The EU wants its own military.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if you leave youd be completly left out in europe.

Which would be infinitely superior to being part of a European superstate.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if you dont want the constitution you wont have any influence on it, will be left out and complain in 20 years that things are not like you wanted them, just as it is the usual attidude of most brits right now concerning the eu.

If we don't like the Constitution, we can veto it.

Originally Posted by Insane. Badger

Didn't stop him over Iraq, why would it stop him over Europe?

Because with Iraq he could claim National Security was at stake and that as he had access to more information than we did he had to make the decision based on what he knew rather than public opinion.

He has no such excuse concerning Europe.

He would basically be saying "I know better than the entire country" and would be forced out.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Which would be infinitely superior to being part of a European superstate.

why exactly would that be so?

If we don't like the Constitution, we can veto it.

but you wont stop us from going on alone, like we did with the euro. now your only choice is to either join the euro as is or stay out, you dont have the choice to take an influence on the general policy guidlines for the central bank for example. and thats exactly whats the problem with you brits. first you want to stay outside, then you join in later (which no doubt will happen sooner or later in case of the euro, the consitution and whatever else will happen in the future) and then complain about things no beeing as you liked them to be.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Insane. Badger

Didn't stop him over Iraq, why would it stop him over Europe?

The media were mixed about Iraq. Once the war had actually commenced most of the big circulation papers (The Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph) were all fairly positive.

The opposite would be true of any pro-EU plans.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

why exactly would that be so?

Superstates are bad.

Plus we like being British.

No-one in the UK thinks of himself as "European".

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but you wont stop us from going on alone, like we did with the euro. now your only choice is to either join the euro as is or stay out, you dont have the choice to take an influence on the general policy guidlines for the central bank for example. and thats exactly whats the problem with you brits. first you want to stay outside, then you join in later (which no doubt will happen sooner or later in case of the euro, the consitution and whatever else will happen in the future) and then complain about things no beeing as you liked them to be.

I suggest you look up "veto" in the dictionary.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Superstates are bad.

Plus we like being British.

No-one in the UK thinks of himself as "European".

you already said superstates are bad, i asked you why you think that way.
Plus you should avoid such generalizations i dont think everyone thinks the way you do.

I suggest you look up "veto" in the dictionary.

look, well just set up things diffrently without uk and thats it. there is no way one single state can stop the whole process, even if it is willing to try (which in case of your goverment i dont think.)

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

you already said superstates are bad, i asked you why you think that way.
Plus you should avoid such generalizations i dont think everyone thinks the way you do.

Any state should be based on common values, culture and history. The countries of Europe are so different that it's impossible simply to integrate them because some idiotic politicians think it's a good idea.

The USA works as a country because it is so unified. You can't just amalgamate random countries and expect the combined state to be the same as the USA.

And how can I possibly talk about superstates (or anything else in foreign policy for that matter) without generalising? I'm not going to write a book just to answer your ridiculous questions.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

look, well just set up things diffrently without uk and thats it.

You could, but you won't.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

there is no way one single state can stop the whole process, even if it is willing to try (which in case of your goverment i dont think.)

When that state is the most powerful country in the EU, sure there is.

[Bunga]

Proteus: the USA was not that unified when it was newly created. The different staes had very different ideas about what was good and what was right. The point is, if we ever become a single "super-state" or rather a single country, after two generations we will be just as unified as the USA is today.

[Intrepid00]

In like how the US makes fun of the south the EU will make fun of the French.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Proteus: the USA was not that unified when it was newly created. The different staes had very different ideas about what was good and what was right. The point is, if we ever become a single "super-state" or rather a single country, after two generations we will be just as unified as the USA is today.

They all spoke the same language, and had very similar histories and culture.

Just because different areas have slightly different political opinions does not mean they are dissimilar.

Europe, on the other hand, is incredibly varied and there is no way we could integrate without immense difficulty.

And frankly, I don't see the point.

[Bunga]

Since when was english, french and spanish the same language?

