NationStates Jolt Archive

So I am in an European Politics class..and consequently we are discussing nothing but the EU..Now as of right now, I can say I don't like all of it..but some of the EU is kewl..I love the idea of unity to stop war..and to promote economic equality and so on..However..I get the sense that there is no room for sovergnty(sp), in the sense that at the national level, nations are not able to make important decisions.

However..I get the sense that there is no room for sovergnty(sp), in the sense that at the national level, nations are not able to make important decisions.
Yea, that is my primary criticism of the EU as well.

Its a buracratic Bohemouth, but if it ever gets ist act together it will trule be a marvel. Its a kind of anti-empirewith all diffent nations being ruled by all diffent nations. They get a lot of bad press, by trying to do stuff like rename spring onions and chnage brigde hites and safty and discrimination laws that go a little to far.

But it genraly all though good intentions (like the road to hell), but most the stuff in most the bills is good.

As for the single currency and constiion, its realy inevitable. And in a world that we will soon be able to cercumnavigate in less than 24 houres we should be thinking outside our own borders more.

Multiculturalism is the future (or there may be no future), and if that come at the price of nationhood, we may have to pay it.

Multiculturalism is the future (or there may be no future), and if that come at the price of nationhood, we may have to pay it.
Seconded.

I'm in the U.S. too, but here's my two cents:

The EU is an imperialist alliance designed to promote unity among European capitalists at the expense of capitalists in the U.S., Japan, etc. Like all imperialist alliances, its existence accelerates the development of the tensions that lead to imperialist wars.

That said, the EU is a loose confederation--the claim that it will override national sovereignty in significant ways is a myth promoted by right-wing chauvinists. Actually, Germany's efforts to make the EU into the vehicle for a new 4th Reich have already largely been given up.

The EU is weak because it is torn by 1) tensions between Germany and France, its two strongest powers; 2) tensions between large countries and small countries; 3) tensions between pro-U.S. forces and anti-U.S. forces; 4) related monetary tensions which have prompted the UK and others to avoid joining the euro; 5) the shock of absorbing the workers' states of E. Europe. Along with this is the fact that Germany, its strongest power, has severe internal weaknesses of its own. If Turkey, with its large and relatively economically backward population, joins the EU, this will further accelerate the forces threatening to shatter the alliance.

Actually, Germany's efforts to make the EU into the vehicle for a new 4th Reich have already largely been given up.
http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
Hahahahahahaha...Hehe...heh...Ahem...got any links on that?

The EU is weak because it is torn by 1) tensions between Germany and France, its two strongest powers;
What are you talking about?

5) the shock of absorbing the workers' states of E. Europe.
Worker's States?

Along with this is the fact that Germany, its strongest power, has severe internal weaknesses of its own.
Actually, the internal weaknesses aren't that severe at all. If you actually look at the data, the problems aren't all that pronounced at all.
The problem is just weak domestic demand, not socialism, not an ageing population, none of that.

I am all for the EU as a powerful (con)federal state, and the first true all european superstate. A Europa Maxima.

My major problem with the EU is that it is still in transitional status. It's called the EU, yet it still operates pretty much like the EC, yet it now has considerably more power. And national governments are all too keen to let this continue, as it means that whenever any tough decisions need to be made that can be done via the EU and then when the public react negatively to this new legislation then the national government can just hide behind the 'mythological' all-powerful EU. the EU is not some disconnected body, all of it's key positions are either elected by the public, chosen by national governments, or have at least been approved by national governments.

One of the greatest things about the EU is that the European court reconises individuals, consider the ICC which doesn't.

And people who bitch about sovereignty. You can't in anyway sign up to the Treaty of Rome with out losing significant parts of national sovereignty anyway. And what is sovereignty anyway? The right for a government to exercise power over a body politic? Well the EU is still answerable to the individuals within its member states, it's not as if power is being sapped away by a foreign government that isn't answerable to us. If anything, blame your own government for voting down more extensive measures to democratise the EU, and to hand more power over to the European Parliment.

RANT! :mad:

My major problem with the EU is that it is still in transitional status. It's called the EU, yet it still operates pretty much like the EC, yet it now has considerably more power. And national governments are all too keen to let this continue, as it means that whenever any tough decisions need to be made that can be done via the EU and then when the public react negatively to this new legislation then the national government can just hide behind the 'mythological' all-powerful EU. the EU is not some disconnected body, all of it's key positions are either elected by the public, chosen by national governments, or have at least been approved by national governments.

One of the greatest things about the EU is that the European court reconises individuals, consider the ICC which doesn't.

And people who bitch about sovereignty. You can't in anyway sign up to the Treaty of Rome with out losing significant parts of national sovereignty anyway. And what is sovereignty anyway? The right for a government to exercise power over a body politic? Well the EU is still answerable to the individuals within its member states, it's not as if power is being sapped away by a foreign government that isn't answerable to us. If anything, blame your own government for voting down more extensive measures to democratise the EU, and to hand more power over to the European Parliment.

RANT! :mad:

True. And, in my opinion, the EU actually confers greater status to otherwise weak and divided nation-states. On their own, they may wield no actual power on the global scene. Within a superpower of 450m citizens (perhaps one day 700m if Russia and other states join), it has an incredibly powerful voice.

Yes, but i know that Europe will never truly merge into one nation.
Germany is too ownage,
France is too full of its self (not really)

But the EU will be succesful, unless it turns into a Decain Legue thing were one member is the biggest and bullies others.(France bulling Germany, Germany fuckes France, etc.)

Besides, eastern Europe is to crazy too join the EU, esp. Yugoslavian territories.

Obviously i am a n00b at European politics

Yes, but i know that Europe will never truly merge into one nation.
Germany is too ownage,
France is too full of its self (not really)

But the EU will be succesful, unless it turns into a Decain Legue thing were one member is the biggest and bullies others.(France bulling Germany, Germany fuckes France, etc.)

Besides, eastern Europe is to crazy too join the EU, esp. Yugoslavian territories.

Obviously i am a n00b at European politics
Many Eastern European nations are in the EU or are engaging in talks to join it. And isn't Russia waning economically? Eastern Europe will one day join the EU in their entirety.

Yes, but i know that Europe will never truly merge into one nation.
Germany is too ownage,
France is too full of its self (not really)

But the EU will be succesful, unless it turns into a Decain Legue thing were one member is the biggest and bullies others.(France bulling Germany, Germany fuckes France, etc.)

Besides, eastern Europe is to crazy too join the EU, esp. Yugoslavian territories.

Obviously i am a n00b at European politicsEngland and Scotland merged together peacefully. Many other countries have become one country (perhaps not peacefully though). But peaceful merges of countries can happen. As witnessed by the continued expansion of the Treaty of Rome even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the stabilisation of the European economies. The whole point of the Treaty of Rome (I say treaty of rome because it refers both to the EC and the EU) was to create supra-national institution with sovereign powers. If the US had had its way in the post-war period then we would already be living in the United States of Europe.

The EU is great as a facilitator of Free Trade (among its member states anyway). The EU itself is certainly not the problem, it’s the people and the way they vote that’s the problem.

England and Scotland merged together peacefully. Many other countries have become one country (perhaps not peacefully though). But peaceful merges of countries can happen. As witnessed by the continued expansion of the Treaty of Rome even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the stabilisation of the European economies. The whole point of the Treaty of Rome (I say treaty of rome because it refers both to the EC and the EU) was to create supra-national institution with sovereign powers. If the US had had its way in the post-war period then we would already be living in the United States of Europe.
Well one day the EU will become something of the sort, although I doubt it would rename itself to US of E. I hope it doesn't anyway.

The EU is great as a facilitator of Free Trade (among its member states anyway). The EU itself is certainly not the problem, it’s the people and the way they vote that’s the problem.
Or the way they don't vote...apathy is just as bad.

They need to form up as one and adopt Esperanto as the EU language and create a mutual military and destroy nationalist ties.

They need to form up as one and adopt Esperanto as the EU language and create a mutual military and destroy nationalist ties.
Esperanto?

Esperanto?The language that they made up to be the language of the EU, never caught on. despite being an easily lanague for any European to learn and being completely regular.

The language that they made up to be the language of the EU, never caught on. despite being an easily lanague for any European to learn and being completely regular.
Ah I see. I think English is just fine anyway.

I was using USE because it's a fairly quick way to say that I mean the EU achieving nationhood.

Or the way they don't vote...apathy is just as bad.When was the last time you were canvassed by someone asking you to vote for ANYONE in the European Parliment elections? The blame lies with national parties, not the EU. Well it does a bit, because the Parliment electiosn hardly get any election coverage at all.

Yea, that is my primary criticism of the EU as well.

I am proud to be a citizen of the UK not the EU. I will never reconise any type of takeover. I am european but I am first and always BRITISH!

I was using USE because it's a fairly quick way to say that I mean the EU achieving nationhood.

When was the last time you were canvassed by someone asking you to vote for ANYONE in the European Parliment elections? The blame lies with national parties, not the EU. Well it does a bit, because the Parliment electiosn hardly get any election coverage at all.
I wasn't attacking your use of USE...just saying I would find its adoption unsavoury ;)

Indeed, national parties do little to bring the EU "home" so to speak. But then again, do citizens seem to demand it of them?

Ah I see. I think English is just fine anyway.Because it's you main language? The reason for not having a single official language for the EU that is also the native tongue of a member state is that bureaucrats and politicians from that country have an unfair advantage over bureaucrats and politicians from other states because of their fluency and articulation of their language.

Because it's you main language? The reason for not having a single official language for the EU that is also the native tongue of a member state is that bureaucrats and politicians from that country have an unfair advantage over bureaucrats and politicians from other states because of their fluency and articulation of their language.
I can understand that, yet the thing is most of the world communicates in English. Devising a new language may be impractical. What was Esperanto linguistically? Latin based?

I am proud to be a citizen of the UK not the EU. I will never reconise any type of takeover. I am european but I am first and always BRITISH!
What does it mean to be British to you? I don't primarily identify myself as being british. I'm primarily a Londoner. But this doesn't stop myself from also indentifying myself as British and European. Would living in another country mean you were anyless British? If I lived in France, would I suddenly stop being British? If I lived in a USE, would I stop being British?

I can understand that, yet the thing is most of the world communicates in English. Devising a new language may be impractical. What was Esperanto linguistically? Latin based?I don't know what it was primarily based on, but it took the best parts of each language or something.

I don't know what it was primarily based on, but it took the best parts of each language or something.
Personally, I'd prefer a revival of Latin as the EU language de jure. Its a gorgeous language, and the basis of many EU languages, aside from those with a Germanic basis.

What does it mean to be British to you? I don't primarily identify myself as being british. I'm primarily a Londoner. But this doesn't stop myself from also indentifying myself as British and European. Would living in another country mean you were anyless British? If I lived in France, would I suddenly stop being British? If I lived in a USE, would I stop being British?
Exactly. I am not sure how far the EU will go in eroding national governments, but I think that ultimately it will be more of a confederation with the same laws and economic system throughout, maintaining regional governments to a degree.

...mixed with phonetics I think.

What does it mean to be British to you? I don't primarily identify myself as being british. I'm primarily a Londoner. But this doesn't stop myself from also indentifying myself as British and European. Would living in another country mean you were anyless British? If I lived in France, would I suddenly stop being British? If I lived in a USE, would I stop being British?

No. But if Britian dident exist and it was only the EU would you be british or only european?

British means to me? I feel proud to live in one of the most powerful nations in the world, and in a nation that was once The bigest great power. I also love my monarch. I feel proud to it! Liz is getin annoying and I hate charles but cant waite for King William. I feel proud to fly the Union jack. Love my city of Manchester my leader tony blair.

I Love being BRITISH PERIOD!

Are you not proud to be British?

No. But if Britian dident exist and it was only the EU would you be british or only european?

British means to me? I feel proud to live in one of the most powerful nations in the world, and in a nation that was once a great power. I also love my monarch. I feel proud to it! Liz is getin annoying and I hate charles but cant waite for King William. I feel proud to fly the Union jack. Love my city of Manchester my leader tony blair.

I Love being BRITISH PERIOD!

Are you not proud to be British?

How old are you? I'm betting.... under...17.

How old are you? I'm betting.... under...17.

Why do you ask?

Why do you ask?
Simply answer :) :p

Why do you ask?

Don't take offence. It would just explain a lot. ;)

Don't take offence. It would just explain a lot. ;)

Ok, explain what?

Ok, explain what?
Your unbridled... naiveity.

It doesn't matter- I gather I was right anyways.;)

Your unbridled... naiveity.

It doesn't matter- I gather I was right anyways.;)
Naivety ;)

Your unbridled... naiveity.

It doesn't matter- I gather I was right anyways.;)

navieity? I was born in 1985. Im 20.

navieity? I was born in 1985. Im 20.
In any case, why do you think that the EU will erode British identity? Even when it integrates more, it won't force the Monarchy out or anything. I envision it becoming a confederation rather than a federal superstate.

Naivety ;)

Rats... I spent 3 mins on that bloody word, and none of them looked right without the umlaout(sp). :p

Rats... I spent 3 mins on that bloody word, and none of them looked right without the umlaout(sp). :p
Its got an odd spelling. Umlauten btw :p

No. But if Britian dident exist and it was only the EU would you be british or only european?

British means to me? I feel proud to live in one of the most powerful nations in the world, and in a nation that was once The bigest great power. I also love my monarch. I feel proud to it! Liz is getin annoying and I hate charles but cant waite for King William. I feel proud to fly the Union jack. Love my city of Manchester my leader tony blair.

I Love being BRITISH PERIOD!

Are you not proud to be British?What I'm trying to say is that a place doesn't have to have the status of a nation to for you to feel as if you belong to that group. To me, the idea of Britishness exists idependently from Britain as a nation and its government. For instance, Scotland may not be a country in its own right, bu that doesn't stop some people from feeling proud to be scottish.

Anyway, I'm sure that if the EU did become a federal republic than it would attempt to abolish monarchies and presidencies. They'd be kept as figureheads for each federal state.

