Another thread prompted me to start this conversation.
I'm no historian or political expert, so I'm asking for expert opinion. Failing that, ya'll will do just fine.
Regarding acreage and population, the EU is comparable to the USA. If I'm not mistaken, the US was originally organized as a cooperative of 13 independent governments(states in the original definition), each maintaining most of its sovreignty and partnering for defense and trade. Isn't this an acceptable description of the EU, with exception of defense?
The states lost their sovreignty to the federal government less than 100 years after forming, thanks to a very bloody civil war.
I see that the EU has added a presidential post to its governing body. I fear for the individual nations' futures. I see a new melting pot warming up.
Am I wrong? I freely admit my ignorance in this, but you know I grasp stuff pretty quick. *picks nose, looks, flicks *
Some people do think that this is what will eventually develop from the closer Union of EU states, but I reject that analysis, or at least it is a prospect only for the far future. The basic difference between the EU and the US is that the US became one nation from a collection of British colonies, that no matter how different they were shared one basic cultural heritage. Obviously Europe is made up of many ancient nation states, that although all definably European are also culturally too different to be able to create a united political unit in the same way that the US is one definably polity and economic area.
An example is the free movement of people, goods, and services. An example where say a family from Kansas can quite easily move to say Oregon to find work or better prospects without a huge deal of adjustment, whereas a Finish person moving to Portugal or visa versa, or a Greek feeling as at home in Scotland as they are in Greece is obviously something much harder to achieve. There is no getting around that, that's just the way Europe is, its is an extremely culturally diverse area with an ancient multi-faceted civilization of many layers, as anyone from outside Europe who has spent any time traveling around the place will tell you. London is a European City, but so is Athens, and Belgrade, and Kiev, and Lisbon, Moscow, Rome, Vienna, Helsinki, they are all recognizably European, but all quite different in many ways.
Basically Europeans are too different from one another to be able to create a truly unitary state, a loose confederation perhaps, but I think thats about it. Its one of the reasons why the European public get confused when asked to vote on treaty's as its an inherently complicated idea to create a common market and political semi-union of 27 counties with different legal systems, governmental systems, and cultures/languages. Despite these problems, and the reasonable skepticism of people in all European countries in regard to whether this idea can really work in the long term, and some people in Europe who are just hostile to the idea (which is a perfectly valid position) the basic fact is that, so far, the EU has been an extremely successful model in creating a peaceful, economically successful continent out of one that was at war with itself for 1,000 years.
The model that the EU represents is actually a new one, its never been achieved before that a true democratic federation of self-governing states with a common civilization based on shared values and trade. Its an exciting project, and its difficult, there are many problems with it, particularly in balancing the need to make the EU more directly accountable to its people and less complicated, pooling European sovereignty effectively to make sure that the EU is effective in the wider world, without superseding the basic authority of the nation states themselves, its a difficult task, which is why this is a slow, sometimes infuriatingly complex, long-term political and economic project.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My concern comes with the unknown future. As well-meaning as the current powers may be, you don't know who may be in charge in the future or what their agenda may be. I just like my policymakers close to home.
Accountable;769807 wrote: My concern comes with the unknown future. As well-meaning as the current powers may be, you don't know who may be in charge in the future or what their agenda may be. I just like my policymakers close to home.
Isn't pooled sovereignty an oxymoron?
The Future is an undiscovered country accountable, who knows what the 21st century will bring for all of us, I mean Europeans in 1908 would have surveyed the world they had created where they had unparalleled power and riches, and a seeming invincible security and curve of unbroken civilizational progress (a bit like America in 2001). Yet within 10 years the world they knew was gone forever in another European War because of nationalism, and then 20 years after that an even worse second one, that almost destroyed Europe completely and could have plunged it into a dark age of barbarity, we were just lucky. The main lesson of that period was that the 19th century model of competing, highly militarized nation states had become a completely unstable and dangerous one for European (and world) peace.
I think that in dealing with the present and the medium term future we are well aware over here that we are in a world increasingly being dominated by the US and now China, and if we are to have any ability to set our own agenda for Europe, we need to make Europe a stable and prosperous region based not on conquest but on cooperation, both within Europe, and with the other major regions and powers of this world, prinicpally of course, the U.S.
I don't see any really workable alternative for the European continent than the EU, and its worked out pretty well over the past 50 years at maintaining stability and prosperity within its member states, so I as a European am happy to continue with the Union.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
Accountable;769807 wrote: My concern comes with the unknown future. As well-meaning as the current powers may be, you don't know who may be in charge in the future or what their agenda may be. I just like my policymakers close to home.
Isn't pooled sovereignty an oxymoron?
Also, the idea of pooling sovereignty is quite workable and it happens all the time. For example, Britain and America pooled their sovereignty in specific campaign theaters, over their armed forces during the Second World War, (once America had joined the war), and quite successfully as well. The federal models of America and Germany are examples where federal structures have allowed states to pool their sovereignty into a collective whole, in America its been so successful that no one really thinks about how difficult and radical it was at the time when the Colonies first gained independence from Britain. There are innumerable examples where countries have pooled sovereignty over certain areas, or issues, or in war. Of course with the EU you have a much more permanent, and in-depth sharing of sovereignty, so its much more complex and difficult, particularly because unlike the example of the original US, Europeans basic identity is with their country, and being a European comes second to that.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
Accountable;769687 wrote: Another thread prompted me to start this conversation.