If two areas have different political opinions (as far as an area can have an opinion) they are by defenition dissimilar.

Europe isn't all that varied. There are four main areas where all the countries in them have much the same cultural background and these four areas have been close for the past 1500 years.

My point was that your argument was invalid.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Since when was english, french and spanish the same language?

They aren't.

The founding fathers all spoke English.

The vast majority of the inhabitants of the founding colonies spoke English.

Originally Posted by Bunga

If two areas have different political opinions (as far as an area can have an opinion) they are by defenition dissimilar.

Obviously the North of England and the South of England should be different countries then, as the former is mainly left wing and the latter mainly right wing.

Originally Posted by Bunga

Europe isn't all that varied. There are four main areas where all the countries in them have much the same cultural background and these four areas have been close for the past 1500 years.

They have the same cultural origins (Greek and Roman, mainly) but they don't have the same culture by any means.

Originally Posted by Bunga

My point was that your argument was invalid.

My arguments are always valid, and my concluding statement referred to the effort involved in integrating Europe, not your post.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Any state should be based on common values, culture and history. The countries of Europe are so different that it's impossible simply to integrate them because some idiotic politicians think it's a good idea.

Excuse me, but all a state has to be based on is the willingness of the individuals which compose it to respect each other's rights. We're all different, merely to different degrees. To declare that a state can only be formed by those within a particular arbitrary limit of each other is a strikingly irrational subjective opinion.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Excuse me, but all a state has to be based on is the willingness of the individuals which compose it to respect each other's rights. We're all different, merely to different degrees. To declare that a state can only be formed by those within a particular arbitrary limit of each other is a strikingly irrational subjective opinion.

Well obviously everyone is different, but the more different two groups of people are, the more difficult it is for them to coexist in a nation - you just have to look at Northern Ireland, where two groups of people identical in all but religion find it almost impossible to live peacefully together.

Language is merely an easy way of showing this: while there are several countries with two, three or even four different main languages, there is none with anything approaching as many languages as Europe.

And please excuse me if I don't explain my points when talking to wu_trax, as it's so incredibly frustrating to have a discussion with him I've given up explaining anything complicated, as he invariably ignores anything approaching common sense and simply spouts out even more nonsense.

[Jammers]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Obviously the North of England and the South of England should be different countries then, as the former is mainly left wing and the latter mainly right wing.

And so they will, as soon as these new fangled regional assemblies get formed.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Well obviously everyone is different, but the more different two groups of people are, the more difficult it is for them to coexist in a nation - you just have to look at Northern Ireland, where two groups of people identical in all but religion find it almost impossible to live peacefully together.

That's hardly a valid argument though. Throughout history we hysterically publicise any hate-based campaigns over our differences but what is often too quickly glossed over is the ease with which cultures can live together. The jews are currently the subject of an intifada in Palestine and we all suppose it improbable that they can ever live together in peace, but if this is the real reason they cannot co-exist then why did Jews live peacefully in Palestine up until the 20th century? Why did they emigrate en masse to Muslim Spain when the worst traits of European civilisation were being displayed?

Protestants and catholics live together peacefully in countless countries around the world. How can you claim that it is that difference which causes them to fight if they do not fight in so many other locations? What divides us is not the small semantic difficulties we imagine to cause so much strife, rather the underlying struggle for survival, control and power. In places where this is decided people will not fight. Control and power can both be given to one party, or to all according to their strength, or to all equally. Differences culturally aren't as big as we suppose them to be.

Language is merely an easy way of showing this: while there are several countries with two, three or even four different main languages, there is none with anything approaching as many languages as Europe.

This is a bit of a strange assertion if you don't mind me saying. Most countries outside of Europe have the same language because it was forced on them during the colonial period. In many cases these countries are struggling, however this is due more to economic and social problems rather than cultural difficulties. Language is a very weak barrier. If we all decided tomorrow that ever child around the world should learn english or french or spanish then in fifty years we'd all speak the same language. Nothing would have really changed though would it? The fact we'd use the same words to describe the same situations would not mean we all then have the same beliefs.

