. The EU has adopted the constitution as its own, but curiously seems to have trouble getting some nations to vote to accept it. You are again wrong.

Well, that's democracy for you... ;)

Yes, although, it might not be around for much longer, should the EU assume more powers.

Actually, I think I know what the reason is: the economy. The British economy is so interwoven with Europe that it would be catastrophic for them if they left (just ask people in the business sector). One example is Toyota. Their biggest European car factory is in Britain. They announced several times that they would close it, were Britain to leave the EU, because then the whole excise and duty problem would arise anew.


indeed. anyone who thinks the british economy could survive on its own against the EU, the US, China, Japan, and (newly) India, is nuts. leaving the EU would add expensive trade tariffs to about 40% of our exports (that are traded within the EU). and thats just the start. international speculation wouldn't be too good, causing problems with the exchange rate, etc...

sufficed to say britain's economy would suffer, and there would be no way we could hold our own against the other major economies of the world (not like back in the empire days... in which i'm sure many conservatives are still stuck :rolleyes: )

Show me the figures then and I might see how wrong I am. As far as I've heard, one of the economies that is doing best is compared to everyone else is paying comparatively less than anyone else, and it's not France I'm talking about.
It comes across as "greedy" when the country that has a whopper of a rebate happens to be the country that complains the most. That this might piss me off, since I come from the biggest contributer nation (who incedentally doesn't get as much representation in parliament as population should allow) shouldn't be that surprising.
And it wasn't me that used generalisations such as "the EU is Evil" in the first place.

Hi Laerod, this might help (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/euro-j21.shtml).

1/3 of the way down it says:

In 2003, the last year prior to the EU expansion, Germany was by far the largest donor, paying a total of 7.7 billion euros. Then came Great Britain (2.8 billion) and the Netherlands and France (each paying 1.9 billion).

France’s net contribution was lower than that of Germany and Britain because it was one of the largest receivers of farm subsidies. In 2003, there were just four countries that received net repayments: Ireland (1.6 billion), Greece (3.4 billion), Portugal (3.5 billion.) and, by far the biggest beneficiary, Spain (8.7 billion euros).

Will see if anything else can be found. Hunting for facts :sniper:

In irony, the failure of the EU will be a bad day for the US economy. It means more French style protectionism and backwards solutions to the "polish plumber question" All these years, I thought a united Europe would be a rival to the US. Despite the EU's super-bureaucracy of regulation, it's been pretty good for this country.

My pity goes to the eastern rim nations, for whom the US and Japan are too far away, Russia is no longer an option, and the disfunctional EU is the only neighbor worth joining. The USA has put up with off scale competition in wages for decades and done well. It's time the French, Germans, (who else), took their medicine and adjusted to trade with your eastern and southern neighbors. Your citizens will enjoy the saved money.

Even the Italians want to bring back the Lira and I suspect the non-EU applicants may want to avoid the Euro from the start if this crisis keeps up.

Why must there be tariffs if the UK leave the EU? Just as much trade flows the other way so it would be in the EU's interests to maintain a free trade agreement with the UK.

The fact that the constitution has not been ratified does not mean that it does not exist. The EU has adopted the constitution as its own, but curiously seems to have trouble getting some nations to vote to accept it. You are again wrong.
It exists, but it is not implemented. The EU has currently no constitution, but still works under the Nicean contracts, which is on the whole, a bad thing - especially for the bigger nations like France, Germany and - yes - Britain!

Btw, we shouldn't always say that Britain grumbles about the unfairness of it all. It is modtly the English. Wales, Scotland and especially Northern Ireland not only greatly profit from the EU (which England also does, see earlier posts), but they also know it and are in the majority greatly in favour of the EU.

Why must there be tariffs if the UK leave the EU? Just as much trade flows the other way so it would be in the EU's interests to maintain a free trade agreement with the UK.
true, Britian could retain membership of the EEC

If you read what I have written, which you don't seem to do, you will see that I pointed out that these things are clear indicators of attempts to reach nationhood. The UN and other world bodies you mentioned do not fulfill the same function as the EU parliament and so your argument there is irrelevant.
I had noticed that we've kept the pound. In fact, I've been fighting to keep it for several years actually. The Euro is a European Currency. It is something that works, with the EU to bind the nations of Europe into a single unit. It is, in real terms, the currency of the European Union, whether you accept this or not. Wrong again.
The fact that the constitution has not been ratified does not mean that it does not exist. The EU has adopted the constitution as its own, but curiously seems to have trouble getting some nations to vote to accept it. You are again wrong. :confused:
I'm getting the feeling that you misunderstand the EU and that this may well be the source of your skepticism.
A flag isn't a clear indicator of attempting to gain nationhood. I thought I'd pointed that out but you don't seem to understand.
The first bolded part is correct. The € is "a" Currency of the EU, just like the Pound or the Zloty. It is not "the" European currency, since it doesn't count in every EU country. Currencies are not necessarily there to form nations. I don't recall Monaco becoming part of France, San Marino or Vatican City becoming part of Italy, Andorra becoming part of either Spain or France, or Liechtenstein becoming part of Switzerland.
The third bolded part is correct, but it does not mean that it supports your arguement. There are a lot of things that "exist" but haven't become ratified. For the EU constitution draft to become the EU constitution it must be accepted by the EU Parliament AND all the parliaments of it's member states. Until then, it is a DRAFT!

indeed. anyone who thinks the british economy could survive on its own against the EU, the US, China, Japan, and (newly) India, is nuts. leaving the EU would add expensive trade tariffs to about 40% of our exports (that are traded within the EU). and thats just the start. international speculation wouldn't be too good, causing problems with the exchange rate, etc...

sufficed to say britain's economy would suffer, and there would be no way we could hold our own against the other major economies of the world (not like back in the empire days... in which i'm sure many conservatives are still stuck :rolleyes: )

Which is why we should revert to the Common Market. That is the best system for all. Europe could still function as a trading block, and co operate whithout political interference from Brussels.

Why must there be tariffs if the UK leave the EU? Just as much trade flows the other way so it would be in the EU's interests to maintain a free trade agreement with the UK.
That's the way things are - it's all about guarding the markets. Look at USA vs. EU same thing. And the US is a more important trade partner for the EU than Britain would be.

Yes, although, it might not be around for much longer, should the EU assume more powers.Did you even vote in the EU parliamentary elections?

Why must there be tariffs if the UK leave the EU? Just as much trade flows the other way so it would be in the EU's interests to maintain a free trade agreement with the UK.

Wouldn't it break international trade laws to have lower tarrifs for one country than for another? I don't think there would be a basis for this sort of preferential treatment for the UK. And why should the EU be interested in treating the UK any different than other non-member nations? :confused:

Which is why we should revert to the Common Market. That is the best system for all. Europe could still function as a trading block, and co operate whithout political interference from Brussels.Look, if Britain didn't want to be part of the political union (which was planned from the beginning) they shouldn't have joined.

Which is why we should revert to the Common Market. That is the best system for all. Europe could still function as a trading block, and co operate whithout political interference from Brussels.

Hang on there... are you saying that because you don't agree with the EU, all other countries should give it up???

Why must there be tariffs if the UK leave the EU? Just as much trade flows the other way so it would be in the EU's interests to maintain a free trade agreement with the UK.

I think some industries in the EU (french farmers for example) believe the EU exists to first create those tarrifs and then make sure they always have jobs.

Which is why we should revert to the Common Market. That is the best system for all. Europe could still function as a trading block, and co operate whithout political interference from Brussels.
fair enough, if the economy is the only thing that matters to you (note that leaving the EU would still cause negative speculation and a dip in investment... investors are sensative types after all!)

however, removing political union would be the first step back towards the old ways, nationalism, etc...
plus the EU funds many social programs in the same sort of way the national lottery does, and missing out of this (and the all-important CAP) would not be to our benefit.

besides, i stand by the belief that together we are stronger

And what is it about sovereignity, anyway? Don't believe that in our global economy that counts for much. Politically Britain has long lost the nimbus of a global player and is seen more as a US appendix. All that's left is the status of nuclear power and a seat at the UN Security Council.

Who gives a shit about what people on the outside think? People on the outside have no bearing whatsoever on national sovereignty, hence it being called national sovereignty. We want to retain the power to make decisions for ourselves, internally as well as externally. The EU forbids that in many areas, and invariably cocks it up as a result.

:confused:
I'm getting the feeling that you misunderstand the EU and that this may well be the source of your skepticism.
A flag isn't a clear indicator of attempting to gain nationhood. I thought I'd pointed that out but you don't seem to understand.
The first bolded part is correct. The € is "a" Currency of the EU, just like the Pound or the Zloty. It is not "the" European currency, since it doesn't count in every EU country. Currencies are not necessarily there to form nations. I don't recall Monaco becoming part of France, San Marino or Vatican City becoming part of Italy, Andorra becoming part of either Spain or France, or Liechtenstein becoming part of Switzerland.
The third bolded part is correct, but it does not mean that it supports your arguement. There are a lot of things that "exist" but haven't become ratified. For the EU constitution draft to become the EU constitution it must be accepted by the EU Parliament AND all the parliaments of it's member states. Until then, it is a DRAFT!

Im afraid I do understand quite clearly, having studied the European Union in some detail in a previous job. In real terms, as I have put, the Euro is the currency of the EU. It is regualted by the European Central Bank, whih reports back to the commissioners. A currency is an important part of any nation. This is on of the reasons why leading national figures or heads of state are placed upon coins and banknotes. One thing emerges from you many examples. All the nations you have listed are very, if not extremely small. Liechtenstein, for example, is only home to, I believe, over 30000 people. These examples are therefore irrelevant as they provide examples of nations so small that they are virtually unable to function independently. This is not very useful when we are referring to nations the size of Britain, with 58 million citizens and Germany, which is larger still.
As for the constitution, it is the finalised article. It has been adopted by EU authorities as the document they wish to use to govern the EU. It is the EU Constitution, whether it is accepted or not. It ceased being a draft when it was accepted by some countries. It will not be brought into effect, as it has fallen apart. I suspect that any attempts to force it through Britain would be very fiercely opposed. It has already become the EU Constitution, but it has failed to gain enough support to actually be put into practice.

This is ridiculous that any politician thinks Europe will go back to World War Two if you abandon the EU. What a fool you make of yourself ! If there's anything a european of the year 2000 won't do, it's fight a war. The Americans know that.

Political union should not be on the agenda. The predecessors of the EU were formed for economic benefit, not political. It is stupid to erase the distinctive uniqueness of two dozen nations and replace it with international socialist propaganda.

Who gives a shit about what people on the outside think? People on the outside have no bearing whatsoever on national sovereignty, hence it being called national sovereignty. We want to retain the power to make decisions for ourselves, internally as well as externally. The EU forbids that in many areas, and invariably cocks it up as a result.
And that is exactly why the EU should not have the right to exist.

Who gives a shit about what people on the outside think? People on the outside have no bearing whatsoever on national sovereignty, hence it being called national sovereignty. We want to retain the power to make decisions for ourselves, internally as well as externally. The EU forbids that in many areas, and invariably cocks it up as a result.And because there was a thing called tyranny, no democracy should ever have developed? Semantics isn't exactly a good basis for blocking new ideas.
And, as I've stated before, as based on the theory of functionalism, a political union was the goal of the ECSC when it was founded by Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux states. It's not my fault or that of the current EU politicians that the British population of the past elected Heath and Thatcher because they were uninformed.

This is ridiculous that any politician thinks Europe will go back to World War Two if you abandon the EU. What a fool you make of yourself ! If there's anything a european of the year 2000 won't do, it's fight a war. The Americans know that.

...because of the EU. ok, it might not be the sole reason, but it is certainly a very important factor

don't forget that for the last 2,000 years (and more) before the EU, us europeans have been killing each other in near-constant warfare. i think thats evidence enough...

The forfeiture of national sovereignty to an international bureaucracy is tyranny. :mp5:

Hi Laerod, this might help (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/euro-j21.shtml).


Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/html/who_pays_what.stm) is a very similar thing from the BBC, with pretty pictures, graphs, and lots of stuff to click on.

Something I (genuinely!) don't understand - why does the EU pay 49 billion euros per year for agriculture? What's it for?

My personal opinion is that the EU is a nice idea, but it's far to big and fat at the moment and needs bits hacking off. The most useful thing it spends money on is research and that's only 4% of its budget.

don't forget that for the last 2,000 years (and more) before the EU, us europeans have been killing each other in near-constant warfare. i think thats evidence enough...

The Europeans have had several long decent breaks from warfare where you did some very nice things. In other times, it was the muslims killing you, not each other. Why, your continent came up with one most peace loving nations in existance - Switzerland. I think you're under-estimating your continent by assuming that it is obsessed with constant war.

fair enough, if the economy is the only thing that matters to you (note that leaving the EU would still cause negative speculation and a dip in investment... investors are sensative types after all!)

however, removing political union would be the first step back towards the old ways, nationalism, etc...
plus the EU funds many social programs in the same sort of way the national lottery does, and missing out of this (and the all-important CAP) would not be to our benefit.

besides, i stand by the belief that together we are stronger

The economy is not the only thing that matters to me, but a strong one is required for all other concerns to feature at all. Temporary dips in investment and negative speculation are, in my mind, a cost worth bearing if it means casting off EU control, something which I think shows that money is not the only thing on my mind.
I respect your ideals of unity, but I do not necessarily think that without the EU, nationalism and the "old ways" would return. But then that is another argument.
If the government in Britain, for example, recovers the funds given to the EU Budget and transferred it to community projects, we would actually receive more money for community projects than we do from the EU now. And if not, then we would get a slight tax cut. Also, the CAP does not function in Britains favour. It functions in favour of France, which is wrong and an injustice. Although our farmers do receive subsidies from the EU, they are bitter and angry at the way they are treated in comparison with French farmer. Farming subsidies should not be a focus of the EU.
I maintain that we would still be "together" in a common market without becoming "one."

Semantics isn't exactly a good basis for blocking new ideas.

No. The fact that under the EU we've seen nearly total social degradation and stagnation is a good basis for blocking new ideas. Because new ideas aren't always good ideas.

Currently there are several conflits going on.

frozen conflicts (http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Events/2003-09-Frozen-conflicts/)

Let's see.
Cyprus
Chechnia
Moldova
Former Yugoslavia.

In these places there are on-going or recently finished conflicts. And that's not including the IRA, ETA, etc.. organisations

...because of the EU. ok, it might not be the sole reason, but it is certainly a very important factor

don't forget that for the last 2,000 years (and more) before the EU, us europeans have been killing each other in near-constant warfare. i think thats evidence enough...

The EU is not an important factor to why conflict has avaided Europe. The Last War left such horrors that there really is no chance of a repeat for many years. Also, the colonisation of East Europe by the USSR left Europeans in the east unable to attack each other and Europeans in the West with a new concern. Also, the relative prosperity in much of Northern Europe has meant that there has not been enough desperation amongst general populations to lead to the election of redical politicians such as Hitler. These are just a few of the true reasons. The EU was formed because these conditions were evident, it did not cause the conditions we live in today to be evident.

Im afraid I do understand quite clearly, having studied the European Union in some detail in a previous job. It's very surprising how you manage to misinterpret a lot of things then. What job?

In real terms, as I have put, the Euro is the currency of the EU. It is regualted by the European Central Bank, whih reports back to the commissioners. A currency is an important part of any nation. This is on of the reasons why leading national figures or heads of state are placed upon coins and banknotes. One thing emerges from you many examples. All the nations you have listed are very, if not extremely small. Liechtenstein, for example, is only home to, I believe, over 30000 people. These examples are therefore irrelevant as they provide examples of nations so small that they are virtually unable to function independently. This is not very useful when we are referring to nations the size of Britain, with 58 million citizens and Germany, which is larger still. The € is not a legally binding currency as the $ is to the United States. If the € really had the role you claim it has, you would be paying in € and not pounds. It is something that helps unify the states, but it does not make them a "nation".
There's no pictures of people on the € bills, btw. Each state (except for Luxembourg) mints its own coins in its own country with its own motif.
As for the size thing. Monaco has been struggling against France's wish to become part of France for quite some time now, longer than the € has been around. They've had a common currency for quite some time too. Are you trying to tell me that where a small nation such as Monaco has succeeded, a big nation such as the UK is going to fail if it really tried not to?

As for the constitution, it is the finalised article. It has been adopted by EU authorities as the document they wish to use to govern the EU. It is the EU Constitution, whether it is accepted or not. It ceased being a draft when it was accepted by some countries. It will not be brought into effect, as it has fallen apart. I suspect that any attempts to force it through Britain would be very fiercely opposed. It has already become the EU Constitution, but it has failed to gain enough support to actually be put into practice.You're arguing semantics. The constitution has not been officially adopted because this requires a ratification by the parliaments of the EU and its states. Whether or not it is called a draft or whatever, it is not the EU's constitution. It might become the EU constitution, but just because its called the EU constitution, doesn't mean that it is yet.

Because new ideas aren't always good ideas.

Perfect.

I can't think of a better way to describe the EU.

Something I (genuinely!) don't understand - why does the EU pay 49 billion euros per year for agriculture? What's it for?The reason is so that we don't have to rely on other countries for food. While we can't drive cars without oil, we can't live without food.

And because there was a thing called tyranny, no democracy should ever have developed? Semantics isn't exactly a good basis for blocking new ideas.
And, as I've stated before, as based on the theory of functionalism, a political union was the goal of the ECSC when it was founded by Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux states. It's not my fault or that of the current EU politicians that the British population of the past elected Heath and Thatcher because they were uninformed.

This seems a flawed argument. The choices of the British Electorate were not made because our entire nation are "uninformed" but rather that those who voted for them agreed with their policies. That's how democracy works. Quite clever really. As we founded modern democracy, we should know how valuable it really is. Your comments portray an ignorance that must be difficult for you to hide.

No, nothing at all. :rolleyes:
Not like Germany and France hated eachother after World War 2...[/sarcasm]

Ah! I see! You're confusing the EU with NATO. Thanks for the clarification.

The reason is so that we don't have to rely on other countries for food. While we can't drive cars without oil, we can't live without food.

Wrong. Its to protect our native agricultural industry against the rest of the world. This was the aim, although now it serves to pay inefficient French farmers to keep them in business, while discriminating against those in the developing world.

The EU is not an important factor to why conflict has avaided Europe. The Last War left such horrors that there really is no chance of a repeat for many years. Also, the colonisation of East Europe by the USSR left Europeans in the east unable to attack each other and Europeans in the West with a new concern. Also, the relative prosperity in much of Northern Europe has meant that there has not been enough desperation amongst general populations to lead to the election of redical politicians such as Hitler. These are just a few of the true reasons. The EU was formed because these conditions were evident, it did not cause the conditions we live in today to be evident.World War 2 was one of the driving factors to form the ECSC which resulted in the EU. The reconciliation between France and Germany is one of the main reasons why there was peace "after" the threat of the Russians subsided. Now that the Soviet threat is gone, why aren't Germans and Frenchmen going after eachother?

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/html/who_pays_what.stm) is a very similar thing from the BBC, with pretty pictures, graphs, and lots of stuff to click on.

Something I (genuinely!) don't understand - why does the EU pay 49 billion euros per year for agriculture? What's it for?

My personal opinion is that the EU is a nice idea, but it's far to big and fat at the moment and needs bits hacking off. The most useful thing it spends money on is research and that's only 4% of its budget.

and 49 billion goes to 4% of the population :p (fucking farmers :mad: )

I think the reason farmers get so much, especially with countries like france, is due to the fact that they play such a large part in the Culture ie. wine/cheese/etc... They are generally a powerful lobby aswell.
Could also be due to the fact that EU countries/politicians worry about relying on outside sources for food.

Wrong. Its to protect our native agricultural industry against the rest of the world. This was the aim, although now it serves to pay inefficient French farmers to keep them in business, while discriminating against those in the developing world.

Agreed. The African farmers have such nice things to say about French import quotas. The EU doles out a few million in aid but refuses to pay African farmers for .. farming!

Wrong. Its to protect our native agricultural industry against the rest of the world. This was the aim, although now it serves to pay inefficient French farmers to keep them in business, while discriminating against those in the developing world.What? Why do you think protecting the agricultural industry is so important? So that we don't rely on the Ukraine for food and the Ukraine can exert political power by cutting off that supply. Your point is right, but it doesn't contradict mine.

The EU is not an important factor to why conflict has avaided Europe. The Last War left such horrors that there really is no chance of a repeat for many years.
...which is one of the main reasons why the EU/EEC was set up, and why Germany in particular was determined to play the part of the "good european" - forming the franco-german axis that formed the bedrock of the EU for many years (till Kohl was voted out)

without the EU and subsequent German good intentions, as well as a rapidly recovering German economy thanks in part to the ECSC, i doubt the impetus for peace would have been as strong.
i mean after WW1 people thought it was the war to end all wars simply by its magnitude and horrors (like you're saying here), and yet just a few years later Mr Hitler reared his ugly head...
plus German military power was severely limited in the treaty of Versailles (SP?), but this didn't stop Hitler rebuilding his forces did it?

besides, an important point to draw out of this is punishments and threats do not work for peace - mutual advantage and cooperation does, and this is precisely what the EU has offered.

Also, the colonisation of East Europe by the USSR left Europeans in the east unable to attack each other and Europeans in the West with a new concern. Also, the relative prosperity in much of Northern Europe has meant that there has not been enough desperation amongst general populations to lead to the election of redical politicians such as Hitler.
indeed these are important factors - as i said the EU is one factor.
you place less importance on the EU in this context, i place more (in fact, as with much of history, i think its unwise to pick a single "most important" factor)
but anyways i'm going to have to 'agree to disagree' with you on this cos i've gotta do some work...



Because new ideas aren't always good ideas.
but yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions



edit: and regarding the problems with the CAP, etc... just because there are problems with the practicalities of the system does not mean the system itself is not either unchangable nor a good idea in the first place. the EU has problems, granted, but thats no reason to abandon it entirely

Ah! I see! You're confusing the EU with NATO. Thanks for the clarification.As far as I recall, France wasn't part of NATO for quite some time and NATO most certainly wasn't based on the principle of getting the French and the Germans to like eachother. Read about EU history (start with the ECSC) and then tell me that the EU did less to reconcile Germany and France than NATO.

What? Why do you think protecting the agricultural industry is so important? So that we don't rely on the Ukraine for food and the Ukraine can exert political power by cutting off that supply. Your point is right, but it doesn't contradict mine.

Im afraid if you look at import ratios, we dont grow our own food in Europe anyway. This especially applies to Britain, for whom the Common Agricultural Policy was the final nail in the coffin.

The reason is so that we don't have to rely on other countries for food. While we can't drive cars without oil, we can't live without food.
Surely if we wanted to be self sufficient foodwise we'd pay our own farmers the money, rather than paying it to the EU to share between everyone's farmers?

Agreed. The African farmers have such nice things to say about French import quotas. The EU doles out a few million in aid but refuses to pay African farmers for .. farming!
Yeah. EU countries should pay African farmers for...farming! As every other "1st world" country does. I know this link is considered biased, but gonna post it anyway... have fun. http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/sectoral/agri_fish/pr240703_en.htm

(I'm sure things haven't changed much in 2 years after it was written)

As far as I recall, France wasn't part of NATO for quite some time and NATO most certainly wasn't based on the principle of getting the French and the Germans to like eachother. Read about EU history (start with the ECSC) and then tell me that the EU did less to reconcile Germany and France than NATO.

France has been a part of NATO since founding, and still is to this very day. France withdrew only from the integrated command of NATO in 1966. For that reason, there have been no NATO troops stationed in France since 1966, but France doesn't have a vote on NATO action, though it does observe all NATO decision making processes.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:qXFaBFJciEkJ:www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21510.pdf+france+%2BNATO+%2Bvote&hl=en&start=2

If you didn't even know that, no *wonder* you thought the EU promotes peace!
(Look: I like the EU, and consider it a good thing. However, it is an ECONOMIC union, not a peacekeeping one.)

