Actually, it's more a case of Europe falling apart in 2006
From Charles Bremner in Paris
France has sent a stiff complaint to Brussels about the European Union’s choice of logo to commemorate its 50th birthday next year.
The offending image, a child-like rendition of the English word together, does nothing to serve the cause of European unity, the French Government claims.
Their objections come after a shower of rude comment throughout Europe about the logo, which was chosen at a cost of €200,000 (£134,000) last month by a jury of experts from EU institutions and member states. The winning entry from among 1,700 submissions was the work of a Polish art student. A common gibe on the internet is that the jumbled letters evoke a ransom note more than festive celebration of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The full slogan says: “Together since 1957.
In a letter to José Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission, Catherine Colonna, the French Minister for Europe, said: “The logo creates a problem. The message of European unity is not there because each logo is different. She was referring to plans for each country to produce a version in its own language.
The Commission announced national versions after an initial outcry about the original, which was only in English, a language that President Chirac has banned French officials from using. French anger went public last week when Barbara Cassin, a philosopher, wrote in Le Monde that the slogan had got everything wrong. “It is absolutely counter-productive and counter to the way that Europe wants to define itself.
She was upset that the logo was in English and it looked like an inferior version of the logo for Google, the internet search website. She hated the playful R (registered in a circle) which made the Union look like a commercial product. French voters last year rejected the European Constitution in a referendum largely because the Union is seen as an Anglo-Saxon commercial venture.
In Brussels, Margot Wallström, the Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication, defended the choice in her blog this week: “I very much like the winning design, I think it is a good example of a ‘slogo’ — it combines a slogan with a logo. I find it fresh, light, modern and unbureaucratic.
“I have seen some pedantic criticism in the usual quarters saying that the EU has not been together since 1957. For me, that misses the point.
Germany is also unhappy because it will be holding the rotating presidency when the Rome treaty is celebrated. It plans to produce its own logo.
Europe has long run into trouble devising visual celebrations. Britain was criticised for using children’s paintings for its 1998 presidency logo. Italy was upset then because it was represented by a pizza.
The biggest wrangle was about a design for the single currency in the late 1990s. EU leaders finally opted to put on euro notes a series of generic European bridges and windows, designed by an Austrian.
At least the EU is united on important matters
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Adam Zapple;459266 wrote: Actually, it's more a case of Europe falling apart in 2006
From Charles Bremner in Paris
France has sent a stiff complaint to Brussels about the European Union’s choice of logo to commemorate its 50th birthday next year.
The offending image, a child-like rendition of the English word together, does nothing to serve the cause of European unity, the French Government claims.
Their objections come after a shower of rude comment throughout Europe about the logo, which was chosen at a cost of €200,000 (£134,000) last month by a jury of experts from EU institutions and member states. The winning entry from among 1,700 submissions was the work of a Polish art student. A common gibe on the internet is that the jumbled letters evoke a ransom note more than festive celebration of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The full slogan says: “Together since 1957.
In a letter to José Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission, Catherine Colonna, the French Minister for Europe, said: “The logo creates a problem. The message of European unity is not there because each logo is different. She was referring to plans for each country to produce a version in its own language.
The Commission announced national versions after an initial outcry about the original, which was only in English, a language that President Chirac has banned French officials from using. French anger went public last week when Barbara Cassin, a philosopher, wrote in Le Monde that the slogan had got everything wrong. “It is absolutely counter-productive and counter to the way that Europe wants to define itself.
She was upset that the logo was in English and it looked like an inferior version of the logo for Google, the internet search website. She hated the playful R (registered in a circle) which made the Union look like a commercial product. French voters last year rejected the European Constitution in a referendum largely because the Union is seen as an Anglo-Saxon commercial venture.
In Brussels, Margot Wallström, the Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication, defended the choice in her blog this week: “I very much like the winning design, I think it is a good example of a ‘slogo’ — it combines a slogan with a logo. I find it fresh, light, modern and unbureaucratic.
“I have seen some pedantic criticism in the usual quarters saying that the EU has not been together since 1957. For me, that misses the point.
Germany is also unhappy because it will be holding the rotating presidency when the Rome treaty is celebrated. It plans to produce its own logo.
Europe has long run into trouble devising visual celebrations. Britain was criticised for using children’s paintings for its 1998 presidency logo. Italy was upset then because it was represented by a pizza.
The biggest wrangle was about a design for the single currency in the late 1990s. EU leaders finally opted to put on euro notes a series of generic European bridges and windows, designed by an Austrian.
It is never going to work the union is made up of states which tried to rule the world by force France Germany Spain and each time they were kicked into touch by the English who ruled a quarter of the world through trade. They don't like us we don't like them how can it work. As far as England is concerned our membership is illegal under English constitutional law, and those who govern us are guilty of treason.
From Charles Bremner in Paris
France has sent a stiff complaint to Brussels about the European Union’s choice of logo to commemorate its 50th birthday next year.
The offending image, a child-like rendition of the English word together, does nothing to serve the cause of European unity, the French Government claims.
Their objections come after a shower of rude comment throughout Europe about the logo, which was chosen at a cost of €200,000 (£134,000) last month by a jury of experts from EU institutions and member states. The winning entry from among 1,700 submissions was the work of a Polish art student. A common gibe on the internet is that the jumbled letters evoke a ransom note more than festive celebration of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The full slogan says: “Together since 1957.
In a letter to José Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission, Catherine Colonna, the French Minister for Europe, said: “The logo creates a problem. The message of European unity is not there because each logo is different. She was referring to plans for each country to produce a version in its own language.
The Commission announced national versions after an initial outcry about the original, which was only in English, a language that President Chirac has banned French officials from using. French anger went public last week when Barbara Cassin, a philosopher, wrote in Le Monde that the slogan had got everything wrong. “It is absolutely counter-productive and counter to the way that Europe wants to define itself.
She was upset that the logo was in English and it looked like an inferior version of the logo for Google, the internet search website. She hated the playful R (registered in a circle) which made the Union look like a commercial product. French voters last year rejected the European Constitution in a referendum largely because the Union is seen as an Anglo-Saxon commercial venture.
In Brussels, Margot Wallström, the Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication, defended the choice in her blog this week: “I very much like the winning design, I think it is a good example of a ‘slogo’ — it combines a slogan with a logo. I find it fresh, light, modern and unbureaucratic.
“I have seen some pedantic criticism in the usual quarters saying that the EU has not been together since 1957. For me, that misses the point.
Germany is also unhappy because it will be holding the rotating presidency when the Rome treaty is celebrated. It plans to produce its own logo.
Europe has long run into trouble devising visual celebrations. Britain was criticised for using children’s paintings for its 1998 presidency logo. Italy was upset then because it was represented by a pizza.
The biggest wrangle was about a design for the single currency in the late 1990s. EU leaders finally opted to put on euro notes a series of generic European bridges and windows, designed by an Austrian.
It is never going to work the union is made up of states which tried to rule the world by force France Germany Spain and each time they were kicked into touch by the English who ruled a quarter of the world through trade. They don't like us we don't like them how can it work. As far as England is concerned our membership is illegal under English constitutional law, and those who govern us are guilty of treason.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Its just the usual storm in a multi-cultural teacup, the symbol of the EU is the flag, it doesn't need an advertising slogan. As for twizzels comments, all I can say is again if the majority of British people are that sick of it, then just leave at the next available opportunity (such as voting in the UKIP into power at the next general election), and stop boring everyone else in Europe with your moaning. Adam, worry about your own continent, you have plenty of problems (like how to get out of Iraq for starters), the fact that European nations used to cyclically make war on each other and now seem content to squabble over the design of a logo would be something to be cheerful about I think.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;459317 wrote: Its just the usual storm in a multi-cultural teacup, the symbol of the EU is the flag, it doesn't need an advertising slogan. As for twizzels comments, all I can say is again if the majority of British people are that sick of it, then just leave at the next available opportunity (such as voting in the UKIP into power at the next general election), and stop boring everyone else in Europe with your moaning. Adam, worry about your own continent, you have plenty of problems (like how to get out of Iraq for starters), the fact that European nations used to cyclically make war on each other and now seem content to squabble over the design of a logo would be something to be cheerful about I think.
You aT LEAST HAVE BENEFITTED FROM OUR MONEY.
You aT LEAST HAVE BENEFITTED FROM OUR MONEY.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;459317 wrote: if the majority of British people are that sick of it, then just leave at the next available opportunity (such as voting in the UKIP into power at the next general election), and stop boring everyone else in Europe with your moaning.
Yeah, right, "no-one votes for a single-issue party so there's no issue".
Yeah, right, "no-one votes for a single-issue party so there's no issue".
At least the EU is united on important matters
twizzel;459408 wrote: You aT LEAST HAVE BENEFITTED FROM OUR MONEY.
Yes, just like your lot helped themselves to everyone elses money since about 1200 AD (as well as their countries), don't make me laugh please. I can certainly debate the issues surrounding the EU and Irelands membership of it rationally, but I am not interested into getting into a xenobhoibic rants about the fact that "all wogs begin at Callais", which is the main thing that seems to inform much British opinion about Europe, you just don't like foreigners, so in my opinion you should leave and be done with it, we'd all be better off.
