At least the EU is united on important matters

[Accountable]

Raven;463785 wrote: Personally I think they should have left it at the common market level. These arent 'states' we are talking about, but COUNTRIES!
The original definition of state is a nation, or country. The United States was to be a group of nations with a common view/goal.

[Accountable]

ArnoldLayne;463802 wrote: Precisely, that was the level that was voted for in the referendum. Things have moved along a road that no-one really envisaged back then. Its a huge political and beaurocratic machine now . Britain should be governed by Britain and by British people. That is less so now than 25 years ago



That doesnt mean we cant have the free trade and the sort of cooperation we originally signed up for
How many thousands of political issues can we apply this sentence to? :-5

[Raven]

ArnoldLayne;463802 wrote: Precisely, that was the level that was voted for in the referendum. Things have moved along a road that no-one really envisaged back then. Its a huge political and beaurocratic machine now . Britain should be governed by Britain and by British people. That is less so now than 25 years ago



That doesnt mean we cant have the free trade and the sort of cooperation we originally signed up for
The free trade between countries of Europe and Britain is a very good thing, but it just doesnt seem to be working for Britain at this stage of the game. It seems all Europe wants from Britain is it's wealth.

[spot]

Accountable;463777 wrote: That's true. It's undeniable that there is a stronger national identity among the Germans today, for example, than among the Pennsylvanians of the 1700's. I hope it's enough. It would be a shame to have so many rich histories and cultures diluted by the EU umbrella.In a small way the United Kingdom reflects the same diversity under a national umbrella, with the Welsh, Irish and Scots easily distinguishable from their English overlords. Even at a county level there's still a sense of distinct cultural identity that can be felt. Depending on the context, a Briton can describe himself as Cumbrian, English or British and mean something different by each while recognising that he's genuinely identifying his social relationship at that level. I see no reason to think that the EU will be any more homogenized.

[Raven]

ArnoldLayne;463817 wrote: I'm still not sure why we would want to be part of a single European currency when the Stirling is only second to the dollar in strength and importance. When you go abroad to a non EEC country they do not want euros they want dollars and pounds stirling.



I'm not really savvy in the why and why nots of international economics (really ? :rolleyes: ) but London is the largest(?) economic instituion in Europe and has its strongest currency. Why would we want to give that up to the faceless beaurocrats of Brussels
How can one set of laws govern so many of different backgrounds? True, multiculturism is the flavor of the month right now, but this country doesnt condone the dealth penalty. If you admit Turkey and others, would they have to abolish theirs? And then there is this sharia thing.

[spot]

Raven;463852 wrote: this country doesnt condone the dealth penalty. If you admit Turkey and others, would they have to abolish theirs?Yes, as it happens. It's one of the conditions of membership. "this sharia thing" is a part of some legal systems. You do know that the UK still has Ecclesiastical Courts whose verdicts carry the force of law, don't you? Different places, different rules, I'm all for it. The EU does place certain constraints on what countries do or don't do before they can become members.

[Raven]

spot;463854 wrote: Yes, as it happens. It's one of the conditions of membership. "this sharia thing" is a part of some legal systems. You do know that the UK still has Ecclesiastical Courts whose verdicts carry the force of law, don't you? Different places, different rules, I'm all for it. The EU does place certain constraints on what countries do or don't do before they can become members.
I had no idea! LOL! But as this is part of my culture and heritage, I feel better under ecclesiatical law than sharia if you understand me.

:wah:

[spot]

Raven;463857 wrote: I had no idea! LOL! But as this is part of my culture and heritage, I feel better under ecclesiatical law than sharia if you understand me.

:wah:So you don't suggest that the Turks would feel happier if English Ecclesiastical Courts were to be set up in Istanbul to administer their justice system? That's just as unlikely as any Sharia-based court system being imposed on the English legal system. Your culture and heritage are as safe here as that of Turkey's within its own borders. If you want to discuss the cross-pollenation of legal systems between the two countries, I can give you ghastly examples of the nineteenth century treaties thrust on the ailing Ottoman Empire by the British, but I don't see Turkey threatening any modern-day equivalent as retribution.