Untrue: NATO's purpose was to prevent another European War; an attack on one member was an attack on all.

regarding CAP, this demonstrated the problem of the EU project. Originally it was to tie together the member states and provide a bedrock industry upon which to grow. You have to keep the people fed, so keep the crops growing. Security of food as pointed out.

But now what do we have? Luxembourg having a notional fishing fleet while UK fisherman leave the industry. And my favorite, subsidised Tobacco plantations while banning the advertising of tobacco products

I should not comment here since I am a US citizen, but I feel that an historical perspective might contribute something.

Which nation state in Europe is not the creation of war, dynastic marriages, or diplomacy? Were any of these 'adjustments' made with the approval of the subjects / citizens? I do not remember the plebiscite that approved the joining of Scotland, Wales and Ireland to the British crown, but I think those nations remember the 'rational' economic policies of London that stripped them of whatever wealth they might have had. Spain's Catalonia, Galicia, Euskara; France's Bretagne, Alsace, Corsica; Germany's Bavaria, Saxony, etc. - all of these were once nations that were compelled to surrender their sovereignty to the botched concept of the 'nation state'. Contemporary European nations were not forced into the EU; they joined the EU for the present and future benefits that only the EU can achieve.

Young people across Europe now have many more opportunities than any previous generation could have dreamed of having; they can study and work in any country of the EU while gaining immeasurably from the exposure to a different language and culture; they no longer view their neighbors as enemies but as peoples who share history, culture, and common values. If this isn't one of the greatest achievements of the EU, I would like to know what is! And may I say, I love the Euro bills for their color and for the fact that they do not show the faces of current or past political figures.

As an American, I am delighted to see an EU that has begun to assert itself on the international stage. A 'loyal opposition' always keeps a bridle on the powerful. I only wish that the UK had followed the lead of France and Germany and stayed far away from Bush's adventurism. Perhaps a future EU will become more effective in presenting a united foreign policy. :)

This seems a flawed argument. The choices of the British Electorate were not made because our entire nation are "uninformed" but rather that those who voted for them agreed with their policies. That's how democracy works. Quite clever really. As we founded modern democracy, we should know how valuable it really is. Your comments portray an ignorance that must be difficult for you to hide.Right, time for some in depth EU discussion:
The theory of functionalism assumes a gradual expansion of cooperation on broader levels in response to specific needs, cooperation in technical areas will have a spillover effect into the political realm.

This is the founding principle behind the European Community for Steel and Coal (ECSC) in 1951. That means, by beginning a cooperation in the coal and steel industry, further cooperation would finally be achieved, eventually in a political level. In 1957, Euratom and and the European Economic Community were founded by the Treaty of Rome. In 1967, these three institutions were merged into the European Community.
In 1973, the UK joined and helped in deepening the political union, which resulted in the first EU parliamentary elections in 1979 as well as the European Currency Systems.
In 1992, the Treaty of Maastricht founds the EU.

The goal of the ECSC was a political union. If anyone didn't bother to figure that out, they're "uninformed".

This is my last post for now, since I'm starting to feel the side effects of stopping the intake of my medication ;)

I'm with you on everything except the peace thing. The EU has never done anything to promote peace (or war).

EU grants helped form many cross community projects among other things in Northern Ireland to help bring about peace

EU grants helped form many cross community projects among other things in Northern Ireland to help bring about peace

So did the Marshall Plan. :)
As for Northern Ireland, I note that things only really picked up post-9/11, when the "War on Terror" was launched. I think the IRA realized then that they were in for a world of hurt if they continued armed struggle.

The EU is not a peacekeeping organization. Jugoslavia proved that. It took NATO involvement to end the fighting there. There is not one conflict anywhere on the globe that the EU has stopped.

So did the Marshall Plan. :)
As for Northern Ireland, I note that things only really picked up post-9/11, when the "War on Terror" was launched. I think the IRA realized then that they were in for a world of hurt if they continued armed struggle.

The EU is not a peacekeeping organization. Jugoslavia proved that. It took NATO involvement to end the fighting there. There is not one conflict anywhere on the globe that the EU has stopped.

yet the only conflicts that have taken place in europe have been outside of the EU. So in that sense further integration and the lower of borders has helped foster peaceful relations

Who gives a shit about what people on the outside think? People on the outside have no bearing whatsoever on national sovereignty, hence it being called national sovereignty. We want to retain the power to make decisions for ourselves, internally as well as externally. The EU forbids that in many areas, and invariably cocks it up as a result.
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was saying that whatever the British people think, in this day and age of globalisation national sovereignity is greatly reduced anyway.

For years I have been a Eurosceptic. And I have several reasons. I refuse to accept any authority exerted over me by a group of people who were not elected in my country. I refuse to accept that Britain should have to pay towards subsidies awarded to French farmers. The EU should not have a flag nor an anthem, which it currently has, as those are marks of nationhood. I believe that the EU is a corrupt, power-hungry sore on the face of the continent and we should either return to the Common Market or Britain should leave completely. *Now lets discuss*
Hurrah! Even though the EU won't affect who governs me (American), I wholeheartedly stand by the notion of national soveriegnty, and self-rule. No more of this absurd ruling by people who we don't even elect!

Wrong. Its to protect our native agricultural industry against the rest of the world. This was the aim, although now it serves to pay inefficient French farmers to keep them in business, while discriminating against those in the developing world.
It also helps to pay inefficient British sheep farmers to keep up the tradition of having their sheep roam the fells of Cumbria.

Whilst I agree that the subsidy for French farmers is way to high, I like to point out that all farmers in Europe are getting an awful lot of EU money. I read somewhere that without the subsidies about 2/3 of European farmers would have to go out of busines.

Im afraid if you look at import ratios, we dont grow our own food in Europe anyway. This especially applies to Britain, for whom the Common Agricultural Policy was the final nail in the coffin.
There are still a lot of farmers in Britain left. And guess what a lot of them live of - EU subsidies. Just drive around Oxfordshire in Mai and see all the fields glowing yellow from the blooming rape. And why is Oxfordshire (and other counties) covered in yellow? Because rape yields one of the highest EU subsidies!

And all those Dorset, Devonshire and Cornwall farmers would find it very hard to live without the subsidies.

yet the only conflicts that have taken place in europe have been outside of the EU. So in that sense further integration and the lower of borders has helped foster peaceful relations

Jugoslavia is within Europe. The EU (at least in theory) seeks to be a European Union. It did nothing at the outset. NATO came in. Once the dust settled, it finally became an EU mission.

Of course integration helps. I'm not saying it doesnt'. I'm saying that the EU is emphatically NOT responsible for the post-WW2 peace in Europe. It's a contributing factor. I could just as easily point out that no members of the FIE (Fédération Internationale d'Escrime) have gone to war with each other, either. ;) Nor have any countries with McDonalds.

At the end of the day, it comes back to NATO, because that is NATO'S *role*.

Whilst I agree that the subsidy for French farmers is way to high, I like to point out that all farmers in Europe are getting an awful lot of EU money.
True. I've posted a link, but as it's a pdf, i bet people won't bother to read it. So I sum it up.

'For to long people have been mislead to think that the farm subsidies are to protect small and family farms'. Data in that pdf shows that most of the CAP payments goes to large agribusiness and big landowners. Largest part of the CAP goes to large farms. The bigger the farm, the bigger the pay. Accross the EU, 80% of the CAP funds goes to 20% of farms. In Britain, landowners net as much as 500.000 pounds a year in public money just for owning land.

Somehow I wouldn't mind about the CAP and it's money transfers as much, if it was mom and pop farms the money went to...

(does this post have anything to do with anything...? ...i dunno, you decide)

Nor have any countries with McDonalds.
Isn't that a myth, though?
I mean, what about the Nato attacks on Serbia? McDonalds in all participating states ;) There were also McDonalds in Croatia, so their war with Serbia would definitely count.

Of course integration helps. I'm not saying it doesnt'. I'm saying that the EU is emphatically NOT responsible for the post-WW2 peace in Europe. It's a contributing factor. I could just as easily point out that no members of the FIE (Fédération Internationale d'Escrime) have gone to war with each other, either. ;) Nor have any countries with McDonalds.

At the end of the day, it comes back to NATO, because that is NATO'S *role*.Markreich, the EU was founded to end the century long rivalry between France and Germany:

Reconciliation with France was at the centre of Adenauer's policy. In 1950 he informally suggested a complete union of France and Germany; in 1951 he signed the Treaty of Paris, under which French and German coal and steel production were placed under the common supranational authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) - a project on which he had collaborated closely with the French foreign minister Robert Schuman and with Jean Monnet, the arch-apostle of European integration.Source (http://www.euro-know.org/dictionary/a.html) under Adenauer, Konrad

Isn't that a myth, though?
I mean, what about the Nato attacks on Serbia? McDonalds in all participating states ;) There were also McDonalds in Croatia, so their war with Serbia would definitely count.

It's a fun bit of trivia, but it's not a myth. :)

No two countries with McDs have gone to war with each other.
There were no McDonalds in Jugoslavia at that time; they opened in Croatia in 1996, Croatia was no longer involved in fighting.
Also, NATO itself has no McDonalds. ;)
http://www.media.mcdonalds.com/secured/company/history/timeline/

Peace fries article:
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/telegraph_15dec96.html

Markreich, the EU was founded to end the century long rivalry between France and Germany:

Source (http://www.euro-know.org/dictionary/a.html) under Adenauer, Konrad

Germany+France =/= Europe! Thank you for reinforcing my point!!

Even further: please explain how the EU prevented a war with the Warsaw Pact? How about (hypothetically) with the UK before 1973? NATO, and NATO again.

Give it up. Yes, it is a great ECONOMIC union. Yes, it is a CONTRIBUTING factor towards peace in Europe, but that is not it's role.

Counter example: Nor is it NATO's role to contribute to European economies, though it does due to the improvements in infrastructure, communications (et al) that IT provides.

It works out to the same thing: both NATO and the EU contribute in areas outside of their perview, but each has it's OWN role.

the USA is more corrupt than the EU might be...

Germany+France =/= Europe! Thank you for reinforcing my point!!

Even further: please explain how the EU prevented a war with the Warsaw Pact? How about (hypothetically) with the UK before 1973? NATO, and NATO again.

Give it up. Yes, it is a great ECONOMIC union. Yes, it is a CONTRIBUTING factor towards peace in Europe, but that is not it's role.

Counter example: Nor is it NATO's role to contribute to European economies, though it does due to the improvements in infrastructure, communications (et al) that IT provides.

It works out to the same thing: both NATO and the EU contribute in areas outside of their perview, but each has it's OWN role.While France and Germany != Europe, the ECSC --> EU, and therefore, I prove my point. Considering that the German-French rivalry was the longest standing in the history of Europe, the founding of what became the EU defused Europe's biggest powderkeg. The ECSC was a technical union, the EEC was an economic union, and the EU is a political union. It is not an economic union. Don't consider the East-West conflict the only source of disagreement in Europe.

Germany+France =/= Europe! Thank you for reinforcing my point!!

Even further: please explain how the EU prevented a war with the Warsaw Pact? How about (hypothetically) with the UK before 1973? NATO, and NATO again.

Give it up. Yes, it is a great ECONOMIC union. Yes, it is a CONTRIBUTING factor towards peace in Europe, but that is not it's role.

Counter example: Nor is it NATO's role to contribute to European economies, though it does due to the improvements in infrastructure, communications (et al) that IT provides.