I love being a Londonder, period. In general there's no group of people who I identify more with. I've lived in different parts of Britain, and the people have such different attitudes and beliefs and outlooks on life. *rants on about ethic diversity and the lack of decent cornershops in Birmingham. I could get a fistful of fresh corriander for virtually nothing in london. In Birmingham have to trek to nearest Tesco's and buy a few measly leaves of corriander in plastic packaging for £2 or something* :mad:

Anyway, I'm sure that if the EU did become a federal republic than it would attempt to abolish monarchies and presidencies. They'd be kept as figureheads for each federal state.
:
Exactly. It'd maintain a level of regional autocracy.

For the record I'm also 20. 28/04/85

For the record I'm also 20. 28/04/85
I'm 19, for the record :p

Exactly. It'd maintain a level of regional autocracy.

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

The Genoese had a saying from when Napoleon conquered the city and threw out the old leaders- paraphrase:
"Tis better to be ruled by an Emperor far far away, then by a King next door."

For the record I'm also 20. 28/04/85

23/10/85

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

The Genoese had a saying from when Napolean conquered the city and threw out the old leaders- paraphrase:
"Tis better to be ruled by an Emperor far far away, then by a King next door."
Agreed. So long as each nation got to keep its head of government (which may be both the Monarch/President and Prime Minister), at least figuratively, I don't see any reason to worry about losing identity.

I'm 19, for the record :pThat's means you're the one out and can be sucessfully ostracised (sp). :D

I've just started a degree for the second time. I feel like such an old codger. I'm 2 years older than most people on the course. :(

That's means you're the one out and can be sucessfully ostracised (sp). :D

I've just started a degree for the second time. I feel like such an old codger. I'm 2 years older than most people on the course. :(
Heh tell me about it...I am switching degrees to economics next year, so I am likely to be older than some people there...although only by a year at the most :p...I hope.

Ostracism is so not in now btw :p

I get so pissed at the EU. Every day europe is getin closer. One currency, combined army and police units, European embassys! A european parliament!
I get mad! Do people really want all this? do politicans who do all this really want to distroy there own countrys? I was so happy when I heard the constitution was NOED in France and NL. Id vote no if we had a referendum.

I get so pissed at the EU. Every day europe is getin closer. One currency, combined army and police units, European embassys! A european parliament!
I get mad! Do people really want all this? do politicans who do all this really want to distroy there own countrys? I was so happy when I heard the constitution was NOED in France and NL. Id vote no if we had a referendum.
Well lets see...would you prefer your country was economically devastated by economic powerhouses like China or the USA? Or would you rather it belonged to a powerful economic union in which it has a say in matters and exercises far more influence than its lone little self ever could? :rolleyes: Britain (lamentably) is no longer the Empire. Its a nation of 60 million. The EU gives it additional power far beyond its means.

I get so pissed at the EU. Every day europe is getin closer. One currency, combined army and police units, European embassys! A european parliament!
I get mad! Do people really want all this? do politicans who do all this really want to distroy there own countrys? I was so happy when I heard the constitution was NOED in France and NL. Id vote no if we had a referendum.

You still haven't given any reasons why. In your two posts you have ranted about how it would be woeful.

Why?

Well lets see...would you prefer your country was economically devastated by economic powerhouses like China or the USA? Or would you rather it belonged to a powerful economic union in which it has a say in matters and exercises far more influence than its lone, pathetic little self ever could? :rolleyes:

Well, The UK seems to be doing fine with out being controlled by the EU. The economy is going up. F*** the EU. We no need em!:cool:

Heh tell me about it...I am switching degrees to economics next year, so I am likely to be older than some people there...although only by a year at the most :p...I hope.

Ostracism is so not in now btw :pMeh, I'm on a Political Science degree. They seem keen to stress the science part, which I just think is bullshit. But I'm having a fun time in Political Economy, where our lecturer is an Economist, the firsts things she said to us was just how much bull modern economics. And that you never get told that the 10 page formula on something very uninteresting is based on 100 pages of assumptions. Change just one and the whole things collapses like a house of cards. She then said 'know just imagine what it's like for the interesting theories in economics'.

I think the department might be trying to radicalise to the left. I don't think I've come across a single 'right-wing' lecturer.

Well, The UK seems to be doing fine with out being controlled by the EU. The economy is going up. F*** the EU. We no need em!:cool:
With whom does the UK do most of its trade? :)

You still haven't given any reasons why. In your two posts you have ranted about how it would be woeful.

Why?


I gave plenty of reasons! ONE IS ENOUGHT! I WANT TO BE BRITISH IN A BRITISH COUNTRY RUN BY BRITS! NOT IN A EURO SUPERSTATE!

Well, The UK seems to be doing fine with out being controlled by the EU. The economy is going up. F*** the EU. We no need em!:cool:The EU is like thunderbirds - You only ocassionally see the strings.

With whom does the UK do most of its trade? :)

The US, France,Spain,Australia, and canada.

Meh, I'm on a Political Science degree. They seem keen to stress the science part, which I just think is bullshit. But I'm having a fun time in Political Economy, where our lecturer is an Economist, the firsts things she said to us was just how much bull modern economics. And that you never get told that the 10 page formula on something very uninteresting is based on 100 pages of assumptions. Change just one and the whole things collapses like a house of cards. She then said 'know just imagine what it's like for the interesting theories in economics'.

I think the department might be trying to radicalise to the left. I don't think I've come across a single 'right-wing' lecturer.
Economics is a guessing "science," that is true. Albeit, an extremely interesting one :) I love the way it puts mathematical models to use. Its truly fascinating.

The US, France,Spain,Australia, and canada.
The EU as a whole. Most of its trade is accounted for by the EU. THAT is partly why Britain is so powerful economically.

Oh and btw, last time I checked, France and Spain (as well as Germany and most Scandinavian countries) are in the EU ;)

The EU as a whole. Most of its trade is accounted for by the EU. THAT is partly why Britain is so powerful economically.

I dont mind Britian being in the Eu. I just dont want it to be the EU. Being in it is fine:)

The economy is going up.
Two things: Without the EU, the UK economy would collapse. British firms need the market as well as the goods from other European countries.

And secondly...it's not "going up" all that much. Britain experienced a boom, as economies do sometimes. For 2005, the numbers weren't actually that good at all (only .1% better growth than Germany), which to me seems to indicate that things might slow down for a few years. But I haven't looked at the details.

I dont mind Britian being in the Eu. I just dont want it to be the EU. Being in it is fine:)
If the entire EU wants to converge, save Britain, why deprive it of this ability? Perhaps, if Britain is so adamantly against an EU supernation, it should exit it at some point and form its own economic union.

Two things: Without the EU, the UK economy would collapse. British firms need the market as well as the goods from other European countries.

And secondly...it's not "going up" all that much. Britain experienced a boom, as economies do sometimes. For 2005, the numbers weren't actually that good at all (only .1% better growth than Germany), which to me seems to indicate that things might slow down for a few years. But I haven't looked at the details.
As well as the housing market bubble being burst...that caused a decline in Consumer confidence in the UK. Where the UK does excel is in its employment levels and low inflation. Both are remarkably stable.

Economics is a guessing "science," that is true. Albeit, an extremely interesting one :) I love the way it puts mathematical models to use. Its truly fascinating.
I think I agree with the likes of Polanyi though. Economics has no sense of it's own history, and it assumes that the an exchange based economy is natural and the default.

Political Economics is much more interesting. More theorising about society.

I gave plenty of reasons! ONE IS ENOUGHT! I WANT TO BE BRITISH IN A BRITISH COUNTRY RUN BY BRITS! NOT IN A EURO SUPERSTATE!

Wa wa wa wa! I want a ferrari, but sometimes life is shit.

Isn't it a bitch when you elect people to run the country for you and make decisions on your behalf?!

Apart from I WANT I WANT I WANT, anything logical or concrete?

Well I had a nice chat but I better get to bed as its hell hr. here. 4am!

I think I agree with the likes of Polanyi though. Economics has no sense of it's own history, and it assumes that the an exchange based economy is natural and the default.

Political Economics is much more interesting. More theorising about society.
Economics will grow as a discipline and a science as time goes by ;) I definitely think its worth my time. What is Political Economics exactly by the way?

Wa wa wa wa! I want a ferrari, but sometimes life is shit.

Isn't it a bitch when you elect people to run the country for you and make decisions on your behalf?!

Apart from I WANT I WANT I WANT, anything logical or concrete?
He has more or less given a reason. He doesn't want Britain to give up its sovereignty to the EU.

Wa wa wa wa! I want a ferrari, but sometimes life is shit.

Isn't it a bitch when you elect people to run the country for you and make decisions on your behalf?!

Apart from I WANT I WANT I WANT, anything logical or concrete?

Of course I want to be in my nation and happy! I have to WANT. I have to. IF I dident WANT the world would be gone. How do you think we make progress in the world? WANTING! WANTING FREEDOM, Money, Love. We WANT! Stupit.

Of course I want to be in my nation and happy! I have to WANT. I have to. IF I dident WANT the world would be gone. How do you think we make progress in the world? WANTING! WANTING FREEDOM, Money, Love. We WANT! Stupit.
I thought you were in bed? Anyway, if you're going to insult someone, spell properly ;) Its "stupid."

I think I agree with the likes of Polanyi though. Economics has no sense of it's own history, and it assumes that the an exchange based economy is natural and the default.
Sure it does...the problem is just that arguing about these things has no practical purpose.

Fact is that the models, no matter how many assumptions they have, seem to work currently for Reserve Banks and the like in their setting of interest rates for example.

An Economics Degree does both, but you'll excuse them for focussing more on the practical world, and not so much on various Marxist critiques.
And just for the record, I think that an exchange-based economy is the natural default - the only difference being that some tribes don't trade among themselves, they only trade with other tribes. And that only works in very small societies with relatively few kinds of goods and services.

Political Economics is much more interesting. More theorising about society.
It is more interesting, but it is a lot less useful.

Of course I want to be in my nation and happy! I have to WANT. I have to. IF I dident WANT the world would be gone. How do you think we make progress in the world? WANTING! WANTING FREEDOM, Money, Love. We WANT! Stupit.

I was emphasising the "I" in I WANT.

You said, 'WE WANT'. Thats fine. You elect leaders to make these decisions on your behalf. Its tough living in a democracy ;)

You only have irrational fears of a loss of sovereignty. Here's a nasty shock: You don't have any anyway. You have fuck all power. (on an individual level)

I thought you were in bed? Anyway, if you're going to insult someone, spell properly ;) Its "stupid."

Sorry MUM! as I siad its 4am good nite! (morning)

Sure it does...the problem is just that arguing about these things has no practical purpose.

Fact is that the models, no matter how many assumptions they have, seem to work currently for Reserve Banks and the like in their setting of interest rates for example.

An Economics Degree does both, but you'll excuse them for focussing more on the practical world, and not so much on various Marxist critiques.
And just for the record, I think that an exchange-based economy is the natural default - the only difference being that some tribes don't trade among themselves, they only trade with other tribes. And that only works in very small societies with relatively few kinds of goods and services.
Indeed, and in addition to this, Economics does explore other avenues of conducting the economy. Its not limited in its focus; its both practical and theoretical.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Third Superpower to join the US and PRC. Given that all three are tied together by economics and/or heritage, I don't forsee many conflicts between the three. But they do say that brothers fight each other far more savagely than they will a neighbor....

EU's Sphere of Influence: Europe, Western, Eastern and the Balkans, Russia(?), UK(?), Syria, Turkey, Lebanon

PRC's Sphere of Influence: North Korea (kinda), Mongolia (?), Russia(?), Pakistan/Afghanistan, Iran

US's Sphere of Influence: Australia, Japan, South Korea, UK(?), Mongolia(?), Iraq/Saudi Arabia, South and Central America, Canada

All that we'd be missing would be an Arab Superpower and an African Superpower. Should we start taking bets on how and when those two will join?

I am sorry for being childish. Im just expressing what I beleive and going over the top. Its just im tired and I am sorry. thats also an excuse for my spelling. Well most of it.

Good nite.

I'm 19, for the record :p

For the record, I'm 16.

06/20/1989.

Anyway heres what I have to say on the EU...basically it gives each individual European nation a step up to be able to speak and be heard, trade and be traded with, a negotiate and be negotiated with, on an international level that only 2 or 3 European countries can do without the European Union. In my mind there are only two types of people who opposed the European Union. The first is Americans, (and the rest of the non European world but basically us because we are the best ;) ) because we are afraid of a little Euro competition and and power. The second being die hard Euro nationalist who really want to retain their countries individuality. Now, while I see the arguement in this, in my silly little mind, it would make more sense, since thse people LOVE their countries so much, that they would embrace a European Union, which would give their countries power, rank and money that it could never acheive on its own.

So in conclusion, If your a Euro, your usually stupid and either uninformed or really really ignorant if you dont want a European Union. If your an American, or anyone else NOT Euro, well then its obvious we dont want a European Union because then we will be forced to work harder and compete harder for a share of our ever growing global market.

I am sorry for being childish. Im just expressing what I beleive and going over the top. Its just im tired and I am sorry. thats also an excuse for my spelling. Well most of it.

Good nite.
Ah chill.

don't stay away for too long. ;)

I wouldn't have a problem with a Third Superpower to join the US and PRC. Given that all three are tied together by economics and/or heritage, I don't forsee many conflicts between the three. But they do say that brothers fight each other far more savagely than they will a neighbor....

EU's Sphere of Influence: Europe, Western, Eastern and the Balkans, Russia(?), UK(?), Syria, Turkey, Lebanon

Russia is part of Eastern Europe, even if it extends into Asia.

As for an African superpower, I foresee none for the time being, although South Africa, through the African Congress, may one day try and lead efforts for the creation of one. Its wealthy enough to anyway.

Economics will grow as a discipline and a science as time goes by ;) I definitely think its worth my time. What is Political Economics exactly by the way?It is the original economics, before some pseudes tried to pretend they were being scientific.

PS doesn't use maths. It's a social science. It's looks at normative (ethical considerations) and the practical aspects of economics as well as the science side (though here the detail lacks in comparison due to the broader focus).

It focuses on the purpose of the economy as opposed to the actual in-depth study of how the economy works. Hmmm, not's not quite right. But you get the gist?

For the record, I'm 16.

06/20/1989.