I'm no historian or political expert, so I'm asking for expert opinion. Failing that, ya'll will do just fine.
Regarding acreage and population, the EU is comparable to the USA. If I'm not mistaken, the US was originally organized as a cooperative of 13 independent governments(states in the original definition), each maintaining most of its sovreignty and partnering for defense and trade. Isn't this an acceptable description of the EU, with exception of defense?
The states lost their sovreignty to the federal government less than 100 years after forming, thanks to a very bloody civil war.
I see that the EU has added a presidential post to its governing body. I fear for the individual nations' futures. I see a new melting pot warming up.
Am I wrong? I freely admit my ignorance in this, but you know I grasp stuff pretty quick. *picks nose, looks, flicks *
I'm no historian or political expert, so I'm asking for expert opinion. Failing that, ya'll will do just fine.
The thing is in a viable democratic country all opinions are expert. Go in to any bar in europe and you will find an argument about politics going on somewhere.
Galbally says things more eloquently than I and basically i agree with what he's saying.
Smaller states in europe-especially those from the former eastern europe are desperate to join. Not because they see themselves becoming oart of an amorphous eu superstate but because they are proud of their new won independence and want to take things forward and see the eu as something that can help them achieve that. the idea that they would give it up their independence is ludicrous. Even under russian rule they kept their separate identity and national pride basically we are too different to be anything more than a confederation.
On the other hand I can see the ending of nato and the creation of a european defence strategy and a distancing from the US in terms of foreign policy.
Okay I can see you guys' points. I'm getting wrapped around the axel about giving up independence, but I guess the nations are seeing it more as interdependence, which is a higher order of thought. They do have a far richer and deeper history as individual cultures than the US does even now, never mind at 1776 when the union was formed.
The EU will make irradicable changes to Europe and the world. I hope it will be as you see it. I have my doubts.
With (at least in many major U.S. cities) hospitals having people on staff to interpret as many as 18 foreign languages, ballots in many cities for the forthcoming elections in the U.S. being printed in as many as 6 languages, Russian neighborhood enclave within the Capital of California (Sacramento), with it's own Russian newspapers, shops and stores (25,000 population), caucasians being in the minority in California, up to 1,000 illegals being stopped at the borders daily, 40,000 Hmong people relocated in the state of Minn. over recent years, the U.S. is changing, it's ethnicity, it's culture, it's language and it's politics. I am not saying this is good or bad, just that the U.S. will never be what it once was, it may get better, it may get worse, but it sure will never be the same.
Accountable;770026 wrote: Okay I can see you guys' points. I'm getting wrapped around the axel about giving up independence, but I guess the nations are seeing it more as interdependence, which is a higher order of thought. They do have a far richer and deeper history as individual cultures than the US does even now, never mind at 1776 when the union was formed.
The EU will make irradicable changes to Europe and the world. I hope it will be as you see it. I have my doubts.
At least we'll have history.
Why do you have doubts?
We tend to think we are familiar with US culture because we see it all the time in films, news reports etc. plenty have actually visited Though whether it is accurate is a moot point. Americans I think tend to see europe as like the US except with different languages.
I also get an impression (reinforced by this forum actually) that many americans feel detached from their government-like they are all standing at a junction waving at a juggernaut and hoping they will get it to go where they want but are powerless to make it do so.
Europe is different, yes there is an element of the juggernaut but govt can't ignore the people for too long or they get booted out. metaphotrically speaking burst the tyres and force the juggernaut off the road if we have to. The french referendum on the EU constitution treaty was a resounding example. The poles have just voted in a more euro oriented govt and the same is happening in eastern europe. Putin might try and keep a lid on the likes of the Ukraine, might even use economic sanctions but I doubt yo will see Russian troops marching back any time soon. We have thousands of polish and hungarian immigrants where i live, most are young and here to make better life-not the sponging wasters that our more right wing media like to portray. Smaler EU states seem to see the EU as a way of preventing themselves being subsumed by a bigger neighbour. Countries like ireland have done very well out of it, Latvia and Estonia are also booming since joining. The Uk has always done best when it allowed the free flow of ideas in to the place. It works both ways and always has.
We are also more broadly socialist in outlook in that we expect govt to do things for the people to make things better but because we tell them to not some kind of paternalistic nanny state way which is the way americans seem to view it. Rather it's more a you will do this type of attitude. We WANT socialised medicine for instance it's not something our government gets a choice in.
Whereas you seem to have a discussion about whether you have a right to tell your govt what it should be doing rather than about what it should be doing.
At this point I am a bit more optimistic about the future of europe than I am about the US. The world is beginning to pass you by, recent policy decisions mean other countries are taking steps to be less dependant on your economy out of necessity. Telling your allies that they are either with you or against you may impress the home folks but it guarantees a two word response everywhere else. China and Russia are both growing their economies, European companies can more than hold their own in competition with american ones or anyone for that matter and if you go the mercantilist route to deal with your economic woes as some are advocating rather than face up to change than you will lose out.
Europan history is one of interminable warfare. For the moment we have stopped trying to kill each other. That's an improvement, we've also had seismic social change in the past and survived so it's hard to be pessimistic. The only concern I have is the anti european sentiment amongst some of our politicians. I find it incredibly negative and short sighted.
So back to the initial question. Why the doubts? I suspect your doubts are due to your pessimism about the US rather than Europe.
My pessimism stems from long history of human tendency to abuse power when they are remote, nothing more. So long as Europe keeps the EU in check as you have done with the UK gov't lately, you'll be okay.
