They have the right to choose whether to be a part of the EU and retain control over local laws and diplomacy. States in the US do not have sovreignty they cannot negotiate with a foreign power on behalf of themselves and Federal Law overules whatever local law the states have set up thus the two are not the same. The EU would compare better to say NAFTA the North American Free Trade Area. Can the EU become like the United States I think so, but they will need a couple more generations to brain wash the citizens out of having national pride first. It took them forty years to convince them that a united currency was the way to go afterall.
I might be wrong, but I remember a case in which the US states bordering the Great Lakes negotiated with Canada a treaty to leave that mass of water unexploited, so I'm sure there might be more cases in which a US state has had some kind of negotiations with a foreign country. And tell me, does NAFTA have a government? a parliament? a court of justice? do you vote for NAFTA elections? does NAFTA make laws you MUST accept and apply? has NAFTA granted you the NAFTA's citizenship? does NAFTA have its own currency? etc...
Actually that was a negotiation between U.S. States and the Candian Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Techinically it cannot be enforced in court because enforcement arrangements can be made only between the federal governments which makes it a dead letter more or less from a legal stand point its more like negotiated guidelines.
Your right that Nafta is not a complete comparison. From our point of view though as long as each individual nation retains its sovreignty its a trading block and not a country.
I don't have any doubts that the EU will be one large sovreign body one day; however that day has not quite yet arrived. You are getting closer you have the infrastructure set up etc., but each Nation still has Sovreign rights which makes it somewhat less than a United Country. The UN security council has a Britain and a France with permanent seats not a EU. The EU is not recognized by any nation as a country nor does it have any embassies.
I am sure the local oppressed Indian populations forced to live in the mountains and on the crappiest pieces of land share this view? While the European descendants live decently enough the originial populations live in a state of persistant generational poverty. Please show me how Europe exploiting their country has benefited these people?
Well, clearly it's not possible to leave everyone better off, but in overall those societies won after being our colonies even if that means that some sectors couldn't benefit at all.
The point was from an economic stand point they were better off before the Europeans showed up and stole all their resources and prime real estate. This by far out weighs any benefit the native people of South America received from European Culture. The citizens basking in the modern life style are the descendants of the Europeans themselves not the native populations.
In my opinion, it is very silly to be proud of your country. From a sociologist's point of view, they're only imaginary borders drawn on a map. A human social construct. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't mind if people feel a bit of national pride, but let's not get silly.
The point was from an economic stand point they were better off before the Europeans showed up and stole all their resources and prime real estate. This by far out weighs any benefit the native people of South America received from European Culture. The citizens basking in the modern life style are the descendants of the Europeans themselves not the native populations.
And your point was wrong.
When the Europeans come they bring with them advanced farning, mining and all sorts of other technologies. The resources that the indiginous natives had before the Europeans arrived were stone age resources. Now they have modern ones that are capable of producing much much more.
If I start an oil well, not only do I get rich but loads of local people get richer. As I create jobs, and spend my money on local produce and entertainment. The money filters down through society.
Now, that's not to say that when a European ruler comes, he doesn't take over the palace and chose to live there, but he doesn't make the locals poorer. (Only one or two of the very top echelons of society perhaps). The rest of those societies benefit from trade and know how. And the infrastructure that Europeans create to ply their trade. Roads, Railways, ports,airports, hospitals, governments etc etc etc.
Originally posted by Praetoriani In my opinion, it is very silly to be proud of your country. From a sociologist's point of view, they're only imaginary borders drawn on a map. A human social construct. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't mind if people feel a bit of national pride, but let's not get silly.
You only say that because we screwed up the world cup football -_-
This would be great except most of our loans are denominated in U.S. dollars not Euros this includes the entire debt of the U.S. Government. This is were having the world's reserve currency is going to get us off the hook once. Judging by the Jerry comment you are convinced of your superiority but you haven't given me any cold hard facts why your view is the right one. Now granted a lot of what I have had to say is speculation of future financial outcomes based on current trends, but what you have contrinuted to this conversation is basically nothing beyond you will pay or we will take everything how does that make you so smart? How successful have you guys been in collecting your default loans in Africa I'm guessing not very. We haven't had much luck at that either even with our big military. You can't make people give what they don't have. I think deep down you are horrified by the possibilty by what I am speculating may be true and are too scared to admit it or at the very least lack the knowledge to refute it effectively. If you do you better speak up because I am growing weary of listening to your overbloated egotistical comments without any actual data. I think I can guess what you are gonna say more of the same crap "I'm smart your an idiot you will pay America sucks." Not a single one of you have been able to refute my speculation though with any kind of credible reason why not? I thought you were so smart. The banks will call in the loans denominated in U.S. currency if that currency starts to tumble they would be idiots not too it has happend time and again what do you think caused the Asian Bank Crisis? Asian currencies started to rapidly devalue so banks started calling in loans all over the place really messy. Europe and the U.S. stepped in with loan guarntees so the entire global economy wouldn't melt. Who is gonna step in to bail us out?
I'm already bailing you out. Right now. I have been since when was it you said? 1991?
Your loans are denominated in whatever denomination you agreed them. In my case, that will be Pounds Sterling and RenMinBi. No one forces you to accept it.
You might not like my view and may wish to keep on telling my why foreign investors in America invest in America. The difference between us is, I am a foreign investor in America, and you are not. Why I invest in America, is whatever reason I say it is. How's that for data? I could provide links to me quoting myself if you need any validation.
.