Yes, just like your lot helped themselves to everyone elses money since about 1200 AD (as well as their countries), don't make me laugh please. I can certainly debate the issues surrounding the EU and Irelands membership of it rationally, but I am not interested into getting into a xenobhoibic rants about the fact that "all wogs begin at Callais", which is the main thing that seems to inform much British opinion about Europe, you just don't like foreigners, so in my opinion you should leave and be done with it, we'd all be better off.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;459462 wrote: Yeah, right, "no-one votes for a single-issue party so there's no issue".
Bill, its your country, if people feel that strongly they should vote other people into power, people who admit that they wish to leave the union, no one is going to prevent it. Personally I would argue for lots of reasons why Britian being a leading member of the European Union is actually a very beneficial (if sometimes difficult) thing both for Britain, Europe, and the world. But as an Irish citizen its not my place to tell you what to do or what you should want, what I would say is that most of the arguments about Europe in Britain seem very immovtive, even hysterical, and take no consideration of the mostly positive things that the EU actually does in its day-to-day business.
And its also true that if people just feel they don't want something, even if its just knee-jerk nationalism, then there comes a point when its a waste of time trying to explain why something like the EU is actually a very practical and useful thing in the current modern world. That argument seems lost in Britain at the minute, and I don't want to be beating my head off a brick wall trying to justify it, thats generally why I don't get into these things with British people, they are not interested in listening.
But indulge me and just ask yourself one thing, whats more a threat to Britain's straegic interests: getting into crazy foreign wars that will have reprecussions for deacdes simply because a foolish U.S. president wants it (while no one in Britain does), or perhaps adopting the metric system, hmmmm?
Bill, its your country, if people feel that strongly they should vote other people into power, people who admit that they wish to leave the union, no one is going to prevent it. Personally I would argue for lots of reasons why Britian being a leading member of the European Union is actually a very beneficial (if sometimes difficult) thing both for Britain, Europe, and the world. But as an Irish citizen its not my place to tell you what to do or what you should want, what I would say is that most of the arguments about Europe in Britain seem very immovtive, even hysterical, and take no consideration of the mostly positive things that the EU actually does in its day-to-day business.
And its also true that if people just feel they don't want something, even if its just knee-jerk nationalism, then there comes a point when its a waste of time trying to explain why something like the EU is actually a very practical and useful thing in the current modern world. That argument seems lost in Britain at the minute, and I don't want to be beating my head off a brick wall trying to justify it, thats generally why I don't get into these things with British people, they are not interested in listening.
But indulge me and just ask yourself one thing, whats more a threat to Britain's straegic interests: getting into crazy foreign wars that will have reprecussions for deacdes simply because a foolish U.S. president wants it (while no one in Britain does), or perhaps adopting the metric system, hmmmm?
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;460429 wrote: Yes, just like your lot helped themselves to everyone elses money since about 1200 AD (as well as their countries), don't make me laugh please. I can certainly debate the issues surrounding the EU and Irelands membership of it rationally, but I am not interested into getting into a xenobhoibic rants about the fact that "all wogs begin at Callais", which is the main thing that seems to inform much British opinion about Europe, you just don't like foreigners, so in my opinion you should leave and be done with it, we'd all be better off.
"I'm not interested in getting into a xenophobic rant"? What the hell's that,
above, then.
"I'm not interested in getting into a xenophobic rant"? What the hell's that,
above, then.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;460437 wrote: But indulge me and just ask yourself one thing, whats more a threat to Britain's straegic interests: getting into crazy foreign wars that will have reprecussions for deacdes simply because a foolish U.S. president wants it (while no one in Britain does), or perhaps adopting the metric system, hmmmm?
I've no idea. The above is complete nonsense.
I've no idea. The above is complete nonsense.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;460454 wrote: "I'm not interested in getting into a xenophobic rant"? What the hell's that,
above, then.
Its precisely that, I posted it too show that everyone can have a go at being nasty to other peoples countries if they want, and also becuase twizzel asked for it, if you are prepared to give it, you should be prepared to take it. But I assure you I'm not xenophobic, though of course I'm biased like everyone else, the point is we've been at this sort of thing in Europe for about 2,800 years and the culmination was the lovely 20th century, which hardly needs to be explained, its better than European Nations have some system that allows them to be constuctively competative with each other, not destructive, the EU is hardly ideal, but its about the best messy compromise possible, and of course its also the only game in town at the minute.
above, then.
Its precisely that, I posted it too show that everyone can have a go at being nasty to other peoples countries if they want, and also becuase twizzel asked for it, if you are prepared to give it, you should be prepared to take it. But I assure you I'm not xenophobic, though of course I'm biased like everyone else, the point is we've been at this sort of thing in Europe for about 2,800 years and the culmination was the lovely 20th century, which hardly needs to be explained, its better than European Nations have some system that allows them to be constuctively competative with each other, not destructive, the EU is hardly ideal, but its about the best messy compromise possible, and of course its also the only game in town at the minute.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
ArnoldLayne;460448 wrote: Oooh your a sarcy bugger aint ya ? :wah:
I would like to add that yes we did have a referendum to enter Europe but since then there are 25 million people in Britain now, who werent able to vote then. Much of what Europe is now was never discussed or even thought of, as part of the referendum (Single currency, a huge amount of law etc)
Yes Arnold, also no one living now was alive when the Act of Supremacy was written into the statutes, but thats not an automatic reason to revise it. But holding a referendum on membership would be fairly easy to do if people pressed enough for it, I am pretty sure that if one was held Britain would be out of the EU by Christmas. Whther anyone would really mind too much is another matter, the French would no doubt be delighted as many French people now see the EU as an Anglo-Saxon plot, which is funy as many British people see it the other way round, irridentist nationalism, is there anything it can't achieve. :wah:
I would like to add that yes we did have a referendum to enter Europe but since then there are 25 million people in Britain now, who werent able to vote then. Much of what Europe is now was never discussed or even thought of, as part of the referendum (Single currency, a huge amount of law etc)
Yes Arnold, also no one living now was alive when the Act of Supremacy was written into the statutes, but thats not an automatic reason to revise it. But holding a referendum on membership would be fairly easy to do if people pressed enough for it, I am pretty sure that if one was held Britain would be out of the EU by Christmas. Whther anyone would really mind too much is another matter, the French would no doubt be delighted as many French people now see the EU as an Anglo-Saxon plot, which is funy as many British people see it the other way round, irridentist nationalism, is there anything it can't achieve. :wah:
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;460458 wrote: I've no idea. The above is complete nonsense.
Which above?, the metric system, or Britains involvement in Iraq? You decide.
Which above?, the metric system, or Britains involvement in Iraq? You decide.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;460502 wrote:
Originally Posted by Bill Sikes
I've no idea. The above is complete nonsense.
Which above?, the metric system, or Britains involvement in Iraq? You decide.
Your "question", of course.
Originally Posted by Bill Sikes
I've no idea. The above is complete nonsense.
Which above?, the metric system, or Britains involvement in Iraq? You decide.
Your "question", of course.
At least the EU is united on important matters
ArnoldLayne;460507 wrote: I think you are right but we will never be allowed a referendum on Europe by Labour or the Tories cos they know that too.
France have an advantage, they possess a government that at least looks after French and Frances interest above those of europe (as much as they are able) We do not have such a government. It panders to the politically correct and to the Court of Human Rights (see human rights thread)
Its interesting, I've been in France a lot, and many people feel exactly the same thing about their own government, espeically about immigration from North Africa, my own opinion is that people get the governments that they deserve, and in mature democracies such as Britain or France, its actually incumbent upon the people to elect their own governemnts, the reality is that a large proportion of people don't even bother to vote, thats their own fault.
Its important to remember that the EU is not a foreign government its a cooperative organization that is run at the behest of National governments including Britain. I think its certainy true that if Britain left the EU it would damage the county's ability to exert influence in the world, but also it wouldn't be the end of the world either, and perhaps if Britain was out altogether then British people would be able to look at the thing more cooly and decide whether it was worth being involved with, that would be more healthy for Britain at this stage I think, instead of trying to coax people into something they instinctively don't like.
France have an advantage, they possess a government that at least looks after French and Frances interest above those of europe (as much as they are able) We do not have such a government. It panders to the politically correct and to the Court of Human Rights (see human rights thread)
Its interesting, I've been in France a lot, and many people feel exactly the same thing about their own government, espeically about immigration from North Africa, my own opinion is that people get the governments that they deserve, and in mature democracies such as Britain or France, its actually incumbent upon the people to elect their own governemnts, the reality is that a large proportion of people don't even bother to vote, thats their own fault.
Its important to remember that the EU is not a foreign government its a cooperative organization that is run at the behest of National governments including Britain. I think its certainy true that if Britain left the EU it would damage the county's ability to exert influence in the world, but also it wouldn't be the end of the world either, and perhaps if Britain was out altogether then British people would be able to look at the thing more cooly and decide whether it was worth being involved with, that would be more healthy for Britain at this stage I think, instead of trying to coax people into something they instinctively don't like.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;460510 wrote: Your "question", of course.