Anyway heres what I have to say on the EU...basically it gives each individual European nation a step up to be able to speak and be heard, trade and be traded with, a negotiate and be negotiated with, on an international level that only 2 or 3 European countries can do without the European Union. In my mind there are only two types of people who opposed the European Union. The first is Americans, (and the rest of the non European world but basically us because we are the best ;) ) because we are afraid of a little Euro competition and and power. The second being die hard Euro nationalist who really want to retain their countries individuality. Now, while I see the arguement in this, in my silly little mind, it would make more sense, since thse people LOVE their countries so much, that they would embrace a European Union, which would give their countries power, rank and money that it could never acheive on its own.
Exactly. The EU will help preserve individual cultures rather than erode them.

So in conclusion, If your a Euro, your usually stupid and either uninformed or really really ignorant if you dont want a European Union. If your an American, or anyone else NOT Euro, well then its obvious we dont want a European Union because then we will be forced to work harder and compete harder for a share of our ever growing global market.
A bit excessive; it doesn't mean you're stupid (necessarily), although I see little reason for a European to oppose the EU.

You're 16 btw? :eek:

It is the original economics, before some pseudes tried to pretend they were being scientific.

PS doesn't use maths. It's a social science. It's looks at normative (ethical considerations) and the practical aspects of economics as well as the science side (though here the detail lacks in comparison due to the broader focus).

It focuses on the purpose of the economy as opposed to the actual in-depth study of how the economy works. Hmmm, not's not quite right. But you get the gist?
I get it, more or less. Although modern BSc's in Economics also cover these aspects nowadays. The rush to turn Economics into a pure mathematical subject has been overturned, so the degrees have gone back to the basics, whilst also teaching the practical elements of Economics.

Exactly. The EU will help preserve individual cultures rather than erode them.


A bit excessive; it doesn't mean you're stupid (necessarily), although I see little reason for a European to oppose the EU.

You're 16 btw? :eek:

Well...like I said, either stupid or ignorant...there really is no reason, in my mind, for a Euro to oppose the EU....It makes every country stronger, which is what the nationalist want for their country, and the nationalist are the ones opposing the EU.

Yeah, 16...I know, I'm young...I skipped a grade though so I'm a senior in High school. ;)

It is the original economics, before some pseudes tried to pretend they were being scientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

Anyway..the point is that there is room for both on a campus, but only one is actually useful out there.
Economics has developed many methods to make decisions, analyse how markets work and so on. In another branch, it has attempted to understand how economies work as a whole, and today we are able to keep things relatively stable, predict things and so on.

I'm more into Microeconomics myself, and I fully intend to use those skills to make money. I'm pretty convinced that studies concerning the ethical considerations of markets won't help me there...and besides, I can have fun with that on NS all day long.

Well...like I said, either stupid or ignorant...there really is no reason, in my mind, for a Euro to oppose the EU....It makes every country stronger, which is what the nationalist want for their country, and the nationalist are the ones opposing the EU.

Yeah, 16...I know, I'm young...I skipped a grade though so I'm a senior in High school. ;)
I would have thought you to be around 18...

Anyway, both far right nationalists and far left communists oppose the EU, the former because it "erodes" their nation's power, the latter because its a "ruthless, faceless, elitist capitalist entity." Both sides are luckily minorities.

Russia is part of Eastern Europe, even if it extends into Asia.

As for an African superpower, I foresee none for the time being, although South Africa, through the African Congress, may one day try and lead efforts for the creation of one. Its wealthy enough to anyway.

Russia is Russia. And recently, Russian and Chinese forces have been going on excersices together, making it highly probable that Russia may decide to go the PRC's way and not the EU's way. Of course, they'd probably fight tooth and nail to keep the Ukraine from going EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

Anyway..the point is that there is room for both on a campus, but only one is actually useful out there.
Economics has developed many methods to make decisions, analyse how markets work and so on. In another branch, it has attempted to understand how economies work as a whole, and today we are able to keep things relatively stable, predict things and so on.

I'm more into Microeconomics myself, and I fully intend to use those skills to make money. I'm pretty convinced that studies concerning the ethical considerations of markets won't help me there...and besides, I can have fun with that on NS all day long.
Precisely. In any case, since Economics degrees combine elements of both theory and practical aspects, I see little reason to devalue them.

Russia is Russia. And recently, Russian and Chinese forces have been going on excersices together, making it highly probable that Russia may decide to go the PRC's way and not the EU's way. Of course, they'd probably fight tooth and nail to keep the Ukraine from going EU.
Its culture, and language, are nevertheless derived from Eastern Europe. In all respects, its an Eastern European nation, whether it likes it or not. So Russia may be Russia, but that does nothing to make it any less European. If Russia decides to side with China, then it should be prepared to forsake all former influence it had on other EE countries. I really hope Russia decides to join the EU. Maybe EU politicians will find ways to attract it slowly.

I would have thought you to be around 18...

Anyway, both far right nationalists and far left communists oppose the EU, the former because it "erodes" their nation's power, the latter because its a "ruthless, faceless, elitist capitalist entity." Both sides are luckily minorities.

Ah...good thinking, I forgot communists. But yeah, I was talking about the right nationalists who think it erodes their nations power, when really, it brings their nations power to unimaginable strengths that it could (probably) never achieve on its own. Which is why I think they are stupid for opposing the EU.

And thanks...most people think im around that age, since I'm in a higher grade than I should be, look older than I am, and think older than I am. Also, being 6"3 doesnt hurt it, :D .

Its culture, and language, are nevertheless derived from Eastern Europe. In all respects, its an Eastern European nation, whether it likes it or not. So Russia may be Russia, but that does nothing to make it any less European. If Russia decides to side with China, then it should be prepared to forsake all former influence it had on other EE countries.

Except it's Russia and it won't let go of it's influence in Europe any more than the EU or US would let go of their influence in the UK.

Yes, Russia is part of Europe. It's also part of Asia. It will, therefore, want both, as far as it can. But it being accepted by the EU would be dubious, thanks to a place called Chechnya. The PRC is much more accepting of such "youthful indiscretions".

Ah...good thinking, I forgot communists. But yeah, I was talking about the right nationalists who think it erodes their nations power, when really, it brings their nations power to unimaginable strengths that it could (probably) never achieve on its own. Which is why I think they are stupid for opposing the EU.

And thanks...most people think im around that age, since I'm in a higher grade than I should be, look older than I am, and think older than I am. Also, being 6"3 doesnt hurt it, :D .
Yeah, I was also rather tall at that age...like 6ft...just 1 inch taller now though :p

Anyway, I think its more a matter of blind pride and patriotism than anything else.

Except it's Russia and it won't let go of it's influence in Europe any more than the EU or US would let go of their influence in the UK.

Yes, Russia is part of Europe. It's also part of Asia. It will, therefore, want both, as far as it can. But it being accepted by the EU would be dubious, thanks to a place called Chechnya. The PRC is much more accepting of such "youthful indiscretions".
My point was that Russia as a nation, culturarly, rather than geographically (even though much of it, including Moscow is in Europe), is still a European nation. The fact that it extends to Asia does indeed widen its range of interests, yet it does not change the fact that Russia is essentially European on the whole (85% of its population is pure Russians, which are European). The EU may eventually decide to swing Russia over to its side to avoid the PRC from gaining the advantage of a potentially dangerous ally. Having Russia on your side offers power and prestige. The EU may be willing to settle in Russia's case, and to slowly reform Russia rather than reject it flatly.

Although I dont have a source on this, it is just my general feeling from what I have learned about history that Russia maybe just doesnt like Europe. Ever since Peter the Great, Russia was trying to only mimick Western ways, to surpass those western cultures...kinda like a Western facade with a not so western Russian beast growing behind it. I just never got the impression that Russia wants to deal with Europe at all, and I dont think Russians, as a people, think the way Europeans do. They are sort of unique in their ways and I just cant see them forming any sort of an alliance with Europe, even an economic one.

I dont know, maybe its just the biased anti Russian education we get here, lol.

Sure it does...the problem is just that arguing about these things has no practical purpose.

Fact is that the models, no matter how many assumptions they have, seem to work currently for Reserve Banks and the like in their setting of interest rates for example.

An Economics Degree does both, but you'll excuse them for focussing more on the practical world, and not so much on various Marxist critiques.
And just for the record, I think that an exchange-based economy is the natural default - the only difference being that some tribes don't trade among themselves, they only trade with other tribes. And that only works in very small societies with relatively few kinds of goods and services.


It is more interesting, but it is a lot less useful.That depends on what you define as useful. Is useful generating an economy that maximises output and profits. Or is useful understanding the affects of market relations and how the economy should be intervened in for the purpose of its own good or for that of societies.

What's really interesting is the difference in the interpretation of a thinkers' ideas by the political economists and the economists. A good example being Adam Smith (the PEs show him as being pretty damn critical of the market at the same time as being complimentary).

As for whether a market based society is natural. Well, Veblen (an economists) says that we are not naturally utility maximisers (an assumption of the English version of neo-classical economics). Instead, veblen says he must be socialised into this behaviour - monkey see, monkey do.

Polanyi goes on to say that lassiez-faire has to planned far in advance as most societies in history aren't/weren't naturally inclined towards exchange based economies. He says it was not surprising that England was the first to industrialise. He points to an age he calls the great transformation - the 250 years preceding the industrial revolution in which England was slowly changed by law into a country that was ready for industrialisation.

More importantly he talks of how the market erodes the base of society in its relentless pursuit of the comodification of everything. And as it erodes the basis of society it erodes the basis on which it surivives. He then cites a double-movement, in which society then attempts to pull back economy from the lassiez faire, whilst business attempts to further the cause of lassiez faire. Ultimately he thought society would win and we would move away from capitalism. This hasn't happened, obviously. So it could assumed that he was a) wrong or b) we are approaching a balance of the double movement. Now if that isn't useful knowledge - of the ultimately destructive nature of exchange-based society, then what is?

Although I dont have a source on this, it is just my general feeling from what I have learned about history that Russia maybe just doesnt like Europe. Ever since Peter the Great Russia was trying to only mimick Western ways, to surpass those western cultures...kinda like a Western facade with a not so western Russian beast growing behind it. I just never got the impression that Russia wants to deal with Europe at all, and I dont think Russians, as a people, think the way Europeans do. They are sort of unique in their ways and I just cant see them forming any sort of an alliance with Europe, even an economic one.
Yet they are European really. Even their language is based on the Cyrillic Alphabet, and thus is of European basis, and the religion of most of its citizenry is Orthodox Christian, just like many other European states. All nations have their own uniqueness, but Russia is essentially European. Their ethnicity is Slavic, like that of most Eastern Europeans, with the exception of some with Hungarian/Finnish roots, also European blood anyway. Russia is part of Europe. What it has to do is get over its massive ego, and face the fact that its no longer a superpower.

Putin, and probably his successors, are Nationalists (Fascists?) who want to keep Russia as a powerful nation and superpower. In their mind, keeping control of Eastern Europe is part of that...I can't see how we are going to get around more confrontations alá Ukraine vs Gazprom in the near future.

For example, a democratic revolution in Belarus could make for quite an interesting time.

So at least for the next decades, I think Russia will not try to join the EU or anything like that. They're happy to make their money through trade, but politically, they have quite a different set of goals for now. China is obviously a better political ally to achieve those.

My point was that Russia as a nation, culturarly, rather than geographically (even though much of it, including Moscow is in Europe), is still a European nation. The fact that it extends to Asia does indeed widen its range of interests. The EU may eventually decide to swing Russia over to its side to avoid the PRC from gaining the advantage of a potentially dangerous ally.

You forget that Russia and the PRC are already closer than they have been for years. Closer than the EU and Russia, for sure. Afterall, when was the last time Russian troops when on excercises with German, French, or British troops? Or even American troops?

Russia, though tied culturally to Europe (remember, I never said that the Russians would go around singing "The East is Red" :p), would want to preserve its sovereignty as much as possible. They, like the UK, are probably too proud to become assimilated into the EU. Being in a tag-team with the PRC would be much more in character for them.

It would also mean that they wouldn't have to rechamber their massive arsenal of AKs (and their much smaller arsenal of ANs) to fire NATO standard rounds, nor would they have to adhere to any other NATO regulations. On the contrary, which the patronage of the Chinese, they would continue to use their old equipment, with the relatively few modifications the Chinese have made to theirs (excepting the newer Chinese polymer bullpup).

Yet they are European really. Even their language is based on the Cyrillic Alphabet, and thus is of European basis, and the religion of most of its citizenry is Orthodox Christian, just like many other European states. All nations have their own uniqueness, but Russia is essentially European. Russia is part of Europe. What it has to do is get over its massive ego, and face the fact that its no longer a superpower.

You may be right, after all you do LIVE in Europe. And as far as opinions go, I would much rather see a western Russian than an eastern one. God knows what a Russian-Chinese alliance could do to Western Europe, the far east (Japan, South Korea, Tiawan) and of course, America. Although Russia is in ruins after its Union's downfall, it is quickly rejuvinating, and with the help of a powerful ally like China, it could easily become a massive global player, and again, on the wrong team.

You forget that Russia and the PRC are already closer than they have been for years. Closer than the EU and Russia, for sure. Afterall, when was the last time Russian troops when on excercises with German, French, or British troops? Or even American troops?

Russia, though tied culturally to Europe (remember, I never said that the Russians would go around singing "The East is Red" :p), would want to preserve its sovereignty as much as possible. They, like the UK, are probably too proud to become assimilated into the EU. Being in a tag-team with the PRC would be much more in character for them.

It would also mean that they wouldn't have to rechamber their massive arsenal of AKs (and their much smaller arsenal of ANs) to fire NATO standard rounds, nor would they have to adhere to any other NATO regulations. On the contrary, which the patronage of the Chinese, they would continue to use their old equipment, with the relatively few modifications the Chinese have made to theirs (excepting the newer Chinese polymer bullpup).
Its for these reasons I hope that the PRC crumbles internally. I would love to see Russia on her knees, begging for entry to the EU. Not likely, but it might happen one day. China is fickle. Already, many are disatisfied with the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party. China may well dissolve from within. Even the Economist seems to support this notion, although its given little elaboration so far.