I have no Investments in Africa. While it's true I can't make people give what they don't have, that's not really a problem for me. Because if you don't have it, I'll simply charge your neighbour extra to make up for my loss. For the record, I never lend money to people without assets of higher value than my investment. America isn't Africa.
If for example in a fit of pique a fellow burn his house down, so that the bank had nothing to reposess. The Bank would still not lose money. It would raise it's rates and recover that money from all it's other debtors.
I'm not going to be losing out. It is of course possible that Everyone I lend money to in the U.S. could all destroy everything they own of value all simultaneously, but somehow it isn't such a big risk for me.
.
In your nightmare scenario of a crashed and devalued economy in the U.S. I would not be crying at all, the amount of property I could repossess would increase as you value currency devalued. Plus, I have even more cash to lend and even more cash to spend. I will be buying even more of the U.S. than I already own. Everyone loves a bargain.
Originally posted by Gameloading Originally posted by Praetoriani In my opinion, it is very silly to be proud of your country. From a sociologist's point of view, they're only imaginary borders drawn on a map. A human social construct. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't mind if people feel a bit of national pride, but let's not get silly.
You only say that because we screwed up the world cup football -_-
The only sports I care about are martial arts. And the Netherlands has been doing great in many of those!
Bretton Woods ended because we did not have an unlimited supply of gold to pay Europe whenever you guys decided to convert those dollars into gold from all the cars watches etc. we were buying from you. I can see how you guys see that as a betrayal, but you got to admit we would not have been able to pay you forever in that manner so it would have ended anyways. At which point the ripple effect that I have been trying to describe to Baff would have kicked in causing great hardship in the world economy. At that point in history everyone was better off letting the currencies float instead of taking every last bit of gold away that was backing the dollar.
Do not try to share the fault, you can only blame the US for what happened. In 1971 the US abandoned the fixed rate between the dollar and gold, and the reason can be found in the external balance. The deficit in the capital account of the US, because it was a net exporter of capital, was early compensated by the commercial surplus based both in the higher productivity of its industry and by the strong growth of world imports. But during the 60's decade, the economies of developed countries decreased the competitiveness breach between them and the US, both because of their relative advances in productivity and because of the internal inflation problem of the US caused by the expansive policies adopted around 1965. In fact, the US had commercial deficit in 1968 for the first time, and it consolidated from 1971. This effect was reinforced by maintenance of the capital exports, some speculative movements of capital, and for the growing military spending generated by the Vietnam war and by the cold war Since Bretton Woods, the international liquidity depended on the gold and dollar reserves, and on the FMI loans. Gold production growth was very modest, so most of the liquidity depended on the capital exports of the US, as it had commercial surplus. But the growing US deficit caused a high growth on international liquidity, which couldn't be controlled, disappearing the international nominal anchor for the price stability, so the USA along with the oil crisis, caused an international economic crisis that specially affected Europe, it's effects over unemployment can still be seen today here, and it was partially caused by you. Do you understand me now when I say you betrayed us?
Actually that was a negotiation between U.S. States and the Candian Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Techinically it cannot be enforced in court because enforcement arrangements can be made only between the federal governments which makes it a dead letter more or less from a legal stand point its more like negotiated guidelines.
Thanks, I'll look at it, but as I said "I might be wrong" so thanks for politely correcting me. And I know the EU cannot be comparable to the US, but neither to the NAFTA, and if I had to bet about something I would say the EU is closer from being a fully recognized country than being a simple international organization.
The point was from an economic stand point they were better off before the Europeans showed up and stole all their resources and prime real estate. This by far out weighs any benefit the native people of South America received from European Culture. The citizens basking in the modern life style are the descendants of the Europeans themselves not the native populations.
I've never said we were saints, we conquered the whole world so we could exploit it, but in exchange we developed it. If we didn't take all the gold and silver from the Andes, no one would have taken them because the natives would still be living in primitive civilizations, so I really think we made a fair exchange. We only took two of their resources in exchange for all our inventions, ideas, in in general, in exchange for advancing lot of centuries from one day to another.
The US is number one in my book. I hope others feel the same about their own countries.
I hope not. You can only improve your country if you see its flaws, don't you think?
If we didn't take all the gold and silver from the Andes, no one would have taken them because the natives would still be living in primitive civilizations, so I really think we made a fair exchange.
Yup, they prefered beads. Swap you these shiney beads for that there shiney metal, and they all queued up.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by Dinivan If we didn't take all the gold and silver from the Andes, no one would have taken them because the natives would still be living in primitive civilizations, so I really think we made a fair exchange. Yup, they prefered beads.Swap you these shiney beads for that there shiney metal, and they all queued up.
I hope not. You can only improve your country if you see its flaws, don't you think?
I see flaws, and still think my country is number one. I celebrate Independence day, reflect on the sacrificies of our veterans on veterans day, feel pride in my heart at the playing of the anthem, etc. Heck, I cheer for the US in international sporting events, even if I don't like the specific sport! It's not about the borders of this country on a map. It's about it's fundamental ideals. No, we don't always live up to them, it would be silly to believe so. I mean, at this country's founding we considered a people as 2/3's human being. Yet, there were also ideals set down that would one day conflict with that injustice, in the hearts and minds of Americans. No, I won't be apathetic (or even hateful) about my country because of it's failures. I'll just demand our leaders live up to those essential ideals ,and get us back on course when we veer from them. That's why I can love my nation and still demand it to strive to always do better.
Does genocide, oppression, forced conversions, a created state of dependency factor into the whole "better off having been under the Imperial flag" debate?