The emperors of rome famously (and somewhat historically exaggeratedly) believed that all the masses required was bread and circuses. Personally I find that what most people are concerned with is food and love. People want to survive and people want to belong. If you leave people to get on with their lives they will, because otherwise human beings could not have existed without a government (I sincerely hope nobody is going to suggest the first government was formed before the first people were born).

Classically most tribes and communities were small and fiercely independent. Throughout history the size of these communities has expanded and decreased as circumstances dictated. In my opinion the primary cause over the fluctuation of the size of these communities has been the sense of belonging of it's members to the overall community. As any student of early roman history should know the strength of Rome was it's relationship to the other tribes around it. When enemies attacked it wasn't just the home of the taxman that was being attacked but the home of us all, even if they'd never seen Rome. Sparta survived for so many years because it's citizens believed in what they had. The United States was strong because it's citizens identified with it. Whether they understood the complexities of liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness is a consideration which dwindles in comparison to the overwhelming sense of belonging many of them felt. Strong communities are based on the idea that this is us together and we will work for us all. No matter creed, culture, history, language, opinions or politics when we respect each other we are part of the same community and we are able to work together.

[Azof]

wu_trax I suggest you look up the history of Austria-Hungary and maybe you will understand the opposition to a European superstate.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Any state should be based on common values, culture and history. The countries of Europe are so different that it's impossible simply to integrate them because some idiotic politicians think it's a good idea.

The USA works as a country because it is so unified. You can't just amalgamate random countries and expect the combined state to be the same as the USA.

And how can I possibly talk about superstates (or anything else in foreign policy for that matter) without generalising? I'm not going to write a book just to answer your ridiculous questions.

so we dont have common values in europe? when 100,000s of people demonstrate against a war they dont want i pretty much see that common values. as for the history and culture, how much of your countries history does not involve other european countries? uk has always been part of europe, no matter if you want it or not. same with the culture, the countries in europe have far more in common than holds them apart.

You could, but you won't.

why not? for that matter i only care for germany, france and the benelux-countries. we started the whole thing, we can carry on, with or without the rest.
noone wants the EU to become like the usa, making all the same would mean loosing a huge part of what the EU is all about, but that doesnt mean we cant or shouldnt move on with political and economical integration.

When that state is the most powerful country in the EU, sure there is.

what kind of power are you talking about?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so we dont have common values in europe? when 100,000s of people demonstrate against a war they dont want i pretty much see that common values. as for the history and culture, how much of your countries history does not involve other european countries? uk has always been part of europe, no matter if you want it or not. same with the culture, the countries in europe have far more in common than holds them apart.

I hardly think "war is bad!" is enough common political opinion to hold together a superstate.

And our history involves other countries in Europe because we fought them almost continuously for 1000 years. Our history with America, on the other hand, involves common culture, because it was originally our colony, and peaceful co-operation and friendship for most of history (the War of Independence and War of 1812 were exceptions). I know which "common history and culture" I'd rather base our future on.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

why not? for that matter i only care for germany, france and the benelux-countries. we started the whole thing, we can carry on, with or without the rest.

You just proved my point. You don't care about having Europe united, you just want to be part of a powerful country.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

what kind of power are you talking about?

Military power, worldwide diplomatic influence, economic strength.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I hardly think "war is bad!" is enough common political opinion to hold together a superstate.

I think it is. We can found a state on the principle of "War is bad; avoid it at all costs until there is absolutely no other choice". If that is our common, guiding principle the rest is just frippery. Different areas can do whatever they want, as long as they stick to that principle.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

I think it is. We can found a state on the principle of "War is bad; avoid it at all costs until there is absolutely no other choice". If that is our common, guiding principle the rest is just frippery. Different areas can do whatever they want, as long as they stick to that principle.

That's the point of the UN.

[Bunga]

Your point being...?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Your point being...?