[Raven]

spot;463862 wrote: So you don't suggest that the Turks would feel happier if English Ecclesiastical Courts were to be set up in Istanbul to administer their justice system? That's just as unlikely as any Sharia-based court system being imposed on the English legal system. Your culture and heritage are as safe here as that of Turkey's within its own borders. If you want to discuss the cross-pollenation of legal systems between the two countries, I can give you ghastly examples of the nineteenth century treaties thrust on the ailing Ottoman Empire by the British, but I don't see Turkey threatening any modern-day equivalent as retribution.
LOL! The British empire has spread it's laws and culture far and wide! Guess thats why it's mine! I come from oldest child of Britannia.

:yh_bigsmi And no, I think the turks are becoming mighty disillusioned over the whole EU debacle. But why did europe feel the need to consolidate laws outside of the trading realm in the first place?

[koan]

spot;463830 wrote: In a small way the United Kingdom reflects the same diversity under a national umbrella, with the Welsh, Irish and Scots easily distinguishable from their English overlords. Even at a county level there's still a sense of distinct cultural identity that can be felt. Depending on the context, a Briton can describe himself as Cumbrian, English or British and mean something different by each while recognising that he's genuinely identifying his social relationship at that level. I see no reason to think that the EU will be any more homogenized.


That is definitely a better example than the US. As mentioned earlier, the distinguishing factor is that the member states are not people who have chosen to move from and leave behind their country of origin. I think the fear is that a new country will be formed as the US was but that is not the model upon which the EU is founded, that I'm aware of.

[Accountable]

It's already been pointed out that the EU is no longer the model upon which it was founded.

[koan]

Accountable;464565 wrote: It's already been pointed out that the EU is no longer the model upon which it was founded.


I'm missing your it reference. The second it. The one after which.

[Accountable]

koan;464575 wrote: I'm missing your it reference. The second it. The one after which.
the EU is no longer the model upon which it was founded

[koan]

Accountable;464581 wrote: the EU is no longer the model upon which it was founded


So the EU is no longer the model upon which the EU was founded. So it has changed from the original intentions and its intentions are now.....

because I think that is the source of the debate. I didn't think the matter was decided yet.

[spot]

Raven;463864 wrote: But why did europe feel the need to consolidate laws outside of the trading realm in the first place?The area controlled by the Turks was a major European trade area, perhaps. Here's a small extract from an essay my daughter wrote over the weekend, she's discussing the same place and timeframe:The vast nature of the Ottoman Empire meant that any reforms would be applied to different extents in different places. For example, apostasy was punishable by death until the 1844 when it was revoked by Abdul Mecid. However, there are records of subjects being executed for this – in Aleppo in 1852 and in Adrianople in 1853. A letter written in 1855 from the Earl of Clarendon (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe (ambassador to the Sublime Porte) requesting an inquest into the two deaths highlights the intense pressure Western powers were able to apply to the Ottoman government:‘The Turkish Government cannot expect that the great Christian Powers of Europe, who are making gigantic efforts and submitting to enormous sacrifices to save the Turkish Empire from ruin and destruction, can permit the continuance of a law in Turkey which is not only a standing insult to them, but a source of cruel persecution towards their co-religionists’This shows not only the keen interest that the British government was showing in the fortunes of Christian communities within the Ottoman Empire, but also the extent to which they felt they were able to make demands of the Sultan and Ottoman government.

Secularisation and ‘Ottomanisation’ sought to reduce the power of religious institutions and replace ‘religious affiliations with secular identity’ . However, the intervention of the same foreign powers that were pushing the Ottoman government to these reforms actually held back the secularisation, as they insisted upon their rights to look after their ‘coreligionists’. The Ottomans wanted to cut back the influence of these international powers over Ottoman subjects. For example, Russia’s attempts to negotiate a treaty allowing her to interfere whenever she deemed the Sultan's protection of Christians to be inadequate resulted in the Crimean War in 1854, when Britain and France took the side of the Ottomans against Russian troops.