I see flaws, and still think my country is number one. I celebrate Independence day, reflect on the sacrificies of our veterans on veterans day, feel pride in my heart at the playing of the anthem, etc. Heck, I cheer for the US in international sporting events, even if I don't like the specific sport! It's not about the borders of this country on a map. It's about it's fundamental ideals. No, we don't always live up to them, it would be silly to believe so. I mean, at this country's founding we considered a people as 2/3's human being. Yet, there were also ideals set down that would one day conflict with that injustice, in the hearts and minds of Americans. No, I won't be apathetic (or even hateful) about my country because of it's failures. I'll just demand our leaders live up to those essential ideals ,and get us back on course when we veer from them. That's why I can love my nation and still demand it to strive to always do better.
Yeh, you know, that sounds pretty well because you live in a developed country, so even if you are not #1 in most of fields you still live pretty well. But ask to someone from Zimbabwe or Swaziland on what do they think about such kind of patriotism when you are starving. I don't think they'll tell you "look, I have hunger, I'm starving, I have nothing, but I celebrate Independence day, I celebrate the victory of my ethnic group 10 years ago, I cheer for Swaziland in international sporting events (oh sorry, forgot I don't even have a radio)... I love my nation buaa buaa".
Does genocide, oppression, forced conversions, a created state of dependency factor into the whole "better off having been under the Imperial flag" debate?
Yep, why not. History cannot be changed, and it's true some subjects perished during the process of colonization. For example in america most of deaths were caused by the involuntary introduction of external diseases, but we cannot blame our ancestors for that as they didn't realize about that until it was too late.
Yeh, you know, that sounds pretty well because you live in a developed country, so even if you are not #1 in most of fields you still live pretty well. But ask to someone from Zimbabwe or Swaziland on what do they think about such kind of patriotism when you are starving. I don't think they'll tell you "look, I have hunger, I'm starving, I have nothing, but I celebrate Independence day, I celebrate the victory of my ethnic group 10 years ago, I cheer for Swaziland in international sporting events (oh sorry, forgot I don't even have a radio)... I love my nation buaa buaa". Right, but I'm not sure how that effects what I feel for MY country. One doesn't have to lose pride in one's own nation to feel empathy for another. Again, this isn't exclusive.
Yep, why not. History cannot be changed, and it's true some subjects perished during the process of colonization. For example in america most of deaths were caused by the involuntary introduction of external diseases, but we cannot blame our ancestors for that as they didn't realize about that until it was too late.
Some? Hitler was small potatoes when you look at the levels of mass murder and genocide carried out under european imperialism (and later US). Entire tribes, cultures, were exterminated. Did you know that those diseases you spoke of were often used intentionally as a form of biological warfare? The deliberate giving away of pox laden blankets and other goods to native populations, for example. Not accidental, I'm talking about deliberate trade of goods colonists knew would have a high risk of infection.
Also, historical food sources depleted (bison, for example), displacement by land grabbers of native people into barren lands, slavery, etc. Imperialism had often decimated native populations. Some segments were exterminated into oblivion. Gone, forever. There is no "some" about it. The numbers and effects were often devastating.
Wiki isn't the best, for sure, but it gives a good start to exploring the effects of imperialism and some of the genocidial acts and policies.
Just to show Baff and other sceptics that I'm not alone in the EU, here are two news
Popular opinion backs EU foreign minister post 06.09.2006 - 17:33 CET | By Honor Mahony EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A majority of EU citizens are in favour of having a single EU foreign minister for the bloc, the results of a new survey have shown.
Conducted by the German Marshall Fund in June across several member states including France, Germany, the UK and Italy, the survey showed that 65 percent of respondents would like to see the post created.
The greatest support for the idea was found among the Spanish (74%), the Italians (71%) and the French (69%) while British and Slovak respondents proved among the least keen on the idea, clocking in 52 and 48 percent respectively.
The EU foreign minister position is one of the key innovations of the European constitution which was shelved last year after French and Dutch voters rejected it in referendums.
And so long as the constitution remains moribund, the post is unlikely to see the light of day.
But while there was some strong support for a foreign minister, the idea of the bloc strengthening its military power to play a larger role in the world proved more controversial.
On average, 51 percent were against the idea but there were big differences between countries with the Portuguese (68%) and the French (56%) more in favour of the bloc assuming military responsibilities but the Germans (64%) and the Italians (56%) more against.
A majority of those surveyed believed further enlargement of the EU would bring peace and democracy to the EU bloc's borders (62%) and would strengthen the EU's role in the world (63%).
EU-US trends The same survey shows that European support for US leadership in world affairs has dropped significantly (from 64% to 37%) since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington five years ago.
On a similar note, European disapproval of US president George W. Bush's handling of international affairs has risen strongly from 56 percent to 77 percent - with the French, Germans and Spanish proving to be the most critical with an 85 percent disapproval rate.
European disapproval is mirrored across the Atlantic as Americans for the first time since 2001 are more disapproving (58%) than approving (40%) of president Bush's handling of foreign affairs.