You may be right, after all you do LIVE in Europe. And as far as opinions go, I would much rather see a western Russian than an eastern one. God knows what a Russian-Chinese alliance could do to Western Europe, the far east (Japan, South Korea, Tiawan) and of course, America. Although Russia is in ruins after its Union's downfall, it is quickly rejuvinating, and with the help of a powerful ally like China, it could easily become a massive global player, and again, on the wrong team.
Yeah, I am quite worried of this too. So for now at least, the EU, the USA, Japan, Canada and Australia better stick close together to ensure that they can face China, as well as the possibility of its alliance with Russia. Maybe eventually Russia will become more Western. Who knows.

Now if that isn't useful knowledge - of the ultimately destructive nature of exchange-based society, then what is?
You'd like Schumpeter.

Anyways, I'm a simpleton in the way that I think at some point in my life I would like to make a lot of money by selling my skills.
I personally am naturally inclined to trading, or socialised into it (whatever you prefer), and something that will make someone make money (like telling you which decision is better, or what the interest rates will be next time 'round) is a more useful skill than theorising about the nature of human existance. Not necessarily better, but a more rewarding one.

But that's just one opinion.

Putin, and probably his successors, are Nationalists (Fascists?) who want to keep Russia as a powerful nation and superpower. In their mind, keeping control of Eastern Europe is part of that...I can't see how we are going to get around more confrontations alá Ukraine vs Gazprom in the near future.

For example, a democratic revolution in Belarus could make for quite an interesting time.

So at least for the next decades, I think Russia will not try to join the EU or anything like that. They're happy to make their money through trade, but politically, they have quite a different set of goals for now. China is obviously a better political ally to achieve those.

I sort of agree, and it seems that they are taking steps to move away from western idealogy (democracy) and move towards their old ways and Chinas ways...more and more a dictatorship. Not totally, but give it some time and they will get there. Like I said before, I just dont see Russia moving West, (although I hope it does). I dont think they want to be involved with Europe, and I also think like other people have stated that it is to their obvious advantage to move east and bond closer to China.

*Sigh*

Edit: would you really call President Putin a fascist?

You'd like Schumpeter.

Anyways, I'm a simpleton in the way that I think at some point in my life I would like to make a lot of money by selling my skills.
I personally am naturally inclined to trading, or socialised into it (whatever you prefer), and something that will make someone make money (like telling you which decision is better, or what the interest rates will be next time 'round) is a more useful skill than theorising about the nature of human existance. Not necessarily better, but a more rewarding one.

But that's just one opinion.
Which is why I aim to take a BSc and subsequent MSc in Economics myself. Both for the intellectual challenge of it, and its practical applicability.

Schumpeter...the Creative Destruction theorist. Didn't he argue that monopolies are actually useful because by trying to keep barriers to entry/ exit high, the monopoly would innovate and benefit consumers? A nice, but rather naive assumption. Not all monopolies are so benign.

Its for these reasons I hope that the PRC crumbles internally. I would love to see Russia on her knees, begging for entry to the EU. Not likely, but it might happen one day. China is fickle. Already, many are disatisfied with the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party. China may well dissolve from within. Even the Economist seems to support this notion, although its given little elaboration so far.

Time to replace the Mao dynasty with something else, eh? Even so, I'm sure that unless the new dynasty is adamently pro-Western Democracy, and pro-US/EU (or anti-Russian), the Chinese and the Russians might come together anyway. Russia has the factories, China has the food. They work so well together....

I can see Russia begging and on its knees and begging as easily as I can see Bush declaring for Civil Unions.

Putin, and probably his successors, are Nationalists (Fascists?) who want to keep Russia as a powerful nation and superpower. In their mind, keeping control of Eastern Europe is part of that...I can't see how we are going to get around more confrontations alá Ukraine vs Gazprom in the near future.

For example, a democratic revolution in Belarus could make for quite an interesting time.

So at least for the next decades, I think Russia will not try to join the EU or anything like that. They're happy to make their money through trade, but politically, they have quite a different set of goals for now. China is obviously a better political ally to achieve those.
Indeed; it will allow Russia to keep a hold on its massive ego. For the present time, anyway :)

Yeah, I am quite worried of this too.
Don't be.

Notice how the Chinese are people too, who don't want to destroy the world. In fact, it has never been in past Chinese empires' character to try and take over. It was always "China first", and I suspect this will be the future for them as well.
So if it matters to them, they'll care, if it doesn't, they won't. Unlike the USSR, there is no ideological component to this.

And don't forget that the Chinese need our money just as much as we need their labour. No war to come any time soon.

Time to replace the Mao dynasty with something else, eh? Even so, I'm sure that unless the new dynasty is adamently pro-Western Democracy, and pro-US/EU (or anti-Russian), the Chinese and the Russians might come together anyway. Russia has the factories, China has the food. They work so well together....

I can see Russia begging and on its knees and begging as easily as I can see Bush declaring for Civil Unions.
History is never a single straight line; things are rarely what they seem. The same holds true of the future. Although it seems unlikely, don't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of it. Russia suffers from a very high income disparity, high inflation, a declining birth rate and severe issues in its national coherence. Its not a rose garden exactly.

Putin, and probably his successors, are Nationalists (Fascists?) who want to keep Russia as a powerful nation and superpower. In their mind, keeping control of Eastern Europe is part of that...I can't see how we are going to get around more confrontations alá Ukraine vs Gazprom in the near future.

Russia's been that way since Aleksandr Nevski kicked the Golden Horde out of Russland. Hell, they were that way before the Mongols sacked Kiev.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

Anyway..the point is that there is room for both on a campus, but only one is actually useful out there.
Economics has developed many methods to make decisions, analyse how markets work and so on. In another branch, it has attempted to understand how economies work as a whole, and today we are able to keep things relatively stable, predict things and so on.

I'm more into Microeconomics myself, and I fully intend to use those skills to make money. I'm pretty convinced that studies concerning the ethical considerations of markets won't help me there...and besides, I can have fun with that on NS all day long.How can you point me to these links and then deny the usefulness of one. You've stated your bias for microeconomics, which economics serves admirably. But my bias is for more macroeconomics on the political level (political economics "Is public ownership a good idea?").

"In the late 19th century, the term "political economy" was generally superseded by the term economics, which was used by those seeking to place the study of economy on a mathematical and axiomatic basis, rather than studying the structural relationships within production and consumption."

My problem with economics is it makes far too many assumptions that are easily broken. For instance it can't explain away the volunteer movement, the anti-globalisation movements, but it can tell you how to sell official che guevara t-shirts to morons in the crowd. ;)

Don't be.

Notice how the Chinese are people too, who don't want to destroy the world. In fact, it has never been in past Chinese empires' character to try and take over. It was always "China first", and I suspect this will be the future for them as well.
So if it matters to them, they'll care, if it doesn't, they won't. Unlike the USSR, there is no ideological component to this.

And don't forget that the Chinese need our money just as much as we need their labour. No war to come any time soon.
You are assuming some kind of superhuman selflessness in China's person it seems. China may well decide one day that it one's a share of the world for itself. However, I agree with you on the economy bit. We are interdependently linked. This could hinder China from doing anything too brash for the time being.

Its not a rose garden exactly.

What nation is?

What nation is?
Comparatively speaking, Russia is worse off than most.

You are assuming some kind of superhuman selflessness in China's person it seems. China may well decide one day that it one's a share of the world for itself. However, I agree with you on the economy bit. We are interdependently linked. This could hinder China from doing anything too brash for the time being.

Like "attacking" Tiawan?

Edit: would you really call President Putin a fascist?
Yes.
Remember though that I am pedantic enough to stick to the actual definition of fascism, not the way the word is usually used.

Didn't he argue that monopolies are actually useful because by trying to keep barriers to entry/ exit high, the monopoly would innovate and benefit consumers?
Well, many economists sorta do that (except those that think monopolies only come about because of "teh evil government"). Even Galbraith wanted the anti-trust laws to be abandoned, because he argued that having the economies of scale of a monopoly is too good to get rid of.
But yes, he didn't mind monopolies...the idea that you could become a monopoly would motivate capitalists, and the idea of holding on to your position would do the same.
He was rather idealistic about the nature of the entrepreneurial hero though.

A nice, but rather naive assumption. Not all monopolies are so benign.
Remember though that Schumpeter believed that ultimately Capitalism would destroy itself through more and more corporate bureaucracy, inequality and so on, such that people would eventually vote in Socialism.

Like "attacking" Tiawan?
Hmm I was thinking more a direct attack on the West, and more specifically the USA. It may go for Taiwan anyway.

Remember though that Schumpeter believed that ultimately Capitalism would destroy itself through more and more corporate bureaucracy, inequality and so on, such that people would eventually vote in Socialism.
Indeed. An equally unlikely outcome, but I like his theories nonetheless. They are quite interesting; a rather unusual take on the role of the monopoly.

As for Putin being fascist, well his succession will be the telling point. If he goes on for another term, defying legal boundaries, then he may well be installing himself permanently as state leader.

Hmm I was thinking more a direct attack on the West, and more specifically the USA. It may go for Taiwan anyway.

You cant get really more direct than maybe....marching on Los Angeles. America is fully backing Taiwan, and has stated....sorta...that we are prepared to defend Taiwan against China. The whole situation is kinda scary. The same for Japan, we are entitled to help them "just in case" though not to the level of devotion that we have for guarding Taiwan.

So to me, thats as direct of an attack that I can see happening.

But my bias is for more macroeconomics on the political level (political economics "Is public ownership a good idea?").
Well, that is probably for another thread, but I would tell you the same thing I tell the libertarians:
"Deal with the real world, not with some theoretical construct. It won't change any time soon."

Like "attacking" Tiawan?
Notice how I said "if it matters to them".
Taiwan is a part of China, and the political divisions are the result of a civil war in which US Anti-Communists felt they had to get involved. I think the Chinese case is quite a bit stronger (namely the one where they call it a Chinese, and Chinese only, issue and ask foreigners to stay out of it) than the American one.

Yes.
Remember though that I am pedantic enough to stick to the actual definition of fascism, not the way the word is usually used.

Right-o. I should have known, you have been known to do just that. In that case...I actually beleive that China is fascist.

You cant get really more direct than maybe....marching on Los Angeles. America is fully backing Taiwan, and has stated....sorta...that we are prepared to defend Taiwan against China. The whole situation is kinda scary. The same for Japan, we are entitled to help them "just in case" though not to the level of devotion that we have for guarding Taiwan.

So to me, thats as direct of an attack that I can see happening.
I forgot about that...then no, I think that China will refrain from any overt use of force for the time being. As for Japan, its still a dominant economic force, and it may one day begin building up its military. It may not be as vulnerable to China as one may think. Its well able of becoming an incredibly powerful nation once more. Also an excellent ally to the EU.

You are assuming some kind of superhuman selflessness in China's person it seems. China may well decide one day that it one's a share of the world for itself. However, I agree with you on the economy bit. We are interdependently linked. This could hinder China from doing anything too brash for the time being.

China, as a nation, historically, has shown relatively little aggression. Aside from Tibet and Manchuria, they were largely content to leave others along and be left alone. They may decide one day that they're the center of civilization, again, in which case they'll demand that all other nations pay them tithes (of course, we already do, in a way), and if people don't comply they'll throw a fit and invade Vietnam (again) or Korea (again) or Thailand (again). Or they might feel especially daring and take a run at Russia, Taiwan, or Japan. Other than that, they can't really do much.

Which is why I aim to take a BSc and subsequent MSc in Economics myself. Both for the intellectual challenge of it, and its practical applicability.

Schumpeter...the Creative Destruction theorist. Didn't he argue that monopolies are actually useful because by trying to keep barriers to entry/ exit high, the monopoly would innovate and benefit consumers? A nice, but rather naive assumption. Not all monopolies are so benign.Anyway, good luck to you. I'm off to bed.

I think what Schumpeter may have been getting at is patents and copyrights.

Did you know Adam Smith also advocated the creation of monopolies in some instances. The arguement is that with new exploration that competition forces prices down and as such reduces the motivation to innovate (or explore the colonies). That is to say, a drugs company invests in drug research and then another company whips beneath its nose and makes the drug for the fraction of the cost because it hasn't any research costs to recoup. So by allowing time limited monopolies you allow companies to recoup investment costs before free competition is engaged in. Max Barry makes a good arguement that patents and copyright time periods have gone to far. And that copyright could be reduced to 10 years max, as opposed till 70 years after the author's death.

Anyway, g'night and 'bookmark' this page.

China, as a nation, historically, has shown relatively little aggression. Aside from Tibet and Manchuria, they were largely content to leave others along and be left alone. They may decide one day that they're the center of civilization, again, in which case they'll demand that all other nations pay them tithes (of course, we already do, in a way), and if people don't comply they'll throw a fit and invade Vietnam (again) or Korea (again) or Thailand (again). Or they might feel especially daring and take a run at Russia, Taiwan, or Japan. Other than that, they can't really do much.
Nations change. Don't assume that their behaviour will constantly be the same. They may eventually decide, as you said, that they are the centre of civilisation. China now is not the China of the past. Its a nation hungry for both wealth and power. And it may well decide that it will actively pursue both.

First off I’m American, but I did spend that past year living in different countries in Europe and studying in different colleges. I spent most of my time in Ireland and I don’t think that the people there are two fond of being in the same category as citizens of England. And I’m sure the same can be said for the English, I heard plenty of slagging from both sides but I thought the English were much more vocal. (I’m not choosing sides just making an observation.) I spent time in Northern Ireland and while I was smart enough to keep my mouth shut, but another American decided to get the local feeling on "the troubles" and it just went down hill from there. I was in France and the people there are very proud of their culture and language, some call this arrogance but I just think the French are more vocal about their beliefs than other countries. I was in Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, and Scotland as well and generally I found the people that I met to first identify them selves with their own country, rather then European. While I think that the EU has promise I think that it will be several generations before it becomes a concrete power rather than a loose federation (bad word choice?) of countries.

I know the united states didn’t get of to a great start, federalism and anti-federalism, states rights, the civil war ect. But the US was and still is a very young nation compared to Europe and when your parents, and their parents’ parents and so forth identify themselves with a country for numerous generations I don’t that that people are willing to give up that part of their heritage. In America I have always been called Irish, I had to go to Europe to be called an American. My family has been 2000 miles from Ireland for the past 3 generations; I don’t think that people that still live in their native countries will adopt a new nationality. This is probably an extreme situation; I don’t think that the EU would try to eliminate all sense of nationality but I was trying to think of a worst case scenario.