If you don't understand I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

[Bunga]

Yes, its the point of the UN. You are correct. Its also the point of the EU, it is why the Coal and Steel Union or whatever it was called was formed in the first place.

So again I must ask, your point?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Yes, its the point of the UN. You are correct. Its also the point of the EU, it is why the Coal and Steel Union or whatever it was called was formed in the first place.

So again I must ask, your point?

It was not the point of the EU. The EU was meant as an economic union.

I find it hard to understand why you think that anyone would found something called the "Coal and Steel Union" to promote peace.

There is no point in founding a nation merely to promote peace, because we already have the UN.

And the UN isn't working at the moment - what makes you think this supposed nation would work any better?

And don't patronise me.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

It was not the point of the EU. The EU was meant as an economic union.

I find it hard to understand why you think that anyone would found something called the "Coal and Steel Union" to promote peace.

There is no point in founding a nation merely to promote peace, because we already have the UN.

And the UN isn't working at the moment - what makes you think this supposed nation would work any better?

And don't patronise me.

Actually the ECSC was created with both a political and an economic aim in mind. Obviously the economic purpose was to foster close trade links between Germany, France and Benelux. However also it was set up as part of the broader plan to integrate germany into western europe and prevent conflicts between the two european continental powers from emerging again. Remember at this point the UN was scarcely ten years old, and we all know how the League of Nations went don't we?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Actually the ECSC was created with both a political and an economic aim in mind. Obviously the economic purpose was to foster close trade links between Germany, France and Benelux. However also it was set up as part of the broader plan to integrate germany into western europe and prevent conflicts between the two european continental powers from emerging again. Remember at this point the UN was scarcely ten years old, and we all know how the League of Nations went don't we?

When we joined the EU, we (the British public) were told it was an economic union.

Many politicians screamed to high heaven about future superstates and political integration and were rubbished by the government.

We believed the government. Let us never make that mistake again.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

When we joined the EU, we (the British public) were told it was an economic union.

Many politicians screamed to high heaven about future superstates and political integration and were rubbished by the government.

We believed the government. Let us never make that mistake again.

That's pretty ****ing stupid if you're intent on holding back the rest of Europe because your government lied to you. I mean you were even in the EFTA before you joined.




PS Where's de gaulle with his veto when you need him eh?

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Proteus

When we joined the EU, we (the British public) were told it was an economic union.

Many politicians screamed to high heaven about future superstates and political integration and were rubbished by the government.

We believed the government. Let us never make that mistake again.

It is easily available common knowledge that EU was founded with the express purpose of stopping something like WWII from ever happening again. If a single Union controlled all the coal and steel in Europe, it was thought, war on a large scale would be impossible.

The EU was supposed to be both policital and economic from the start. This has always been the case, and anyone who actually researched even a tiny bit what the EU was about knows this.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That's pretty ****ing stupid if you're intent on holding back the rest of Europe because your government lied to you. I mean you were even in the EFTA before you joined.

I'm not intent on holding back the rest of Europe at all.

If they want to surrender their entire national sovereignty to Brussels that's for them to do.

I just don't want us to be a part of it.

In fact, the ideal situation as far as I'm concerned would be a purely economic union, separate from the United States of Europe.

I don't want to withdraw from Europe completely and build a big wall around the UK or something.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Bunga

It is easily available common knowledge that EU was founded with the express purpose of stopping something like WWII from ever happening again. If a single Union controlled all the coal and steel in Europe, it was thought, war on a large scale would be impossible.

This was actually pretty stupid seeing as throughout history most nations have traded with their enemies. Rome traded with the persians and carthaginians, the christians traded with the muslims before, during and after the crusades, germany traded heavily with france and the USSR before attacking each of them. And so on and so forth.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This was actually pretty stupid seeing as throughout history most nations have traded with their enemies. Rome traded with the persians and carthaginians, the christians traded with the muslims before, during and after the crusades, germany traded heavily with france and the USSR before attacking each of them. And so on and so forth.