As for your analysis of the US, I really think it will do us a tremendous good, culturally, if other nations would stop allowing us to make them dependent. I'm baffled when I think of strong nations that allow a permanent US military presence, unless we are there as hired guns -- cheaper to spend our blood than their own. I don't like being thought of as mercenary, thug, or bouncer.
Jester;771274 wrote: Toss'n my buffalo nickel in here....
Do you think we lost our state rights during the civil war Acc? I think we diffinetly jumped a fer peice then but I think it started drifitng away with the idea of manifest destiny, we quit thinkin like individual colonies and started thinking in the greedy collective. I suppose its all in the way ya look at it.
Here's a question and maybe thread drift too but I think there is enough regional differences now that a state or two could try to abolish ties with the Union, I doubt that the feds coudl or would stomach a fight for it and I bet a state with a large economy coud theoretically do it.
If say Texas drifted, would you stay and see what comes of the government?
If CA left the union Id sell everything and move, no way I'd stay in liberal land without the feds.Something truly radical would have to take place for secession to be a serious consideration here. I'd have to save my answer for when that happens, because it might mean that America had stopped being "American," in spirit, I mean.
Accountable;771353 wrote: Something truly radical would have to take place for secession to be a serious consideration here. I'd have to save my answer for when that happens, because it might mean that America had stopped being "American," in spirit, I mean.
gmc;771974 wrote: How would you define "being" american?
That's tough, but I expect it's very similar to "being" Scottish. Fierce pride in our accomplishments and identity, valuing the freedoms, struggles, and triumphs of the individual. Helping my fellow man without making him subservient. That's just quick & off the top of my head.
The mixed blessing of being American is that everybody makes his own definition. The general consensus seems to be changing. Looking online, we have fractured and now have opposing definitions.
Some seem to think that being American is securing our own freedom and security at all costs, even if it means risking, restricting, or eliminating the freedom and security of other nations. They forget that this is the attitude held by the kings of old and that our forefathers fought to free themselves of that yoke.
Others seem to think that being American means government taking care of everyone because a few can't take care of themselves. They seem to want freedom from responsibility, and are willing to forfeit all other freedom to get it. They forget that this nation was created out of the desire to have self-determination, for each person to be able to stand or fall on his own effort because the effort is as important as the result.
Jester;772155 wrote: Interesting concept on being 'American'...
I'm American mostly because its my birthright, I was born on my fathers land, and the same land has been in my families name and at one time fought over in range wars. The most recent wars have been legal ones over mineral/water rights.
America is land to two concepts that are the basis for my personal beliefs, freedom of religion and my own freedom to secure my family. (which im sure one could argue I have anyway, anywhere I go) but here, for the most part my government supports those ideas.
My particular problem with Government currently is that its doesnt do enough to punish the guilty and goes overboard to protect the rights of the guilty at the expense of the innocent/victim, but thats a lengthy explaination.
I hear you Jester.
Everybody wanna be a balla, bot nobody wanna be a shot calla. lol. Go on pimp.
Accountable;769687 wrote: Another thread prompted me to start this conversation.
I'm no historian or political expert, so I'm asking for expert opinion. Failing that, ya'll will do just fine.
Regarding acreage and population, the EU is comparable to the USA. If I'm not mistaken, the US was originally organized as a cooperative of 13 independent governments(states in the original definition), each maintaining most of its sovreignty and partnering for defense and trade. Isn't this an acceptable description of the EU, with exception of defense?
The states lost their sovreignty to the federal government less than 100 years after forming, thanks to a very bloody civil war.
I see that the EU has added a presidential post to its governing body. I fear for the individual nations' futures. I see a new melting pot warming up.
Am I wrong? I freely admit my ignorance in this, but you know I grasp stuff pretty quick. *picks nose, looks, flicks * You are not wrong this is exactly what the eu wants one major european state to rival ammerica and the chinnesse, This is serious bad news as the french and germans can't help themselves they have to go for world dommination. We must all work to stop this Britain must pull out of the eu and the commonwealth will follow us to form a stabalising block, america will never attack us as an independent soveriegn state they would however if we had been absorbed into a greater europe.
twizzel;772304 wrote: You are not wrong this is exactly what the eu wants one major european state to rival ammerica and the chinnesse, This is serious bad news as the french and germans can't help themselves they have to go for world dommination. We must all work to stop this Britain must pull out of the eu and the commonwealth will follow us to form a stabalising block, america will never attack us as an independent soveriegn state they would however if we had been absorbed into a greater europe.
I seriously have no idea where you are coming from
Twizzle, I seriously don't think America is going to attack Britain or any other European state any day soon whether Britain remains in the EU or not. I also have to say if you think France and Germany are going to attempt world domination via the EU somehow, well erm, I think you may need to lie down in a dark room you are overtired. The last one about the Commonwealth nations becoming the world's latest global powerblock, that's probably the most delusional one of all, but it did give me a good laugh.