I dont wan't to start a war with this, but i found the topic interesting.

Notice how I said "if it matters to them".
Taiwan is a part of China, and the political divisions are the result of a civil war in which US Anti-Communists felt they had to get involved. I think the Chinese case is quite a bit stronger (namely the one where they call it a Chinese, and Chinese only, issue and ask foreigners to stay out of it) than the American one.

Well...no offense but I really dont think you would understand. The Taiwanese PEOPLE do NOT want to be Chinese. They do not like China...They want independence. America, stands up for those types of people. Obviously its not all just a just act, there are some backroom deals and also the whole anti communist policy, but still, the point remains that the people want and NEED freedom from China. This is not just another Iraq.....this is us helping a people who need our help to break away from China.

Hmm I was thinking more a direct attack on the West, and more specifically the USA. It may go for Taiwan anyway.

I can't imagine how China would go straight at the US. Taiwan I could see, in a decade. Japan, maybe half a century. But the US? China hasn't had a decent blue-water navy in 500 years. The only thing they could do would be to shoot missiles at us, which would only make us mad.

While I think that the EU has promise I think that it will be several generations before it becomes a concrete power rather than a loose federation (bad word choice?) of countries.
It will take time, for sure. Loose federation is a more or less accurate word for what it is now, although its more of an economic union with some political/legal integration.

I forgot about that...then no, I think that China will refrain from any overt use of force for the time being. As for Japan, its still a dominant economic force, and it may one day begin building up its military. It may not be as vulnerable to China as one may think. Its well able of becoming an incredibly powerful nation once more. Also an excellent ally to the EU.

Only time will tell. Although, correct me if I'm wrong, but Japan isnt allowed to have a military, am I correct in saying this?

I can't imagine how China would go straight at the US. Taiwan I could see, in a decade. Japan, maybe half a century. But the US? China hasn't had a decent blue-water navy in 500 years. The only thing they could do would be to shoot missiles at us, which would only make us mad.
Well I never said it would be in the short term. It could be in any number of years.

Only time will tell. Although, correct me if I'm wrong, but Japan isnt allowed to have a military, am I correct in saying this?
I think there are limitations on its military capacity, but its about time they were waivered. We live in a different world now, and a strong Japan would be an asset.

Well...no offense but I really dont think you would understand. The Taiwanese PEOPLE do NOT want to be Chinese. They do not like China...They want independence. America, stands up for those types of people. Obviously its not all just a just act, there are some backroom deals and also the whole anti communist policy, but still, the point remains that the people want and NEED freedom from China. This is not just another Iraq.....this is us helping a people who need our help to break away from China.

Actually, the US supports whoever it wants to. The Taiwanese were just lucky enough to have gained our support and done nothing to make us rescind it, even though it would probably be more politically expediant for the US to let China have Taiwan (how the Chinese would accomplish such a feat with no navy is beyond me).

Another thing to keep in mind is that Taiwan is still China and it is still Chinese. It just isn't part of the People's Republic. In fact, the official name of the government of Taiwan is the Republic of China. So saying that the Taiwanese want to be free of the Chinese is not technicially correct. They want to be free of the PRC.

Other groups that want to be free from the PRC, which do not enjoy US patronage include Tibet and Hong Kong. It just doesn't suit us to help them.

I think there are limitations on its military capacity, but its about time they were waivered. We live in a different world now, and a strong Japan would be an asset.

Japan does not have a military. And the only people who can decide whether or not Japan can have a military: the people of Japan, by voting on a Constitutional Amendment. And they show no interest in doing so.

But would you, knowing that you have police who fly F-15s, man missile destroyers, and drive Type 90 MBTs?

The Taiwanese PEOPLE do NOT want to be Chinese.
I thought you were our local racial investigator...the Taiwanese people are Chinese, except for a few mountain tribesmen.
And besides, have you asked them?

They do not like China...They want independence.
Not all of them. So far, no politician promising independence has gotten a majority.

America, stands up for those types of people. Obviously its not all just a just act, there are some backroom deals and also the whole anti communist policy, but still, the point remains that the people want and NEED freedom from China. This is not just another Iraq.....this is us helping a people who need our help to break away from China.
They do not need your help. They can organise this just fine by themselves.

Even moreso than in Korea, the US involvement only serves to harden the frontlines, resulting in stalemate. And it really is none of your business, particularly seeing the history of how the US got involved there in the first place (supporting anti-communist dictator, of course).

I think there are limitations on its military capacity, but its about time they were waivered. We live in a different world now, and a strong Japan would be an asset.

Agreed...I beleive the same should reasoning should be applied to Germany as well.

I thought you were our local racial investigator...the Taiwanese people are Chinese, except for a few mountain tribesmen.
And besides, have you asked them?

I know people from Hong Kong who think that reunification with China was the worst thing that could happen to them. I don't know of any who think otherwise.

Not all of them. So far, no politician promising independence has gotten a majority.

Probably because the ROChinese are rather attached to their lives and any declaration of independence from the PRChinese would lead to a nice visit from the PLA.

They do not need your help. They can organise this just fine by themselves.

Explains why they buy helicopters, guns, and ships from us with glee.

Even moreso than in Korea, the US involvement only serves to harden the frontlines, resulting in stalemate. And it really is none of your business, particularly seeing the history of how the US got involved there in the first place (supporting anti-communist dictator, of course).

And now the South Koreans reap the benefit of a democratic government. I guess that good things can come of US-supported dictatorships... sadly.

I thought you were our local racial investigator...the Taiwanese people are Chinese, except for a few mountain tribesmen.
And besides, have you asked them?

I am THE local racial investigator, but this time I meant poltically they dont want to be part of the peoples republic of China...not Chinese racially, lol.

Not all of them. So far, no politician promising independence has gotten a majority.

Well this is news to me and a link would be great here.

They do not need your help. They can organise this just fine by themselves.

Says you, put they are damn happy that we are helping them, so I dont see what the problem is.

Even moreso than in Korea, the US involvement only serves to harden the frontlines, resulting in stalemate. And it really is none of your business, particularly seeing the history of how the US got involved there in the first place (supporting anti-communist dictator, of course).

It very much is our business, we are the world police. For now anyway.

Agreed...I beleive the same should reasoning should be applied to Germany as well.
Been there, done that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr).

I wouldn't call 250,000 men unreasonable. Plus, the Americans have been pushing for Germany to spend more on the Bundeswehr for a decade now - we're just not interested in that waste of money, I guess.

Actually, the US supports whoever it wants to. The Taiwanese were just lucky enough to have gained our support and done nothing to make us rescind it, even though it would probably be more politically expediant for the US to let China have Taiwan (how the Chinese would accomplish such a feat with no navy is beyond me).

Another thing to keep in mind is that Taiwan is still China and it is still Chinese. It just isn't part of the People's Republic. In fact, the official name of the government of Taiwan is the Republic of China. So saying that the Taiwanese want to be free of the Chinese is not technicially correct. They want to be free of the PRC.

Other groups that want to be free from the PRC, which do not enjoy US patronage include Tibet and Hong Kong. It just doesn't suit us to help them.

Like I said, while we may not be 100% just in our actions, we are nonetheless doing what is correct, even if we reap some benefits along the way.

Hey, the world isnt perfect, is it?

Well this is news to me and a link would be great here.
See above...Rafnaland has answered it.

Been there, done that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr).

I wouldn't call 250,000 men unreasonable. Plus, the Americans have been pushing for Germany to spend more on the Bundeswehr for a decade now - we're just not interested in that waste of money, I guess.

Not too bad...but it could still use some work. However, if you think spending money on military is a waste of money, thats your opinion. Obviously not one that you would share with a right wing American, so needless to say we wont get into it.

Although, I'm glad you informed me of this German Defense Force...I was totally unaware that they had any type of military and, well, hey...ya learn something new everyday.

So thanks, bro. :)

Like I said, while we may not be 100% just in our actions, we are nonetheless doing what is correct, even if we reap some benefits along the way.

Hey, the world isnt perfect, is it?

"It is a kingdom of conscience. Or nothing at all."

If only we lived by such ideals like that. Minus the whole letting Guy ascend to the throne thing.

See above...Rafnaland has answered it.

Ok...so that doesnt mean they dont want it...it simply means they fear for their saftey. Great. :rolleyes:

Not too bad...but it could still use some work. However, if you think spending money on military is a waste of money, thats your opinion. Obviously not one that you would share with a right wing American, so needless to say we wont get into it.

Although, I'm glad you informed me of this German Defense Force...I was totally unaware that they had any type of military and, well, hey...ya learn something new everyday.

So thanks, bro. :)

They have one of the best militaries on earth. The tanks they produce are top draw, their camouflage is highly effective (and cool looking :p), and their weapons, though not as innovative as they once were, are easily the equals of the arms of any other nation on earth.

Ok...so that doesnt mean they dont want it...it simply means they fear for their saftey. Great. :rolleyes:

Er... what? The Japanese don't want it because they don't need it. The JSDF is well enough equiped for them to hold off (or at least slow down) any invasion long enough for the USMC and USN to save the day. That's all the more they need. Especially since any relief force is likely to include Aussies, as well as Americans.

They have one of the best militaries on earth. The tanks they produce are top draw and their weapons, though not as innovative as they once were, are the easily equals of the arms of any other nation on earth.

Well I have to admit...that is conforting. I have to be honest, I dont like the way Germany deals with its past. I think they spend way too much time feeling sorrow for people that dont even live on earth anymore, and even if there are some remaining, they certainly dont have a political say in Germanys government. Now, I admit...people blatantly accusing Germans of being "a bunch of Nazis" dont help, but I would like to see Germany just kinda say. Look we are sorrow, but we cant do anything about world war II. We were not born yet, and thus...had no influence on Germanys poltics during WWII. It just doesnt seem fair...and I think that the longer it takes Germany to pull itself together and stop feeling sorry for itself, the longer its gonna take for those idiots to stop calling Germans "a bunch of Nazis"

Er... what? The Japanese don't want it because they don't need it. The JSDF is well enough equiped for them to hold off (or at least slow down) any invasion long enough for the USMC and USN to save the day. That's all the more they need. Especially since any relief force is likely to include Aussies, as well as Americans.

NO....I meant the politicans speaking out for independence...sorry for the mix up, lol.

I was totally unaware that they had any type of military and, well, hey...ya learn something new everyday.
Really? :confused:

We were meant to be the first line of defense against a Soviet Invasion. That's why the Bundeswehr is primarily a tank army (some 2000 MBTs, most Leopard 2 (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/)'s, the newest now to be introduced the Leopard 2A6 EX (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=810), supported by the Puma IFV (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=3318)), an anti-sub navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Navy) (just got new subs (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/)) to prevent the Soviets from getting out of the Baltic into the Atlantic and an Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#Cold_war) meant to support ground forces.

All until NATO help arrived.

The problem today (and the reason I would in theory support more money for the military) is that it needs to be restructured. We don't need to fight tank battles all over Europe anymore, so the Bundeswehr needs to be restructured to be able to support NATO and the UN anywhere in the world. Which costs money.

NO....I meant the politicans speaking out for independence...sorry for the mix up, lol.

The ROC doesn't lose anything for it. They're still free of the PRC. They just can't say it. And all Americans should be glad for it, as any such declaration would lead to our already over-stretched military being stretched even further by trying to save the ROC. Of course, that would be a war I'd be willing to enlist in the Marines to fight. (Which means, of course, that it'll never happen.)

Really? :confused:

We were meant to be the first line of defense against a Soviet Invasion. That's why the Bundeswehr is primarily a tank army (some 2000 MBTs, most Leopard 2 (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/)'s, the newest now to be introduced the Leopard 2A6 EX (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=810), supported by the Puma IFV (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=3318)), an anti-sub navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Navy) (just got new subs (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/)) to prevent the Soviets from getting out of the Baltic into the Atlantic and an Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#Cold_war) meant to support ground forces.

All until NATO help arrived.

The problem today (and the reason I would in theory support more money for the military) is that it needs to be restructured. We don't need to fight tank battles all over Europe anymore, so the Bundeswehr needs to be restructured to be able to support NATO and the UN anywhere in the world. Which costs money.

The Norwegian Military (which I know sadly little about, as very little is printed in English about it, or in the little German I pretend to know) was structured along similar lines, I believe. With lots of ships and helos designed to hunt Soviet subs and a military intended to stop any Soviet incursion through Finnland and Sweden into Norway.

Speaking of which... do you know if the G36 won out for the Norwegians, or did the F2000, Neu Leonstein? If you know, that is.

Really? :confused:

We were meant to be the first line of defense against a Soviet Invasion. That's why the Bundeswehr is primarily a tank army (some 2000 MBTs, most Leopard 2 (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/)'s, the newest now to be introduced the Leopard 2A6 EX (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=810), supported by the Puma IFV (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=3318)), an anti-sub navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Navy) (just got new subs (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/)) to prevent the Soviets from getting out of the Baltic into the Atlantic and an Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#Cold_war) meant to support ground forces.

All until NATO help arrived.

The problem today (and the reason I would in theory support more money for the military) is that it needs to be restructured. We don't need to fight tank battles all over Europe anymore, so the Bundeswehr needs to be restructured to be able to support NATO and the UN anywhere in the world. Which costs money.

I guess now that you mention the whole Soviet defense thing...its sort of ringing a bell, I just really never learned about Germanys military post WWII...So thank you for teaching me. :)

Also I agree....it seems that all of our huge armies can fight these massive battles in Europe, but cannot seem to kill a couple rock throwers and capture a couple of sand boxes.

Speaking of which... do you know if the G36 won out for the Norwegians, or did the F2000, Neu Leonstein? If you know, that is.
A quick search tells me that the G36 is the thing the Norwegians use now. I'm not a specialist in guns, but I think this F2000 is a little bit too fancy for its own good. And it's not proven in large-scale use, while the G36 certainly is.

And for the record, I like Sweden's approach to defense against the Soviets...namely none.
They just wanted to let themselves get taken over, but trained their whole populace in sabotage and civil disobedience.