Yes of course, I'm simply trying to make the point that a hypthosized assmiliation into a supposed future EU superstate is not the greatest problem facing British people today in terms of their country's future, though I'm not for one minute saying that everything about the EU is fantastic, or that there aren't people who want such things. If I was British, my biggest worry would be why is the U.S. State Department running British foreign policy and why does no one seem to mind that much?
Yes of course, I'm simply trying to make the point that a hypthosized assmiliation into a supposed future EU superstate is not the greatest problem facing British people today in terms of their country's future, though I'm not for one minute saying that everything about the EU is fantastic, or that there aren't people who want such things. If I was British, my biggest worry would be why is the U.S. State Department running British foreign policy and why does no one seem to mind that much?
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;460535 wrote: Yes of course, I'm simply trying to make the point that a hypthosized assmiliation into a supposed future EU superstate is not the greatest problem facing British people today in terms of their country's future, though I'm not for one minute saying that everything about the EU is fantastic, or that there aren't people who want such things. If I was British, my biggest worry would be why is the U.S. State Department running British foreign policy and why does no one seem to mind that much?
What is "the greatest problem facing British people today in terms of their
country's future", then?
People very much mind the Bliar government's abasement. That's part of the
reason that he and his cronies are in such trouble. However, it's probably too
much to expect that arrangements such as extradition terms be rescinded.
What is "the greatest problem facing British people today in terms of their
country's future", then?
People very much mind the Bliar government's abasement. That's part of the
reason that he and his cronies are in such trouble. However, it's probably too
much to expect that arrangements such as extradition terms be rescinded.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;461018 wrote: What is "the greatest problem facing British people today in terms of their
country's future", then?
People very much mind the Bliar government's abasement. That's part of the
reason that he and his cronies are in such trouble. However, it's probably too
much to expect that arrangements such as extradition terms be rescinded.
I think that the biggest problem as always is trying to keep the country prosperous and free, and climate change as well, like everywhere. Britain has lots of things to do I suppose, like anywhere, and Britain I am quite sure get by and probably do well, as it has for a long time, I think that for the most part Britain is a country with a good future as long as it keeps its economy strong, which probably does need to get more focused back on high quality manufacturing as well as property and finanical services, I think that there should be more respect and empashis on science and engineering in terms of education and actually paying such people proper wages, (scientists earn a pittance in Britain and Ireland, which is one of the reasons science here is lagging behind other countries, but they do seem to be trying to do something about that). I think some things that Blair has done are quite good, but I was certainly never gone on the Iraq idea and that has proven to be a diaster, oh well, life is never simple. In terms of Europe, I personally think Britain would be better off in Europe as it would be good for Britain and would increase the inflecunce of British values (many of which I admire) across the continent, and espeically in the countries of central and eastern Europe, but if people in Britain want Britain to leave the EU, that wouldn't necessarily be a diaster either.
country's future", then?
People very much mind the Bliar government's abasement. That's part of the
reason that he and his cronies are in such trouble. However, it's probably too
much to expect that arrangements such as extradition terms be rescinded.
I think that the biggest problem as always is trying to keep the country prosperous and free, and climate change as well, like everywhere. Britain has lots of things to do I suppose, like anywhere, and Britain I am quite sure get by and probably do well, as it has for a long time, I think that for the most part Britain is a country with a good future as long as it keeps its economy strong, which probably does need to get more focused back on high quality manufacturing as well as property and finanical services, I think that there should be more respect and empashis on science and engineering in terms of education and actually paying such people proper wages, (scientists earn a pittance in Britain and Ireland, which is one of the reasons science here is lagging behind other countries, but they do seem to be trying to do something about that). I think some things that Blair has done are quite good, but I was certainly never gone on the Iraq idea and that has proven to be a diaster, oh well, life is never simple. In terms of Europe, I personally think Britain would be better off in Europe as it would be good for Britain and would increase the inflecunce of British values (many of which I admire) across the continent, and espeically in the countries of central and eastern Europe, but if people in Britain want Britain to leave the EU, that wouldn't necessarily be a diaster either.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;461018 wrote: What is "the greatest problem facing British people today in terms of their
country's future", then?
People very much mind the Bliar government's abasement. That's part of the
reason that he and his cronies are in such trouble. However, it's probably too
much to expect that arrangements such as extradition terms be rescinded.
Well one is we badly need electoral reform. Over the last 2 and a half decades we have had in power a government that most of the electorate did not vote for. neither the tories or labour have the majority of the electorate voting for them never mind those who don't bother because it doesn't make any difference. Our politicians are losing touch with the voters. labour is about to fall apart as did the tories after maggie thatcher. Not only is the party bankrupt bit the diehard labour voter is possibly gone for good.
The other is those numpties that live in cloud cuckoo land that think the Uk is a powerful enough trading countrty on its own to do without being in one of the trading blocs and that other countries will trade with us just because it's us. Our biggest export markets are the european ones european and likely to increase in future. Even if we opted out the eu the idea that we would not have to follow eu rules is ludicrous and we would have no say in what they should be. They also forget that most of the european voters feel the same way about the eu commissioners as we do.
country's future", then?
People very much mind the Bliar government's abasement. That's part of the
reason that he and his cronies are in such trouble. However, it's probably too
much to expect that arrangements such as extradition terms be rescinded.
Well one is we badly need electoral reform. Over the last 2 and a half decades we have had in power a government that most of the electorate did not vote for. neither the tories or labour have the majority of the electorate voting for them never mind those who don't bother because it doesn't make any difference. Our politicians are losing touch with the voters. labour is about to fall apart as did the tories after maggie thatcher. Not only is the party bankrupt bit the diehard labour voter is possibly gone for good.
The other is those numpties that live in cloud cuckoo land that think the Uk is a powerful enough trading countrty on its own to do without being in one of the trading blocs and that other countries will trade with us just because it's us. Our biggest export markets are the european ones european and likely to increase in future. Even if we opted out the eu the idea that we would not have to follow eu rules is ludicrous and we would have no say in what they should be. They also forget that most of the european voters feel the same way about the eu commissioners as we do.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
gmc;461625 wrote: The other is those numpties that live in cloud cuckoo land that think the Uk is a powerful enough trading countrty on its own to do without being in one of the trading blocs and that other countries will trade with us just because it's us. Our biggest export markets are the european ones european and likely to increase in future. Even if we opted out the eu the idea that we would not have to follow eu rules is ludicrous and we would have no say in what they should be. They also forget that most of the european voters feel the same way about the eu commissioners as we do.
What have you to say about the relationship of Norway with the EU, then?
What have you to say about the relationship of Norway with the EU, then?
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;460429 wrote: Yes, just like your lot helped themselves to everyone elses money since about 1200 AD (as well as their countries), don't make me laugh please. I can certainly debate the issues surrounding the EU and Irelands membership of it rationally, but I am not interested into getting into a xenobhoibic rants about the fact that "all wogs begin at Callais", which is the main thing that seems to inform much British opinion about Europe, you just don't like foreigners, so in my opinion you should leave and be done with it, we'd all be better off.
Do you mean all wogs don't begin at Calais?
Do you mean all wogs don't begin at Calais?
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;460521 wrote: Its interesting, I've been in France a lot, and many people feel exactly the same thing about their own government, espeically about immigration from North Africa, my own opinion is that people get the governments that they deserve, and in mature democracies such as Britain or France, its actually incumbent upon the people to elect their own governemnts, the reality is that a large proportion of people don't even bother to vote, thats their own fault.
I spent a year in France and you're totally right, French politics are in extreme crisis, French people are seriously disillusioned with their government and like you mention the issue of immigration is perhaps more important there than in England because they have a large immigrant population from their former colonies (Algeria etc) French people mistrust their immigrant counterparts believing they cause all the bad things that happen in the country :-5 This is why the French are increasingly turning to the choice of the Right (i.e the National Front) trying to find an alternative party that will solve their problems but anyway I don't think Britain is alone in bemoaning our government, we make it what it is! Women died so we could have the vote so ladies get using....tee hee
The EU is never gonna completely agree because the countries are so diverse especially with new additions in Eastern Europe, they have different political and social histories, it'll be hard to come to equal decisions when some countries are hardly democratised (if that is a word)
I spent a year in France and you're totally right, French politics are in extreme crisis, French people are seriously disillusioned with their government and like you mention the issue of immigration is perhaps more important there than in England because they have a large immigrant population from their former colonies (Algeria etc) French people mistrust their immigrant counterparts believing they cause all the bad things that happen in the country :-5 This is why the French are increasingly turning to the choice of the Right (i.e the National Front) trying to find an alternative party that will solve their problems but anyway I don't think Britain is alone in bemoaning our government, we make it what it is! Women died so we could have the vote so ladies get using....tee hee
The EU is never gonna completely agree because the countries are so diverse especially with new additions in Eastern Europe, they have different political and social histories, it'll be hard to come to equal decisions when some countries are hardly democratised (if that is a word)
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;460521 wrote: Its interesting, I've been in France a lot, and many people feel exactly the same thing about their own government, espeically about immigration from North Africa, my own opinion is that people get the governments that they deserve, and in mature democracies such as Britain or France, its actually incumbent upon the people to elect their own governemnts, the reality is that a large proportion of people don't even bother to vote, thats their own fault.