I think basically what your saying is that you wish the Empire was back and jolly English fellows with mustaches and top hats were in charge, that all these horrible foreign chaps would realize it, and basically that it was 1869 again. Unfortunately if you look out your window you will find that time has moved on somewhat, and its now February 2008, Britain is still an important country, but not quite the centre of the universe it once was, also it is not actually at war with either France or Germany, in fact you are all allies now, and have been for about 50 years, China is now the workshop of the world, those damn colonials in America are now the global superpower, and unfortunately its not possible to make the fuzzy wuzzy's toe the line with gun boats and supercilious attitudes some of them even have guns, so it would be better to come up with a more realistic outlook of the world, Europe, and Britain's place in the grand scheme of things.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
Galbally;772421 wrote: Twizzle, I seriously don't think America is going to attack Britain or any other European state any day soon whether Britain remains in the EU or not. I also have to say if you think France and Germany are going to attempt world domination via the EU somehow, well erm, I think you may need to lie down in a dark room you are overtired. The last one about the Commonwealth nations becoming the world's latest global powerblock, that's probably the most delusional one of all, but it did give me a good laugh.
I think basically what your saying is that you wish the Empire was back and jolly English fellows with mustaches and top hats were in charge, that all these horrible foreign chaps would realize it, and basically that it was 1869 again. Unfortunately if you look out your window you will find that time has moved on somewhat, and its now February 2008, Britain is still an important country, but not quite the centre of the universe it once was, also it is not actually at war with either France or Germany, in fact you are all allies now, and have been for about 50 years, China is now the workshop of the world, those damn colonials in America are now the global superpower, and unfortunately its not possible to make the fuzzy wuzzy's toe the line with gun boats and supercilious attitudes some of them even have guns, so it would be better to come up with a more realistic outlook of the world, Europe, and Britain's place in the grand scheme of things.
Nicely said - I'm glad you could see the "thinking" behind the post.
Jester;772155 wrote: Interesting concept on being 'American'...
I'm American mostly because its my birthright, I was born on my fathers land, and the same land has been in my families name and at one time fought over in range wars. The most recent wars have been legal ones over mineral/water rights.
America is land to two concepts that are the basis for my personal beliefs, freedom of religion and my own freedom to secure my family. (which im sure one could argue I have anyway, anywhere I go) but here, for the most part my government supports those ideas.
My particular problem with Government currently is that its doesnt do enough to punish the guilty and goes overboard to protect the rights of the guilty at the expense of the innocent/victim, but thats a lengthy explaination.
I didn't interpret the question as meaning the legal definition of American citizen, but rather what 'being American' means as opposed to 'Un-American'.
Is there a sense of pride or belonging in being a European? I'd understand if the UK would have less of one, since you aren't mainland, but is there a sense of kinship?
Accountable;770181 wrote: My pessimism stems from long history of human tendency to abuse power when they are remote, nothing more. So long as Europe keeps the EU in check as you have done with the UK gov't lately, you'll be okay.
As for your analysis of the US, I really think it will do us a tremendous good, culturally, if other nations would stop allowing us to make them dependent. I'm baffled when I think of strong nations that allow a permanent US military presence, unless we are there as hired guns -- cheaper to spend our blood than their own. I don't like being thought of as mercenary, thug, or bouncer.
I agree! As an American I feel it is a shame for people to depend, no demand, that their Government "take care of them" with socialist programs. What motivation to achieve and be productive does that provide?
As I understand it, if you want anything but the basics of health care with socialized medicine you have to get in line OR fork over the big bucks for a privet doctor. I just spoke to a customer tonite who had returned to America just this week after six years in England just so she could have her gall bladder out. It was come back here, get on a waiting list, or hand over her savings.
We, as a country, have struggled to keep our freedom to become money grubbing specialist in our trades and not kick back in mediocrity accepting our parents dictatorship so we can get or nappies changed regularly. Don't get me wrong, we have our welfare sucklings here too, kicking back and taking what they can get for free. Changes in our programs in the eighties were supposed to fix that system, though they didn't do much, and plans were supposed to be made to end welfare all together.
Let me try to say it another way. If you don't have competition and every level of society you don't have growth and if you don't growth you have a stagnant society. Example, U.S.S.R. They once had everything. But when all the workers got treated the same, lived with the same expectations for every generation and no one had to try they stagnated.
The U.S. needs to continue to push education here, keep lowering our taxes and
do away with outsourcing productivity to lower revenue countries. We have excellent programs to help small business owners get started but tax them to death with social security and mandatory health provisions for any employee working 36 hours a week. Yet, I can name a dozen people who shop at WalMart where everything is made in sweatshops from China to Brazil, because it's a whole lot cheaper than Sac's.
I don't know all the answers and like accountable, I'm no expert. I did have a strong work ethic instilled in me by my parents who had the same done to them by theirs. I see socialism seeping into our country more every year and as it does I see a corresponding slump in the work ethics of our youth. More and more immigrants are stepping up to take the jobs our kids feel are beneath them because they don't pay the big bucks. Sheesh.
double helix;772520 wrote: I agree! As an American I feel it is a shame for people to depend, no demand, that their Government "take care of them" with socialist programs. What motivation to achieve and be productive does that provide?
As a Brit I demand that the government ensure that no-one should die unnecessarily from a preventable health problem.
Yes, non-emergency treatment can take a while if it's not life threatening and the cosmetic stuff you're on you own for.
I have worked all of my life and always been motivated to be productive. That is totally independent of health care provision and is linked to pride and quality of life.
Accountable;772440 wrote: I didn't interpret the question as meaning the legal definition of American citizen, but rather what 'being American' means as opposed to 'Un-American'.
I suspect it's a bit like trying to define what being british is. The reality is so diverse and nebulous that in defining it you actually destroy what makes it special.