It works out to the same thing: both NATO and the EU contribute in areas outside of their perview, but each has it's OWN role.
I the idea behind it was to improve economies, then the Maastricht Treaty should never have been written

For years I have been a Eurosceptic. And I have several reasons. I refuse to accept any authority exerted over me by a group of people who were not elected in my country. I refuse to accept that Britain should have to pay towards subsidies awarded to French farmers. The EU should not have a flag nor an anthem, which it currently has, as those are marks of nationhood. I believe that the EU is a corrupt, power-hungry sore on the face of the continent and we should either return to the Common Market or Britain should leave completely. *Now lets discuss*I AGREE...its just a short list of wtf is wrong in western-european union....

I AGREE...its just a short list of wtf is wrong in western-european union....Are you from any EU country?

Stop picking on the House of Lords; the Parliament Act can be used by the elected government to counteract any laws that are passed.

The House of Lords just makes it more efficient.

Are you from any EU country?certainly not and i am not interested in joining it...

So did the Marshall Plan. :)
As for Northern Ireland, I note that things only really picked up post-9/11, when the "War on Terror" was launched. I think the IRA realized then that they were in for a world of hurt if they continued armed struggle.

The EU is not a peacekeeping organization. Jugoslavia proved that. It took NATO involvement to end the fighting there. There is not one conflict anywhere on the globe that the EU has stopped.


*roflmao Now, THAT's really uninformed.

The IRA agreed on a ceasefire in 1997, a good few years before 9/11, and peacetalks in those years have resulted in the IRA dissolved itself a few weeks ago. Read it up here (http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/28/story213807.html)

The war in Yugoslavia took place outside of the EU. The EU itself is not a military organisation, it doesn't even have troops. How exactly do you suggest it should keep the peace of non-member states???

Germany+France =/= Europe! Thank you for reinforcing my point!!


Germany+France =/= Europe, that much is true. But Germany+France = War in Europe was true for centuries, millenia almost.
When Germany and France founded the EEC, it was a political as well as a economic desicion. It was a sign of goodwill and forgiving on both sides that made a stable Europe possible.
In the course of the EEC, the two nations started to focus on exchange, economically, politically and culturally. The German-French relations grew from centuries of hate, mistrust and desire for revenge into a close friendship, and that didn't happen because of the NATO. As far as I remember, the student exchange programs that I took part in where not initiated nor sponsored by NATO, ARTE isn't sponsored by NATO, and the programs to promote each others' culture and way of life aren't sponsored by NATO either...

certainly not and i am not interested in joining it...Then your flamy opinion isn't of much value to me, since you don't really have anything to complain about. :p

When Germany and France founded the EEC, it was a political as well as a economic desicion.The founding of the ECSC was prepratory to that, and in my eyes the first step towards reconciliation (and it happened before the EEC, which developed out of the ECSC). But otherwise, you're on the right track :D

The founding of the ECSC was prepratory to that, and in my eyes the first step towards reconciliation (and it happened before the EEC, which developed out of the ECSC). But otherwise, you're on the right track :D

I keep loosing track of the letters in the very early stages, the whole concept was changed and adjusted a number of times in the begining. I just can't remember all the names and timelines. Give an old lady a break ;)

I keep loosing track of the letters in the very early stages, the whole concept was changed and adjusted a number of times in the begining. I just can't remember all the names and timelines. Give an old lady a break ;)Well, I know because I had an exam in Int'l Relations on it a month ago, so I don't blame you :D

Germany+France =/= Europe, that much is true. But Germany+France = War in Europe was true for centuries, millenia almost
Huh, Germany is a young nation.All the small states where brought together by Bismarck in the 19th century. England and France fought eachother way much longer in the midle ages, remember the 100 year war.But the butchery of the 20th century is of course unseen before if that is what you mean.

When Germany and France founded the EEC,
The first start was in fact the toll union between BENELUX. Those countries then worked together with Shuman and Adenauer to form the EEC, it really was not Germany and France allone that are the founding fathers. But the symbol of the two old enemies working together was of course a breakthrough, like you well explain. Shuman, Adenauer and Paul Henri Spaak (Belgian PM) are seen as our founding fathers.

ARTE isn't sponsored by NATO, and the programs to promote each others' culture and way of life aren't sponsored by NATO either...
ARTE, best chain in the world, watching it over 10 years now. :)

ARTE, best chain in the world, watching it over 10 years now. :)

ARTE has to be about the only thing I miss here in Ireland... :(

Huh, Germany is a young nation.All the small states where brought together by Bismarck in the 19th century. England and France fought eachother way much longer in the midle ages, remember the 100 year war.But the butchery of the 20th century is of course unseen before if that is what you mean.



Well, replace the word "Germany" with Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, Hessia... and you won't find a century in history when France hasn't fought any of them.
The diplomatic slap in France's face to found the German nation in Versaille didn't really come out of the blue...

ARTE has to be about the only thing I miss here in Ireland... :(

In fact, I demand myself often in wich countries besides France, Germany and belgium you can see it?
But like Neal O'Clarigh, my dear Irish friend often says, "we live in one of the most beautifull countries in the world". When I stay there (Wicklow mountains near Dublin), and see Conemara or walk near lands end (sorry for the spelling, English is not my 1st tongue), I never watch TV, so beautifull and green. But it is nice here in the Alps to.

Huh, Germany is a young nation.All the small states where brought together by Bismarck in the 19th century. England and France fought eachother way much longer in the midle ages, remember the 100 year war.But the butchery of the 20th century is of course unseen before if that is what you mean.Germany and France have been fighting about Alsace Lorraine ever since the three stopped being the same country. THAT was much longer ago than the 100 years war.


The first start was in fact the toll union between BENELUX. Those countries then worked together with Shuman and Adenauer to form the EEC, it really was not Germany and France allone that are the founding fathers. But the symbol of the two old enemies working together was of course a breakthrough, like you well explain. Shuman, Adenauer and Paul Henri Spaak (Belgian PM) are seen as our founding fathers.Teehee, you forgot to mention Italy... :D

Well, replace the word "Germany" with Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, Hessia... and you won't find a century in history when France hasn't fought any of them.


That is what I want to hear :) Terrible religious wars to in the 16th century in our old continent.

Austria, is a case appart.

Teehee, you forgot to mention Italy... :D

:) I wanted to ad them to but I deletet it just before posting because doubt crossed my mind. (was not sure that they joined day 1 or a few month later)

In fact, I demand myself often in wich countries besides France, Germany and belgium you can see it?
But like Neal O'Clarigh, my dear Irish friend often says, "we live in one of the most beautifull countries in the world". When I stay there (Wicklow mountains near Dublin), and see Conemara or walk near lands end (sorry for the spelling, English is not my 1st tongue), I never watch TV, so beautifull and green. But it is nice here in the Alps to.

This island IS beautiful beyond compare, that's true. But landscapes can only keep you entertained for so long ;)
I'll have to ask my cousins if you can see it in Austria. In Ireland you can't recieve it (unless via satelite). RTE and BBC are nice, but no comparisson to ARTE... *sigh

That is what I want to hear :) Terrible religious wars to in the 16th century in our old continent.

Austria, is a case appart.

Nah, most of the time part of it belonged to the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, same as Prussia.

Germany and France have been fighting about Alsace Lorraine ever since the three stopped being the same country. THAT was much longer ago than the 100 years war.



I am aware of 1870 and the French defeat. The Alsace changed in 1871, 1918, 1940 and 1945 from nationality.Lots of people suffered by repression of the state here after the war because they were seen as collabo in WWII while they were forced in the Whermacht. The guys had no choice, same in the German speaking part of Belgium (Eupen-Malmedy) that was given as repair to B after WWI. They to had the same faith in WWII.

Nah, most of the time part of it belonged to the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, same as Prussia.

Yep, but I know. But I can't type all history here. :)
Going to watch my program on Arte now (the last part of it).

Yep, but I know. But I can't type all history here. :)
Going to watch my program on Arte now (the last part of it).

Yeah, go ahaed, make me jealous! :mad: :p

Yeah, go ahaed, make me jealous! :mad: :p
Allready back, saw the programm on ZDF before.
It is a German doc from Lucy Bennett titled "Sous le Ciel de New York"(it is in French here, or subtitles). About the terrasses in NYC on wich people have their own open air theatres, gardens, subculture.

Tommorrow is interesting. In the series "Aventure humaine" it is about the 100.000 of pyramids that were built in North America around the 3th century BC. These were built by the Adena culture that saw those monuments as stairways to heaven (so long before great Led Zep. :) ), The tradition was retaken by the Hopwell culture and 1000 year later by Indian tribes.

And those neocons on NS allways saying that we EU aren't interested in America. :p

:) I wanted to ad them to but I deletet it just before posting because doubt crossed my mind. (was not sure that they joined day 1 or a few month later)Nope. It was pretty much all the countries that were part of the original Frankish Empire.

I am aware of 1870 and the French defeat. The Alsace changed in 1871, 1918, 1940 and 1945 from nationality.Lots of people suffered by repression of the state here after the war because they were seen as collabo in WWII while they were forced in the Whermacht. The guys had no choice, same in the German speaking part of Belgium (Eupen-Malmedy) that was given as repair to B after WWI. They to had the same faith in WWII.You know that Alsace-Lorraine is named after Lothar, the third son that inherited part of the Empire? And driving the borders to the Rhine has been a French dream long before 1870.

Yeah, go ahaed, make me jealous! :mad: :pMeh, I only really need the Tagesschau to get my fix... I don't even have ARTE programed into my TV...

Nope. It was pretty much all the countries that were part of the original Frankish Empire.
Was speaking about Italy, remember :rolleyes:


Teehee, you forgot to mention Italy... .

You know that Alsace-Lorraine is named after Lothar, the third son that inherited part of the Empire? And driving the borders to the Rhine has been a French dream long before 1870.

We call that son in my mothertongue "Lotharingen". In fact the Charlemagne empire was divided by his last living sun Louis under his three sons.Don't remember their names (have to check that) but the "Bold" one was one of them to. Who was the 3th again?

Meh, I only really need the Tagesschau to get my fix... I don't even have ARTE programed into my TV...

I'm a culture junkie... the two programs I used to watch in Germany were ARTE and 3SAT

Was speaking about Italy, remember :rolleyes:
I know. The nope was basically concerning that you leaving out Italy before. It's hard to explain, but I didn't misunderstand your post...

Laerod, where do you live in Germany?
I live in the departement of Haute Savoie, Chamonix.(allready 8 years in France's Alps now, mountains are my job) But born and raised in Flanders., between Gent and Brussels.

Laerod, where do you live in Germany?
I live in the departement of Haute Savoie, Chamonix.(allready 8 years in France's Alps now, mountains are my job) But born and raised in Flanders., between Gent and Brussels.Currently in Cottbus, Brandenburg, where I study. But right now I'm in Berlin, where I've grown up. I lived in Munich for a year in between.

Then you must know the beautifull Spreewald there. Been there 5 years ago when I came back from Dresden (wow great restoration of the Frauenkirche in the city that suffered from the war crime of the opposite side*)

*Yep, I bought the book of Jorg Friedrich "Die Brand" opens the eye for the interested one.

For years I have been a Eurosceptic. And I have several reasons. I refuse to accept any authority exerted over me by a group of people who were not elected in my country. I refuse to accept that Britain should have to pay towards subsidies awarded to French farmers. The EU should not have a flag nor an anthem, which it currently has, as those are marks of nationhood. I believe that the EU is a corrupt, power-hungry sore on the face of the continent and we should either return to the Common Market or Britain should leave completely. *Now lets discuss*


The existence of the EU is absolutely necessary to cancelling the power of the meth-smoking super-power of the United States. The economic gains that it have provided to the entire continent are immense. The EU has done nothing but good. Just because a portion of Brits think they will be "misrepresented" Europe is still Europe, and it needs to be unified to prevent the United States from destroying the world. Brits are European, whether they like it or not.

The existence of the EU is absolutely necessary to cancelling the power of the meth-smoking super-power of the United States. The economic gains that it have provided to the entire continent are immense. The EU has done nothing but good. Just because a portion of Brits think they will be "misrepresented" Europe is still Europe, and it needs to be unified to prevent the United States from destroying the world. Brits are European, whether they like it or not.



quoted for emphasis

*Yep, I bought the book of Jorg Friedrich "Die Brand" opens the eye for the interested one.Slaughterhouse five works fine for that too.