Its important to remember that the EU is not a foreign government its a cooperative organization that is run at the behest of National governments including Britain. I think its certainy true that if Britain left the EU it would damage the county's ability to exert influence in the world, but also it wouldn't be the end of the world either, and perhaps if Britain was out altogether then British people would be able to look at the thing more cooly and decide whether it was worth being involved with, that would be more healthy for Britain at this stage I think, instead of trying to coax people into something they instinctively don't like.
It's not only our instinktive dislike it is against English constituional law.
Its important to remember that the EU is not a foreign government its a cooperative organization that is run at the behest of National governments including Britain. I think its certainy true that if Britain left the EU it would damage the county's ability to exert influence in the world, but also it wouldn't be the end of the world either, and perhaps if Britain was out altogether then British people would be able to look at the thing more cooly and decide whether it was worth being involved with, that would be more healthy for Britain at this stage I think, instead of trying to coax people into something they instinctively don't like.
It's not only our instinktive dislike it is against English constituional law.
At least the EU is united on important matters
twizzel;461634 wrote: Do you mean all wogs don't begin at Calais?
Yes, thats precisely what I mean, being a European, I must admit I quite like Europe in general, not just our part on the two islands we live on. Thats not politics though, its just my inclination.
Yes, thats precisely what I mean, being a European, I must admit I quite like Europe in general, not just our part on the two islands we live on. Thats not politics though, its just my inclination.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;461630 wrote: What have you to say about the relationship of Norway with the EU, then?
Just answering this one for GMC, I think that the relationship with Norway is fine, and everyone is happy as far as I can tell, the EU is not an empire and its not obligatory to be part of it. In terms of Britain, its certainly the case that Britain could have a relationship like Norway and not be a part of the Union, I don't see why anyone would have a political problem with that, though perhaps some arger businesses would be unhappy and the city of London certainly would as the Eurobond market is worth about 800 billion sterling and if London was to lose that to Frankfurt the outlook for the city would be grim, but thats not inevitable either, and a country is more than just a place to do business of course. T
I would say though that the politicans in Westminister though like having a large influence in the World and Europe (whatever they might say) they are certainly more ambitious than the Norwegians as to where Britain should be in the world because of its history and economy, and thats one of the things that inform Britain's relationships with other big European countries and America. I don't think that British governments would like to be regarded in the same way that Norwegian ones are, whether thats a good or a bad thing is of course another thing altogether. The other point is that Great Britain is actually comprised of 3 countries and the U.K. includes a bit of another one, the Scots, Welsh, and English don't all have quite the same political outlook, and it might well be the case that in 20 years time, England might be out of the EU but Scotland might be in it, it might seem fanciful, but far stranger things have happened.
Just answering this one for GMC, I think that the relationship with Norway is fine, and everyone is happy as far as I can tell, the EU is not an empire and its not obligatory to be part of it. In terms of Britain, its certainly the case that Britain could have a relationship like Norway and not be a part of the Union, I don't see why anyone would have a political problem with that, though perhaps some arger businesses would be unhappy and the city of London certainly would as the Eurobond market is worth about 800 billion sterling and if London was to lose that to Frankfurt the outlook for the city would be grim, but thats not inevitable either, and a country is more than just a place to do business of course. T
I would say though that the politicans in Westminister though like having a large influence in the World and Europe (whatever they might say) they are certainly more ambitious than the Norwegians as to where Britain should be in the world because of its history and economy, and thats one of the things that inform Britain's relationships with other big European countries and America. I don't think that British governments would like to be regarded in the same way that Norwegian ones are, whether thats a good or a bad thing is of course another thing altogether. The other point is that Great Britain is actually comprised of 3 countries and the U.K. includes a bit of another one, the Scots, Welsh, and English don't all have quite the same political outlook, and it might well be the case that in 20 years time, England might be out of the EU but Scotland might be in it, it might seem fanciful, but far stranger things have happened.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
twizzel;461640 wrote: It's not only our instinktive dislike it is against English constituional law.
I am no legal expert, but isn't the basis of constitutional law in Britain that fundamentally Parliament is soveriegn above anything else, there is no written constitution to restrain Parliament ultimately, and the monarch can also be desposed legally by Parliament, though of course in practice it always exercises pretty strict legal restraint based on common law precendent, but I believe that once elected, a Parliament theoretcially has the power to legislate as it sees fit and this goes back to the period of the English civil war and the restoration? I must admit I am fuzzy about the precise legal relationship between the Monarch and Parliament, but I thought that Parliament is the final arbiter of all law (except now of course it has adopted the European convention of human rights and legally binding suranational EU treatys, which only Parliament had the authroity to ratify though it consluted the people in 1973 on membership). Isn't that why Cameron is talking about an exclusively British bill of rights to restore Westminister back to full sovereignty? (which by the way won't work unless Britain does actually leave the EU). Correct me if I am wrong.
I am no legal expert, but isn't the basis of constitutional law in Britain that fundamentally Parliament is soveriegn above anything else, there is no written constitution to restrain Parliament ultimately, and the monarch can also be desposed legally by Parliament, though of course in practice it always exercises pretty strict legal restraint based on common law precendent, but I believe that once elected, a Parliament theoretcially has the power to legislate as it sees fit and this goes back to the period of the English civil war and the restoration? I must admit I am fuzzy about the precise legal relationship between the Monarch and Parliament, but I thought that Parliament is the final arbiter of all law (except now of course it has adopted the European convention of human rights and legally binding suranational EU treatys, which only Parliament had the authroity to ratify though it consluted the people in 1973 on membership). Isn't that why Cameron is talking about an exclusively British bill of rights to restore Westminister back to full sovereignty? (which by the way won't work unless Britain does actually leave the EU). Correct me if I am wrong.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
beautyful;461635 wrote: I spent a year in France and you're totally right, French politics are in extreme crisis, French people are seriously disillusioned with their government and like you mention the issue of immigration is perhaps more important there than in England because they have a large immigrant population from their former colonies (Algeria etc) French people mistrust their immigrant counterparts believing they cause all the bad things that happen in the country :-5 This is why the French are increasingly turning to the choice of the Right (i.e the National Front) trying to find an alternative party that will solve their problems but anyway I don't think Britain is alone in bemoaning our government, we make it what it is! Women died so we could have the vote so ladies get using....tee hee
The EU is never gonna completely agree because the countries are so diverse especially with new additions in Eastern Europe, they have different political and social histories, it'll be hard to come to equal decisions when some countries are hardly democratised (if that is a word)
I agree with you, we seem to share pretty common ground when it comes to the EU.
The EU is never gonna completely agree because the countries are so diverse especially with new additions in Eastern Europe, they have different political and social histories, it'll be hard to come to equal decisions when some countries are hardly democratised (if that is a word)
I agree with you, we seem to share pretty common ground when it comes to the EU.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;461738 wrote: I think that the relationship with Norway is fine, and everyone is happy as far as I can tell, the EU is not an empire and its not obligatory to be part of it. In terms of Britain, its certainly the case that Britain could have a relationship like Norway and not be a part of the Union, I don't see why anyone would have a political problem with that, though perhaps some arger businesses would be unhappy and the city of London certainly would as the Eurobond market is worth about 800 billion sterling and if London was to lose that to Frankfurt
Why *on earth* do you suppose that would happen?
Why *on earth* do you suppose that would happen?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;461750 wrote: I am no legal expert, but isn't the basis of constitutional law in Britain that [...][ the monarch can also be desposed legally by Parliament,
Isn't it the other way around?
Isn't it the other way around?
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;461630 wrote: What have you to say about the relationship of Norway with the EU, then?
Thart is always the example used by the SNP when arguing that scotland would be viable on it's own. In particular in relation to energy resources and fisheries. It is after all scotlands oil that funded the tax cuts of the eighties and scottish fishing that has suffered as much if not more than the engllish one as a result of the eec. So a similar relationship with the eec for scotland might be viable but such a case has english politicians gibbering with fright at the prospect of losing control of the oil revenues. On the other hand scotland along with some regions in england in england have benefited greatly from eec membership thanks to things like the regional development fund in developing deprived areas that simply would not have happened without it. Come to that many of britains farmers have done well out of the CAP which is why some are bleating (no pun intended) about losing some of the subsidies.
Don't get me wrong. Iam in favour of the eec but have very strong reservations about it and the way it is going but then so do many others in europe. It is the assumption that it is some kind of unstoppable force that the people can't control I find irritating and pathetic. France sems to have little problem ignoring eec directives, but then they are allowed to get away with it.