If you don't mind an outsider expressing an opinion. Hippies are quintessentially american, so are hell's angels, fundamentalist christians and rock and roll. Anyone that believes they can define it is missing something crucial.IMO
posted by accountable
Is there a sense of pride or belonging in being a European? I'd understand if the UK would have less of one, since you aren't mainland, but is there a sense of kinship?
Yes and no. It's like being british. I am british and there is a sense of pride in that but I am also scottish and there is equally a sense of pride in that. galbally is irish bryn mawr is english we come from similar but at the same time very different cultures. We're all europeans but also distinctly products of our own culture and each has taken from the other bits that work and make things better. Just like every other european. There's maybe a sense of kinship but if you ask a European where they come from they don't say europe.
As a ship of state Europe is an amorphous blob going where the wind of change takes it with everybody trying to set their own course. every time someone tries to get their own way and impose their own course, sometimes by force, we set fire to it and rebuild it. Although it's a while since we did that. I am wary of those in the UK would want to set sail on their own in a rowing boat. Often times the one with the loudest opinion expressed forcefully is talking through their backside and may not have noticed the wind has changed caught up as they are in their own miasma.
The US is different as people have tried to shape and define it from the word go what you have is very different but also very much the same. The americans on this forum obviously feel very american but argue about things. A hippy and a hell's angel probably both feel american, agree on the fundamental principles but argue a lot and probably eventually live let live. It's differences and constant change that keep a culture alive. Value the past and know where you come from but keep moving.
posted by double helix
I agree! As an American I feel it is a shame for people to depend, no demand, that their Government "take care of them" with socialist programs. What motivation to achieve and be productive does that provide?
As I understand it, if you want anything but the basics of health care with socialized medicine you have to get in line OR fork over the big bucks for a privet doctor. I just spoke to a customer tonite who had returned to America just this week after six years in England just so she could have her gall bladder out. It was come back here, get on a waiting list, or hand over her savings.
As a Britisher I find it odd that americans seem to be brainwashed in to believing that they should not tell their government what is expected of them, indeed that somehow it's unamerican. Debates on things like healthcare seem to revolve round whether you should be telling govt rather than what you expect it to do. Why bother having elections if you have no say in what they do?
Its population is 495 million people, it has a total land area of 4.9 million square miles, its economy is worth 16 trillion dollars, its the largest exporter in the world, the worlds second largest importer of goods, and is the major trading partner of both the US and China at the same times, it's economy represents about 36 percent of the global economy annually. Its major companies include the largest petrol chemical company in the world, (shell) the largest Airline in the world (Air France KLM), the worlds largest commercial aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, which makes roughly 50 percent of all the worlds commercial aircraft, the largest financial services company in the world (Allianz), the world's largest steel company (alcor-mittal), the world's largest mobile phone manufacturer (nokia), the worlds largest Beer company (InBev), the worlds largest dairy products company (The Danone Group), the worlds largest luxury goods corporation (LVMH), and the world's largest cosmetics company (L'Oreal Group).
Many other European companies rank among the world's largest companies in terms of turnover, profit, market share, number of employees or other major indicators. The Market for cars in the EU is the worlds largest with 4 of the top 10 car companies being European, while all the other major manufacturers have significant European divisions that account for a large amount of their profits, it has the world's 4th Largest car company Volkswagen, as well all of the worlds leading luxury car makers including Mercedes Benz, BMW, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Porche, Ferrari, Range Rover, Volvo, Saab, Aston Martin, Lamborghini, etc. The largest global audience for TV every year is the European Champions League final with an estimated 2 billion viewers worldwide, the world's largest media and news company Reuters is European, London is the worlds second largest single stock exchange after New York, the worlds busiest shipping port is Rotterdam in Holland, the worlds busiest airport is Heathrow in London.
The headquarters of NATO is in Brussels, the IMF is located in Geneva, the International court is located in the Hague, the worlds 2nd largest art museum (the Hermitage in St Petersburg is the largest) is the Louvre in Paris, the worlds longest tunnel is the Channel tunnel between Britain and France, while the worlds largest bridge links Denmark and Sweden, the EU is also the worlds 4th largest producer of gas and oil, and the worlds second largest consumer of energy. The worlds centre for particle physics research is CERN in Switzerland, and in 2008 the Large Hadron Colider will be switched on there, it is a 57 mile long particle accelerator, which is the largest, most complicated, and most powerful machine ever built by man, the European Space Agency is the worlds second largest space organization after NASA and it is the leading commercial satellite launch company in the world.
The EU is also the worlds largest currency and free trade zone, the Euro is the worlds largest currency in terms of liquidity in circulation with about 800 billion dollars worth of Euro's floating around at any one time, thereby displacing the Dollar as the worlds most powerful currency, the average income of EU citizens is about €25,000 or 33,000 dollars per annum, though this figure varies from country to country, with former Eastern block countries have GDPs much lower than the rich Western European nations, these eastern countries have much higher growth rates however as they are working from a lower base to catch up with the richer members.
The EU is committed to democratic government structures, free market trade, and also fundamental human rights, and is engaged actively across the globe to promote these values, it currently has 27 member states, with another 9 states who are in the process of accession to the Union, or who are being considered as possible candidates. To successfully enter the EU states must meet strict economic criteria as well as meet standards of democratic governance, respect for human rights, and adherence to standards of law, equity, and justice as defined by the European convention on human rights.
Aside from the member states roughly 44 other states across the world have their currencies pegged to the Euro or have adopted a 1 to 1 parity with the currency unilaterally, these states include the many west African nations that were once former French colonies. The EU also has dependent territories in South America, Polynesia, Africa, and the Carribean.