[gmc]

koan;464587 wrote: So the EU is no longer the model upon which the EU was founded. So it has changed from the original intentions and its intentions are now.....

because I think that is the source of the debate. I didn't think the matter was decided yet.


It's not. Opponents portray it as a juggernaut steamrolling over everything in it's path but things aren't that simple. There's a lot wrong but most of the people in europe want to preserve their own identity as much as we do.

Things might heat up a bit. The Nasdaq are making a bid for the london stock Exchange-the biggest in the world. A few years ago american potectionism blocked an attempt by the LSE to buy the nasdaq. We have a more open trading philosophy and don't interfere with free trade as much. But should we allow americans to take it over when they do not reciprocate and open their own market for a take over by a rival stock exchange?

There is a good going trade war betweeen the EU and US at the moment, at a simple level it's things like we want GM crops labelled as such and the US don't because they realise people here will boycott it, not because its american but because of the GM label. same with beef imports, the US use hormones in cattle banned in the EU on safety grounds. There has been a lot of tit for tat going on with retialiatory import bans and the like. The EU sibsideses farmers but so do the US we both pay higher prices than we need to. It actually hurts both economies, it would be better to talk it through rather than see who can **** highest up the wall (metaphorically speaking of course).

Never mind eu integration, how about transatlantic integration

http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secre ... ington.htm

The meeting follows on commitments made in the 2005 U.S.-EU Summit, confirmed at the 2006 Summit , which called for further transatlantic economic integration. The next U.S.-EU Summit is due to take place in the first half of 2007.


If the UK is not very careful we will find ourselves on the arse end of europe a once interesting superpower wondering what happened to our economy and no doubt blaming everybody else.

[koan]

gmc,

The trade issues sound more like a complaint against the decisions of the EU than directly about its existence. Those same decisions could be made by the UK government and people would be just as upset without needing to condemn the fact that the government exists.

imo, it is interesting that not much attention arose when Saddam switched his oil reserves to Euros and, shortly after, found himself being removed. One would think petrodollar competition would be a fun area to play around with.

[gmc]

koan;464803 wrote: gmc,

The trade issues sound more like a complaint against the decisions of the EU than directly about its existence. Those same decisions could be made by the UK government and people would be just as upset without needing to condemn the fact that the government exists.

imo, it is interesting that not much attention arose when Saddam switched his oil reserves to Euros and, shortly after, found himself being removed. One would think petrodollar competition would be a fun area to play around with.


Most of the anti european sentiment is about what it does not the idea itself.

As to the petrodollar issue I have seen it suggested that was the final spark that led to the invasion. US economic viability depends to some extent on the dollar being the main trading currency. How credible the arguement is I would not like to say. I do think Iraq is all about oil and controlling resources nothing about WMD or terrorism. Most wars have an economic basis for them in some way or another.

[koan]

gmc;464824 wrote: Most of the anti european sentiment is about what it does not the idea itself.

As to the petrodollar issue I have seen it suggested that was the final spark that led to the invasion. US economic viability depends to some extent on the dollar being the main trading currency. How credible the arguement is I would not like to say. I do think Iraq is all about oil and controlling resources nothing about WMD or terrorism. Most wars have an economic basis for them in some way or another.


Aside from whether or not the petrodollar influenced war decisions, what would it take to get the Saudis, Russia, UAE etc. to switch to Euros instead of dollars? Has it not crossed any agendas to discuss the possibility? And what happened with Iran? I thought they were supposed to switch this year. Guess they've got other things on their collective minds.

[koan]

ArnoldLayne;464851 wrote: I cant imagine the Americans allowing that to happen, they would lose billions and billions of dollars if oil was traded in euros instead of the dollar


One wonders how they would/can prevent it from happening if the EU set their sights on it as a goal.

[Galbally]

I think a couple of different issues are getting thrown in here, not all really related specifically to Britains relationship with and position in the EU.