The biggest problem we have is our politicians not europe.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/budgetoutcome.pdf
posted by bill sikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbally View Post
I think that the relationship with Norway is fine, and everyone is happy as far as I can tell, the EU is not an empire and its not obligatory to be part of it. In terms of Britain, its certainly the case that Britain could have a relationship like Norway and not be a part of the Union, I don't see why anyone would have a political problem with that, though perhaps some arger businesses would be unhappy and the city of London certainly would as the Eurobond market is worth about 800 billion sterling and if London was to lose that to Frankfurt
Why *on earth* do you suppose that would happen?
Competition. UK financial services is far more sophisticated than that of europe and that is where the future growth is going to come. Many of the eec directives om financial services are aimed at dealing with problems in their market and are completely inappropriate to us. Europe is where the growth is going to be and if the london market is not involved there is a real possibility it will become irrelevant and decline with places like Zurich poised to take over the role.
posted by twizzel
It's not only our instinctive dislike it is against English constituional law.
There is no written constitution as such constitutional law is made up and altered as circumstances distate. The sovereign power is parliament that basically can do what it wants. Personally I think they should vote down tony Blair not least because he seems to think he has presidential powers but that is perhaps a different thread.
In exactly what way do you think it is against constitutional law?
Just to remind you the referundum at the time came back two to one in favour of joining the eec. A result that surprised many opposed to our entry and a fact conveniently forgotten by the likes of ukip members. Arguably of course they were voting for a trade relationship not eu government but that that has come about is due our politicians letting it go that way. Had it not been for a desire to hang on to past glories of empire and an understandable distrust of france and germany we might have had a bigger say in the way it developed.
As it was we ended up begging to be let in on terms that were perhaps less than ideal. I don't know if you were around at the time but in the 70's our economy was up **** creek and going nowhere, without eec membership what do you think would have happened?
Thart is always the example used by the SNP when arguing that scotland would be viable on it's own. In particular in relation to energy resources and fisheries. It is after all scotlands oil that funded the tax cuts of the eighties and scottish fishing that has suffered as much if not more than the engllish one as a result of the eec. So a similar relationship with the eec for scotland might be viable but such a case has english politicians gibbering with fright at the prospect of losing control of the oil revenues. On the other hand scotland along with some regions in england in england have benefited greatly from eec membership thanks to things like the regional development fund in developing deprived areas that simply would not have happened without it. Come to that many of britains farmers have done well out of the CAP which is why some are bleating (no pun intended) about losing some of the subsidies.
Don't get me wrong. Iam in favour of the eec but have very strong reservations about it and the way it is going but then so do many others in europe. It is the assumption that it is some kind of unstoppable force that the people can't control I find irritating and pathetic. France sems to have little problem ignoring eec directives, but then they are allowed to get away with it.
The biggest problem we have is our politicians not europe.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/budgetoutcome.pdf
posted by bill sikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbally View Post
I think that the relationship with Norway is fine, and everyone is happy as far as I can tell, the EU is not an empire and its not obligatory to be part of it. In terms of Britain, its certainly the case that Britain could have a relationship like Norway and not be a part of the Union, I don't see why anyone would have a political problem with that, though perhaps some arger businesses would be unhappy and the city of London certainly would as the Eurobond market is worth about 800 billion sterling and if London was to lose that to Frankfurt
Why *on earth* do you suppose that would happen?
Competition. UK financial services is far more sophisticated than that of europe and that is where the future growth is going to come. Many of the eec directives om financial services are aimed at dealing with problems in their market and are completely inappropriate to us. Europe is where the growth is going to be and if the london market is not involved there is a real possibility it will become irrelevant and decline with places like Zurich poised to take over the role.
posted by twizzel
It's not only our instinctive dislike it is against English constituional law.
There is no written constitution as such constitutional law is made up and altered as circumstances distate. The sovereign power is parliament that basically can do what it wants. Personally I think they should vote down tony Blair not least because he seems to think he has presidential powers but that is perhaps a different thread.
In exactly what way do you think it is against constitutional law?
Just to remind you the referundum at the time came back two to one in favour of joining the eec. A result that surprised many opposed to our entry and a fact conveniently forgotten by the likes of ukip members. Arguably of course they were voting for a trade relationship not eu government but that that has come about is due our politicians letting it go that way. Had it not been for a desire to hang on to past glories of empire and an understandable distrust of france and germany we might have had a bigger say in the way it developed.
As it was we ended up begging to be let in on terms that were perhaps less than ideal. I don't know if you were around at the time but in the 70's our economy was up **** creek and going nowhere, without eec membership what do you think would have happened?
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;461767 wrote: Why *on earth* do you suppose that would happen?
I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying its a possibility and not outside the realms of possibility, the Eurobond market is related to market capitialization across the entire continent and its certainly a possibility that if Britian was to leave the EU finanical houses could decide it made more sense to conduct business from Frankfurt, but by no means an inevitability, its just one of the possibilities.
I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying its a possibility and not outside the realms of possibility, the Eurobond market is related to market capitialization across the entire continent and its certainly a possibility that if Britian was to leave the EU finanical houses could decide it made more sense to conduct business from Frankfurt, but by no means an inevitability, its just one of the possibilities.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;461775 wrote: Isn't it the other way around?
I don't think so, the Queen is a constitutional monarch, but there is no actual constitution so her powers are only enshrined in parliamentary statues, which of course can at any time be overturned by parliament. I'm not saying that they will, just that they can.
I don't think so, the Queen is a constitutional monarch, but there is no actual constitution so her powers are only enshrined in parliamentary statues, which of course can at any time be overturned by parliament. I'm not saying that they will, just that they can.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;459317 wrote: [...] worry about your own continent, you have plenty of problems [...]Mind if I borrow this occassionally?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
gmc;462034 wrote:
Originally Posted by Bill Sikes
What have you to say about the relationship of Norway with the EU, then?
Thart is always the example used by the SNP when arguing that scotland would be viable on it's own. In particular in relation to energy resources and fisheries. It is after all scotlands oil that funded the tax cuts of the eighties and scottish fishing that has suffered as much if not more than the engllish one as a result of the eec. So a similar relationship with the eec for scotland might be viable but such a case has english politicians gibbering with fright at the prospect of losing control of the oil revenues. On the other hand scotland along with some regions in england in england have benefited greatly from eec membership thanks to things like the regional development fund in developing deprived areas that simply would not have happened without it. Come to that many of britains farmers have done well out of the CAP which is why some are bleating (no pun intended) about losing some of the subsidies.
Why are you talking about Scotland in particular? Why should the UK as a
whole note have the same relationship with the "EU" as Norway has? That
would be far closer to the original idea which people actually voted on in
the referendum, too.
Originally Posted by Bill Sikes
What have you to say about the relationship of Norway with the EU, then?
Thart is always the example used by the SNP when arguing that scotland would be viable on it's own. In particular in relation to energy resources and fisheries. It is after all scotlands oil that funded the tax cuts of the eighties and scottish fishing that has suffered as much if not more than the engllish one as a result of the eec. So a similar relationship with the eec for scotland might be viable but such a case has english politicians gibbering with fright at the prospect of losing control of the oil revenues. On the other hand scotland along with some regions in england in england have benefited greatly from eec membership thanks to things like the regional development fund in developing deprived areas that simply would not have happened without it. Come to that many of britains farmers have done well out of the CAP which is why some are bleating (no pun intended) about losing some of the subsidies.
Why are you talking about Scotland in particular? Why should the UK as a
whole note have the same relationship with the "EU" as Norway has? That
would be far closer to the original idea which people actually voted on in
the referendum, too.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Accountable;462105 wrote: Mind if I borrow this occassionally?
Certainly you may, it works equally well both ways of course!
Certainly you may, it works equally well both ways of course!
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;462160 wrote: Why are you talking about Scotland in particular? Why should the UK as a
whole note have the same relationship with the "EU" as Norway has? That
would be far closer to the original idea which people actually voted on in
the referendum, too.
Population size and economy are pretty much the same and it's always held up as an example when politicians oposed to the SNP argue that scotland is too small an economy to survive without england.
It's propsperity is mainly due to the gas and oil reserves off it's shores. Although a trading nation over half it's revenue comes from this sector.
It's argued that scotland would do well away from england and in control of it's own fortune for much the same basic reason, oil and gas. The UK as a whole is different in that it needs to be competitive within europe, financial services-what they call invisible exports are a major factor, if not fully in the eec then that sector is going to suffer. Also we compete directly with eu countrties in manufacturing, exporting cars for instance if not being a fll member makes us more expensive you will see the likes of nissan, toyota and honda rethinking their postion as well as any othet foreign company looking for manufacturing plants to export in to the eec and eastern europe.
You can make a case for scotland because of the natural resources we have and everybody needs, the UK as a whole is different. What would be the effect on industry and inward investment if we decide to opt out.
Maggie thatcher argued that industry shutting down wouldn't matter as we became a service economy but it's not that simple. You need somethimg to service and why should anyone buy from us when they can get it cheasper in indiaand china?
I don't think so, the Queen is a constitutional monarch, but there is no actual constitution so her powers are only enshrined in parliamentary statues, which of course can at any time be overturned by parliament. I'm not saying that they will, just that they can.