Yeah, but the EU thing was more about integrating the economies more completley - not just trade.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I'm not intent on holding back the rest of Europe at all.

It appears that contrary to your intentions most of Europe is being held back

If they want to surrender their entire national sovereignty to Brussels that's for them to do.

Stop talking to me like I'm sort of ****ing cretin who is impressed by mindless rhetoric spewed from the bowels of the foulest political commentators.

I just don't want us to be a part of it.

What are the current polls showing as to people's opinions on Europe over there?

In fact, the ideal situation as far as I'm concerned would be a purely economic union, separate from the United States of Europe.

I don't want to withdraw from Europe completely and build a big wall around the UK or something.

Unfortunately splendid isolation doesn't work for any nation anymore heh.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, but the EU thing was more about integrating the economies more completley - not just trade.

They provided a unified market for coal and steel, lifted taxes on imports and restrictions and united the labour market. It's hardly the establishment of the worker's paradise heh. Point taken nonetheless though.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I hardly think "war is bad!" is enough common political opinion to hold together a superstate.

And our history involves other countries in Europe because we fought them almost continuously for 1000 years. Our history with America, on the other hand, involves common culture, because it was originally our colony, and peaceful co-operation and friendship for most of history (the War of Independence and War of 1812 were exceptions). I know which "common history and culture" I'd rather base our future on.

you do know that most immigrants in the us were in fact german, dont you? so much about common history and culture. you cant base your future on the past. the past is nice to think about, to avoid mistakes made then, but thats about it.

You just proved my point. You don't care about having Europe united, you just want to be part of a powerful country.

i think you missunderstood me. i dont want to force anyone into a closer union. if benelux, france and germany move on, thats enough for me, but the more countries also join in the better.

Military power, worldwide diplomatic influence, economic strength.

military power, probably, but the rest? i dont see where uk is better than, lets say france or germany

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It appears that contrary to your intentions most of Europe is being held back

That's their fault.

France and Germany are trying to turn the EU into something it isn't, and we are resisting.

If they want a European superstate, they should create one, separate from the EU, not trying to bully the rest of us into it by stealth.

[quote=JonnyBGood]Stop talking to me like I'm sort of ****ing cretin who is impressed by mindless rhetoric spewed from the bowels of the foulest political commentators.

What a lovely insult. I'll have to remember that.

And I'm sorry, but that's my opinion. I like our sovereignty, and I don't want to give it away.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What are the current polls showing as to people's opinions on Europe over there?

It's very hard to tell, because they ask stupid questions.

Very few people actually want isolation (the UK Independence Party does, but no-one votes for them).

However I get the impression that not many people fancy handing over any more sovereignty to Europe.

And loads of people don't like the new Constitution.

[Bunga]

So what you are saying is that you want the EU to be a purely economic union, right? But at the same time, your country doesn't want to be part of the economic union? What do you want to be a part of then?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

you do know that most immigrants in the us were in fact german, dont you? so much about common history and culture. you cant base your future on the past. the past is nice to think about, to avoid mistakes made then, but thats about it.

When the US declared independence it was a British colony.

Immigration since then is irrelevant, as immigrants to the US tend to abandon their own culture and take up US culture (I only wish immigrants to Britain would do the same).

Originally Posted by wu_trax

military power, probably, but the rest? i dont see where uk is better than, lets say france or germany

Well it is. We have immense international influence (through the Commonwealth etc), whereas France and Germany only have real influence in Europe. Having the world's second most powerful military also helps with international relations. We also have a permanent seat on the UNSC, unlike Germany.

And you just have to look at what the Euro is doing to France and Germany to see who has more economic strength.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

So what you are saying is that you want the EU to be a purely economic union, right? But at the same time, your country doesn't want to be part of the economic union?

I said nothing of the sort.

I don't want a political union, but I do want an economic one. Is that too hard to understand?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

That's their fault.

France and Germany are trying to turn the EU into something it isn't, and we are resisting.

If they want a European superstate, they should create one, separate from the EU, not trying to bully the rest of us into it by stealth.