A quick search tells me that the G36 is the thing the Norwegians use now. I'm not a specialist in guns, but I think this F2000 is a little bit too fancy for its own good. And it's not proven in large-scale use, while the G36 certainly is.

And for the record, I like Sweden's approach to defense against the Soviets...namely none.
They just wanted to let themselves get taken over, but trained their whole populace in sabotage and civil disobedience.

Which so aptly explains the S-wagen and their history of buying the best tanks the Germans could produce. :p

That's one of the reasons they invited German officers over after the war, to teach Swedish officers how to conduct an excellent defensive against a superior aggressor.

And thanks for the info.

Which so aptly explains the S-wagen and their history of buying the best tanks the Germans could produce. :p
Oh, it wouldn't have been on for long. In the sixties I think, they tried that for a while. Pacifists had become pretty important politically.
Wasn't too popular with the people, so they changed their tune after a while.

Or so I think. I saw it in a movie once, but I can't find it on the web right now, so maybe they just imagined it...

Oh, it wouldn't have been on for long. In the sixties I think, they tried that for a while. Pacifists had become pretty important politically.
Wasn't too popular with the people, so they changed their tune after a while.

Or so I think. I saw it in a movie once, but I can't find it on the web right now, so maybe they just imagined it...

The Swedish army has already taken delivery of a shipment of Leopard IIA6 EXs, though. (Or a similar model, I forget.)

Many Eastern European nations are in the EU or are engaging in talks to join it. ... Eastern Europe will one day join the EU in their entirety.

Eastern i meant Yugoslavia and Poland areas, which are not in the EU.
Germany is the Eastern border of the EU.

Well I have to admit...that is conforting. I have to be honest, I dont like the way Germany deals with its past. I think they spend way too much time feeling sorrow for people that dont even live on earth anymore, and even if there are some remaining, they certainly dont have a political say in Germanys government. Now, I admit...people blatantly accusing Germans of being "a bunch of Nazis" dont help, but I would like to see Germany just kinda say. Look we are sorrow, but we cant do anything about world war II. We were not born yet, and thus...had no influence on Germanys poltics during WWII. It just doesnt seem fair...and I think that the longer it takes Germany to pull itself together and stop feeling sorry for itself, the longer its gonna take for those idiots to stop calling Germans "a bunch of Nazis"
Agreed. Same with Japan.

Eastern i meant Yugoslavia and Poland areas, which are not in the EU.
Germany is the Eastern border of the EU.
Countries like Estonia are in the EU. It is a matter of time that Eastern Europe becomes part of the EU.

No. But if Britian dident exist and it was only the EU would you be british or only european?

British means to me? I feel proud to live in one of the most powerful nations in the world, and in a nation that was once The bigest great power. I also love my monarch. I feel proud to it! Liz is getin annoying and I hate charles but cant waite for King William. I feel proud to fly the Union jack. Love my city of Manchester my leader tony blair.

I Love being BRITISH PERIOD!

Are you not proud to be British?


So if being british is so good why join a EU, which is corrupt and cant account for all its money

So if being british is so good why join a EU, which is corrupt and cant account for all its money
The EU is corrupt? Bureaucratic, maybe. Corrupt, no.

If not how come all the commissioners were sacked for fruad, and the accounts havenot been "signed off" for years

The EU is corrupt? Bureaucratic, maybe. Corrupt, no.

You forget that bureaucracies are inherently corrupting. A bureaucratic system does not but reward itself for inefficiency. As the saying goes, "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

The EU is corrupt? Bureaucratic, maybe. Corrupt, no.

In 1999, all the commissioners were sacked, but as they all had immunity from prosicution none were tried

So then reform the EU. Whining about how "imperfect" it is is really irritating unless you have a way of changing things. I cannot stand whingers. Maybe if the UK contributed a little more to fixing the EU and whined a little less, it'd be taken more seriously.

In 1999, all the commissioners were sacked, but as they all had immunity from prosicution none were tried

OH MY GOD! POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT! *gasps...faints*:eek: :eek: :eek:

So then reform the EU. Whining about how "imperfect" it is is really irritating unless you have a way of changing things. I cannot stand whingers. Maybe if the UK contributed a little more to fixing the EU and whined a little less, it'd be taken more seriously.

How can we reform something that will not be reformed. At no time since the french No to a EU Constitution, has the EU been up for discussion.

And it appears less and less in the press, those that are worried have no one or no where to turn to.

OH MY GOD! POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT! *gasps...faints*:eek: :eek: :eek:

Ah but the theiving ones in our own country e get to sack after a few years, the EU ones we cannot get rid of

Ah but the theiving ones in our own country e get to sack after a few years, the EU ones we cannot get rid of

Ahem.... who puts them in Europe in the first place?

In 2002 a Dr Called Vernon Coleman wrote a book called "England our England", it does have some real insights into the workings of the EU

How can we reform something that will not be reformed. At no time since the french No to a EU Constitution, has the EU been up for discussion.

And it appears less and less in the press, those that are worried have no one or no where to turn to.
The Austrian government plans on fixing that.

Well thats just it who put the commision in place?

The Austrian government plans on fixing that.


any info would be appreciated ????

any info would be appreciated ????
A priority of the government's presidency of the EU is to revive debate on the Constitution and get the public involved. I believe it wants to find out why it failed and how it can fix it. It should be on bbc.co.uk.

By the way, Britain could have raised the issue under its presidency. It had the opportunity. I know the budget dominated its concerns, but still...

A priority of the government's presidency of the EU is to revive debate on the Constitution and get the public involved. I believe it wants to find out why it failed and how it can fix it. It should be on bbc.co.uk

Oh you mean Blairs Biased Corporation?? lol

Oh you mean Blairs Biased Corporation?? lol
Then check the Austrian government's website. Or the EU's website. It should have info.

Well thats just it who put the commision in place?

Take a wild guess.... I think you'll find its not big business, Commies, Zionist conspiracy theorists, Space Badgers....

To much of what is being proposed looks like a restriction of freedom

To much of what is being proposed looks like a restriction of freedom
How so?

How so?


Loss of the right Trial by Jury, the preumption of innocence till proven guilty,

Loss of the right Trial by Jury, the preumption of innocence till proven guilty,
Being a student of the UK legal system, I can tell you that those are the last things that should be bothering you.

Most of our freedome were gained by the magna carta and the Bill of Rights, the EU Charter overrides these, with the follwing clause.... the eu may limit all rights and freedoms,...in order to meet objectives of the EU

Loss of the right Trial by Jury, the preumption of innocence till proven guilty,
You do know that European law differs in no real way from British law in those basic tenants right? I mean the highest court Britain subscribes to is in Europe!

Most of our freedome were gained by the magna carta and the Bill of Rights, the EU Charter overrides these, with the follwing clause.... the eu may limit all rights and freedoms,...in order to meet objectives of the EU
Okay, now to enlighten you. All UK Statutes can be repealed by Parliament. None are entrenched. The UK is a system of negative rights, ie anything Parliament does not outlaw is legal. The principle of not binding any future Parliament by acts of a previous Parliament mean it can revoke ANY right of a citizen. EU Charters actually protect individual rights. Read up on the European Convention of Human Rights.

Mixed feelings about the EU myself. The single market is a good idea, just as they don't go too far with liberal, unrestricted free marketeering. I like the European social economic model. I also think Europe should protect its manufacturing base so that it doesn't become overly reliant on the service sector like Britain has become. I also agree with an agricultural policy that works in favour of small farms (Though often under the CAP a lot of that money goes to rich landowners and agribusinesses). I also don't mind giving money to poorer EU states in order to help develop their infastructure. I've got no objection to spending money to help fellow Europeans, particularly in ways that will also help us in the long term.

But the EU is bad in a lot of areas. It has no respect for national sovereignty. I accept that we have to cooperate in areas such as trade and the environment, but the EU often pokes its nose into areas of law that's effects don't extend into other countries. That sort of micromanagement and meddling is unnecessary.

Turkey should never, under any circumstances be admitted into the EU. A muslim country would cause chaos in Europe, particularly with all the immigration it would inevitabley bring. I also fear that the EU would push a multiculturalist agenda and force countries into admitting immigrants who take backward cultural practices with them, particularly from muslim countries.

But the EU is bad in a lot of areas. It has no respect for national sovereignty. I accept that we have to cooperate in areas such as trade and the environment, but the EU often pokes its nose into areas of law that's effects don't extend into other countries. That sort of micromanagement and meddling is unnecessary.
Seeing as it aims to be a supranational confederation, this is well within its power, so long as its constituent members agree to ceding their power over. I am all for a confederal EU superpower.

Turkey should never, under any circumstances be admitted into the EU. A muslim country would cause chaos in Europe, particularly with all the immigration it would inevitabley bring. I also fear that the EU would push a multiculturalist agenda and force countries into admitting immigrants who take backward cultural practices with them, particularly from muslim countries.
I agree completely. We have enough problems as it is. Turkey would only aggravate them. Its not a European country, its not economically fit to join the EU, and the EU is already having problems with Muslims within the EU. Plus, majorities in large EU countries, like Germany, Austria, France and the Netherlands do not want it in. The EU should, in this regard, listen to its citizens. Greed should not blind us.

Turkey should never, under any circumstances be admitted into the EU. A muslim country would cause chaos in Europe, particularly with all the immigration it would inevitabley bring. I also fear that the EU would push a multiculturalist agenda and force countries into admitting immigrants who take backward cultural practices with them, particularly from muslim countries.

*whispers* They're already here

Look at Germany; a large Turkish population is there already- France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. What difference would not letting Turkey in make now? :confused:

*whispers* They're already here

Look at Germany; a large Turkish population is there already- France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. What difference would not letting Turkey in make now? :confused:

I always love watching Europe fall all over itself when it comes to racism....

*whispers* They're already here

Look at Germany; a large Turkish population is there already- France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. What difference would not letting Turkey in make now? :confused:
A huge one. Their populations may be large, but when compared to the impact of allowing Turkey in, well that blows it out of all proportion. It would only aggravate problems in these countries. Another good reason not to let it in. The fact that Turkey refuses to recognise an EU member, well...that speaks for itself.

I always love watching Europe fall all over itself when it comes to racism....
The EU has the right to select its members. It is the EUROPEAN Union, not an open club that any nation in the world can join. Turkey is hardly European. And being realistic, seeing as there is a problem with immigrant populations as it is, should we really be worsening it? Oh and by the way, although this may be a cliche, when is the USA opening itself to Mexico? :rolleyes:

A huge one. Their populations may be large, but when compared to the impact of allowing Turkey in, well that blows it out of all proportion. It would only aggravate problems in these countries. Another good reason not to let it in.

Personally, I don't care if Turkey is Muslim, Buddhist or worshipps the Sun- I'm more concerned with their human rights record, the Cyprus situation and their high levels of poverty ( not the mention the influence of the military in govt affairs ).

Personally, I don't care if Turkey is Muslim, Buddhist or worshipps the Sun- I'm more concerned with their human rights record, the Cyprus situation and their high levels of poverty ( not the mention the influence of the military in govt affairs ).
The concern with them being Muslim is that many Turks still espouse hardcore Muslim beliefs, like stoning a woman who commits adultery. Plus, Muslim integration in EU countries hasn't been going well. Those reasons you mention worry me equally though. And the fact that the majority of EU citizens says no, well that should speak for itself.

The EU has the right to select its members. It is the EUROPEAN Union, not an open club that any nation in the world can join. Turkey is hardly European. And being realistic, seeing as there is a problem with immigrant populations as it is, should we really be worsening it? Oh and by the way, although this may be a cliche, when is the USA opening itself to Mexico? :rolleyes:

I dunno. Of course, we never invited the Mexicans in, in the first place. They just kinda came. Unlike the Muslims in France and Germany who were asked to come....

And, in all honesty, Turkey is borderline European. In fact, part of Turkey is on the European continent. Kinda like Russia... only Turkey wants to join the EU.

Oh, and to answer your cliche: We'll open our border up to Mexico when we form the NAU. And then to the rest of the Americas when we create the AU.

And the fact that the majority of EU citizens says no, well that should speak for itself.
Exactly right. But I only hope that if the people of Europe do say 'No'- it is because of the items I mentioned and not merely because they are Muslim
:(
I think we are better than that these days.. or at least I hope we are.

I dunno. Of course, we never invited the Mexicans in, in the first place. They just kinda came. Unlike the Muslims in France and Germany who were asked to come....

And, in all honesty, Turkey is borderline European. In fact, part of Turkey is on the European continent. Kinda like Russia... only Turkey wants to join the EU.

Oh, and to answer your cliche: We'll open our border up to Mexico when we form the NAU. And then to the rest of the Americas when we create the AU.
Ummm so should we also say Algeria is borderline EU? Or Morocco? Geography is not the key issue here. Russia has a European culture, has a language based on Cyrillic and many Russians are Christians, like EU citizens. Russia is essentially European. And, even though it matters little, it occupies a large piece of Europe. Now, if it doesn't want to join, well then that's its prerogative. We are not open to every nation in the world simply because its nearby us. Plus, Turkey isn't exactly popular over here, not in Eastern Europe, not in Southern Europe and most definitely not in areas of Western Europe. The Ottoman Empire left many with a bad taste in the mouth.

I want to see the USA actually inviting Mexico to join.

*whispers* They're already here

Look at Germany; a large Turkish population is there already- France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. What difference would not letting Turkey in make now? :confused:
Yeah, France and Germany have large muslim populations and hasn't it been a wonderful success? Huge crime rates in areas with large Turkish populations in Germany. Same situation in France, only worse. The riots are testament to that. And I used to live in a town with a large muslim population and saw first hand the damage that they did to the town. Multicultural harmony at its finest I suppose?

I'm fully aware they're already here, but the last thing I want to do is make a bad situation worse.

I'm fully aware they're already here, but the last thing I want to do is make a bad situation worse.
Exactly. Rubbing salt into the wound is not a good idea right now.

Exactly right. But I only hope that if the people of Europe do say 'No'- it is because of the items I mentioned and not merely because they are Muslim
:(
I think we are better than that these days.. or at least I hope we are.
Well, if its put to Referendum in most EU countries (France has promised its citizens one), I don't think Turkey has a very good chance of entry.