Top Stories // Weekend, September 9, 2006 Single eurozone voice on international stage gains currency
Top eurozone officials have thrown their weight behind the idea of giving the eurozone a single voice in international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Although the idea has been around for years, the 12 countries sharing the euro have long resisted giving up their individual seats at international institutions and meetings for joint representation. However, a recently announced reform to give more say to emerging economic powers at the IMF has re-ignited debate about pooling the say of the eurozone on the international stage. "It's obvious that the eurozone should be represented by a single representative," said Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker after chairing a meeting of eurozone finance ministers. Under a plan recently agreed by IMF directors, China, South Korea, Turkey and Mexico will see immediate increases in their voting rights as part of a broader two-year program of reform. The quotas determine how much a member contributes to the Fund, its voting rights and access to financing, which currently totals 28 billion dollars (36 billion euros) in loans outstanding to 74 countries. Advocates of reform have long noted that small European countries like Belgium, The Netherlands and Sweden enjoy a proportionately much bigger say than big developing countries such as Brazil, China and India. Prior to the meeting of eurozone ministers, Finnish Finance Minister Eero Heinaluoma, whose country holds the EU's presidency, said he saw growing interest in Europe a single representation at the IMF. "There are countries and people who see a positive possibility and outlook that Europe would speak more with one voice in this institution," he told a news conference in Helsinki ahead of talks with his EU counterparts. "To reach an agreement on this subject, we will need more time," he said, adding that there would be more "in depth discussions", especially among members of the 12-nation eurozone, after a September 19-20 meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Singapore. While noting that the European Central Bank was already represented at major international meetings, ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet also threw his support behind the idea of a single voice for the eurozone on the international stage. "I totally support a single representation of the eurozone in international fora, including official institutions," he said. The idea of a single eurozone voice is also gaining currency among politicians in the region. During a high-profile visit to Brussels, French Interior Minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy also said that "the time has come for a single representation of the members of the euro in the international negotiations and fora." AFP Top eurozone officials have thrown their weight behind the idea of giving the eurozone a single voice in international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Although the idea has been around for years, the 12 countries sharing the euro have long resisted giving up their individual seats at international institutions and meetings for joint representation. However, a recently announced reform to give more say to emerging economic powers at the IMF has re-ignited debate about pooling the say of the eurozone on the international stage. "It's obvious that the eurozone should be represented by a single representative," said Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker after chairing a meeting of eurozone finance ministers. Under a plan recently agreed by IMF directors, China, South Korea, Turkey and Mexico will see immediate increases in their voting rights as part of a broader two-year program of reform. The quotas determine how much a member contributes to the Fund, its voting rights and access to financing, which currently totals 28 billion dollars (36 billion euros) in loans outstanding to 74 countries. Advocates of reform have long noted that small European countries like Belgium, The Netherlands and Sweden enjoy a proportionately much bigger say than big developing countries such as Brazil, China and India. Prior to the meeting of eurozone ministers, Finnish Finance Minister Eero Heinaluoma, whose country holds the EU's presidency, said he saw growing interest in Europe a single representation at the IMF. "There are countries and people who see a positive possibility and outlook that Europe would speak more with one voice in this institution," he told a news conference in Helsinki ahead of talks with his EU counterparts. "To reach an agreement on this subject, we will need more time," he said, adding that there would be more "in depth discussions", especially among members of the 12-nation eurozone, after a September 19-20 meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Singapore. While noting that the European Central Bank was already represented at major international meetings, ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet also threw his support behind the idea of a single voice for the eurozone on the international stage. "I totally support a single representation of the eurozone in international fora, including official institutions," he said. The idea of a single eurozone voice is also gaining currency among politicians in the region. During a high-profile visit to Brussels, French Interior Minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy also said that "the time has come for a single representation of the members of the euro in the international negotiations and fora." Top eurozone officials have thrown their weight behind the idea of giving the eurozone a single voice in international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Although the idea has been around for years, the 12 countries sharing the euro have long resisted giving up their individual seats at international institutions and meetings for joint representation. However, a recently announced reform to give more say to emerging economic powers at the IMF has re-ignited debate about pooling the say of the eurozone on the international stage. "It's obvious that the eurozone should be represented by a single representative," said Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker after chairing a meeting of eurozone finance ministers. Under a plan recently agreed by IMF directors, China, South Korea, Turkey and Mexico will see immediate increases in their voting rights as part of a broader two-year program of reform. The quotas determine how much a member contributes to the Fund, its voting rights and access to financing, which currently totals 28 billion dollars (36 billion euros) in loans outstanding to 74 countries. Advocates of reform have long noted that small European countries like Belgium, The Netherlands and Sweden enjoy a proportionately much bigger say than big developing countries such as Brazil, China and India. Prior to the meeting of eurozone ministers, Finnish Finance Minister Eero Heinaluoma, whose country holds the EU's presidency, said he saw growing interest in Europe a single representation at the IMF. "There are countries and people who see a positive possibility and outlook that Europe would speak more with one voice in this institution," he told a news conference in Helsinki ahead of talks with his EU counterparts. "To reach an agreement on this subject, we will need more time," he said, adding that there would be more "in depth discussions", especially among members of the 12-nation eurozone, after a September 19-20 meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Singapore. While noting that the European Central Bank was already represented at major international meetings, ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet also threw his support behind the idea of a single voice for the eurozone on the international stage. "I totally support a single representation of the eurozone in international fora, including official institutions," he said. The idea of a single eurozone voice is also