Parliament is the sovereign power. If you recall we chopped of a king's head to make sure royalty got the point. If rthe puritans hadn't been so vile maybe we would have stayed a republic. Personally i think i would have ben one of the levellers.
whole note have the same relationship with the "EU" as Norway has? That
would be far closer to the original idea which people actually voted on in
the referendum, too.
Population size and economy are pretty much the same and it's always held up as an example when politicians oposed to the SNP argue that scotland is too small an economy to survive without england.
It's propsperity is mainly due to the gas and oil reserves off it's shores. Although a trading nation over half it's revenue comes from this sector.
It's argued that scotland would do well away from england and in control of it's own fortune for much the same basic reason, oil and gas. The UK as a whole is different in that it needs to be competitive within europe, financial services-what they call invisible exports are a major factor, if not fully in the eec then that sector is going to suffer. Also we compete directly with eu countrties in manufacturing, exporting cars for instance if not being a fll member makes us more expensive you will see the likes of nissan, toyota and honda rethinking their postion as well as any othet foreign company looking for manufacturing plants to export in to the eec and eastern europe.
You can make a case for scotland because of the natural resources we have and everybody needs, the UK as a whole is different. What would be the effect on industry and inward investment if we decide to opt out.
Maggie thatcher argued that industry shutting down wouldn't matter as we became a service economy but it's not that simple. You need somethimg to service and why should anyone buy from us when they can get it cheasper in indiaand china?
I don't think so, the Queen is a constitutional monarch, but there is no actual constitution so her powers are only enshrined in parliamentary statues, which of course can at any time be overturned by parliament. I'm not saying that they will, just that they can.
Parliament is the sovereign power. If you recall we chopped of a king's head to make sure royalty got the point. If rthe puritans hadn't been so vile maybe we would have stayed a republic. Personally i think i would have ben one of the levellers.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
gmc;462190 wrote: [Norway and the EU]The UK as a whole is different in that it needs to be competitive within europe, financial services-what they call invisible exports are a major factor, if not fully in the eec then that sector is going to suffer. Also we compete directly with eu countrties in manufacturing, exporting cars for instance if not being a fll member makes us more expensive you will see the likes of nissan, toyota and honda rethinking their postion as well as any othet foreign company looking for manufacturing plants to export in to the eec and eastern europe.
This article contains some thoughts you might like:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do2702.xml
This article contains some thoughts you might like:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do2702.xml
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;462217 wrote: This article contains some thoughts you might like:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do2702.xml
I've read such arguements before. Thanks to the oil and gas Norway is uniquely placed to negotiate on it's own, they have somethimng everybody else all need. So did the UK but instead of using the windfall from north sea oil to develop our economy it went on tax cuts and supporting the unemployed during the thatcher years round about the same time as she set the seeds of our dependance on russian gas.
I'm obviously pro european but there is also much I don't like about it either. Some of the things coming out are bureaucracy run amok. The thing is many in europe feel the same way about it and care just as much about their sovereignty as we do. They don't want a pan european govt either. What we ned is an eu parliament or a way of calling officials to account, literally as well as metaphorically and stopping some of the more ridiculous ideas they come out with.
Most of the anti european stuff is simple xenophobia and when push comes to shove they have no real policies to propose. Bumped in to a member of ukip yesterday-acording to him only 9%% of our trade is with the eec. With such a high llevel of knowledge about somethimng he felt passionately about I can't help feelig that ukip is the thinking mans BNP party. Course UKIP don't fancy the SNP getting enough support to take the oil off the rest of the UK that's taking sovereignty too far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do2702.xml
I've read such arguements before. Thanks to the oil and gas Norway is uniquely placed to negotiate on it's own, they have somethimng everybody else all need. So did the UK but instead of using the windfall from north sea oil to develop our economy it went on tax cuts and supporting the unemployed during the thatcher years round about the same time as she set the seeds of our dependance on russian gas.
I'm obviously pro european but there is also much I don't like about it either. Some of the things coming out are bureaucracy run amok. The thing is many in europe feel the same way about it and care just as much about their sovereignty as we do. They don't want a pan european govt either. What we ned is an eu parliament or a way of calling officials to account, literally as well as metaphorically and stopping some of the more ridiculous ideas they come out with.
Most of the anti european stuff is simple xenophobia and when push comes to shove they have no real policies to propose. Bumped in to a member of ukip yesterday-acording to him only 9%% of our trade is with the eec. With such a high llevel of knowledge about somethimng he felt passionately about I can't help feelig that ukip is the thinking mans BNP party. Course UKIP don't fancy the SNP getting enough support to take the oil off the rest of the UK that's taking sovereignty too far.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Galbally;461750 wrote: I am no legal expert, but isn't the basis of constitutional law in Britain that fundamentally Parliament is soveriegn above anything else, there is no written constitution to restrain Parliament ultimately, and the monarch can also be desposed legally by Parliament, though of course in practice it always exercises pretty strict legal restraint based on common law precendent, but I believe that once elected, a Parliament theoretcially has the power to legislate as it sees fit and this goes back to the period of the English civil war and the restoration? I must admit I am fuzzy about the precise legal relationship between the Monarch and Parliament, but I thought that Parliament is the final arbiter of all law (except now of course it has adopted the European convention of human rights and legally binding suranational EU treatys, which only Parliament had the authroity to ratify though it consluted the people in 1973 on membership). Isn't that why Cameron is talking about an exclusively British bill of rights to restore Westminister back to full sovereignty? (which by the way won't work unless Britain does actually leave the EU). Correct me if I am wrong.
You are wrong it is a tenet of English constituional law that parliament is restricted on all sides by the will of the people (Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice) Henry Backton Chief Justice and RC Bishop to King Henry the 2nd (The laws of England having been approved by the consent of those who use them and been confirned by the oaths of King's cannot be changed or disposed of without the common consent of the people by whos common consent of those by who's will they were promugated) The oath in the 1689 bill of rights (No foriegn prince, person, prelat, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, or authority eccliasiastical or spiritual within this realm. The Bill of Rights was given to the politicians at a convention held at Westminster in January 1689 when representatives from every Borough in England not being members of parliament which had been desolved by King James the 2nd told the politicians how the English wished to be ruled and limiting the power of the King and through the King parliament. The will of the people of England is supreme over the soveriegn and parliament and the people made the bill of rights for all time. So you can see parliament are not the be all and end all they seem to think they are English law say's they are not.
You are wrong it is a tenet of English constituional law that parliament is restricted on all sides by the will of the people (Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice) Henry Backton Chief Justice and RC Bishop to King Henry the 2nd (The laws of England having been approved by the consent of those who use them and been confirned by the oaths of King's cannot be changed or disposed of without the common consent of the people by whos common consent of those by who's will they were promugated) The oath in the 1689 bill of rights (No foriegn prince, person, prelat, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, or authority eccliasiastical or spiritual within this realm. The Bill of Rights was given to the politicians at a convention held at Westminster in January 1689 when representatives from every Borough in England not being members of parliament which had been desolved by King James the 2nd told the politicians how the English wished to be ruled and limiting the power of the King and through the King parliament. The will of the people of England is supreme over the soveriegn and parliament and the people made the bill of rights for all time. So you can see parliament are not the be all and end all they seem to think they are English law say's they are not.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Bill Sikes;462217 wrote: This article contains some thoughts you might like:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do2702.xml
I think that the article underlines what is obvious, that Britian would not close down if it left the EU. I think the main point is that being part of Europe should be a thing that people understand and in the most part agree with, if they do not want to be part of the EU then its incumbent upon them to bring the argument forth in their respective countries to where it is acted upon. What I don't like are a lot of the lazy arguments and reactionary stuff you get about European integration, though the pro side also gets misrepresented by its supporters as well. What would be interesting if Britain left the EU is that politicans would no longer have the convientent whipping boy of Brussels to blame for what are largely their own failures.
For example, Ireland is a full member of the EU and in the past 30 years since joining it has beome one of the Richest western countries from being one of the poorest, which is of course uprecendented in our history. How has this extraordinary change occurred?. EU money certainly helped, (but money can easily be squandered - for an example look at Saudi Arabia trillions wasted on nothing but vanity and self-congratualtion, - we did not do that). Our relationship with the U.S. also helped, as did the country's understanding of the limitations its very small size and very limited power, its up to recent times relative poverty has made us fairly hard headed about what we are about, what we need to do, and what is achieveable. In my view, it was for the most part this very matter of fact, pragmatic economic approach that sucessive Irish governments have adopted that have gotten us where we are now.
Norway has propered ouside the EU, Ireland inside it, there are cases either way, Germany has been in the economic doldrums since unification, but as usual that countries economcy is taking off again based on its engineering and science and long term approach to its development. In the Irish example we saw the opportunities that a single European market and a interconnected world trade system can provide and capitialized on it. Britain has also done wellactually (very well), but many people seem instinctively to see threats instead of opportunities. Britain can prosper inside the Union or outside of it, whether it does either is down to the management of the British economy by the British making the best decisions given whatever the circumstances are.