In terms of the Euro replacing the Dollar as the currency being used for petrochemical trading or even as the prime reserve currency, thats really a technical issue, the Saudis et al don't trade in Dollars because they love the US, but because the Dollar is the worlds premium currency as the U.S. has the largest economy, its usually run well, it has the worlds largest gold reserves, and it has above all a very stable monetary system, and a very stable political system. Until the advent of the Euro there was no other currency that could match the dollar, just as their was nothing comparable to the Pound Sterling in the 19th century. The Euro itself is proving to be a very stable currency and the Eurozone is the worlds largest currency area, but to countries changing to the Euro now as a reserve currency isn't going to happen (unless something dramtic and long lasting happens to the US economy, and of course such things can happen) but the Dollar zone is still generally a safer bet than the Eurozone for the time being. Using the Euro as a medium of exchange in the petrochemical market is slightly different and it is being discussed by many countries, but it is motivated by politics more than sound financial sense, as a lot of oil producing countries are (lets face it) very anti-US at the minute, and its a way they can see of sticking it to the Americans. In general, Eurozone poiticians are very wary of being used like this by third parties as they are all basically strong US allies, whatever media pundits like to think, they share the same world outlook in general, and mot importantly they definetly also want the US enconomy to remain strong as the US economy has underpinned world growth for a long long time, including that of Europe. The U.S. economy has been weakened by this current adminstration though, and the budget deficit is very high again and of course the Iraq war is costing an absoute fortune, with most of the money to finance it having to be borrowed and at some point paid back), so that is damaging the dollar's status. I think in the next few decades you will probably see 3 currencies the Dollar, Euro, and Chinese Yuan as co-current reserve currencies, and probably the Euro will eventually relplace the Dollar for oil transactions, though that isn't going to happen unless it makes good economic sense to do so, and I don't see that being the case right now. In absolute terms the sources of oil in the coming decades will also be more diverse and not so centered on the Arabian gulf as there are very large sand tar reserves in Canada and South America, which will become more important as time goes on, though perhaps the Russians would prefer the Euro for their not inconsiderabe reserves, in general though the Dollar would still make sense as the basic unit of trade in these circumstances.

The other point being raised was Britains relationship with the U.S. in terms of what are percieved as unfair practices such as extraordinary rendition, the inability of European countries to get the U.S. military personal to give live testemony in cases relating to political matters and friendly fire, the legal protection available to European citizens in the reverse case, and lots of other matters particularly those involving trade and finance. The simple fact of the matter is that it is an unequal relationship as the U.S. is an order of magnitude more powerful than the U.K. and many of the issues that the U.K. has are basically taken on sufference by the U.S., I can understand why the U.S. administration takes the position it does on many such matters, but its shortsighted, I think its important that the U.S. and all European countries make the maxmimum effort to strengthen their alliances as frankly we need each other, I hope that people in the U.S. goverment realize how much the U.K. government have put themselves out on a limb supporting the U.S. in many recent times (in manycases against the wishes of its own people) and are a bit more generous in their treatment of their allies who are weaker than they are, but also on their side if not always in complete agreement with what they do, I actually think thats happening, and that U.S. politicans are not unaware of all these matters and that many of the more thorny matters can be sorted out amicably. I do think that these things should make it clear to British people that although America is a very good friend of Britain, it also makes sense for Britain to have a strong infleunce in the EU as its easier for the EU to negotiate very large scale issues such as trade with the U.S. as it is closer in economic size and importance and so the Americans pay more attention.

Again, these are slightly to one side of the real issue, which is do British people feel comfortable within the EU and in being part of the mainstream European system, certainly the second point I made has a lot of relelance to that, but its more a question of National identity and what the role of the Nation state is, and how much integration within Europe is desired or practical in the long term, those are big issues and need to be debated more by the ordinary citizens of European countries as all this is being done in their name so if they are unhappy with it, it has to seriously looked at where the thing is heading, I understand that, and thats why I am not just dismissive of Euroskepical arguments have they do have many valid points to make, and their voices have to be heard and taken account of, as its their continent and their childrens future as well, I just don't agree with their more doom-laden pronoucements about the EU.