gaining currency among politicians in the region. During a high-profile visit to Brussels, French Interior Minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy also said that "the time has come for a single representation of the members of the euro in the international negotiations and fora." AFP Top eurozone officials have thrown their weight behind the idea of giving the eurozone a single voice in international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Although the idea has been around for years, the 12 countries sharing the euro have long resisted giving up their individual seats at international institutions and meetings for joint representation. However, a recently announced reform to give more say to emerging economic powers at the IMF has re-ignited debate about pooling the say of the eurozone on the international stage. "It's obvious that the eurozone should be represented by a single representative," said Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker after chairing a meeting of eurozone finance ministers. Under a plan recently agreed by IMF directors, China, South Korea, Turkey and Mexico will see immediate increases in their voting rights as part of a broader two-year program of reform. The quotas determine how much a member contributes to the Fund, its voting rights and access to financing, which currently totals 28 billion dollars (36 billion euros) in loans outstanding to 74 countries. Advocates of reform have long noted that small European countries like Belgium, The Netherlands and Sweden enjoy a proportionately much bigger say than big developing countries such as Brazil, China and India. Prior to the meeting of eurozone ministers, Finnish Finance Minister Eero Heinaluoma, whose country holds the EU's presidency, said he saw growing interest in Europe a single representation at the IMF. "There are countries and people who see a positive possibility and outlook that Europe would speak more with one voice in this institution," he told a news conference in Helsinki ahead of talks with his EU counterparts. "To reach an agreement on this subject, we will need more time," he said, adding that there would be more "in depth discussions", especially among members of the 12-nation eurozone, after a September 19-20 meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Singapore. While noting that the European Central Bank was already represented at major international meetings, ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet also threw his support behind the idea of a single voice for the eurozone on the international stage. "I totally support a single representation of the eurozone in international fora, including official institutions," he said. The idea of a single eurozone voice is also gaining currency among politicians in the region. During a high-profile visit to Brussels, French Interior Minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy also said that "the time has come for a single representation of the members of the euro in the international negotiations and fora." AFP
Originally posted by Praetoriani In my opinion, it is very silly to be proud of your country. From a sociologist's point of view, they're only imaginary borders drawn on a map. A human social construct. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't mind if people feel a bit of national pride, but let's not get silly.
it's silly to be proud of my country? I am sorry but I really find that comment offensive.
- Scaris
"What happened to you, Star Wars Galaxies? You used to look like Leia. Not quite gold bikini Leia (more like bad-British-accent-and-cinnamon-bun-hair Leia), but still Leia nonetheless. Now you look like Chewbacca." - Computer Gaming World
Originally posted by Dinivan Just to show Baff and other sceptics that I'm not alone in the EU, here are two news
Popular opinion backs EU foreign minister post 06.09.2006 - 17:33 CET | By Honor Mahony EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A majority of EU citizens are in favour of having a single EU foreign minister for the bloc, the results of a new survey have shown.
Conducted by the German Marshall Fund in June across several member states including France, Germany, the UK and Italy, the survey showed that 65 percent of respondents would like to see the post created.
The greatest support for the idea was found among the Spanish (74%), the Italians (71%) and the French (69%) while British and Slovak respondents proved among the least keen on the idea, clocking in 52 and 48 percent respectively. The EU foreign minister position is one of the key innovations of the European constitution which was shelved last year after French and Dutch voters rejected it in referendums. And so long as the constitution remains moribund, the post is unlikely to see the light of day.
This emphasises the basic weakness of the EU. It is disjointed. It's not united, and can never be united.
Half of the EU wants it, and half doesn't. The half that want's it doesn't have the power to do it on it's own or the power to persuade or enforce their will on the half that doesn't. It's dead. Never going to happen. Paralysed in true European diplomatic stlye.
Who cares if people in France and Italy and Germany voted for anything? I'm not French of German or Italian. Who cares if Germans, Italians and French would like to appoint someone to take control of the British Military?
At what point do you think that makes any difference? They have no say. You have no say. Vote as much as you like, outside your national boundaries the power of your vote ends. After that all you have to bargain with is economic and military might. Something my people have considerably more of.
If France Italy and Germany wish to go tri-lateral and create a unified military structure amongst themselves, no one is stopping them. Same goes for everyone else. But I'm not paying for it, and I'm not joining it. I don't want it. It is a hinderance not a benefit to me.
I don't dispute that many people are looking for the EU to be somekind of a unified political state. Throughout history it has ever been so. Unfortunately for them many people are willing to fight to stop them. Throughout history it has ever been so.
You asked the people and they said "no". You will either listen, or attempt to force your agenda upon them against their wishes. I don't suggest you attempt force.
I suggest you stick to goals that are achieveable, and if you are serious about you ancestors being proud that Europeans well never fight each other again, you will need to change your political goals. Becasue the one you advocate puts you on a collision course that can only be resolved through violent means.
If you want peace in Europe, we've already got peace in Europe, all you have to do is leave it alone.
If you want a unified Europe, you will have to compromise your goals. Unilke me, who couldn't care less about a unified Europe and doesn't have to compromise anything. What you want isn't going to happen the way you would like it. Re-adjust and move on.
.
This is how it played out in Britian. Many of the politicians thought A federal Europe and a single currency was a great Idea. The people and the economy didn't. Landslide victory for the opposition. Once again the new government thinks it's a great idea. (Great jobs for politicans in the EU, great money lots of travel, expense accounts). All their unelectable mates who can't work in England suddenly have jobs again.
Blair thinks that when he retires from being PM, he is going to take the Top job at the new federal EU and be Emperor of Europe. Only the people won't stand for it, he is forced to promise them a referendum. One that becomes very apparent to him that he can't win. He delays and delays it until the Dutch and the French say "no" saving his face, he gets to abandon the referendum saving him from assured defeat and early retirement from politics.
Originally posted by Herkmeck We control the Internation Space Station...so one more stupid thread like this...and we will flush the holding tanks as it passes over your home!