Firstly that's a tautology, if you're going to change something to something else then it clearly can't be that second thing already. And would you stop using words like European super-state? Surprisingly the french and germans aren't over there foaming at the mouth hoping to steal away your personal liberties. I wonder what exactly this proposed european superstate is supposed to do? We all (according to our constitutions) have voted for the various treaties that have made the EU what it is today. If you disagree with the approach france and germany take then vote against them and encourage others to do the same while explaining your reasons. It's not like they're threatening us with economic starvation or military invasion.

It's very hard to tell, because they ask stupid questions.

Very few people actually want isolation (the UK Independence Party does, but no-one votes for them).

However I get the impression that not many people fancy handing over any more sovereignty to Europe.

And loads of people don't like the new Constitution.

I don't think most people are aware as to what extent the EU does have control over each state. They just sort of mindlessly yell out that nobody understands them and we fought the germans in two world wars! Which bits of the constitution do they not like? Personally I found that very few people I talk to have bothered reading the intial proposed draft. Much like when Ireland voted on the Nice treaty I found out that extremely few people read the treaty itself, they just swallowed whatever crap their favourite newspaper was dishing out as the truth according to Moses.


PS Isn't a bit funny how all the British "stand alone" nationalists complained when the EU had no constitution and called it fundamentally unjust with no guarantee of basic rights, and yet now as the EU tries to bring in a constitution it's a step towards the federalisation of socialist europe? Funny old world.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

That's their fault.

France and Germany are trying to turn the EU into something it isn't, and we are resisting.

If they want a European superstate, they should create one, separate from the EU, not trying to bully the rest of us into it by stealth.

the way the eu works is the folowing: everyone expresses their opinion on something, then the members sit together and discuss until they found a compromise noone is especially happy but everyone can live with. for the future this working process needs to be somewhat modified, because it would take too long to find a compromise about everything once there are 25 members.

It's very hard to tell, because they ask stupid questions.

Very few people actually want isolation (the UK Independence Party does, but no-one votes for them).

However I get the impression that not many people fancy handing over any more sovereignty to Europe.

And loads of people don't like the new Constitution.

thats the problem with the eu and th reason we need a constitution. the people dont know enough about it. decisions are made behind closed doors, without the people knowing enough about it. if the membercountries would ever dare to hand over significant power to the eu-parliment and reduce the chaos created by insane burocracy it would be far easier to convice the people of the whole organization. unfortunatly that doesnt happen yet, so we have to deal with what we have right now.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I said nothing of the sort.

I don't want a political union, but I do want an economic one. Is that too hard to understand?

Then why aren't you in the conomic union?
Oh and the EU has done nothing bad to the French or German economies. The troubles in Germany is largely caused by the reunion of East and West, compounded by the slump the entire world was in and is now slowly recovering from. And we all know what France's largest trading partner thinks of it, don't we?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

When the US declared independence it was a British colony.

Immigration since then is irrelevant, as immigrants to the US tend to abandon their own culture and take up US culture (I only wish immigrants to Britain would do the same).

not really. as you said people dont just abandon their own culture. there are still german language newspapers in the us (i read about that a while ago, pretty intresting)

Well it is. We have immense international influence (through the Commonwealth etc), whereas France and Germany only have real influence in Europe. Having the world's second most powerful military also helps with international relations. We also have a permanent seat on the UNSC, unlike Germany.

And you just have to look at what the Euro is doing to France and Germany to see who has more economic strength.

well, we managed to set uß a coalition of not-so-willing that didnt support the un-war-resolution. looks like political, diplomatical influence to me.
and if you want to go on with this mine-is-bigger-than-yours bullshit: we still have the 3rd largest economy in the world and export more goods to the rest of the world than anyone else, including the us and japan.

oh, and if you want an economic union, whats your problem with the euro? u certainly lost a lot of foreign direct investments because of its not joining the euro.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Firstly that's a tautology, if you're going to change something to something else then it clearly can't be that second thing already. And would you stop using words like European super-state? Surprisingly the french and germans aren't over there foaming at the mouth hoping to steal away your personal liberties. I wonder what exactly this proposed european superstate is supposed to do? We all (according to our constitutions) have voted for the various treaties that have made the EU what it is today. If you disagree with the approach france and germany take then vote against them and encourage others to do the same while explaining your reasons. It's not like they're threatening us with economic starvation or military invasion.