*roflmao Now, THAT's really uninformed.

The IRA agreed on a ceasefire in 1997, a good few years before 9/11, and peacetalks in those years have resulted in the IRA dissolved itself a few weeks ago. Read it up here (http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/28/story213807.html)

The war in Yugoslavia took place outside of the EU. The EU itself is not a military organisation, it doesn't even have troops. How exactly do you suggest it should keep the peace of non-member states???

A ceasefire that was broken, as your link shows:
:: AUGUST 15, 1998: 29 people are killed by the Real IRA in a car bomb in Omagh, the biggest single atrocity of the Troubles.

And this is interesting:
:: OCTOBER 2001: In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks in the US and the arrest in August of three Irish republicans in Colombia, the IRA begins a process of putting its arms beyond use.

Uninformed, eh? :rolleyes: **READ YOUR OWN LINK** :headbang:
The IRA is only NOW getting rid of it's weapons! It's STILL AROUND, at least as an idea if not in body. And probably some factions...

Jugoslavia - AGAIN: No, Jugoslavia wasn't in the EU.
But it's IN EUROPE, and the EU totally failed to keep it from devolving to the worst scenes of war, including rape hotels, ethnic clensing, and the razing of whole villages. And that's EXACTLY my point. Laerod (and others!) keep claiming that the EU maintains the peace. It does no such thing. NATO does... among its members. QED!

...
I agree. Something wich is very strange is that De Gaulle forsaw the troubles with the UK in the EU. Then the UK absolutely wanted to join and he was against it. Later on Heath joined it. And now we are back to 0 with them.
While almost 45% of the Brits want to leave it, I would say please leave and give them an extra kick in the ass to make it more fast.

BUTsince there is still a majority in favour we can not. I like the Britts, specially the Welsh and Scots who are largely in favour, I can not stand the continued obstruction since Tatcher and the financial benefits they were given.Remember the attitude of Blair versus the more poor newcommers? I can assure you that he lost all credit there. Off course the debate about the money is complex and often done here on NS, in France we see the problem of the agriculture subsidies and as long as there will be no reform there, countries like Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg will continue way more pro capita then the UK citizen for the union.

Complex situation and the boxing match between Blair and Chirac, together with the the to soon arrival of the new states will continue blocking the march for a politicla unity like wanted by most on the continent. De Gaulle, he forsaw the probs with albion when he spoke about the real dream of the union, a political one. Then you're taked seriously, not as a trade union (wich has a lot of benefits to of course).

A ceasefire that was broken, as your link shows:
:: AUGUST 15, 1998: 29 people are killed by the Real IRA in a car bomb in Omagh, the biggest single atrocity of the Troubles.

And this is interesting:
:: OCTOBER 2001: In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks in the US and the arrest in August of three Irish republicans in Colombia, the IRA begins a process of putting its arms beyond use.

Uninformed, eh? :rolleyes: **READ YOUR OWN LINK** :headbang:
The IRA is only NOW getting rid of it's weapons! It's STILL AROUND.



Muppet.... The IRA is NOT the Real IRA... i repeat NOT the Real IRA.

Slaughterhouse five works fine for that too.
Kurt Vonnegut?
Have not read it, but that is a novel. Know that it is world literature and that he was on the place in february 1945

But I really advise each German to read Friedrich.

But it's IN EUROPE, and the EU totally failed to keep it from devolving to the worst scenes of war, including rape hotels, ethnic clensing, and the razing of whole villages. And that's EXACTLY my point. Laerod (and others!) keep claiming that the EU maintains the peace. It does no such thing. NATO does... among its members. QED! Kiddo, for the last time: There's no telling what life in Europe would be like if it hadn't been for the reconciliation between France and Germany. NATO doesn't to crap to keep peace. It enforces it. Or do France and the US get along? Consider that France and Germany hated eachothers guts and France and the US had a history of friendship. It's not NATO that healed the rift between France and Germany. We don't claim that the EU maintains the peace in Europe. It has set the ground for keeping Europe's longest ongoing conflict reconciled finally, at long long last. A military alliance does little to make people friends again (take the example of Turkey and Greece, both members that got into a fight over Cyprus). They don't get along because of NATO. The EU did more to calm that conflict than NATO.
Would the conflict between France and Germany have been reconciled by something other than the EU? Probably, but it WAS the EUs early forms that did the trick.
Without German-French reconciliation, there would never have been a chance for lasting peace in Europe.

Muppet.... The IRA is NOT the Real IRA... i repeat NOT the Real IRA.

At 179 posts, I wouldn't go calling people "moron". Just so you understand why, PM, I suggest you consider this:

The Real IRA is a splinter of the IRA, you undereducated simpleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ira

See? No need to be unpleasant.

I'm all for Britain leaving the EU. I mean, each nation has it's own choice. But none of this special treatment crap that the British currently enjoy. Especially a lower amount of money they have to pay the EU annually. That's just plain crap. The entire system needs a good workover, and more than just some silly parlament that no one understands anyway. But if the british are going to stay a member, then they should be on the same level as everyone else. At least while the current system demands it.

And that's EXACTLY my point. Laerod (and others!) keep claiming that the EU maintains the peace. It does no such thing. NATO does... among its members. QED!

You know the difference between the EU and the NATO? The EU is an economical union. The entire "one nation" idea is just now starting to be developed (and already failed when it came to the EU constitution, but hey, nothing's perfect). The NATO is a military alliance, and a rather odd one at that. As in, no one's forced to help anyone at all, they can choose to, if they wish to.

Now, I ask you, how does an economic union keep the peace in a nation that's not a member? There are no sanctions, no embargos, no nothing that could bother Yugoslavia. They weren't too interested in economy anyway. They were far too busy shooting each other. It's like expecting the police to put out a fire.

But there is a certain peace the EU keeps. The EU countries are nearly interdependent by now. The economic structure is far more inviting than dealing with nations that aren't members of the EU. No EU nation could afford to declare war on anyone and if it decides to play "we want Nukes, we want to be a superpower", well, then there are over 20 other nations that they suddenly have no more economic contact to. Which really bites once you've been integrated into the system.

Kurt Vonnegut?
Have not read it, but that is a novel. Know that it is world literature and that he was on the place in february 1945

But I really advise each German to read Friedrich.Vonnegut incidentally was against restoring the Frauenkirche. He thought it should serve as a reminder like the Gedächtniskirche in Berlin.

At 179 posts, I wouldn't go calling people "moron". Just so you understand why, PM, I suggest you consider this:

The Real IRA is a splinter of the IRA, you undereducated simpleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ira

See? No need to be unpleasant.

I changed moron because i felt it was a tad harsh- i apologise for that.

But don't use wiki mate- thats a crap source. you want to know about the IRA and the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA and The D.A.A.D, 32 County Sovereignty Committee....???? Then talk to an Irish person ok?

A Laerod (and others!) keep claiming that the EU maintains the peace. It does no such thing. NATO does... among its members. QED! [/B]

Thank's for sharing the class your opinion. A opinion that's what it is,nothing more. You just gave the best example of some neocons that are unneededly affraid of a further European political union. It would help the US taxpayer (you guys have money as a God, so it is important for ya) when Europe will fight and solve his own conflicts instead of the joint Nato like in former Yugoslavia.

Jugoslavia - AGAIN: No, Jugoslavia wasn't in the EU.
But it's IN EUROPE, and the EU totally failed to keep it from devolving to the worst scenes of war, including rape hotels, ethnic clensing, and the razing of whole villages. And that's EXACTLY my point. Laerod (and others!) keep claiming that the EU maintains the peace. It does no such thing. NATO does... among its members. QED!

The EU maintains the peace between its member states, nowhere outside.
It wasn't designed to keep the peace everywhere in Europe, especially since large parts of Europe where countries of the Warshaw Pact at the time the EU was founded...

quoted for emphasis


Thank you for the compliment! :D

Without German-French reconciliation, there would never have been a chance for lasting peace in Europe.

Let Markreich say what he want. You live in Germany and I live in France and our people share the same vision, wether he likes it or not :fluffle: .

Germany+France =/= Europe, that much is true. But Germany+France = War in Europe was true for centuries, millenia almost.

As opposed to France vs. England? How about Spain vs. England? Anybody vs. Poland? France & England vs. Russia?
Centuries, yes. But not millenia. :) France and Germany have fought three wars (1870, 1914, 1940). France has fought more often (and for MANY more years) against England than Germany.

When Germany and France founded the EEC, it was a political as well as a economic desicion. It was a sign of goodwill and forgiving on both sides that made a stable Europe possible.

Which is a good thing.

In the course of the EEC, the two nations started to focus on exchange, economically, politically and culturally. The German-French relations grew from centuries of hate, mistrust and desire for revenge into a close friendship, and that didn't happen because of the NATO. As far as I remember, the student exchange programs that I took part in where not initiated nor sponsored by NATO, ARTE isn't sponsored by NATO, and the programs to promote each others' culture and way of life aren't sponsored by NATO either...

And they didn't keep East Germany from invading, either.
As you said in another post, the EU doesn't have troops. And as I've pointed out in another post, the EU *is* a contributing reason, but not nearly the primary reason for peace in Europe post-1945. The same way NATO is a contributing (but again, not nearly the primary) reason for prosperity in Europe post-1945.

I hope we can agree on that? :)

Let Markreich say what he want. You live in Germany and I live in France and our people share the same vision, wether he likes it or not :fluffle: .

And this Slovak is not anti-EU. I'm just against calling a heart a spade. :D

Vonnegut incidentally was against restoring the Frauenkirche. He thought it should serve as a reminder like the Gedächtniskirche in Berlin.

Visited Berlin (East to) in 1984.still have my pictures taken as a kid in the quit East then (Pergamon museum, bullet holes in some houses, the Russian tanks that where on massive stone blocks as a monument..)

Let Markreich say what he want. You live in Germany and I live in France and our people share the same vision, wether he likes it or not :fluffle: .Nah, Markreich isn't afraid of the EU. He's just misguided as to its original purpose. I'm trying to get the reconciliation through his skull.
Please take that as a compliment Mark :p It means I think you're capable of learning (which can't be said for some others...)

The EU maintains the peace between its member states, nowhere outside.
It wasn't designed to keep the peace everywhere in Europe, especially since large parts of Europe where countries of the Warsaw Pact at the time the EU was founded...

Which is superfluous, since most everyone in the EU is in NATO as well!
As I've said before: I could just as easily say that the FIE or McDonalds maintains the peace as the EU by that logic!

RIGHT!! EXACTLY!!

Nah, Markreich isn't afraid of the EU. He's just misguided as to its original purpose. I'm trying to get the reconciliation through his skull.
Please take that as a compliment Mark :p It means I think you're capable of learning (which can't be said for some others...)

I like the EU. I believe it is a good thing. I just happen to ascribe to it what it actually DOES.

Visited Berlin (East to) in 1984.still have my pictures taken as a kid in the quit East then (Pergamon museum, bullet holes in some houses, the Russian tanks that where on massive stone blocks as a monument..)'84 is my birth year :D
5 years later, I was chipping away on that Wall with my two little siblings and my parents.

And this Slovak is not anti-EU. I'm just against calling a heart a spade. :D

Aha another one that has nice country and the closest and magnifique capital near Vienna of eastern EU. Now I understand your obsession with the US. In W-EU we see the whole picture and I knwo that Reagan is a hero in the East but not here. We have lived those years like you lived the commie years and are I am afraid better informed about the West.

Which is superfluous, since most everyone in the EU is in NATO as well!


Emmmmm.... not.. really....

FIE? Fencer? :eek:

Thank's for sharing the class your opinion. A opinion that's what it is,nothing more. You just gave the best example of some neocons that are unneededly affraid of a further European political union. It would help the US taxpayer (you guys have money as a God, so it is important for ya) when Europe will fight and solve his own conflicts instead of the joint Nato like in former Yugoslavia.