Ummm so should we also say Algeria is borderline EU? Or Morocco? Geography is not the key issue here. Russia has a European culture, has a language based on Cyrillic and many Russians are Christians, like EU citizens. Russia is essentially European. Now, if it doesn't want to join, well then that's its prerogative. We are not open to every nation in the world simply because its nearby us.

I want to see the USA actually inviting Mexico to join.

If an NAU is ever formed, I'll personally send every single Mexican citizen an engraved invitation--not that they'd need it.

Of course, if we're going to use language as a basis, then I guess the only "Union" Turkey would belong in would be a Japanese Union, but I don't see that happening. If you're going to base it off of culture, then Turkey would belong with Mongolia or by itself.

However, you did say that it was a European Union. And Turkey is as much part of Europe as Russia is.

But you're right. Europe doesn't have to associate with heathen nations if it doesn't want to, nor must it be friends with the kid who doesn't really fit in anywhere. Especially given that you're the ones who birthed it in the first place.

Yeah, France and Germany have large muslim populations and hasn't it been a wonderful success? Huge crime rates in areas with large Turkish populations in Germany.
Stats to back that up?

Same situation in France, only worse. The riots are testament to that.
Gross misrepresentation of the facts. While it is true the riots occured in areas of high immigrant residency, they were not led by, inspired by nor orchestrated by Muslims or Muslim leaders.

It was in fact (proven) a reactionary response to a build up of long term malaise amongst dissaffected youth in the banelieu's- no job opportunities, endemic rascism and a general attitude that they had 'fallen through the cracks of society'.


I'm fully aware they're already here, but the last thing I want to do is make a bad situation worse.

Reminded of a notice: No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish.

The names change, the sentiment remains.

Yeah, France and Germany have large muslim populations and hasn't it been a wonderful success? Huge crime rates in areas with large Turkish populations in Germany. Same situation in France, only worse. The riots are testament to that. And I used to live in a town with a large muslim population and saw first hand the damage that they did to the town. Multicultural harmony at its finest I suppose?

I'm fully aware they're already here, but the last thing I want to do is make a bad situation worse.

It would help if France gave their Muslims job opprotunities and stopped discriminating against them in public schools.

It would help if Germany finally granted their Muslims citizenship. How many generations have been born there that have yet to recieve citizenship? Two? Three?

If an NAU is ever formed, I'll personally send every single Mexican citizen an engraved invitation--not that they'd need it.

Of course, if we're going to use language as a basis, then I guess the only "Union" Turkey would belong in would be a Japanese Union, but I don't see that happening. If you're going to base it off of culture, then Turkey would belong with Mongolia or by itself.

However, you did say that it was a European Union. And Turkey is as much part of Europe as Russia is.

But you're right. Europe doesn't have to associate with heathen nations if it doesn't want to, nor must it be friends with the kid who doesn't really fit in anywhere. Especially given that you're the ones who birthed it in the first place.
Language is a powerful basis for determining a cultural link. Furthermore, the European Union is both about geography AND culture. Just being near Europe doesn't make you European. Culture is equally, if not more important. If Turkey wants a club to join, why not try the Arab League?

And yes, given that we created the EU, we get to say who joins or not.

Language is a powerful basis for determining a cultural link. Furthermore, the European Union is both about geography AND culture. Just being near Europe doesn't make you European. Culture is equally, if not more important. If Turkey wants a club to join, why not try the Arab League?

And yes, given that we created the EU, we get to say who joins or not.

Because Turks aren't Arabs.

It would help if France gave their Muslims job opprotunities and stopped discriminating against them in public schools.

It would help if Germany finally granted their Muslims citizenship. How many generations have been born there that have yet to recieve citizenship? Two? Three?
The thing is allowing a huge influx of Muslims right now into the EU is not going to help fix things, now is it? If anything, it'll exacerbate them.

Because Turks aren't Arabs.
They share a common religion though, and their cultures are more similar than say Turkey is to the EU. In any case, I'd have no problem with Turkey being given preferential trade deals and privileged partnership. Just not full membership.

Stats to back that up?

I don't have stats. But saying that I need statistics to prove that areas with a high muslim population are filled with crime is like asking me for statistics that prove pigeons are commonplace in towns or that you find a lot of clouds in the sky. It's plain to see.

Gross misrepresentation of the facts. While it is true the riots occured in areas of high immigrant residency, they were not led by, inspired by nor orchestrated by Muslims or Muslim leaders.

It was in fact (proven) a reactionary response to a build up of long term malaise amongst dissaffected youth in the banelieu's- no job opportunities, endemic rascism and a general attitude that they had 'fallen through the cracks of society'.

Yep, cue the mournful violin music now. A lot of people have lived in difficult circumstances, my family included. We didn't lower ourselves to their level and there's no excuse for them to. I realise that it wasn't directly caused by the muslim clerics, but it's part of their community's culture. A "We're taking over and expect the rest of society to bend over backwards for us" kind of attitude.

Yep, cue the mournful violin music now. A lot of people have lived in difficult circumstances, my family included. We didn't lower ourselves to their level and there's no excuse for them to. I realise that it wasn't directly caused by the muslim clerics, but it's part of their community's culture. A "We're taking over and expect the rest of society to bend over backwards for us" kind of attitude.
Here I agree. Armed uprisings of this sort are counter-productive and prove to be of little use. Thuggish behaviour is by no means excusable, and I doubt this will yield any positive results...if anything, it'll do the opposite.

I don't have stats. But saying that I need statistics to prove that areas with a high muslim population are filled with crime is like asking me for statistics that prove pigeons are commonplace in towns or that you find a lot of clouds in the sky. It's plain to see.
Oh really?
Nice. High Muslim population= High crime rate.

Not rascist, unfounded, stereotypical or bigoted at all. :rolleyes:



Yep, cue the mournful violin music now. A lot of people have lived in difficult circumstances, my family included. We didn't lower ourselves to their level and there's no excuse for them to. I realise that it wasn't directly caused by the muslim clerics, but it's part of their community's culture. A "We're taking over and expect the rest of society to bend over backwards for us" kind of attitude.

Again wrong. The unusual and unique situation in France is they welcome immigrants into their country- on the basis that they become 'French' in their mindset. They are French-Muslims, not merely Muslims living in France. This could be seen quite clearly when the two French journalists were kidnapped in Iraq and the kidnappers demanded an overhaul of the ban on the headscarf in French public schools.

Result? The French Muslim population took to the streets in an outpouring of French nationalism and Franco-Muslim pride AGAINST THE KIDNAPPERS.

Not the attitude you falsely portray.

As for Turkey, I don't believe all this "They are not our culture!"-crap. Italy is hardly British culture either, nor is Poland.

The problem is more of a practical nature: Before the way agricultural spending is being organised isn't changed, there is no way they could join. They'd receive billions.
Secondly, their human rights record sucks. I wouldn't want to go into a Turkish jail, nor would I want to protest for women's rights there.
Thirdly, sadly, a lot of xenophobes don't want Turkey to join for "cultural", or religious reasons. Having Turkey join would piss them off, and make them dislike the EU even more.
And as a final note: Turkey would have huge voting power in the EU, and personally I'm not a fan of their pro-US policy in the middle east.

Here I agree. Armed uprisings of this sort are counter-productive and prove to be of little use. Thuggish behaviour is by no means excusable, and I doubt this will yield any positive results...if anything, it'll do the opposite.
While I was not defending the actions of the rioters by any means- I was merely pointing out WHY they rioted.

I agree with your above sentiments.

As for Turkey, I don't believe all this "They are not our culture!"-crap. Italy is hardly British culture either, nor is Poland.

The problem is more of a practical nature: Before the way agricultural spending is being organised isn't changed, there is no way they could join. They'd receive billions.
Secondly, their human rights record sucks. I wouldn't want to go into a Turkish jail, nor would I want to protest for women's rights there.
Thirdly, sadly, a lot of xenophobes don't want Turkey to join for "cultural", or religious reasons. Having Turkey join would piss them off, and make them dislike the EU even more.
And as a final note: Turkey would have huge voting power in the EU, and personally I'm not a fan of their pro-US policy in the middle east.

Thank you Neu Leonstein. Someone else who doesn't base their political choices on religion. :)

As for Turkey, I don't believe all this "They are not our culture!"-crap. Italy is hardly British culture either, nor is Poland.

The problem is more of a practical nature: Before the way agricultural spending is being organised isn't changed, there is no way they could join. They'd receive billions.
Secondly, their human rights record sucks. I wouldn't want to go into a Turkish jail, nor would I want to protest for women's rights there.
Thirdly, sadly, a lot of xenophobes don't want Turkey to join for "cultural", or religious reasons. Having Turkey join would piss them off, and make them dislike the EU even more.
And as a final note: Turkey would have huge voting power in the EU, and personally I'm not a fan of their pro-US policy in the middle east.
Agreed. Although I will maintain my view that they are not of European culture, these concerns are indeed more worrisome. Since the majority of EU citizens would not like the country in, and many are doing what they can already to destroy the EU from within, this is not a clever move. Plus Turkey's role as a trojan horse for the US does not raise it in my esteem. Additionally, non-recognition of an EU member and poor relations with many others further lowers it.

Thank you Neu Leonstein. Someone else who doesn't base their political choices on religion. :)
I am not basing my choices entirely on culture/religion either, yet they do factor for me. Both these and the more practical matters at hand both disenchant me with the idea of letting Turkey in.

I am not basing my choices entirely on culture/religion either, yet they do factor for me. Both these and the more practical matters at hand both disenchant me with the idea of letting Turkey in.

Don't worry, I didn't mean you. ;) You at least factor in a lot of other things into your reasoning.

Again wrong. The unusual and unique situation in France is they welcome immigrants into their country- on the basis that they become 'French' in their mindset. They are French-Muslims, not merely Muslims living in France. This could be seen quite clearly when the two French journalists were kidnapped in Iraq and the kidnappers demanded an overhaul of the ban on the headscarf in French public schools.

Result? The French Muslim population took to the streets in an outpouring of French nationalism and Franco-Muslim pride AGAINST THE KIDNAPPERS.

Not the attitude you falsely portray.
Yeah, but the whole idea of making muslims French is laughable. The type of islam that's growing in France is the more extreme Saudi-backed varieties. Hardly French in outlook. As for the journalists, the muslims were only campaigning to save face and make themselves look good in the press. I bet they'd have been secretly celebrating if they were executed.

Here I agree. Armed uprisings of this sort are counter-productive and prove to be of little use. Thuggish behaviour is by no means excusable, and I doubt this will yield any positive results...if anything, it'll do the opposite.
I think in this case the riots have been very successful for French muslims. The French government capitulated. They forced the police to treat the rioters with kid gloves when they should have just shot them like they did with Algerian rioters in '62. And after the riots they announced a raft of measures to try and plead with them not riot riot again. All at the French taxpayers expense no doubt.

Riots can work and have often worked. But only if a government is weak and immediately gives into the rioters demands.

As for Turkey, I don't believe all this "They are not our culture!"-crap. Italy is hardly British culture either, nor is Poland.

The problem is more of a practical nature: Before the way agricultural spending is being organised isn't changed, there is no way they could join. They'd receive billions.
Secondly, their human rights record sucks. I wouldn't want to go into a Turkish jail, nor would I want to protest for women's rights there.
Thirdly, sadly, a lot of xenophobes don't want Turkey to join for "cultural", or religious reasons. Having Turkey join would piss them off, and make them dislike the EU even more.
And as a final note: Turkey would have huge voting power in the EU, and personally I'm not a fan of their pro-US policy in the middle east.
Yes, there are big cultural differences between countries like Britain and Italy. But the differences are that Italians don't want to swarm into this country, take us over and end up trying to impose a foreign way of life on us. The cultural differences are far less vast. Lets face it, Turkey is as European as I am Eskimo. As for their human rights record, not my concern. Their country, their problem.

Multiculturalism is the future (or there may be no future), and if that come at the price of nationhood, we may have to pay it.

ever read George Orwell's _1984_? :)

I think in this case the riots have been very successful for French muslims. The French government capitulated. They forced the police to treat the rioters with kid gloves when they should have just shot them like they did with Algerian rioters in '62. And after the riots they announced a raft of measures to try and plead with them not riot riot again. All at the French taxpayers expense no doubt.

Riots can work and have often worked. But only if a government is weak and immediately gives into the rioters demands.

Yet Sarkozy's and Mr Le Pen's popularity as staunch authoritarians has risen. And de Villepin has become increasingly worried. All three are potential presidential candidates. How will this help the rioters at all?

Yes, there are big cultural differences between countries like Britain and Italy. But the differences are that Italians don't want to swarm into this country, take us over and end up trying to impose a foreign way of life on us. The cultural differences are far less vast. Lets face it, Turkey is as European as I am Eskimo. As for their human rights record, not my concern. Their country, their problem.
Now, although I dislike Turkey, I find this a tad bit exaggerated. I doubt Turks will just rush into EU countries. And while I agree with you on the cultural issue, the human rights record is far more significant. It shows that they are not committed to EU values. The EU places huge value on the importance of HR.

They share a common religion though, and their cultures are more similar than say Turkey is to the EU. In any case, I'd have no problem with Turkey being given preferential trade deals and privileged partnership. Just not full membership.

Yeah. You share a common religion with genocidal Africans. I don't see you screaming about how compatible your two cultures are.

Yeah, but the whole idea of making muslims French is laughable. The type of islam that's growing in France is the more extreme Saudi-backed varieties. Hardly French in outlook. As for the journalists, the muslims were only campaigning to save face and make themselves loom good in the press. I bet they'd have been secretly celebrating if they were executed.

Absolute shite.

All opinion, no proof, flagrant rascism and idiotic theorising.

Wait... you don't work for the BNP do you?

But the differences are that Italians don't want to swarm into this country, take us over and end up trying to impose a foreign way of life on us.
They already are in Germany. And they have not tried to impose anything or take anyone over.

Oh, and while we're at it...are you aware of the time Germany let in Italian Guestworkers? Sweet, sweet irony, isn't it?

As for Turkey, I don't believe all this "They are not our culture!"-crap. Italy is hardly British culture either, nor is Poland.