This emphasises the basic weakness of the EU. It is disjointed. It's not united, and can never be united. Half of the EU wants it, and half doesn't. The half that want's it doesn't have the power to do it on it's own or the power to persuade or enforce their will on the half that doesn't. It's dead. Never going to happen. Paralysed in true European diplomatic stlye.
Soz? the poll shows most of the population is in favour of going further in the process of getting a single voice in the world stage, and it also demonstrates that frenchs and dutch voted "no" to the constitution based on internal affairs. And please, could you show me any poll which says that half the population is against the EU? I don't even believe the british are so against, so imagine the EU as a whole. Oh, and if the EU was so paralysed we wouldn't have advanced from the ECSC, don't you think? luckly most of people don't share your opinion.
Who cares if people in France and Italy and Germany voted for anything? I'm not French of German or Italian.
I do care, because frenchs, germans and italians are european, they are my neighbours and brothers.
Vote as much as you like, outside your national boundaries the power of your vote ends. After that all you have to bargain with is economic and military might. Something my people have considerably more of.
Everyone is aware of that. Can you find the phrase in which I said the EU is a unified country? I never said so, that's why I'm asking for a greater unification to end with that situation.
If France Italy and Germany wish to go tri-lateral and create a unified military structure amongst themselves, no one is stopping them. Same goes for everyone else. But I'm not paying for it, and I'm not joining it. I don't want it. It is a hinderance not a benefit to me. I don't dispute that many people are looking for the EU to be somekind of a unified political state. Throughout history it has ever been so. Unfortunately for them many people are willing to fight to stop them. Throughout history it has ever been so.
It's ok, you are free to think what you want, but you should accept the decision of the majority. So if the majority of europeans raise their demands for an increased unification, you should accept it without fighting. Is that simple. Either that or ask all the british if they want to get out of the EU before it gets unified.
You asked the people and they said "no". You will either listen, or attempt to force your agenda upon them against their wishes. I don't suggest you attempt force.
They said "no", you are right. "No" to their government, because the referendum was so badly done that everything revolved around internal politics (and I'm a witness, as I said in Spain we voted in a referendum)
I suggest you stick to goals that are achieveable, and if you are serious about you ancestors being proud that Europeans well never fight each other again, you will need to change your political goals. Becasue the one you advocate puts you on a collision course that can only be resolved through violent means. If you want peace in Europe, we've already got peace in Europe, all you have to do is leave it alone. If you want a unified Europe, you will have to compromise your goals. Unilke me, who couldn't care less about a unified Europe and doesn't have to compromise anything. What you want isn't going to happen the way you would like it. Re-adjust and move on.
Do you think I want a referendum to ask the european citizens if they want to become a single country? One day we'll get to that point, but until then I wish to set more achieveable objectives, for example the creation of the foreign minister. Later on, I wish governments gave more power to that minister. And finally the disappearence of all the other foreign ministers. Politicians are not stupid, and that's exactly what they are doing, step by step they are approaching to the final objective.
This is how it played out in Britian. Many of the politicians thought A federal Europe and a single currency was a great Idea. The people and the economy didn't. Landslide victory for the opposition. Once again the new government thinks it's a great idea. (Great jobs for politicans in the EU, great money lots of travel, expense accounts). All their unelectable mates who can't work in England suddenly have jobs again.
British economy is starting to slowdown, while Spain's, which is in the eurozone, is growing even faster (until now we were already growing faster than the UK). Same goes for the rest of eurozone economies. So yes, I think the single currency was a great idea and the UK economy growth didn't have anything to do with sticking with the pound. But time will tell what happens when you grow at 1% and the rest of us at 3%, will you beg us to get in the euro? oh, and about economy... I've always thought numbers are very biased, you always claim that nowadays the UK's economy is slightly larger/equal to that of France, but you always seem to forget that more than 10% of your GDP comes directly from oil what will happen when it depletes? I'll tell you. When it starts to deplete the UK's economy will suffer a lot, and I mean, A LOT, but at least we won't run out of energy because the EU as a single body has enough strenght to negotiate and put preassure on other countries such as Russia, and the EU can fund the best engineers among 450 million citizens in order to find an alternative to oil. Maybe that's not enough, but for sure we'll have more probabilities to survive if we stand together, including the UK (which as I said before, except for its euroskeptics like you that sometimes are unbearable, is a lovely country with a great (sometimes too magnified) history).
Comments
Actually that was a negotiation between U.S. States and the Candian Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Techinically it cannot be enforced in court because enforcement arrangements can be made only between the federal governments which makes it a dead letter more or less from a legal stand point its more like negotiated guidelines.
Your right that Nafta is not a complete comparison. From our point of view though as long as each individual nation retains its sovreignty its a trading block and not a country.
I don't have any doubts that the EU will be one large sovreign body one day; however that day has not quite yet arrived. You are getting closer you have the infrastructure set up etc., but each Nation still has Sovreign rights which makes it somewhat less than a United Country. The UN security council has a Britain and a France with permanent seats not a EU. The EU is not recognized by any nation as a country nor does it have any embassies.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
The point was from an economic stand point they were better off before the Europeans showed up and stole all their resources and prime real estate. This by far out weighs any benefit the native people of South America received from European Culture. The citizens basking in the modern life style are the descendants of the Europeans themselves not the native populations.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
/shrug
The US is number one in my book. I hope others feel the same about their own countries.
and that is exactly why this thread is so long...