Some things about being in the EU benefit Britain, some things would benefit Britain from being simply a member of the EFTA, same as adopting the Euro, there are also downsides to both approaches. There is undoubtedly a political dimension to all this as well, and it can't be seperated out of equation, a customs union invloves some political union, thats a fact, but it doesn't necessarily imply a United States of Europe either. The type of model that the EU is based on is a completely new one so its very hard to make really accrated comparisons with any other poitcal or economic union, for the most part it has been a huge sucess, but also some of the polical issues that have been fudged in the past now have to dealt with either one way or another, and the politicans in all European countries have been pretty useless at trying to enthuse their own electorates and instead use Europe as an excuse for their own domestic failings as if they were not the ones actually running the EU in the first place, (its a very disengenous and cynical ploy that is backfiring badly on them and the EU that they have in essence created). All of this stuff is debatable, what is certain is that it would be better if the arguments made were not so corrosive and reactionary either way.
I think many of the things that make British people suspicious of EU ideas are understanable, but they are not alone in being so minded, its disengenous for anti-europeans to claim that they are motivated by economics, most of the arguments in Britain boil down to emotional political arguments and a sense that Britishness (or Englishness to be more precise) will be destroyed in some sort of nightmarish pan-germanic-franco EU superstate, BTW, all other European countries have people that share a similar view, including my own. In my opinion, thats the argument that should be debated because thats what the real argument is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do2702.xml
I think that the article underlines what is obvious, that Britian would not close down if it left the EU. I think the main point is that being part of Europe should be a thing that people understand and in the most part agree with, if they do not want to be part of the EU then its incumbent upon them to bring the argument forth in their respective countries to where it is acted upon. What I don't like are a lot of the lazy arguments and reactionary stuff you get about European integration, though the pro side also gets misrepresented by its supporters as well. What would be interesting if Britain left the EU is that politicans would no longer have the convientent whipping boy of Brussels to blame for what are largely their own failures.
For example, Ireland is a full member of the EU and in the past 30 years since joining it has beome one of the Richest western countries from being one of the poorest, which is of course uprecendented in our history. How has this extraordinary change occurred?. EU money certainly helped, (but money can easily be squandered - for an example look at Saudi Arabia trillions wasted on nothing but vanity and self-congratualtion, - we did not do that). Our relationship with the U.S. also helped, as did the country's understanding of the limitations its very small size and very limited power, its up to recent times relative poverty has made us fairly hard headed about what we are about, what we need to do, and what is achieveable. In my view, it was for the most part this very matter of fact, pragmatic economic approach that sucessive Irish governments have adopted that have gotten us where we are now.
Norway has propered ouside the EU, Ireland inside it, there are cases either way, Germany has been in the economic doldrums since unification, but as usual that countries economcy is taking off again based on its engineering and science and long term approach to its development. In the Irish example we saw the opportunities that a single European market and a interconnected world trade system can provide and capitialized on it. Britain has also done wellactually (very well), but many people seem instinctively to see threats instead of opportunities. Britain can prosper inside the Union or outside of it, whether it does either is down to the management of the British economy by the British making the best decisions given whatever the circumstances are.
Some things about being in the EU benefit Britain, some things would benefit Britain from being simply a member of the EFTA, same as adopting the Euro, there are also downsides to both approaches. There is undoubtedly a political dimension to all this as well, and it can't be seperated out of equation, a customs union invloves some political union, thats a fact, but it doesn't necessarily imply a United States of Europe either. The type of model that the EU is based on is a completely new one so its very hard to make really accrated comparisons with any other poitcal or economic union, for the most part it has been a huge sucess, but also some of the polical issues that have been fudged in the past now have to dealt with either one way or another, and the politicans in all European countries have been pretty useless at trying to enthuse their own electorates and instead use Europe as an excuse for their own domestic failings as if they were not the ones actually running the EU in the first place, (its a very disengenous and cynical ploy that is backfiring badly on them and the EU that they have in essence created). All of this stuff is debatable, what is certain is that it would be better if the arguments made were not so corrosive and reactionary either way.
I think many of the things that make British people suspicious of EU ideas are understanable, but they are not alone in being so minded, its disengenous for anti-europeans to claim that they are motivated by economics, most of the arguments in Britain boil down to emotional political arguments and a sense that Britishness (or Englishness to be more precise) will be destroyed in some sort of nightmarish pan-germanic-franco EU superstate, BTW, all other European countries have people that share a similar view, including my own. In my opinion, thats the argument that should be debated because thats what the real argument is.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
twizzel;462590 wrote: You are wrong it is a tenet of English constituional law that parliament is restricted on all sides by the will of the people (Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice) Henry Backton Chief Justice and RC Bishop to King Henry the 2nd (The laws of England having been approved by the consent of those who use them and been confirned by the oaths of King's cannot be changed or disposed of without the common consent of the people by whos common consent of those by who's will they were promugated) The oath in the 1689 bill of rights (No foriegn prince, person, prelat, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, or authority eccliasiastical or spiritual within this realm. The Bill of Rights was given to the politicians at a convention held at Westminster in January 1689 when representatives from every Borough in England not being members of parliament which had been desolved by King James the 2nd told the politicians how the English wished to be ruled and limiting the power of the King and through the King parliament. The will of the people of England is supreme over the soveriegn and parliament and the people made the bill of rights for all time. So you can see parliament are not the be all and end all they seem to think they are English law say's they are not.
I will deffer to your greater knowledge in such matters, but remind you that Britain is not "greater England", but at least three (and definetly two) distinct countries united supposedly through one monarch and until recent times a Parliament in London which had subsumed a Scottish one, so which actual modern "realm" does the 1698 act apply? From a purely English perspective, I could see problems with the definitions of who was legally entuitled to representation in Parliament in 1698 and who is now, in terms of application of precendent, again I'm not a lawyer and preffer scientific debates to legal ones, but I would appreciate your opinion, you seem well versed in such matters.
I will deffer to your greater knowledge in such matters, but remind you that Britain is not "greater England", but at least three (and definetly two) distinct countries united supposedly through one monarch and until recent times a Parliament in London which had subsumed a Scottish one, so which actual modern "realm" does the 1698 act apply? From a purely English perspective, I could see problems with the definitions of who was legally entuitled to representation in Parliament in 1698 and who is now, in terms of application of precendent, again I'm not a lawyer and preffer scientific debates to legal ones, but I would appreciate your opinion, you seem well versed in such matters.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
posted by twizzel
The will of the people of England is supreme over the soveriegn and parliament and the people made the bill of rights for all time. So you can see parliament are not the be all and end all they seem to think they are English law say's they are not.
Up until the early part of the last century most of the people of england had no say in what parliament did or who was elected. Now having elected people to parliament if it is their will they can make or unmake any law they like. Parliamentarians are there to represent the interests of the people of ther constituencies. However they are not delegates to do as instructed.
What the will of the people is exactly is subject to debate. It may or not be leaving the eec but you have to be able to accept that the will of the people may not be what you think it should be.
It is a ridiculous argument that falls down at the first hurdle in that the framers of that particular bill of rights were not exactly democratically inclined or enthused with the idea of the great mass of the population having a say in who was elected to parliament. So much for the will of the people who were very carefully kept in their place and let's not mention the religious discrimination built in to it. They had very clear ideas as to who of the people were entitled to have a say. It also went right out the window when the elector of hanover was offered the crown like a bauble.
Arguing the the will of the people should be paramount over parliament and the sovereign and really meaning it would have got you hung as a dangerous revolutionary back then.
Times change people change that's what drives things forward what keeps us free is not trusting politicians, especially those that bang on about liberty as usually they mean the freedom to do what they think everyone should be doing.
posted by galbally
I think many of the things that make British people suspicious of EU ideas are understanable, but they are not alone in being so minded, its disengenous for anti-europeans to claim that they are motivated by economics, most of the arguments in Britain boil down to emotional political arguments and a sense that Britishness (or Englishness to be more precise) will be destroyed in some sort of nightmarish pan-germanic-franco EU superstate, BTW, all other European countries have people that share a similar view, including my own. In my opinion, thats the argument that should be debated because thats what the real argument is.
Yesterday 09:16 PM
I was going to say that but I couldn't think how to put it.
There's always a delightful irony in hearing someone going on about how bad europe is and how we should be more patriotic and buy british and condemn me for having a nissan and then watch as they get in to their ford mondeo smug in the knowledge they have a british car. They never see the funny side though.
The will of the people of England is supreme over the soveriegn and parliament and the people made the bill of rights for all time. So you can see parliament are not the be all and end all they seem to think they are English law say's they are not.
Up until the early part of the last century most of the people of england had no say in what parliament did or who was elected. Now having elected people to parliament if it is their will they can make or unmake any law they like. Parliamentarians are there to represent the interests of the people of ther constituencies. However they are not delegates to do as instructed.
What the will of the people is exactly is subject to debate. It may or not be leaving the eec but you have to be able to accept that the will of the people may not be what you think it should be.