The problem is more of a practical nature: Before the way agricultural spending is being organised isn't changed, there is no way they could join. They'd receive billions.
Secondly, their human rights record sucks. I wouldn't want to go into a Turkish jail, nor would I want to protest for women's rights there.
Thirdly, sadly, a lot of xenophobes don't want Turkey to join for "cultural", or religious reasons. Having Turkey join would piss them off, and make them dislike the EU even more.
And as a final note: Turkey would have huge voting power in the EU, and personally I'm not a fan of their pro-US policy in the middle east.

You put into words what I was meaning to say a thousand times more eloquently than I could have.

Absolute shite.

All opinion, no proof, flagrant rascism and idiotic theorising.

Wait... you don't work for the BNP do you?

France sucks. :p

Which wouldn't be so bad if it weren't true!

Yeah. You share a common religion with genocidal Africans. I don't see you screaming about how compatible your two cultures are.
Many Turks agree with hardcore Islamic beliefs, as do many Arabs. This adversely impacts their cultures. They are closer, say, to the Arab Emirates than they are to the EU.

Many Turks agree with hardcore Islamic beliefs, as do many Arabs. This adversely impacts their cultures. They are closer, say, to the Arab Emirates than they are to the EU.

Allow me to put it thus:

If the Arabs can't even get along with each other, what hope would the Turks have?

The Turkic brands of Islam also much more centrist than any Arab nation's.

Put simply, the Arabs and the Turks get along about as well as the Japanese and the Chinese. Which is to say, not at all.

Yet Sarkozy's and Mr Le Pen's popularity as staunch authoritarians has risen. And de Villepin has become increasingly worried. All three are potential presidential candidates. How will this help the rioters at all?
Sarkozy showed promise initally during the riots, but later on into the unrest he was sidelined. It seemed like when the more spineless elements in the French governments heard Sarkozy's 'scum' comments they thought "Oh no we anooyed the rioters". It was those spineless elements that later tried to beg them into stopping the rioting, when all that was needed was a firm hand.

They already are in Germany. And they have not tried to impose anything or take anyone over.
Only because there aren't enough of them. Yet.

Many Turks agree with hardcore Islamic beliefs, as do many Arabs. This adversely impacts their cultures. They are closer, say, to the Arab Emirates than they are to the EU.
Very true, just look at the guy they elected. He's an islamist masquerading as a democrat. He has a past in islamist politics and was jailed for reciting an islamist poem at a political rally. The only reason Turkey doesn't go islamic republic on us is because of the military influence in the government. Ironically, it's the EU that wants this military influence reduced as a condition of joining the EU!

Absolute shite.

All opinion, no proof, flagrant rascism and idiotic theorising.

Wait... you don't work for the BNP do you?
I'm not in the BNP. And I'm not racist. Islam is a religion, not a race. Race has never been an issue for me.

Allow me to put it thus:

If the Arabs can't even get along with each other, what hope would the Turks have?

The Turkic brands of Islam also much more centrist than any Arab nation's.

Put simply, the Arabs and the Turks get along about as well as the Japanese and the Chinese. Which is to say, not at all.
Be that as it may, why can it not contend with an economic alliance with Europe? We don't want it in, fine. We are willing to give it preferential trade deals though. Its all or nothing attitude might end up giving it absolutely nothing.

Sarkozy showed promise initally during the riots, but later on into the unrest he was sidelined. It seemed like when the more spineless elements in the French governments heard Sarkozy's 'scum' comments they thought "Oh no we anooyed the rioters". It was those spineless elements that later tried to beg them into stopping the rioting, when all that was needed was a firm hand.
It has nevertheless turned public opinion against them and bolstered the Right's efforts in vilifying them.


Very true, just look at the guy they elected. He's an islamist masquerading as a democrat. He has a past in islamist politics and was jailed for reciting an islamist poem at a political rally. The only reason Turkey doesn't go islamic republic on us is because of the military influence in the government. Ironically, it's the EU that wants this military influence reduced as a condition of joining the EU!
I don't see Turkey changing much. And its American affiliations make me like it even less.

Only because there aren't enough of them. Yet.
How does a third of the population in some cities sound? :rolleyes:

At more than 30 percent (1995) of its population, Frankfurt am Main reports the largest proportion of foreign nationale in the country, followed by Stuttgart with more than 24 percent and Munich at just under 24 percent.
http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/foreigners_in_germany__facts_a.html

Be that as it may, why can it not contend with an economic alliance with Europe? We don't want it in, fine. We are willing to give it preferential trade deals though. Its all or nothing attitude might end up giving it absolutely nothing.

It might be bluffing. Besides, you should relish the opprotunity to civilize those poor heathens. ;)

How does a third of the population in some cities sound? :rolleyes:


http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/foreigners_in_germany__facts_a.html

Not enough to actually take over. When they're at this level all they can do is crime. It's only when they become a majority of the entire population, through immigration and higher birth rates that there could be a serious threat of them taking over.

It might be bluffing. Besides, you should relish the opprotunity to civilize those poor heathens. ;)
At arm's bay...they can have an economic alliance, but that is it. No more than that, at least not now.

And btw, a wise country would not bluff with its future. An economic alliance could do Turkey much good. Throwing that away, on the other hand, could lead to its permanent (as in near future) isolation.

At arm's bay...they can have an economic alliance, but that is it. No more than that, at least not now.

And btw, a wise country would not bluff with its future. An economic alliance could do Turkey much good. Throwing that away, on the other hand, could lead to its permanent (as in near future) isolation.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
True, but an economic alliance is a huge gain...and I don't think playing with the future of your citizen's is a very good idea.

Not enough to actually take over. When they're at this level all they can do is crime. It's only when they become a majority of the entire population, through immigration and higher birth rates that there could be a serious threat of them taking over.
Oh please, do you actually believe this?

I have lived in an area of Hamburg that was full of Turks. I'd have guessed that at least every fourth person in Jenfeld is Turkish (but I don't have figures on it).
Was there crime? You bet your sweet ass.
But it was because of poverty and kids who left school too early without ever looking for a job. And most of it was done by German kids. The gangs were mixed, no racism there.
And behold: Most of them couldn't give a shit about Islam either! They were just like us! I have never met a person who actually prayed six times a day, and I have lived around Muslims all my life (my mum teaches middle eastern dance, she's been in that scene for a long time and so I've been around them for much of my childhood).

You have done nothing but point to statistics (or not, you haven't actually bothered with the links) that tell you that poor people commit crime...well, duh!

And as a final note: Turkey would have huge voting power in the EU, and personally I'm not a fan of their pro-US policy in the middle east.

For some reason I'm starting to like Turkey;)

Why are you not a fan of their pro-American foreign policy?
Would you rather them be pro-Arab?

And also, why is this even a factor? Poland sent troops to Iraq, as did England and Italy...so should this be held against them if they were to try to join the EU (were they not already in it, of course)

Why are you not a fan of their pro-American foreign policy?
Would you rather them be pro-Arab?
No, I'd rather them lay off the Kurds.

And also, why is this even a factor? Poland sent troops to Iraq, as did England and Italy...so should this be held against them if they were to try to join the EU (were they not already in it, of course)
No, probably not. Problem is that in a NATO conference a while back, Bush actually said to EU leaders to hurry up with getting Turkey into the EU. So Chirac had to shout him down a peg or two.
For me personally, it is a factor, because the way the US has behaved in the past four years doesn't warrant EU support at all. And to be quite honest, I'd ask nations like Turkey to choose and then stick with it.

No, I'd rather them lay off the Kurds.

No, I meant would you rather Turkey have a pro arab middle eastern foreign policy, or a pro American one?


No, probably not. Problem is that in a NATO conference a while back, Bush actually said to EU leaders to hurry up with getting Turkey into the EU. So Chirac had to shout him down a peg or two.
For me personally, it is a factor, because the way the US has behaved in the past four years doesn't warrant EU support at all. And to be quite honest, I'd ask nations like Turkey to choose and then stick with it.

Well, even though I like Bush, I do not agree with him on this. I dont beleive Turkey belongs in the EU, though I am glad they support us in the middle east.

And by the way....America has shown model behavior the last four years, lol...I dont know what your talking about.

No, I meant would you rather Turkey have a pro arab middle eastern foreign policy, or a pro American one?
Can't they do both?
The EU manages to do both...I don't see why you think one has to take sides. And besides, I don't think America should even be a party in the Middle East. They've got no business being involved down there.

And by the way....America has shown model behavior the last four years, lol...I dont know what your talking about.
Hmm...

The scary thing with you is that I can't even be sure you're really being sarcastic.

Can't they do both?
The EU manages to do both...I don't see why you think one has to take sides. And besides, I don't think America should even be a party in the Middle East. They've got no business being involved down there.

No, I dont think you can take both sides. I think you can either, stay out of the whole conflict...which seems to me like what Europe has been trying to do up until this Iranian son of a bitch came on to the state, or you can jump into the conflict, only on one side. Of course America should be a party there, we support Israel and Israel is damn happy for it. Just like what we wer talking about with Taiwan, only to a more extreamity with Israel. That area is our business, because we are the good ones fighting crack pot dictatorships and terrorist regimes.


Hmm...

The scary thing with you is that I can't even be sure you're really being sarcastic.

Lol, a little bit of both, actually. I, along with half of my country, think we are doing the right thing, but I am aware that most of the world doesnt, so to them we havnt shown model behavior. I mean its obvious we are not exactly winning any popularity contests, but I think to us this is more than that, we know who our true friends are, and we do whats right, regardless of what European Beurocrats say. Thats my take on it anyway, and I obviously dont expect you to agree, lol. I'm actually kind of hoping you dont agree, because if you did I think I might suffer a mild stroke.

That area is our business, because we are the good ones fighting crack pot dictatorships and terrorist regimes.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/uzbek060303.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4342928.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4562899.stm

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/uzbek060303.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4342928.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4562899.stm

So are you saying this is our fault?

Or are you saying that we should have forseen these things before we gave them a decoration for improvement?

Come on, Germany....what are you trying to say?

Come on, Germany....what are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say that you need to open your eyes: The US has its own interests, and they often have nothing to do with fighting oppression and dictatorships.
Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, not to mention all the South- and Latin Americans over the years, even when the USSR didn't really matter anymore. The US supports dictatorships when they are useful, and they change them when they aren't. No more, no less.

But in the case of Uzbekistan specifically, you're right, Germany is no better. I would've pulled the Bundeswehr out of there and moved the bases into Afghanistan, even if it isn't quite as safe. But apparently, our silly government thought differently.

Yeah, I am quite worried of this too. So for now at least, the EU, the USA, Japan, Canada and Australia better stick close together to ensure that they can face China, as well as the possibility of its alliance with Russia. Maybe eventually Russia will become more Western. Who knows.

I wonder if these "western" nations wiill ever form a higher union like the EU, and when the time comes for a East vs West, Commy vs Capitolism War will Capitalism be enough? But things are looking up with a Conservative government in Canada.

Also are we thinking too far into this? Will Socialism make this great rise to power again, or is it on its way out? Or is capitolism on its way out? I think democracy needs to change or we are in trouble.

I wonder if these "western" nations wiill ever form a higher union like the EU, and when the time comes for a East vs West, Commy vs Capitolism War will Capitalism be enough? But things are looking up with a Conservative government in Canada.

I have no interest what-so-ever in Canadian politics, but I'm curious as to how you figure this. Can you see into the future, or have the Conservatives magically liberated Canada from the Soviet Union?

Also are we thinking too far into this? Will Socialism make this great rise to power again, or is it on its way out? Or is capitolism on its way out? I think democracy needs to change or we are in trouble.

Explain.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]I'm trying to say that you need to open your eyes: The US has its own interests, and they often have nothing to do with fighting oppression and dictatorships.
Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, not to mention all the South- and Latin Americans over the years, even when the USSR didn't really matter anymore. The US supports dictatorships when they are useful, and they change them when they aren't. No more, no less.QUOTE]

Name me one nation that is 100% noble in everything it does. In fact, name me on person that is 100% noble in everything he does. Not even Moses was 100%.

My point is, that while we may not be totally noble in everything we do, we are the most noble in our causes in most everything we do.

European Union: Earth's last best hope against a rampaging america

(and an economy to replace the dollar when it collapses, IF it doesn't screw up and try to immitate america's monetary fanatacism with all this privitization nonsense)

=^^=
.../\...

European Union: Earth's last best hope against a rampaging america

(and an economy to replace the dollar when it collapses, IF it doesn't screw up and try to immitate america's monetary fanatacism with all this privitization nonsense)

=^^=
.../\...

Quit being a socialist and stop flaming.

So I am in an European Politics class..and consequently we are discussing nothing but the EU..Now as of right now, I can say I don't like all of it..but some of the EU is kewl..I love the idea of unity to stop war..and to promote economic equality and so on..However..I get the sense that there is no room for sovergnty(sp), in the sense that at the national level, nations are not able to make important decisions.

you speak as though that were a negative.. The EU was designed that way.. make each nation dependent on one another. Soverginty(sp) is one of the worlds major overlaying causes for war. It is a man made phenomina which has scarely brought any good to this world.. why not phase it out ? Supranational governments tend to be more unifying and inclusive... This is why Europe is now enjoying one of its longest stretches of peace in its history.

you speak as though that were a negative.. The EU was designed that way.. make each nation dependent on one another. Soverginty(sp) is one of the worlds major overlaying causes for war. It is a man made phenomina which has scarely brought any good to this world.. why not phase it out ? Supranational governments tend to be more unifying and inclusive... This is why Europe is now enjoying one of its longest stretches of peace in its history.

lol, 11 years? Jesus thats a long strech. Wow, or wait, do you or do you not consider the Balkins to be part of Europe, because last time I checked, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia were warring until 1995, in what was considered the bloodiest fighting since WWII. But yeah, great stretch...or are the Balkans just not important enough to be included in your "Europe"?:rolleyes:

lol, 11 years? Jesus thats a long strech. Wow, or wait, do you or do you not consider the Balkins to be part of Europe, because last time I checked, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia were warring until 1995, in what was considered the bloodiest fighting since WWII. But yeah, great stretch...or are the Balkans just not important enough to be included in your "Europe"?:rolleyes:
To be fair, I think he/she simply means Europe in the context of the EU. Most of the Balkans are on their way to entering the EU, but this will take time.