Oh and also, the EU is the largest contributor of foreign aid to the world, not the U.S.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
gmc;772549 wrote: As a Britisher I find it odd that americans seem to be brainwashed in to believing that they should not tell their government what is expected of them, indeed that somehow it's unamerican. Debates on things like healthcare seem to revolve round whether you should be telling govt rather than what you expect it to do. Why bother having elections if you have no say in what they do?
I've been mulling this over, because I'm not convinced your interpretation is right, even though the facts are. I think we hold individualism in higher regard. By giving over health care, or virtually anything, over to the government we are giving them permission to make general rules for everyone. Such rules can't possibly fit every (read my) situation. Yet by having gov't take over the program I must agree to get in step. I wanna walk my own step, thankyouverymuch.
Jester;773025 wrote: Thats perfect, then you obvisouly dont need the US Military, with all that base you can raise your own army. We can now pull up our tent stakes and go ome.
Jester;773025 wrote: Thats perfect, then you obvisouly dont need the US Military, with all that base you can raise your own army. We can now pull up our tent stakes and go ome.
I don't think that would be a serious problem, the main reason the US military was stationed in Southern England and West Germany was to counter the strategic threat of the Russians, most of the US military has already been pulled out of Germany and the the only really large presence now are the US Air Force Bases in Southern England and the Large Base in Germany, Raumstein Air Base, (which is used in the war on terror quite a lot if you read up on it). There are I am sure other smaller established ones, you can look them up. The US also is proposing to build new early warning stations for ballistic missiles in the former eastern block countries and in England. There is a battle group in the Mediterranean serviced by Italian ports I think, and of course one in the Persian gulf and Indian ocean.
To be frank the forces currently stationed in Europe are considered essential for the strategic defense of the U.S. continent from possible future agression by the Russians, and as yet unamed powers in the middle east, and more importantly the supply routes of oil through the red sea and overland through Turkey, not to save the pinko Europeans from Jihad or nucelar war, there will be no saving Europe as it does not have large oceans surrounding it to provide any time for even nominal defence. So I don't think the U.S. military would be particularly keen to pull out, but I wouldn't have any problem with them pulling out if the US public wants it, and Europe should look after itself anyway, that is a fair opinion, I don't think its acceptable to lecture people unless you are prepared to shoulder the responsibility for your own continents defence and organize your military capabiliy for that purpose.
Anyway, why not, the war is now 60 years ago, I presume the world will lose its hang up about Germany having a military role in its continent's defence anymore, or a more active European defence posture. Its the only responsible course of action, the British and French Military's have about 1,000 Nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them anywhere on the planet, and they are building a new class of Aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, so there is a deterrent there for large scale war, also there are plenty of military forces available for the defence of the continent for conventional threats. The Western European Union is developing a rapid reaction force as well to enable the EU to shoulder some of the burden in dealing with briush fire wars and crises that will developed over the next few years. So I don't disagree with you, though I do think that the transatlantic alliance between the US and Europe has been a good one for both sides, and has maintained stability for a long time so I wouldn't want to do away with that, I don't think most people would want to get rid of NATO, just perhaps it would be proper for Europe to take on more of the military burden of ensuring and protecting its own strategic interests.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
As for your analysis of the US, I really think it will do us a tremendous good, culturally, if other nations would stop allowing us to make them dependent. I'm baffled when I think of strong nations that allow a permanent US military presence, unless we are there as hired guns -- cheaper to spend our blood than their own. I don't like being thought of as mercenary, thug, or bouncer.
Good to see people agree with me.
Bryn Mawr;772526 wrote: As a Brit I demand that the government ensure that no-one should die unnecessarily from a preventable health problem.
Yes, non-emergency treatment can take a while if it's not life threatening and the cosmetic stuff you're on you own for.
I have worked all of my life and always been motivated to be productive. That is totally independent of health care provision and is linked to pride and quality of life.
So, keep on letting big daddy government tell you it's ok because it's preventing unnecessary suffering in their dying. Later it could be the disabled, the elderly, accident victims etc.
"The clear lesson from the Netherlands, where over 1,000 patients are killed by doctors every year without their consent and where babies with special needs are killed ... is that when voluntary euthanasia is legalised involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows."
Jester;773025 wrote: Thats perfect, then you obvisouly dont need the US Military, with all that base you can raise your own army. We can now pull up our tent stakes and go ome.
So, keep on letting big daddy government tell you it's ok because it's preventing unnecessary suffering in their dying. Later it could be the disabled, the elderly, accident victims etc.
If you read the article you referenced the first paragraph states that the proposed bill was blocked - euthanasia remains, as it always has been, illegal in this country.
The situation in Holland is totally different to the proposed bill.
On the other hand, euthanasia has very little to do with which regime the people chose to have to fund healthcare - which has even less to do with big brother dictating forced euthanasia for all and sundry.
Accountable;773013 wrote: I've been mulling this over, because I'm not convinced your interpretation is right, even though the facts are. I think we hold individualism in higher regard. By giving over health care, or virtually anything, over to the government we are giving them permission to make general rules for everyone. Such rules can't possibly fit every (read my) situation. Yet by having gov't take over the program I must agree to get in step. I wanna walk my own step, thankyouverymuch.
I hope that made sense.
Neither am I which is why i raised the question.