I personally would greatly prefer it if the US didn't pay 25% of NATO's bill so that it would be more of an alliance of equals and so some Europeans wouldn't look at is as a virtual Army of Occupation.

PS: You could have money like Americans. Just scale back the social services and the taxes that pay for them... there is no reason why gas in Holland doesn't cost what it does in Ohio.

'84 is my birth year :D
5 years later, I was chipping away on that Wall with my two little siblings and my parents.
Oops, fuck I am old,33.ButI've been around and still like it.

To me, NATO seems to be inneffectual. Though the recent incursions into Russian dominance are, technically, a good thing, it is doing more harm than good when Putin threatens to seal off natural gas pipelines. NATO is, technically, only a military alliance, and the EU is an economic one. It's much easier to prevent war with a fat wad of cash than with a gun.

I changed moron because i felt it was a tad harsh- i apologise for that.

But don't use wiki mate- thats a crap source. you want to know about the IRA and the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA and The D.A.A.D, 32 County Sovereignty Committee....???? Then talk to an Irish person ok?

Thanks. :)

Wiki is good enough for the 10.000 meter view we mostly debate with here, in most circumstances. Besides, as a Slovak ex-pat American, the minutae of the IRA isn't exactly on the top of my current events pile... but, as I say: Wiki gets the big things right.

You know the difference between the EU and the NATO? The EU is an economical union. The entire "one nation" idea is just now starting to be developed (and already failed when it came to the EU constitution, but hey, nothing's perfect).Not quite right actually. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9429011&postcount=104)

To me, NATO seems to be inneffectual. Though the recent incursions into Russian dominance are, technically, a good thing, it is doing more harm than good when Putin threatens to seal off natural gas pipelines. NATO is, technically, only a military alliance, and the EU is an economic one. It's much easier to prevent war with a fat wad of cash than with a gun.

:confused: Most of the opposition (Warsaw Pact) has changed sides, and you think it is ineffectual?

Not always. Paying off your enemy rarely works, historically.

Thanks. :)

Wiki is good enough for the 10.000 meter view we mostly debate with here, in most circumstances. Besides, as a Slovak ex-pat American, the minutae of the IRA isn't exactly on the top of my current events pile... but, as I say: Wiki gets the big things right.

:D No worries mate- LOADS of people tend to simplify- which scews off the point :D

sorry again. :(

As opposed to France vs. England? How about Spain vs. England? Anybody vs. Poland? France & England vs. Russia?
Centuries, yes. But not millenia. :) France and Germany have fought three wars (1870, 1914, 1940). France has fought more often (and for MANY more years) against England than Germany.

Not quite correct. You have to take into account ALL German nations, not start with the German Reich. If you look at the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation and its member nations, there was not one century in history when France didn't fight a German nation.


And they didn't keep East Germany from invading, either.

:confused:


As you said in another post, the EU doesn't have troops. And as I've pointed out in another post, the EU *is* a contributing reason, but not nearly the primary reason for peace in Europe post-1945. The same way NATO is a contributing (but again, not nearly the primary) reason for prosperity in Europe post-1945.

I hope we can agree on that? :)

I would never put the reason for the end of such long and cherished enmity down to one single instance.
France and Germany were major opponents in two world wars that had been devastating for both. So one can assume that people had a genuine interest in promoting peace rather than seeking revenge.
After WW II, the political climate in Germany started to ressemble that in France, making it easier for the two nations to approach each other.
Adenauer and De Gaulle deeply respected and liked each other. Adenauer took care to place the new German capital (Bonn) close to his home village, in very close proximity to France.

There were a large number of factors that ensured peace in Europe, the NATO did that on a military level. But the efforts of De Gaulle and Adenauer worked on a social and cultural level, bringing not nations but people closer together. They both worked hard to overcome age-old hatred, prejudices, aggressions and feelings of revenge, and today's EU is based on those efforts just as much as it is based on economical principles.

Aha another one that has nice country and the closest and magnifique capital near Vienna of eastern EU. Now I understand your obsession with the US. In W-EU we see the whole picture and I knwo that Reagan is a hero in the East but not here. We have lived those years like you lived the commie years and are I am afraid better informed about the West.


In the W-EU, people also discuss politics much better. Never did I have as good of political discussions as when I lived in Germany. The objective perspective helps quite a bit.

Emmmmm.... not.. really....

FIE? Fencer? :eek:

Go ahead. Name all the non-NATO EU nations. Who do you have? Sweden?
(France is still in NATO, btw). It works out the same...

Yes. (I fence sabre & epee competitively...)

I like the EU. I believe it is a good thing. I just happen to ascribe to it what it actually DOES.And with that you fail to see what it DID. Imagine Korea and Japan getting friendly with eachother. THAT'S what the situation was like after WW2.

Go ahead. Name all the non-NATO EU nations. Who do you have? Sweden?
(France is still in NATO, btw). It works out the same...

Yes. (I fence sabre & epee competitively...)Finland. And Austria stayed out of NATO for quite some time in order not to violate its neutrality pacts.

Ooh! I just remembered the "NO to NATO! NO to Nice!" posters in Ireland. Ireland isn't in the NATO...

PS: You could have money like Americans. Just scale back the social services and the taxes that pay for them...
That is just what separates us with the US, and the new "free" states in Asia where the average men is more poor then here. BTW I don't want more money, I have my house, girl and after Belgium perhaps the best health care in the world. No thanks, better keep it that way, and I know where 40% of my income goes to, and I like what I see.

That is the problem with you young guys of the east. You only see the $, sorry € and forget the important things in life. When I am in eastern Eu, I see more people in troubles then under the communist system. No, don't start sayin that I like that system, wrong. Best system is a free market with state controll, so we don't get in troubles lik ein S.America were people live in a free market but cant afford the basic things like electricity, water because privatised without control and more expensive then in rich W-Eu for more poor people.

:confused: Most of the opposition (Warsaw Pact) has changed sides, and you think it is ineffectual?

Not always. Paying off your enemy rarely works, historically.


Preventing the other side from becoming an enemy though, does work. I do think it's ineffectual. The fact that Russia is still the dominant power in the area, and the one steering all the opposition takes massive chunks out of the effectiveness of NATO. One wouldn't be surprised that the former Warsaw Pact countries left, after Russia fell, only the Belarusians followed their lead. The rest pursued independence movements. NATO still doesn't do anything because Russia handles the goods that keep these NATO countries alive. It's ineffectual.

In the W-EU, people also discuss politics much better. Never did I have as good of political discussions as when I lived in Germany. The objective perspective helps quite a bit.

Wher are you now then? Interested.

Which is superfluous, since most everyone in the EU is in NATO as well!
As I've said before: I could just as easily say that the FIE or McDonalds maintains the peace as the EU by that logic!

RIGHT!! EXACTLY!!

You are talking purely militarily. True, the EU cannot do anything in that respect, it doens't have an army.
Both Laerod and me are talking socially. The idea, that France is the archenemy, that we have to get back at them, that Alsace-Lorraine should by rights be German... all those needed to be erased from the heads and minds of the German people. And the same ideas and prejudices needed to be taken care of in France. And that's what the EU did.
Wars are being fought by the military. But they start out in the heads of the people...

Aha another one that has nice country and the closest and magnifique capital near Vienna of eastern EU. Now I understand your obsession with the US. In W-EU we see the whole picture and I knwo that Reagan is a hero in the East but not here. We have lived those years like you lived the commie years and are I am afraid better informed about the West.

Yes, I've spent quite a bit of time in Wein, though of course it's much less expensive in my beloved Blava (Bratislava... Pressburg to you damned German tourists...)

Er... I also live in the US.

The whole picture can never be seen from one angle. Have you not been to the Louvre or perhaps the Belvedere? :D

I've been in eleven European nations, both in and outside of the Wall, before and after. The US has generally the right idea. Sometimes it goes too far in one direction or another, but it still contributes a lot more to the world than I think many are willing to give it credit for.

The existence of the EU is absolutely necessary to cancelling the power of the meth-smoking super-power of the United States. The economic gains that it have provided to the entire continent are immense. The EU has done nothing but good. Just because a portion of Brits think they will be "misrepresented" Europe is still Europe, and it needs to be unified to prevent the United States from destroying the world. Brits are European, whether they like it or not.
Lies! The EU is evil! The Maastricht Treaty must be repealed!

You are talking purely militarily. True, the EU cannot do anything in that respect, it doens't have an army.
Both Laerod and me are talking socially. The idea, that France is the archenemy, that we have to get back at them, that Alsace-Lorraine should by rights be German... all those needed to be erased from the heads and minds of the German people. And the same ideas and prejudices needed to be taken care of in France. And that's what the EU did.
Wars are being fought by the military. But they start out in the heads of the people...

Look, we're kind of talking about the same thing, but the wording is different. Both organizations are responsible for the stability of the continent. (I'm assuming that all of Europe will join into both eventually...)
However: the EU is not a peacekeeper, and NATO is not a diplomat. Right?

(France is still in NATO, btw).

Special case, I can assure you. When the Gaulle kicked NATO out of France (read the US) France was on it's own following the policie of "La Force disuasive" (French nukes that assure mutual distruction).
Now , France is in Nato but as a partner, not the same membership as for ex. Belgium (my origin) or Holland (a US dog with the by the people hated prime minister).

Look, we're kind of talking about the same thing, but the wording is different. Both organizations are responsible for the stability of the continent. (I'm assuming that all of Europe will join into both eventually...)
However: the EU is not a peacekeeper, and NATO is not a diplomat. Right?

You see, if you have good diplomats, you don't need generals ;)

I don't know enough about the military bacground to be a judge as to how far the NATO influenced peace in Europe. I only ever perceived it as balance to the Warshaw Pact.

Lies! The EU is evil! The Maastricht Treaty must be repealed!We were having such a nice civil debate up until now... :rolleyes:

The US has generally the right idea. Sometimes it goes too far in one direction or another, but it still contributes a lot more to the world than I think many are willing to give it credit for.

Don't agree at all. Ask the world...Ask 50% of the divided nation the US is..

Preventing the other side from becoming an enemy though, does work. I do think it's ineffectual. The fact that Russia is still the dominant power in the area, and the one steering all the opposition takes massive chunks out of the effectiveness of NATO. One wouldn't be surprised that the former Warsaw Pact countries left, after Russia fell, only the Belarusians followed their lead. The rest pursued independence movements. NATO still doesn't do anything because Russia handles the goods that keep these NATO countries alive. It's ineffectual.

Of course Russia will be a dominant power, it's been one for hundreds of years.

How is Russia steering the opposition? It failed at it's game in the Ukraine, and has very little pull in most of the old Pact. Poland is at loggerheads with them all the time these days, just go to the Europe section of BBC News...

Belarus was not in the Pact, they were in the CCCP -- part of the Soviet Union. I put even money that they will re-merge with Russia before the decade is out.

What goods?? Where??

Yes, I've spent quite a bit of time in Wein, though of course it's much less expensive in my beloved Blava (Bratislava... Pressburg to you damned German tourists...)To the tourists, maybe, but I'd referr to it as Bratislava (unless I was trying to make fun of a Slovak :D )
I've been in eleven European nations, both in and outside of the Wall, before and after. The US has generally the right idea. Sometimes it goes too far in one direction or another, but it still contributes a lot more to the world than I think many are willing to give it credit for.The "Wall" only spanned Berlin. :D
It's called the "Iron Curtain"...

Wher are you now then? Interested.


My parents both work for the Military in the German Rhineland. I'm an American with a globalist perspective. Right now, I'm living in Portland, Oregon, but I'll be going back to Europe if things in the US get bad enough (which is a very good possibility, I can now claim I've been directly impacted by a Bush decision in a negative way, one that significantly hurts my life). The reality of the EU is that it provides a reasonable potential super-power to help balance the world now that the US has gone insane. And it helps to streamline economics without infringing on the internal rights of each individual country. Sounds like the perfect union to me, I have no idea why there is any legitimate opposition to it.