[koan]

Galbally;464913 wrote:

Again, these are slightly to one side of the real issue, which is do British people feel comfortable within the EU and in being part of the mainstream European system, certainly the second point I made has a lot of relevance to that, but its more a question of National identity and what the role of the Nation state is, and how much integration within Europe is desired or practical in the long term, those are big issues and need to be debated more by the ordinary citizens of European countries as all this is being done in their name so if they are unhappy with it, it has to seriously looked at where the thing is heading, I understand that, and thats why I am not just dismissive of Euroskepical arguments have they do have many valid points to make, and their voices have to be heard and taken account of, as its their continent and their childrens future as well, I just don't agree with their more doom-laden pronouncements about the EU.


I think, in regards to National identity, that it is extremely important for people to have a sense of attachment to their community, even though I don't myself...and perhaps because of that. Traditionally, it is tribal behaviour. An instinct which, if denied, results in insecurity and a lashing out at others around them. One could expect that looking at a nuclear family unit would extol the virtues of group bonding but today's society is disintegrating on that level as well. The family unit is commonly a disaster, one parent households becoming the norm. Divorce rates with or without children have been an issue of concern among sociologists for some time and I think it aggravates the situation on a national level as well. We are expecting a large and mostly insecure community, in which there is no job security, pessimism about the future and shattered homes to extend their trust on an international level. I don't expect that consensus on the benefits of change is likely to happen until there is some sort of stabilisation in our experience of our direct surroundings.

It is, perhaps, like taking a woman who has just been raped and asking her to stand confidently in a room full of men.

A psychiatrist or counsellor might rightly assure her that all of the men in the room are nice, caring individuals that won't harm her but it is unreasonable to expect her to relax just based on that assertion.

A bit harsh for a comparison but, I think, a good one.

[spot]

koan;464587 wrote: So the EU is no longer the model upon which the EU was founded. So it has changed from the original intentions and its intentions are now.....Just so everyone knows the intention behind the creation of the European Union, it's laid out in the preamble to the Treaty which brought it into being which was signed on behalf of the UK by the Conservative Prime Minister of the day, John Major. Here's a summary of the resolutions:

• the strengthening and the convergence of their economiesa single and stable currencya citizenship common to nationals of their countriesa common foreign and security policyto promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the worldan ever closer union among the peoples of EuropeThe full text is at http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/da ... 0001000001
  
  I think "the model on which it was founded" is still in one piece, myself.

[spot]

ArnoldLayne;465193 wrote: I may be wrong but I was unaware of any suggestion of a single currency in 1975. I think back then people just, rightly or wrongly, thought of it as being what it was called then - The Common Market. My apologies, I thought we were discussing the European Union, not its historical context.

[spot]

ArnoldLayne;465215 wrote: No, no, theres been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. I may have barged in a while back with the suggestion that the things originally voted for in the referendum in '75 had moved a whole lot since. Metamorphosed into something much more contentious. Its a bigger animal than it ever was, not just because of more members but more because it affects us more politically than it was ever intended to (IMO)It's rather a wide net to cast, then.

Churchill was an early advocate, calling for a "United States of Europe" in a speech at the University of Zürich in 1946 which led to the forming of the Council of Europe in 1949 and eventually giving rise to the European Court of Human Rights.

A French civil servant, Jean Monnet, with the French foreign minister Robert Schuman presented the proposal for the creation of an integrated Europe in 1950, which rolled the ball resulting in the European Ecomonic Community. That takes us as far as the Rome Treaty which you've mentioned.

I'm sure that Churchill, Monnet and Schuman all had a common currency in mind, you know. It's not a more contentious bigger animal, it's just maturing toward their initial vision.

[koan]

LOL

just came across this - to make matters more confuzzled

By introducing the distinction between diffuse and specific opposition Kopecký and Mudde gain the possibility to sort Europhile from Europhobe actors. Europhobes are against the idea of European integration altogether, whereas Europhiles can still be divided into Euroenthusiasts and Euro-skeptics .

[koan]

ArnoldLayne;465274 wrote: I'm sort of "agnostic" if I can use the word in such context.

One who is doubtful or noncommital about something


Perhaps a "Eurofute"?

[koan]

True, true. You are more accurately a Europhence.

[koan]

Having just switched countries I guess I'm a Eurofickle.