I don't mind if people feel a bit of national pride, but let's not get silly.
The point was from an economic stand point they were better off before the Europeans showed up and stole all their resources and prime real estate. This by far out weighs any benefit the native people of South America received from European Culture. The citizens basking in the modern life style are the descendants of the Europeans themselves not the native populations.
And your point was wrong.
When the Europeans come they bring with them advanced farning, mining and all sorts of other technologies. The resources that the indiginous natives had before the Europeans arrived were stone age resources. Now they have modern ones that are capable of producing much much more.
If I start an oil well, not only do I get rich but loads of local people get richer. As I create jobs, and spend my money on local produce and entertainment. The money filters down through society.
Now, that's not to say that when a European ruler comes, he doesn't take over the palace and chose to live there, but he doesn't make the locals poorer. (Only one or two of the very top echelons of society perhaps). The rest of those societies benefit from trade and know how. And the infrastructure that Europeans create to ply their trade. Roads, Railways, ports,airports, hospitals, governments etc etc etc.
I'm already bailing you out. Right now. I have been since when was it you said? 1991?
Your loans are denominated in whatever denomination you agreed them. In my case, that will be Pounds Sterling and RenMinBi. No one forces you to accept it.
You might not like my view and may wish to keep on telling my why foreign investors in America invest in America. The difference between us is, I am a foreign investor in America, and you are not. Why I invest in America, is whatever reason I say it is. How's that for data? I could provide links to me quoting myself if you need any validation.
.
I have no Investments in Africa. While it's true I can't make people give what they don't have, that's not really a problem for me. Because if you don't have it, I'll simply charge your neighbour extra to make up for my loss. For the record, I never lend money to people without assets of higher value than my investment. America isn't Africa.
If for example in a fit of pique a fellow burn his house down, so that the bank had nothing to reposess. The Bank would still not lose money. It would raise it's rates and recover that money from all it's other debtors.
I'm not going to be losing out. It is of course possible that Everyone I lend money to in the U.S. could all destroy everything they own of value all simultaneously, but somehow it isn't such a big risk for me.
.
In your nightmare scenario of a crashed and devalued economy in the U.S. I would not be crying at all, the amount of property I could repossess would increase as you value currency devalued. Plus, I have even more cash to lend and even more cash to spend. I will be buying even more of the U.S. than I already own. Everyone loves a bargain.
So go ahead, devalue. That works for me too.
The only sports I care about are martial arts. And the Netherlands has been doing great in many of those!
But I digress, apologies.
Do not try to share the fault, you can only blame the US for what happened. In 1971 the US abandoned the fixed rate between the dollar and gold, and the reason can be found in the external balance. The deficit in the capital account of the US, because it was a net exporter of capital, was early compensated by the commercial surplus based both in the higher productivity of its industry and by the strong growth of world imports. But during the 60's decade, the economies of developed countries decreased the competitiveness breach between them and the US, both because of their relative advances in productivity and because of the internal inflation problem of the US caused by the expansive policies adopted around 1965. In fact, the US had commercial deficit in 1968 for the first time, and it consolidated from 1971. This effect was reinforced by maintenance of the capital exports, some speculative movements of capital, and for the growing military spending generated by the Vietnam war and by the cold war
Thanks, I'll look at it, but as I said "I might be wrong" so thanks for politely correcting me. And I know the EU cannot be comparable to the US, but neither to the NAFTA, and if I had to bet about something I would say the EU is closer from being a fully recognized country than being a simple international organization. I've never said we were saints, we conquered the whole world so we could exploit it, but in exchange we developed it. If we didn't take all the gold and silver from the Andes, no one would have taken them because the natives would still be living in primitive civilizations, so I really think we made a fair exchange. We only took two of their resources in exchange for all our inventions, ideas, in in general, in exchange for advancing lot of centuries from one day to another. I hope not. You can only improve your country if you see its flaws, don't you think?Since Bretton Woods, the international liquidity depended on the gold and dollar reserves, and on the FMI loans. Gold production growth was very modest, so most of the liquidity depended on the capital exports of the US, as it had commercial surplus. But the growing US deficit caused a high growth on international liquidity, which couldn't be controlled, disappearing the international nominal anchor for the price stability, so the USA along with the oil crisis, caused an international economic crisis that specially affected Europe, it's effects over unemployment can still be seen today here, and it was partially caused by you. Do you understand me now when I say you betrayed us?
Swap you these shiney beads for that there shiney metal, and they all queued up.
Gold has a different value for each civilization.
Ah, thanks for the correction.. Been awhile since I've looked at that.
Some? Hitler was small potatoes when you look at the levels of mass murder and genocide carried out under european imperialism (and later US). Entire tribes, cultures, were exterminated. Did you know that those diseases you spoke of were often used intentionally as a form of biological warfare? The deliberate giving away of pox laden blankets and other goods to native populations, for example. Not accidental, I'm talking about deliberate trade of goods colonists knew would have a high risk of infection.
Also, historical food sources depleted (bison, for example), displacement by land grabbers of native people into barren lands, slavery, etc. Imperialism had often decimated native populations. Some segments were exterminated into oblivion. Gone, forever. There is no "some" about it. The numbers and effects were often devastating.
Wiki isn't the best, for sure, but it gives a good start to exploring the effects of imperialism and some of the genocidial acts and policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#_note-1
Just to show Baff and other sceptics that I'm not alone in the EU, here are two news
it's silly to be proud of my country? I am sorry but I really find that comment offensive.