Right now, I'm living in Portland, Oregon, but I'll be going back to Europe if things in the US get bad enough (which is a very good possibility, I can now claim I've been directly impacted by a Bush decision in a negative way, one that significantly hurts my life).

I don't want to be too personal, but which Bush decision is that?

Don't agree at all. Ask the world...Ask 50% of the divided nation the US is..

Amazing it only took 190 posts for someone to bring up the US elections in an EU thread!

Bush's popularity =/= America doing or not doing the right thing.
(BTW: Didn't your mother ever tell you doing the right thing is not always popular?)

My parents both work for the Military in the German Rhineland. I'm an American with a globalist perspective. Right now, I'm living in Portland, Oregon, but I'll be going back to Europe if things in the US get bad enough (which is a very good possibility, I can now claim I've been directly impacted by a Bush decision in a negative way, one that significantly hurts my life). The reality of the EU is that it provides a reasonable potential super-power to help balance the world now that the US has gone insane. And it helps to streamline economics without infringing on the internal rights of each individual country. Sounds like the perfect union to me, I have no idea why there is any legitimate opposition to it.Some people don't like having the European Parliament that they haed the chance to elect draft laws that are legally binding to them... It ceased to be a wholly economic union a long time ago...

To the tourists, maybe, but I'd referr to it as Bratislava (unless I was trying to make fun of a Slovak :D )

The "Wall" only spanned Berlin. :D
It's called the "Iron Curtain"...

I was in Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany in the 80s, and have revisited them all afterwards. ...And was called that by an Englishman called Churchill during a speach in the US midwest. :D
Either way you want to call it, the point got across.

And with that you fail to see what it DID. Imagine Korea and Japan getting friendly with eachother. THAT'S what the situation was like after WW2.

I'm not disputing that it contributed to peace and stability. I'm disputing that it KEPT the peace. (See the difference?)

(BTW: Didn't your mother ever tell you doing the right thing is not always popular?)Doesn't mean the unpopular thing is always right... A common misconception conservatives have for some strange reason. :rolleyes:

My parents both work for the Military in the German Rhineland. I'm an American with a globalist perspective. Right now, I'm living in Portland, Oregon, but I'll be going back to Europe if things in the US get bad enough (which is a very good possibility, I can now claim I've been directly impacted by a Bush decision in a negative way, one that significantly hurts my life). The reality of the EU is that it provides a reasonable potential super-power to help balance the world now that the US has gone insane. And it helps to streamline economics without infringing on the internal rights of each individual country. Sounds like the perfect union to me, I have no idea why there is any legitimate opposition to it.

I had clients from Oregon at my Gite here (in Eng something as a bed and breakfast, but we give food in the evening to). They were a couple of winegrowers and we tasted a bottle of Pinot Noir from them. Originaly from Burgundy, the grape absolutely surprised me comming from Oregon, great wine. They liked it here, altough my small guesthouse can fit 5 times in their house. They specially liked my solar system on the roof. (30m2, and averagly 600 watts pro meter) Alll the light is solar energy in the house (via battery accumulation for the night of course).Even a washingmachine can run on it, like all the hot water. Have the system 3 years now.

I'm not disputing that it contributed to peace and stability. I'm disputing that it KEPT the peace. (See the difference?)
I'm saying it MADE it possible in the first place, not that it "contributed" to it.

Finland. And Austria stayed out of NATO for quite some time in order not to violate its neutrality pacts.

Ooh! I just remembered the "NO to NATO! NO to Nice!" posters in Ireland. Ireland isn't in the NATO...

So: Finland, Sweden and Ireland, vs. *the rest*. Places like Germany, France, Italy, UK, Benelux, Spain... I think that the term "you're citing margin examples" comes to mind, here. :D

I'm not disputing that it contributed to peace and stability. I'm disputing that it KEPT the peace. (See the difference?)

I think it depends on what you understand "keeping the peace" entails.
There were no EU patrols on either side of the Rhine making sure no invasion took place, of course not.
But by putting the idea in the heads of the people that France and Germany can be friends and can both profit from a close friendship, the EU made sure that peace would be kept far longer than any military operation ever could. Just with different means.

I was in Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany in the 80s, and have revisited them all afterwards. ...And was called that by an Englishman called Churchill during a speach in the US midwest. :D
Either way you want to call it, the point got across.I was seriously surprised when I found out who really was the first person to coin it (dare you look):
Goebbels

Amazing it only took 190 posts for someone to bring up the US elections in an EU thread! ?)
I am not talking about elections. But about the situation in wich NYC friends are speaking like "I live on an island that has nothing to see with those crazy ones on the other side" and the gap in "your" nation.


(BTW: Didn't your mother ever tell you doing the right thing is not always popular?)
Wow, want to try namecalling or will you keep it decent :rolleyes:

That is just what separates us with the US, and the new "free" states in Asia where the average men is more poor then here. BTW I don't want more money, I have my house, girl and after Belgium perhaps the best health care in the world. No thanks, better keep it that way, and I know where 40% of my income goes to, and I like what I see.

Fair enough.

That is the problem with you young guys of the east. You only see the $, sorry € and forget the important things in life.

We do? (BTW: I'm only one year younger than you!) News to us.

When I am in eastern Eu, I see more people in troubles then under the communist system. No, don't start sayin that I like that system, wrong. Best system is a free market with state controll, so we don't get in troubles lik ein S.America were people live in a free market but cant afford the basic things like electricity, water because privatised without control and more expensive then in rich W-Eu for more poor people.

I've got to disagree, here. I saw the old system. Yes, some of the transitions have been painful, but most people's standards of living have risen, not fallen. Remember, lots of the 90s were spent trying to clean up the mess that Communism left. The Vistula in some places was black. The smell of Nowa Huta. The taste of water in Kosice... anyway, it's getting better. I can see that every time I go back.

And was called that by an Englishman called Churchill during a speach in the US midwest. :D

"An Iron curtain fell down", but he was not talking about the wall. The wall was much later in 1964.(or so)

"An Iron curtain fell down", but he was not talking about the wall. The wall was much later in 1964.(or so)

13th of August, 1961. It's 44 years to the day.... :eek:

Special case, I can assure you. When the Gaulle kicked NATO out of France (read the US) France was on it's own following the policie of "La Force disuasive" (French nukes that assure mutual distruction).
Now , France is in Nato but as a partner, not the same membership as for ex. Belgium (my origin) or Holland (a US dog with the by the people hated prime minister).

Yep. To persue nukes it would never use, for "diplomatic latitude" that availed it nothing. And D broke his promise to Kennedy to stay in if the US would back him in Viet Nam.

I hardly consider this a good example of French leadership. :(

France is not a full partner, per say. It has no vote in military decisions, and can only observe.

. Yes, some of the transitions have been painful, but most people's standards of living have risen, not fallen. .

Agree. Also about the Weichsel or "Vistula" and the environment.

Yep. To persue nukes it would never use, for "diplomatic latitude" that availed it nothing. And D broke his promise to Kennedy to stay in if the US would back him in Viet Nam.

I hardly consider this a good example of French leadership. :(

France is not a full partner, per say. It has no vote in military decisions, and can only observe.

But the US... didn't back F in Vietnam.... they withdrew after Dien Bien Phu and only later did the US go in off its own back..

correct me if im wrong on this anyone?

You see, if you have good diplomats, you don't need generals ;)

I don't know enough about the military bacground to be a judge as to how far the NATO influenced peace in Europe. I only ever perceived it as balance to the Warshaw Pact.

If only that worked on the Hitlers, bin Ladens and Miloševićs of the world. :(

As I live less than 50km from New York City (and work in it), I want to tell you: lots of American felt a LOT BETTER that NATO invoked the common defense clause when the planes hit the towers.

NATO is not obsolete. It existed before the W. Pact, and is still valid today:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

France is not a full partner, per say. It has no vote in military decisions, and can only observe.

Wich is what it wants.
I also know that like the UK is the US leash dog, France has a high regard in countries like Belgium that will reflect Frances opinion (and its own of course, but that is no problem since we have the same views). Having no vote is not a handicap for them.
Must say to that when we (girlfriend is French) will have a kid it will have both nationalities.I like living and working inFrance and feel French,but some things are better at home.

Beer for example. :p

13th of August, 1961. It's 44 years to the day.... :eek:

Had to be 13th! Why not a friday. :(

Doesn't mean the unpopular thing is always right... A common misconception conservatives have for some strange reason. :rolleyes:

Very true. And don't get me wrong, I don't rate Bush all that highly. But between him or Kerry, it was no debate for me. Anyway, let's get back on topic. :)

I'm saying it MADE it possible in the first place, not that it "contributed" to it.

Whelp, so at least we now know exactly why we don't agree! ;)

Whelp, so at least we now know exactly why we don't agree! ;)Yup. I'm still amazed noone commented on whom I'm claiming really coined the "Iron Curtain"...
(Whelp? If we wouldn't go by age, I'd have you licked in age :p )

I think it depends on what you understand "keeping the peace" entails.
There were no EU patrols on either side of the Rhine making sure no invasion took place, of course not.
But by putting the idea in the heads of the people that France and Germany can be friends and can both profit from a close friendship, the EU made sure that peace would be kept far longer than any military operation ever could. Just with different means.

Main Entry: peace·keep·ing
Pronunciation: 'pEs-"kE-pi[ng]
Function: noun
: the preserving of peace; especially : international enforcement and supervision of a truce between hostile states or communities

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=peacekeeping

(and, before we go around in circles agian: Yes, I agree that the EU helped to do that. So did the US and USSR staring each other down, and W.Ger & France being forced into an alliance of convenience.)

I was seriously surprised when I found out who really was the first person to coin it (dare you look):
Goebbels

Source?

I am not talking about elections. But about the situation in wich NYC friends are speaking like "I live on an island that has nothing to see with those crazy ones on the other side" and the gap in "your" nation.

And the folks in NYC and most of the people in the rest of the state are in disagreement about that. Really. Politics is politics. The bi-polar system of the US makes the division go from "non-existant" to razor edge depending on the issue, but it's not like we're going to have a civil war or something.

Wow, want to try namecalling or will you keep it decent :rolleyes:
:confused: Huh?

Holland (a US dog with the by the people hated prime minister).

Yes indeed Our prime minister sucks US ass. But so does Blair.

In general isn't the question where we want to go with the EU
At this time we're somewhere between CIS (Commonwealth of Independant States) and US. Where we're going depends on how much sovereignty we are willing to give up. (and yeah we want to be able to decide wheter or not we give up our liberal drug poicy)

a lot is to do with spending EU funds (and paying them), the richer counties pay more and the poorer coutries recieve more. We need the weaker economies to become stronger. The EU is funding French farmers becaus France has convinced th guys in Brussels that the French farmers need it. Now that the economy has suffered for a couple of years and we think that France should give this up the French say "We'll be damned to give this up". We know that the last words have not been spoken about this issue in Brussels. It has shown one of the weaknesses in the way EU fundings have been devided. And the issue will be adressed and resolved. (hopefully so that similar issues will not arise again in the future)

the whole economic thing really crosses borders. the EU should be there to streamline trade between EU countries. and there is no crisis about the euro, the introduction is a bumpy ride and there are still some bumps in the road ahead (especially sentiment) in the long term we'll benefit from having 1 currency.

And the EU is a democracy altough there is a hierarchy. You choose your national leaders and they choose who will be representing your country in Brussels. This should become more transparent though.

The EU exists (deal with it) and is constantly reshaping.

I hope (and believe) that future generations will feel more European than we do right now.

And now for something completely different
United we stand devided we'll fall
Europe Rules

Finland. And Austria stayed out of NATO for quite some time in order not to violate its neutrality pacts.

So Austria joined NATO? No, It didn't, you silly! All the EU countries with good economy seem to stay out of NATO. And one of them doesn't even have Euro as its currency. Oy wey. They will learn...

But the US... didn't back F in Vietnam.... they withdrew after Dien Bien Phu and only later did the US go in off its own back..

correct me if im wrong on this anyone?

The US was basically supplying France with material, and US "advisors" started going in during the French years -- Eisenhower sent them.