I wouldn't say you hold individualism in higher regard-a most peculiar statement if you don't mind me saying so. Being individualistic doesn't mean you don't tell your government what it should be doing. If enough people want change then why should things not change-if government of the people by the people for he people means anything then surely it is that if the people want change things change. rather than debate what should be done you seem to debate whether you have the right to dictate what should be done in the first place. If you don't tell govt what to do then who is?
We have as great a sense of individualism but Maybe we also have a greater sense of social justice than you. To us it seems morally wrong that someone should be denied medical care merely because you are poor-you can end up destitute for all sorts of reasons and getting out of it is not always simple. I was unemployed for the better part of two years-you can't move to a better area because you have little or no money, if you do you can't rent because you have no money and you can't get a job because you don't have a a local address. Apart from that you get morons that think if you are unemployed for more than a few months it must be from choice.
It's not government making general rules for everyone or them giving us something in a nanny state that takes away the incentive to shift for yourself. it's them giving what we want and expect because if they don't they are no longer the government. One of the main reasons maggie thatcher was so hated is she was seen as uncaring, she made the mistake of ignoring public sentiment. Labour are making the same mistake. The only reason they won last time is because the alternative is even worse. That's why GB didn't hold an election last November-at least IMO , he would have lost his majority.
You would be hard pushed I think to find anyone in the UK that doesn't believe they can say what they like about government or doesn't have the right to make demands of it. Suggest they don't have the right because that is not a function of government or that they all brainwashed by the nanny state and you will have a surprising amount of hostility to contend with. Well informed hostility at that.
In UK if you want you can go privately for medical care you can-the NHS will pick up the nightmares that sometimes result-usually cosmetic ops that go badly wrong, or for all the chronic conditions that they don't want to know about. Personally I think anyone wanting to opt out of the NHS should be allowed to so long as they pay whenever they use it-say after a traffic accident. Bet you no one would actually do so. The last thing I want a doctor thinking about when I see him is his profit margin. How do I know he isn't giving me drugs I don't need?
I can count on the fingers on two hands the number of times I have used the NHS in my life. On the other have I have paid for it all my working life. I am more than happy to do so because if I need it it is there without having to worry about the cost. Bet you it costs less than private care in the US and I don't have to worry if I lose my job and the benefits that go with it or if I'm self employed (which I am actually) and having a bad patch and can't afford the cover. It's a hold that no employer has over their employees in the UK.
posted by jester
Thats perfect, then you obvisouly dont need the US Military, with all that base you can raise your own army. We can now pull up our tent stakes and go ome.
Actually you've pared it down considerably in recent times. Realistically if the US didn't see it as being in their interests you would have pulled all the forces back home ages ago. Times have changed maybe you should be questioning why you need such a large military nowadays. Would you want that many troops if they were based at home? I suspect bringing al your troops home would be good for American democracy as you start to really question what the armed forces are for.
Traditionally the UK has always had a very small army based in the UK (apart from being an island nation and consequently the navy being more important, in the days of empire they were all abroad). I have seen it suggested that we have an innate dislike of too much military power at home-a kind of racial memory from the days of cromwell. I like the notion but have doubts about it's validity.
Maybe seeing it all on your doorstep would make you question the need a bit more. Large armies can be used as an instrument of state oppression as can state militia-incidentally that's also the real reason we don't have armed police so that they would not be seen as part of a police state but enforce the law with public consent.
Fliying a kite maybe, but tell me do you see the russian and chinese armies as being there to protect their people's freedom or as instruments of state oppression?
Its fascinating to see the basic difference between someone brought up in a European nation state and the US arguing about things like this, because it always boils down to this question:
How much personal freedom can an individual human have within the collective human society, and how much of that freedom is actually desirable?
I think what we European's often forget is that essentially the American republic was set up within a vast wilderness, by a relatively tiny number of people descended from the Original English settlers of the Eastern seaboard, in an almost pre-technological time. To the European people who when to America it must have been an amazing sense of freedom to realize that they inhabited a land where the native people's could offer no realistic challenge, and the only limits were the physical barriers supplied by the enormously bountiful environment. That's the essence of the US philosophy, its based on the experience of founding a country that seemed so large and limitless to its people, that none of the necessary rules of the old world needed to be applied.
What Americans don't understand about Europe is that the American sense of being more or less free with very little need for government is not one shared by Europeans. Europe has been heavily populated and civilized for millenia, and this modern American sense of entitlement to very high levels of personal freedom has not existed in the past for the reason that it was not possible, and has only become current due to the fashion on this side of the Atlantic for many American social ideas, (some of which are just not realistic for European societies if they wish to remain sustanable), and also the political failures of 20th century Europe itself.
Britain for example has a population over 4 times that of California crammed into an area smaller than New Jersey, and has existed as a nation for at least 1,000 years, and in reality much longer. Its structures have evolved through the collective efforts of many many generations of people who often found themselves living a turbulent and violent society in a small crowded land, where escaping to some utopia was not possible, hence the need for rules and values that embraced the idea of being part of a civilized collective. Holland has 16 million people in an area probably about as big as somewhere like Rhode Island, half of which had to be reclaimed from the North Sea via a massive collective effort.
Overall Europe has a population well over 500 million people, but even as a whole is only about half the size of the continental US. Japan is even more crowded, with 120 million people living in a country the size of Britain, where only 20 percent of the land is useful agriculturally. Such ancient and crowded regions have found over the centuries that they require a high degree of cooperative civilization if society has any chance to function. This sense of the necessary evil of the collective go from the extreme authoritarianism of say Russia or China through the centuries, the German or Scandinavian sense of respect for Authority and Rules, the French or Italian or even Japanese love of high culture as a thing in itself, or the British belief in a rule of law, that tries to organize the idea of a collective society as fairly as possible.
