Eu - federation or not federation?

[NurEinMensch 0]

But since option

a) "attach rockets" is out of question and option

b) "always side with the US or lose" sux you should start familiarizing yourself with option

c) "make EU worth its name."

edit:

A Little Bit of the U.S. in the Future EU?

Quote[/b] ]"This is not a convention about something fundamental, in a substantive sense, the way the American constitution was, which aimed at making it defensible and economically viable in a hostile world," said Andrew Moravcsik, professor of government and director of the European Union Program at Harvard University in a DW-WORLD interview.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir- "One can just take a look at the Iraq war to see how Britain had no voice at all. It was just along for the ride which went any way Bush wanted it to go. Within a EU common foreign policy and defence Britain would have a significant voice and could influence things to suit its agenda and interests."

I'll ask you this: who do you think has more of an ability to influence thinking in Washington at the moment, Tony Blair or Gerhard Schroeder?

Or for that matter Chirac, Aznar or Berlusconi?

In fact this recent middle east 'roadmap to peace' bears many hallmarks of being a New Labour initiative. President Bush talking about a 'viable palestinean state' and willing to meet with a Palesinean leader (+ not seeming so hot on Sharon after all)? Who could possibly have urged him onto this? Which european government was talking about this 18 months or so ago and pushing for a middle east peace accord?

Im not saying that the Bush administration definitely wouldnt have made an attempt at peace brokering anyway but many people are saying that Blair has played a big part in motivating TBA to act on the issue.

Whatever you or i may think of the way that Blair has conducted himself as a european leader and whether or not its an appropriate way to proceed in the future ,the suggestion that Blair has 'no say at all' in the foreign policy of the United States is highly questionable and i would say plainly untrue. The mans more popular now with a lot of the US public than Bush for christs sake!

But i agree with you on what the general direction of the EU should and hopefully will be. Unfortunately im not sure everyone else in europe can agree.

There are so many issues, so many entrenched positions and a lot of petty mindedness.

Just to give one example of things going bad and pissing people off that i saw on TV recently -Scottish fishing fleets. Fucked over by the EU when similar industries in other countries recieve benefits such as subsidies to compensate for the sometimes crippling restrictions...

The EU cant be anywhere near perfect and it cant please everyone, yet to work without great unrest in many populations it almost has to.

[Guest]

I'll ask you this: who do you think has more of an ability to influence thinking in Washington at the moment, Tony Blair or Gerhard Schroeder?

Or for that matter Chirac, Aznar or Berlusconi?

I would say "none of the above". Possibly Chirac with his UN veto. The UK has been walked over in just about every issue in the Iraq war - everything from the post-Saddam government organization to pactical details like food distribution and the handling of POWs.

Quote[/b] ]In fact this recent middle east 'roadmap to peace' bears many hallmarks of being a New Labour initiative. President Bush talking about a 'viable palestinean state' and willing to meet with a Palesinean leader (+ not seeming so hot on Sharon after all)? Who could possibly have urged him onto this?

The State department, who else? It's the Powell block that has insisted this as a continuation of Clinton's Mid East policy. Bush talks of an indpendent Palestinain state started long before the Iraq war. It started after the Palestinians started their second intifada against Israel.

Quote[/b] ]Which european government was talking about this 18 months or so ago and pushing for a middle east peace accord?

Just about every Euopean country. A Palestinian state has been a EU project for the last 10 years.

Quote[/b] ]Whatever you or i may think of the way that Blair has conducted himself as a european leader and whether or not its an appropriate way to proceed in the future ,the suggestion that Blair has 'no say at all' in the foreign policy of the United States is highly questionable and i would say plainly untrue.

Don't delude yourself. The man has absolutely no say at all. His purpose is to get his picture taken with Bush so that Bush can say that he has support from his allies.

Why do you think people call Blair "Bush's lapdog"? Through Blair your country is the laughing stock of Europe and probably the World!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Yes the State Department is the major player, perhaps the roadmap is partly a concession after being suppressed over the Iraq issue.

Yes other EU governments have been pushing for a palestinean state but other EU governments didnt 'support' America over Iraq.

"The man has absolutely no say at all. His purpose is to get his picture taken with Bush so that Bush can say that he has support from his allies."

So you keep saying and i say he has some 'say'. So to speak. You think the State Department derives no benefit at all from having the United States most major ally of this time on many issues supporting its position?

If you think Blair has absolutely 0% say in Washington, that not a single ear listens to his views ,that the shedding of British blood on the battlefields of Iraq does not cause the US commander in chief (simple man that he is) to give an even slightly more sympathetic ear to Blair than for example to Swedens own Goran Persson then id have to conclude that it is you are deluding yourself.