If you want a good, short read on it, I highly recommend Barbara Tuchmans "March of Folly".

Source?The Film Minister (I think)
It's a book which is a few hours away from me right now...
If it's true, he beats Churchill, since he was long dead before Churchill said anything about it.

Wich is what it wants.
I also know that like the UK is the US leash dog, France has a high regard in countries like Belgium that will reflect Frances opinion (and its own of course, but that is no problem since we have the same views). Having no vote is not a handicap for them.
Must say to that when we (girlfriend is French) will have a kid it will have both nationalities.I like living and working inFrance and feel French,but some things are better at home.

Beer for example. :p

My children don't have to worry about Connecticut vs. New York citizenship. :D

True. Fortunately, American beer has come a long way since the 80s. There are now a good number of small batch brews out there, and even Samuel Adams is good (which can be found virtually anywhere in the States).

Don't get me wrong. I'd kill for a Smadny Mnich or Saris on tap. Heck, even a Kelt (Celt?) would be nice...

So Austria joined NATO? No, It didn't, you silly! All the EU countries with good economy seem to stay out of NATO. And one of them doesn't even have Euro as its currency. Oy wey. They will learn...
Now that you mention it, I don't recall making an Austrian flag for my NATO windows background... :D

True. Fortunately, American beer has come a long way since the 80s. Won't stop it from poisoning the people that will come to watch the World Cup in the though :mad:

Yes indeed Our prime minister sucks US ass. But so does Blair.

And now for something completely different
United we stand devided we'll fall
Europe Rules

We must know eachother from the Dutch forum here. Just use your name. You aren't HC aren't you ;)

If you want a good, short read on it, I highly recommend Barbara Tuchmans "March of Folly".

Wow, another writer I like, we have some things in common. Have not read that. But have you read the work that made her famous:
"The Guns of August" about the first 2 months of WWI. A masterpeace.

Still remember when she writes about the wall of 1m hight of death young Germans chased by their officers against the forts of Liege. The Belgians at one moment had to fire cannons in that wall for making space to fire with the machineguns. All those terribel stories of those 2 months in her great book.

We must know eachother from the Dutch forum here. Just use your name. You aren't HC aren't you ;)

I'm sorry I'm actually new to this forum and I don't know anybody (yet) :)

Won't stop it from poisoning the people that will come to watch the World Cup in the though :mad:

Yes, I know. I'm sorry about this. I assure you, it's not my fault...

Fans attending matches at the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ and FIFA Confederations Cup 2005 will be able to sample beer supplied by FIFA Partner Anheuser-Busch, Inc., and Germany’s Bitburger thanks to a cooperation agreement between the two brewers.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/041222/1/2v06.html

However, Bud is not poison. To quote (I think Chirac?) it's just an mildly alcoholic soft drink...

So Austria joined NATO? No, It didn't, you silly! All the EU countries with good economy seem to stay out of NATO. .

So Belgium has not a good economy? Altough it has a important state debt it has 6 budgets on a row with a surplus. This year will give a break even or small deficit.

What about Holland, they have some troubles now but the 1990ies were great for them and they still stayed in NATO.

Your opinion on good economy = not Nato is not correct. Norway to has a good economy and it did not stop them for joining and staying.

I like Austria and it has a good economy. Specially the strong part of agriculture is a example for the rest of EU since more then 10% is organic. Great products and healthy prices for the farmers.

Wow, another writer I like, we have some things in common. Have not read that. But have you read the work that made her famous:
"The Guns of August" about the first 2 months of WWI. A masterpeace.

Still remember when she writes about the wall of 1m hight of death young Germans chased by their officers against the forts of Liege. The Belgians at one moment had to fire cannons in that wall for making space to fire with the machineguns. All those terribel stories of those 2 months in her great book.

I think everyone has something in common...

Yes, twice now. I've actually read all of her books barring the Stillwell in China one. I have a 2&1/2 hour round trip commute... I read a lot. ;)

However, Bud is not poison. To quote (I think Chirac?) it's just an mildly alcoholic soft drink...

Providing terrible hangovers. I'll stick to german Belgian Czech Danish and Dutch beer thanks :)

I like my poison staight up

Yes, I know. I'm sorry about this. I assure you, it's not my fault...

Fans attending matches at the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ and FIFA Confederations Cup 2005 will be able to sample beer supplied by FIFA Partner Anheuser-Busch, Inc., and Germany’s Bitburger thanks to a cooperation agreement between the two brewers.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/041222/1/2v06.html

However, Bud is not poison. To quote (I think Chirac?) it's just an mildly alcoholic soft drink...Well, to quote the Bavarians when they heard what it was that would be served to the guests in the opening game in the city of the Oktoberfest: "You can't just poison them!" :D

I'm sorry I'm actually new to this forum and I don't know anybody (yet) :)

Ah, one moment, I'll show us were we are, hope you come by.

(Kom eens langs, maar ben zeker dat je er al bent, beetje raar om een nieuw NL poster te zien opduiken op dit uur ;) )

De link naar het "Nederlandse forum" staat hier in 2 minuten.

Voila, je l'ai trouvé (ben halve Fransman), hier ons geliefde hoekje van Vlamingen en Nederlanders, opgestart sinds jaren door onze "HC Eredivisie"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392194

Lul maar raak hier. Ondanks de vele pogingen van vele niet Engelstaligen om een topic in hun taal te starten, zijn wij de blijvers. We zagen reeds attempts, al dan niet door mij gestart (Frans) in Duits, Spaans, Russisch.
But we rule.

I think everyone has something in common...

Yes, twice now. I've actually read all of her books barring the Stillwell in China one. I have a 2&1/2 hour round trip commute... I read a lot. ;)

Sorry, not a native English speaker. Does a "2&1/2 hour round trip commute" means that you read 2,5 hours a day?

You liked the Guns of August? It is a "pil" (we say that in Dutch for a great and big volume)

So Belgium has not a good economy? Altough it has a important state debt it has 6 budgets on a row with a surplus. This year will give a break even or small deficit.

What about Holland, they have some troubles now but the 1990ies were great for them and they still stayed in NATO.

Your opinion on good economy = not Nato is not correct. Norway to has a good economy and it did not stop them for joining and staying.

I like Austria and it has a good economy. Specially the strong part of agriculture is a example for the rest of EU since more then 10% is organic. Great products and healthy prices for the farmers.
No it's not my opinion good economy=NATO. It was simply my way of getting certain peoples head off of their asses - regarding this discussion
I wouldn't know. Belgium has a good economy? I didn't mention Luxembourg, they have good economy... are they NATO members...who knows, hell, who cares!

EDIT: I CAN'T BE ARSED TO FIX THIS POST ANYMORE. ME IS TOO DRUNK. ME IS SIGNING OFF NOW. me has nought against Luxembourg

Well, to quote the Bavarians when they heard what it was that would be served to the guests in the opening game in the city of the Oktoberfest: "You can't just poison them!" :D

See you found my beer poll :)

I replied on you there:

Originally Posted by Laerod
I'm ashamed to admit that I honestly don't like beer.
But I'm proud of my country's beery heritage and cultural achievements!



Hah, but I am a winelover to. Specially the Trockenbeerenausle and Eiswein. But those luxuries are not for every week. Great wines in Germany, wow

Müller Catoir is one of my favorites.

I'm from norway, the little oil country in the north of europe. We're not europeans, we're norwegians. What would our Viking ancestors think if we joined the weaklings we used to plunder?

Ok, I was joking.

The european union is sort of like the Roman Empire - don't get me wrong, I like the Roman Empire - in all the wrong ways, the ways that turned up around 200-500 A.D., sort of. You see, firstly, both are based on expansion (if it quits expanding, it crumbles). Secondly, the romans' need to expand was defined as its values changed from the pursuit of greatness and honor and heroism etc to the pursuit of mere wealth - the european union has been all about money from the start, despite Belgian hypocrisy about a united proud europe and all that other garbage talk (sorry).

Thirdly, the corruption. The roman empire became kinda corrupt after a while. So it is with the e.u. One example: you know, snuff (tobacco inserted behind upper lip), is forbidden in e.u. countries (except Sweden, after a long fight)? They talked about health troubles and stuff but snuff is healthier to both user and people around him/her than, say, cigarettes. The case is, the frenchmen are earning a fortune on production of cigarettes, and snuff was increasing in popularity.

Ok - so maybe the roman empire is not the greatest comparison. What about making a documentary instead: "EuroWars II: Napoleon strikes back"?

I didn't mention Luxembourg, they have good economy... are they NATO members...who knows, hell, who cares!

"Who cares" well that is not nice. Hope you don't care to when a Luxemburger shits on you.
They are and have vote.

Hah, but I am a winelover to. Specially the Trockenbeerenausle and Eiswein. But those luxuries are not for every week. Great wines in Germany, wow

Müller Catoir is one of my favorites.I don't like wines either... (and Sekt is poison, if you ask me). I've found that I need to have had a couple shots before I can enjoy beer (or dilute it with coke). I have no problem with vodka or ouzo especially vodka ginger ale and ouzo diluted with water :D

- the european union has been all about money from the start, despite Belgian hypocrisy about a united proud europe and all that other garbage talk (sorry).
"?

What about Norwegian hypocrisie?Liking the Nato protection of your oil and the benefits of he EU while contributing less then Belgium to NATO and EU as Norway. :rolleyes:

Guess that you're mixing things up. Brussels is indeed the symbolic capital of EU. But Belgian Brussels (the city and capital) is something completely different. I know, born in Flanders.

"Who cares" well that is not nice. Hope you don't care to when a Luxemburger shits on you.
They are and have vote.
Well, obviously I start caring when Luxemburg shits on me. I can't imagine why'd they do that though... if it wasn't some competition...

The difference is that in the Roman Empire democracy was only for the upper class. Only in later years the plebs got more power (because the Julii needed them in order to become more powerfull themselves)

corruption has been in politics for as long as man can remeber. Power is a corrupting force

thats why we need more transparency in the way the EU works and more democray. Altough I have to admit Democracy means nothing if you keep the people stupid.

The difference is that in the Roman Empire democracy was only for the upper class. Only in later years the plebs got more power (because the Julii needed them in order to become more powerfull themselves)

corruption has been in politics for as long as man can remeber. Power is a corrupting force

thats why we need more transparency in the way the EU works and more democray. Altough I have to admit Democracy means nothing if you keep the people stupid.
Why's the European Commission incorruptable?
Because they already are corrupt! :D

I don't like wines either... (and Sekt is poison, if you ask me). I've found that I need to have had a couple shots before I can enjoy beer (or dilute it with coke). I have no problem with vodka or ouzo especially vodka ginger ale and ouzo diluted with water :D

Euhh, and saying that you have from the finest wines in the world their from all types. Please meat a German winelover and let him give you a taste of the great ones. Then you will like, try those late harvests in dry and sweet (Eiswein, njammie, a organoleptic orgasm)

Ouzo, yep, but I stay on my Pastis.
Vodka, njam, specially the Polish one with a straw in it.

In fact, I like those good thigs way to much.
Whisky: Ardbegg (if you can find one), Gragganmore, The Macallen, Bowmore :cool:

Euhh, and saying that you have from the finest wines in the world their from all types. Please meat a German winelover and let him give you a taste of the great ones. Then you will like, try those late harvests in dry and sweet (Eiswein, njammie, a organoleptic orgasm)
I hung out with the wine-drinkers in my seminar group when I did my volontary social year. Didn't help. I'm just not a wine person...

The difference is that in the Roman Empire democracy was only for the upper class. Only in later years the plebs got more power (because the Julii needed them in order to become more powerfull themselves)

corruption has been in politics for as long as man can remeber. Power is a corrupting force

thats why we need more transparency in the way the EU works and more democray. Altough I have to admit Democracy means nothing if you keep the people stupid.

Found the Dutch topic?

I hung out with the wine-drinkers in my seminar group when I did my volontary social year. Didn't help. I'm just not a wine person...

To bad, but you can be proud about your wines. I am saying from France.