"Tautology" is using superfluous or redundant words, as far as I am aware.

The French and the Germans do want a superstate, as they keep saying they do. (Much to the annoyance, I would guess, of Mr Blair, who keeps telling us the Constitution is a "tidying up exercise" while the bloke in charge of it is saying it's a brilliant step towards complete integration.)

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't think most people are aware as to what extent the EU does have control over each state. They just sort of mindlessly yell out that nobody understands them and we fought the germans in two world wars! Which bits of the constitution do they not like? Personally I found that very few people I talk to have bothered reading the intial proposed draft. Much like when Ireland voted on the Nice treaty I found out that extremely few people read the treaty itself, they just swallowed whatever crap their favourite newspaper was dishing out as the truth according to Moses.

I read the Constitution all the way through, although you can hardly blame people for not doing so, as it's so immensely long.

[Azof]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

oh, and if you want an economic union, whats your problem with the euro? u certainly lost a lot of foreign direct investments because of its not joining the euro.

Join us or die mentality? If a country doesn't want to hand over their soveriegnity to Brussels, why are you trying to convince them that they want to... maybe not everyone *dreams* of being the largest state in the world.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azof

Join us or die mentality? If a country doesn't want to hand over their soveriegnity to Brussels, why are you trying to convince them that they want to... maybe not everyone *dreams* of being the largest state in the world.

im just trying to convice. as i said i dont want to force anyone in. uk lost a lot of foreign investments because of not joing the euro. thats a fact, not a threat.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

not really. as you said people dont just abandon their own culture. there are still german language newspapers in the us (i read about that a while ago, pretty intresting)

There are foreign language newspapers in most countries.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

well, we managed to set uß a coalition of not-so-willing that didnt support the un-war-resolution. looks like political, diplomatical influence to me.

It would indeed look like those things if your coalition had actually made the slightest bit of difference.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and if you want to go on with this mine-is-bigger-than-yours bullshit: we still have the 3rd largest economy in the world and export more goods to the rest of the world than anyone else, including the us and japan.

Which might go down the toilet once other countries realise that the poorer countries in the Eurozone have the same currency as you but with workers willing to work for much less.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

oh, and if you want an economic union, whats your problem with the euro? u certainly lost a lot of foreign direct investments because of its not joining the euro.

Currency is, and always has been, a political issue, not just an economic one.

I don't want us to lose the ability to manage our own currency and set our own interest rates.

[Bunga]

No country other than the US can freely set their own interest rates anyway.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

No country other than the US can freely set their own interest rates anyway.

What a strange assertion...

[Bunga]

True though.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

"Tautology" is using superfluous or redundant words, as far as I am aware.

"Changing something into something it's not" is using superfluous or redundant words. It's impossible to change something from one thing to another without making it not the original thing.

The French and the Germans do want a superstate, as they keep saying they do. (Much to the annoyance, I would guess, of Mr Blair, who keeps telling us the Constitution is a "tidying up exercise" while the bloke in charge of it is saying it's a brilliant step towards complete integration.)

Two! Four! Six! Eight!
Europe's crime was very great!
"Great" meaning "large" or "immense",
We use it in the pejorative sense!


Also as I made clear above I don't have a fundamental objection to "superstates". I just dislike the fact that you mention a few words and people start off with the most coma-inducing idiocy you can imagine. Also I don't remember the french and germans saying they do want a super-state

I read the Constitution all the way through, although you can hardly blame people for not doing so, as it's so immensely long.

If they're going to vote I'd hope they'd at least read the basic facts at hand rather than relying on the (mis)interpretations of others.