Look at the words Bush often uses. 'Loyalty' ,'honour' etc

Im sure he really believes America is 'loyal friends' with the UK and that he and the Bush administration have and act with honour. I think he will try to be honourable to his best buddy Tony Blair. The two govenments are ideologically quite opposed but Blair has seen something he likes in America and Americans have seen something they like in Blair. Im not saying most of the neoconservatives dont ignore Blair and dilute his influence in Washington to almost nothing but nonetheless it is there.

National leaders dont lick buttock unless they may get something in return. You think Bush is so smart and Blair is so stupid? You seem ideologically unable to accept that sucking up to America might occasionally give some benefit to the sucker. So to speak.

Blair was politically unchallengable in this country before the war. He has gambled everything on supporting America. Why? Because he thinks he can get something out of it. Hes probably thinking of big things when no doubt he will get little trifling things in return but nonetheless Bush will do him at least one favour (lose the next election perhaps )

[Guest]

Whatever makes you sleep better at night

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Or Bush

[Guest]

Oh, I don't think he is losing any more sleep than he did during and after Afghanistan where he also entirely ignored his "allies".

Or let me put it this way: Who do you think Britain can have more influence on USA or the EU?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

At the moment? Ha! probably the USA, but yes in the long term and in the future certainly the EU. I agree on that.

[VXR 9]

the main reason why i dont want a EU Federation is because all the drug laws in the netherlands will be gone if there will be a federation.

Im Dutch and want to stay Dutch

[Guest]

the main reason why i dont want a EU Federation is because all the drug laws in the netherlands will be gone if there will be a federation.

Heh, that's pretty funny. Anti-EU people in Sweden complain that if Sweden joins the EU that we would be forced to have more drug-liberal laws, like in the Netherlands

Actually I think they are more right than you are on this issue. If you look at the current trends in the EU it's definitely going towards recreational drug legalization and not restriction.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Im Dutch and want to stay Dutch  

You mean you're high and you want to stay high?

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Im sorry if im acting stupid but someone please tell me what i have gain on that Sweden and Finland Joined EU in the first place? (apart from from a shiny red colored passport)

I want lower taxes and cheaper computers

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

He wants to preserve his Dutch freedom. He is free to smoke or not to smoke. Free in a land where he is free to express himself freely through the medium of blowing cannabis smoke in interesting and free shapes. Free to live..stoned. Stoned free or die.

Did i say the word free enough for Bush followers to approve?

Many people in fact feel the EU is an inhibiter of freedom. Its kind of funny to see many americans ,who (being slightly right of centre from a euro perspective) would probably hate the EU as much as any Daily Mail reader if they lived here, urging europeans into greater union.

Ps. i am not stoned. Drugs are bad MMMmmkay?

[Guest]

Relative the current very restrictive Swedish laws, EU means an increase in freedom. This goes for the British too, who have a rather restrictive system.

Modern Europe is based on a very solid social-liberal foundation. The inhibiter of that have been local apparatchiks clinging to their power. European ideals are much more liberal than the actual governments in the member countries are.

That's also why conservatives fear the EU so much.

[HotShot 0]

This goes for the British too, who have a rather restrictive system.

Bugger off. I got as much freedom as i'll ever need, and i dont want anyone running my country then someone who lives here. I'm not bothered if other countries join this (up to them) but if we join then as soon as i can i'll move to America or Australia

[MLF 0]

Bush would have gone at least a year ago if it was not for Blair telling him to wait, he also influenced him to go the U.N route however unsuccessful that was, but denoir you let your on personale hatred of Bush cloud your judgement. plus a unified low tax rate is not always good, each country has different needs, This is the 1st step towards an EU state and i dont want my country to be run by EU beuracrats (sp :/ ).

[Guest]

This goes for the British too, who have a rather restrictive system.

Bugger off. I got as much freedom as i'll ever need, and i dont want anyone running my country then someone who lives here.

Do you think that you will be running Germany and France? No? What makes you think then that Germany and France will be running Britain?

Quote[/b] ]I'm not bothered if other countries join this (up to them) but if we join then as soon as i can i'll move to America or Australia

Better pack your bags. You are already a member of EU. Also it's obvious that for further commitments your leadership will drag you kicking and screaming. Better start practicing your German so that you can prepare to welcome you new German über-masters

[HotShot 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do you think that you will be running Germany and France? No? What makes you think then that Germany and France will be running Britain?

Not at first, but once we've joined more and more stuff will be brought in, and in the end will be a state inside a country.