It is a ridiculous argument that falls down at the first hurdle in that the framers of that particular bill of rights were not exactly democratically inclined or enthused with the idea of the great mass of the population having a say in who was elected to parliament. So much for the will of the people who were very carefully kept in their place and let's not mention the religious discrimination built in to it. They had very clear ideas as to who of the people were entitled to have a say. It also went right out the window when the elector of hanover was offered the crown like a bauble.
Arguing the the will of the people should be paramount over parliament and the sovereign and really meaning it would have got you hung as a dangerous revolutionary back then.
Times change people change that's what drives things forward what keeps us free is not trusting politicians, especially those that bang on about liberty as usually they mean the freedom to do what they think everyone should be doing.
posted by galbally
I think many of the things that make British people suspicious of EU ideas are understanable, but they are not alone in being so minded, its disengenous for anti-europeans to claim that they are motivated by economics, most of the arguments in Britain boil down to emotional political arguments and a sense that Britishness (or Englishness to be more precise) will be destroyed in some sort of nightmarish pan-germanic-franco EU superstate, BTW, all other European countries have people that share a similar view, including my own. In my opinion, thats the argument that should be debated because thats what the real argument is.
Yesterday 09:16 PM
I was going to say that but I couldn't think how to put it.
There's always a delightful irony in hearing someone going on about how bad europe is and how we should be more patriotic and buy british and condemn me for having a nissan and then watch as they get in to their ford mondeo smug in the knowledge they have a british car. They never see the funny side though.
At least the EU is united on important matters
gmc;462902 wrote: posted by twizzel
Up until the early part of the last century most of the people of england had no say in what parliament did or who was elected. Now having elected people to parliament if it is their will they can make or unmake any law they like. Parliamentarians are there to represent the interests of the people of ther constituencies. However they are not delegates to do as instructed.
What the will of the people is exactly is subject to debate. It may or not be leaving the eec but you have to be able to accept that the will of the people may not be what you think it should be.
It is a ridiculous argument that falls down at the first hurdle in that the framers of that particular bill of rights were not exactly democratically inclined or enthused with the idea of the great mass of the population having a say in who was elected to parliament. So much for the will of the people who were very carefully kept in their place and let's not mention the religious discrimination built in to it. They had very clear ideas as to who of the people were entitled to have a say. It also went right out the window when the elector of hanover was offered the crown like a bauble.
Arguing the the will of the people should be paramount over parliament and the sovereign and really meaning it would have got you hung as a dangerous revolutionary back then.
Times change people change that's what drives things forward what keeps us free is not trusting politicians, especially those that bang on about liberty as usually they mean the freedom to do what they think everyone should be doing.
posted by galbally
I was going to say that but I couldn't think how to put it.
There's always a delightful irony in hearing someone going on about how bad europe is and how we should be more patriotic and buy british and condemn me for having a nissan and then watch as they get in to their ford mondeo smug in the knowledge they have a british car. They never see the funny side though.
Yes even though Ford is an American compay now moving all its European susidary operations to mainland Europe and Nissan a Japanese company that is investing in the north east of England. Well, its just people's misconceptions about how the global economy is going, I have a Nissan as well BTW, good cars I must admit, very little time having to talk to mechanics about it, which is what I like the most.
Up until the early part of the last century most of the people of england had no say in what parliament did or who was elected. Now having elected people to parliament if it is their will they can make or unmake any law they like. Parliamentarians are there to represent the interests of the people of ther constituencies. However they are not delegates to do as instructed.
What the will of the people is exactly is subject to debate. It may or not be leaving the eec but you have to be able to accept that the will of the people may not be what you think it should be.
It is a ridiculous argument that falls down at the first hurdle in that the framers of that particular bill of rights were not exactly democratically inclined or enthused with the idea of the great mass of the population having a say in who was elected to parliament. So much for the will of the people who were very carefully kept in their place and let's not mention the religious discrimination built in to it. They had very clear ideas as to who of the people were entitled to have a say. It also went right out the window when the elector of hanover was offered the crown like a bauble.
Arguing the the will of the people should be paramount over parliament and the sovereign and really meaning it would have got you hung as a dangerous revolutionary back then.
Times change people change that's what drives things forward what keeps us free is not trusting politicians, especially those that bang on about liberty as usually they mean the freedom to do what they think everyone should be doing.
posted by galbally
I was going to say that but I couldn't think how to put it.
There's always a delightful irony in hearing someone going on about how bad europe is and how we should be more patriotic and buy british and condemn me for having a nissan and then watch as they get in to their ford mondeo smug in the knowledge they have a british car. They never see the funny side though.
Yes even though Ford is an American compay now moving all its European susidary operations to mainland Europe and Nissan a Japanese company that is investing in the north east of England. Well, its just people's misconceptions about how the global economy is going, I have a Nissan as well BTW, good cars I must admit, very little time having to talk to mechanics about it, which is what I like the most.
"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 dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Being new to Europe, the EU has only been a distant matter of interest to me so far. It always struck me as an incredible thing. It is historically unique. That in itself is something to be excited about.
From my little knowledge of the situation I can only say that I think any progress towards uniting countries in any way seems like a very good idea...in a time when our species has the capability to be the first to obliterate itself. Fear always seems to be directed towards outsiders and seems to me, more and more, that we need fear ourselves - if anyone.
I think that the concept holds true under study that if we didn't find an outside enemy to defend ourselves against we would elect those within our own group to fulfill the role. When I was in Canada I hoped that they would consider joining the EU through any means possible. Now that I'm in the UK I'm not surprised to hear that people want out. It's all about green grass sometimes.
From my little knowledge of the situation I can only say that I think any progress towards uniting countries in any way seems like a very good idea...in a time when our species has the capability to be the first to obliterate itself. Fear always seems to be directed towards outsiders and seems to me, more and more, that we need fear ourselves - if anyone.
I think that the concept holds true under study that if we didn't find an outside enemy to defend ourselves against we would elect those within our own group to fulfill the role. When I was in Canada I hoped that they would consider joining the EU through any means possible. Now that I'm in the UK I'm not surprised to hear that people want out. It's all about green grass sometimes.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
koan;463543 wrote: Being new to Europe, the EU has only been a distant matter of interest to me so far. It always struck me as an incredible thing. It is historically unique. That in itself is something to be excited about.
I'm no historian, but isn't this the way the USA started out? The federal gov't (EU parallel) didn't gain real power for a century. Lincoln made the first big move to centralized control.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will be interesting to see how the EU reacts in 80 years or so if a nation tries to secede.
I'm no historian, but isn't this the way the USA started out? The federal gov't (EU parallel) didn't gain real power for a century. Lincoln made the first big move to centralized control.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will be interesting to see how the EU reacts in 80 years or so if a nation tries to secede.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Accountable;463766 wrote: I'm no historian, but isn't this the way the USA started out? The federal gov't (EU parallel) didn't gain real power for a century. Lincoln made the first big move to centralized control.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will be interesting to see how the EU reacts in 80 years or so if a nation tries to secede.
If I accepted your comparison as accurate, which I don't, then it points to a likelihood that the EU would become a group with an extremely powerful sense of identity and patriotism to that identity. That it would succeed in uniting the nations into one entity governed by leaders whom they can directly choose (so it's said
).
The reason I don't agree with your comparison is that the US started as a bunch of people who wanted to leave their homeland and start a new life. They had similar goals and were in the fairly equal position of being in an undeveloped world. Contrary to that, the EU is dealing with well established countries of vastly different cultures and levels of development wishing to unite whilst maintaining their separate identities.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will be interesting to see how the EU reacts in 80 years or so if a nation tries to secede.
If I accepted your comparison as accurate, which I don't, then it points to a likelihood that the EU would become a group with an extremely powerful sense of identity and patriotism to that identity. That it would succeed in uniting the nations into one entity governed by leaders whom they can directly choose (so it's said
).The reason I don't agree with your comparison is that the US started as a bunch of people who wanted to leave their homeland and start a new life. They had similar goals and were in the fairly equal position of being in an undeveloped world. Contrary to that, the EU is dealing with well established countries of vastly different cultures and levels of development wishing to unite whilst maintaining their separate identities.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
At least the EU is united on important matters
koan;463774 wrote: If I accepted your comparison as accurate, which I don't, then it points to a likelihood that the EU would become a group with an extremely powerful sense of identity and patriotism to that identity. That it would succeed in uniting the nations into one entity governed by leaders whom they can directly choose (so it's said ).
The reason I don't agree with your comparison is that the US started as a bunch of people who wanted to leave their homeland and start a new life. They had similar goals and were in the fairly equal position of being in an undeveloped world. Contrary to that, the EU is dealing with well established countries of vastly different cultures and levels of development wishing to unite whilst maintaining their separate identities.
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.
).The reason I don't agree with your comparison is that the US started as a bunch of people who wanted to leave their homeland and start a new life. They had similar goals and were in the fairly equal position of being in an undeveloped world. Contrary to that, the EU is dealing with well established countries of vastly different cultures and levels of development wishing to unite whilst maintaining their separate identities.
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.
At least the EU is united on important matters
Personally I think they should have left it at the common market level. These arent 'states' we are talking about, but COUNTRIES!
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~