- Scaris
"What happened to you, Star Wars Galaxies? You used to look like Leia. Not quite gold bikini Leia (more like bad-British-accent-and-cinnamon-bun-hair Leia), but still Leia nonetheless. Now you look like Chewbacca." - Computer Gaming World
Kiss my fat hairy ass.
The USA isnt so bad...really ask all them illeagel imigrants that cross the boarders every day.
Can't all be bad, for when the shit hits the fan who do you call?
Really cant be really that bad...cause we have Holly Wood
We also have Dr Phil!
Ahhh there has to be somthing else we have no one else has...
I got it...
We control the Internation Space Station...so one more stupid thread like this...and we will flush the holding tanks as it passes over your home!
This emphasises the basic weakness of the EU. It is disjointed. It's not united, and can never be united.
Half of the EU wants it, and half doesn't. The half that want's it doesn't have the power to do it on it's own or the power to persuade or enforce their will on the half that doesn't. It's dead. Never going to happen. Paralysed in true European diplomatic stlye.
Who cares if people in France and Italy and Germany voted for anything? I'm not French of German or Italian. Who cares if Germans, Italians and French would like to appoint someone to take control of the British Military?
At what point do you think that makes any difference? They have no say. You have no say. Vote as much as you like, outside your national boundaries the power of your vote ends. After that all you have to bargain with is economic and military might. Something my people have considerably more of.
If France Italy and Germany wish to go tri-lateral and create a unified military structure amongst themselves, no one is stopping them. Same goes for everyone else. But I'm not paying for it, and I'm not joining it. I don't want it. It is a hinderance not a benefit to me.
I don't dispute that many people are looking for the EU to be somekind of a unified political state. Throughout history it has ever been so. Unfortunately for them many people are willing to fight to stop them. Throughout history it has ever been so.
You asked the people and they said "no". You will either listen, or attempt to force your agenda upon them against their wishes. I don't suggest you attempt force.
I suggest you stick to goals that are achieveable, and if you are serious about you ancestors being proud that Europeans well never fight each other again, you will need to change your political goals. Becasue the one you advocate puts you on a collision course that can only be resolved through violent means.
If you want peace in Europe, we've already got peace in Europe, all you have to do is leave it alone.
If you want a unified Europe, you will have to compromise your goals. Unilke me, who couldn't care less about a unified Europe and doesn't have to compromise anything. What you want isn't going to happen the way you would like it. Re-adjust and move on.
.
This is how it played out in Britian. Many of the politicians thought A federal Europe and a single currency was a great Idea. The people and the economy didn't. Landslide victory for the opposition. Once again the new government thinks it's a great idea. (Great jobs for politicans in the EU, great money lots of travel, expense accounts). All their unelectable mates who can't work in England suddenly have jobs again.
Blair thinks that when he retires from being PM, he is going to take the Top job at the new federal EU and be Emperor of Europe. Only the people won't stand for it, he is forced to promise them a referendum. One that becomes very apparent to him that he can't win. He delays and delays it until the Dutch and the French say "no" saving his face, he gets to abandon the referendum saving him from assured defeat and early retirement from politics.
Soz? the poll shows most of the population is in favour of going further in the process of getting a single voice in the world stage, and it also demonstrates that frenchs and dutch voted "no" to the constitution based on internal affairs. And please, could you show me any poll which says that half the population is against the EU? I don't even believe the british are so against, so imagine the EU as a whole. Oh, and if the EU was so paralysed we wouldn't have advanced from the ECSC, don't you think? luckly most of people don't share your opinion.
I do care, because frenchs, germans and italians are european, they are my neighbours and brothers. Everyone is aware of that. Can you find the phrase in which I said the EU is a unified country? I never said so, that's why I'm asking for a greater unification to end with that situation. It's ok, you are free to think what you want, but you should accept the decision of the majority. So if the majority of europeans raise their demands for an increased unification, you should accept it without fighting. Is that simple. Either that or ask all the british if they want to get out of the EU before it gets unified. They said "no", you are right. "No" to their government, because the referendum was so badly done that everything revolved around internal politics (and I'm a witness, as I said in Spain we voted in a referendum) Do you think I want a referendum to ask the european citizens if they want to become a single country? One day we'll get to that point, but until then I wish to set more achieveable objectives, for example the creation of the foreign minister. Later on, I wish governments gave more power to that minister. And finally the disappearence of all the other foreign ministers. Politicians are not stupid, and that's exactly what they are doing, step by step they are approaching to the final objective. British economy is starting to slowdown, while Spain's, which is in the eurozone, is growing even faster (until now we were already growing faster than the UK). Same goes for the rest of eurozone economies. So yes, I think the single currency was a great idea and the UK economy growth didn't have anything to do with sticking with the pound. But time will tell what happens when you grow at 1% and the rest of us at 3%, will you beg us to get in the euro? oh, and about economy... I've always thought numbers are very biased, you always claim that nowadays the UK's economy is slightly larger/equal to that of France, but you always seem to forget that more than 10% of your GDP comes directly from oilI'll tell you. When it starts to deplete the UK's economy will suffer a lot, and I mean, A LOT, but at least we won't run out of energy because the EU as a single body has enough strenght to negotiate and put preassure on other countries such as Russia, and the EU can fund the best engineers among 450 million citizens in order to find an alternative to oil. Maybe that's not enough, but for sure we'll have more probabilities to survive if we stand together, including the UK (which as I said before, except for its euroskeptics like you that sometimes are unbearable, is a lovely country with a great (sometimes too magnified) history).