Quote[/b] ]Better start practicing your German so that you can prepare to welcome you new German über-masters

*starts to load the shotgun*

[Guest]

*starts to load the shotgun*

You can't, becaue your rather restrictive laws does not allow you to have a shotgun

Quote[/b] ]Not at first, but once we've joined more and more stuff will be brought in, and in the end will be a state inside a country.

What rights exactly are you worried about to lose?

Also, what makes you think that the German, the French or the Swedish would want to lose their national identity more than you want? The idea is to make a common set of laws and a structure around the things we all benifit from agreeing on and not around the things that we want to keep national.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Quote[/b] ]What rights exactly are you worried about to lose?

Allemansrätten? What else unique do we have over here

[NurEinMensch 0]

Poles vote 'yes' to EU membership

Quote[/b] ]"We are coming back. We are coming back to Europe," Kwasniewski said at the presidential palace after kissing his wife, Jolanta, and hugging former Solidarity activists.

Welcome Poland! Welcome back, to take your legitimate place in Europe!

[Renagade 0]

I think ill be buying my acre of mars and moving there soon

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

The BBC seems to be showing 2 or 3 shows about the EU and Euro every day now, im watching one right now.

Freedoms that might be lost or cut with real EU integration?

Freedom of the press? (nudge nudge france)

Freedom not to have to obey lots of stupid petty rules on every tiny little  subject

Freedom and flexibility in the labour laws (nudge nudge Germany)

Freedom to set interest rates (important economic tool for the bank of England to keep the economy stable)

Freedom from incredible levels of corruption, bad work practices for politicians and bureaucracy in government (well a little more freedom from anyway )

Freedom to eat ultra curvy bananas

blahdy blah

There are so many things wrong with the EU right now (from a British perspective at least) its depressing to list them. I still think the EU can and hopefully will work well as an institution but i think what Denoir said about the draft EU constitution applies to the whole superstructure of the Union at the moment. Its a mess.

When will this great change and reform come? Must it take years? If so i cant really say im enthusiastic. Diversity is great but not when you're trying to organise an international union.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]"You can't, becaue your rather restrictive laws does not allow you to have a shotgun"

Thats not strictly true. If hes a landowner/farmer with good reason to own firearms then a shotgun will be available to him.

Just me being a picky EU type person  

Whos laws are chosen above others? Does Germany in the future loosen labour laws or do others tighten?

And the same question on every relevant issue. Who loses, who gains? My instinct says the politicos will tend to gain greater power and the people will lose it.

[Guest]

If you think Blair has absolutely 0% say in Washington, that not a single ear listens to his views ,that the shedding of British blood on the battlefields of Iraq does not cause the US commander in chief (simple man that he is) to give an even slightly more sympathetic ear to Blair than for example to Swedens own Goran Persson then id have to conclude that it is you are deluding yourself.

Look at the words Bush often uses. 'Loyalty' ,'honour' etc

Im sure he really believes America is 'loyal friends' with the UK and that he and the Bush administration have and act with honour. I think he will try to be honourable to his best buddy Tony Blair. The two govenments are ideologically quite opposed but Blair has seen something he likes in America and Americans have seen something they like in Blair. Im not saying most of the neoconservatives dont ignore Blair and dilute his influence in Washington to almost nothing but nonetheless it is there.

I couldn't resist  

But if disposing of WMD was only an excuse for the US to pusue other national interests then that excuse has to be a good one for the other members of the coalition not to look like pawns or dupes. In even implying that WMD were little more than an excuse of less than primary importance to them TBA is surely dumping on its allies (notably Blair) ?

Way to dump on your main remaining ally Wolfowitz!

TBA really seems quite careless and blase in its relationship to supposed allies.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I stand by both of those statements.

For them to be contradictory or mutually exclusive remarks then it must be the case not only that important people in Washington listen to Blair but that they always without fail follow what is in his best interests.

Blair is a foreigner, an outsider and a left winger (by US standards anyway). There are those in Washington who couldnt give a damn what Blair or British people think and i have little doubt they make up a clear majority at least of the leading republicans. There are those though who in my personal opinion hold Blair and his views in some esteem. There are many forces at work in Washington and the temporary (though frequent) victory of one of the forces (anti Blair careless neoconservatives) does not extinguish the existence of the other more diplomatic (and i suppose more 'european' in nature) forces in government. Both quotes can exist happily and without overall contradiction. When i was young i used to quarrel and hit my brother. Did i hate him overall? No. Thats the action of a child, how much more complicated are international relations?

I think Blair has very little influence but i contend that he has SOME. Unlike you who seem to think he has all the influence of a small pebble somewhere in the Indian Ocean.

anyway we wouldnt wish to go OT would we?