This is the basic difference between the old world and the new, the luxury of space and resources allowing people to have a sense of freedom from organization that people in perhaps more crowded societies do not have the luxury of.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
This is the basic difference between the old world and the new, the luxury of space and resources allowing people to have a sense of freedom from organization that people in perhaps more crowded societies do not have the luxury of.
:yh_clap Outstanding! This fits with Giuliani's seeming conflict with the way he ran New York and how he wants to run the US.
Bryn Mawr;774480 wrote: If you read the article you referenced the first paragraph states that the proposed bill was blocked - euthanasia remains, as it always has been, illegal in this country.
The situation in Holland is totally different to the proposed bill.
On the other hand, euthanasia has very little to do with which regime the people chose to have to fund healthcare - which has even less to do with big brother dictating forced euthanasia for all and sundry.
The point of my post was not that euthanasia had anything to do with which regime the people chose to fund healthcare. It was an analogy to the willingness of people to believe whatever they are fed by a babysitter government.
Lots of European people seem to have chosen to LET their governments TELL THE PEOPLE what is right or wrong without realizing how many members of said government are second or third generation members of immigration.
With that kind of lassitude is with-in a people, where they have given up on an individuals good ethics and commons sense, and given big daddy governments the power to tell the masses what is ethical or senseable? Do the people of the country have such low self-confidence in their own judgement? OR is it just that they no longer have faith in the good judgement and ethics of the people living and working around them?
Eventually, the government will have gone from no euthinasia to telling you its ok to have your grandad put to sleep under certin conditions because its the more humane and loving thing to do. Get my point now?
More government is not the answer to unemployment, crime and high prices. Better education, better family values, tighter government self-policing and more investment support in business, these things bring about change. These things give people a foundation to build on.
double helix;775640 wrote: The point of my post was not that euthanasia had anything to do with which regime the people chose to fund healthcare. It was an analogy to the willingness of people to believe whatever they are fed by a babysitter government.
Lots of European people seem to have chosen to LET their governments TELL THE PEOPLE what is right or wrong without realizing how many members of said government are second or third generation members of immigration.
With that kind of lassitude is with-in a people, where they have given up on an individuals good ethics and commons sense, and given big daddy governments the power to tell the masses what is ethical or senseable? Do the people of the country have such low self-confidence in their own judgement? OR is it just that they no longer have faith in the good judgement and ethics of the people living and working around them?
Eventually, the government will have gone from no euthinasia to telling you its ok to have your grandad put to sleep under certin conditions because its the more humane and loving thing to do. Get my point now?
More government is not the answer to unemployment, crime and high prices. Better education, better family values, tighter government self-policing and more investment support in business, these things bring about change. These things give people a foundation to build on.
You seem to miss one very important fact - we tell the government what we want to happen.
The government would never impose forced euthanasia because it would no longer be the government if it did.
Far from " Lots of European people seem to have chosen to LET their governments TELL THE PEOPLE" to accept forced euthanasia, the people of one small European country chose to tell their government that it was what they were required to enact. The Swiss, on the other hand, chose to go for consensual euthanasia because that was the will of the Swiss people.
It still has nothing to do with how we choose to fund healthcare.
Galbally;775481 wrote: Its fascinating to see the basic difference between someone brought up in a European nation state and the US arguing about things like this, because it always boils down to this question:
------
This is the basic difference between the old world and the new, the luxury of space and resources allowing people to have a sense of freedom from organization that people in perhaps more crowded societies do not have the luxury of.
Very well put. There is also, I think, a shared experience in europe of warfare and destruction on a scale that the US has never experienced, and the shared sense of betrayal by those who would rule and instead mislead and misuse their power. A kind of culture shock that left us with a determination that govt should do our bidding and provide what we think we need rather than what it thinks we should have and an instinctive distrust and cynicism about blind patriotism that lingers on. No more detached government but one intrinsically involved in and responsible for the well-being of the people.
posted by double helix
Lots of European people seem to have chosen to LET their governments TELL THE PEOPLE what is right or wrong without realizing how many members of said government are second or third generation members of immigration.
Where on earth do you get these bizarre ideas from?
It's been some time since this thread and a lot has happened between then and now. Extensive IS terrorism and Western intervention, global recession and the looming Brexit referendum.
How do our views stack up now, to how the thread started in 2008.
Is the EU, if it survives, a blueprint for a mirror of the USA ? A United States of Europe ? Do the cultural differences of it's sovereign states prevent an ultimate, cohesive United States of Europe ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Snowfire;1494213 wrote: It's been some time since this thread and a lot has happened between then and now. Extensive IS terrorism and Western intervention, global recession and the looming Brexit referendum.
How do our views stack up now, to how the thread started in 2008.
Is the EU, if it survives, a blueprint for a mirror of the USA ? A United States of Europe ? Do the cultural differences of it's sovereign states prevent an ultimate, cohesive United States of Europe ?
Certainly a lot of the politicians, especially in Germany and France, want the EU to morph into the United States of Europe.
Whilst the bureaucrats can over-rule the elected MEPs I would shy away from closer links but give Europe a decent governmental structure and I'd be all for it.
Get my point now?