International Politics Thread

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]that British people like being British,  they don't want to be known as a European.

Oh okay.. ! Thats quite an argument! You convinced me!

Read the rest of it

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]is that British people like being British

Did the Mail tell you that? We are having a referendum to decide that, so don't go making sweeping generalisations without any official statistics.

I for one, are happy to be both. It's not a case of once we are signed up, we burn all the flags, hang the Queen, and remove Britain from all the history books. Get a grip, and stop being a victim of fear mongering.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]is that British people like being British

Did the Mail tell you that? We are having a referendum to decide that, so don't go making sweeping generalisations without any official statistics.

I for one, are happy to be both. It's not a case of once we are signed up, we burn all the flags, hang the Queen, and remove Britain from all the history books. Get a grip, and stop being a victim of fear mongering.

Ermm no it my experiance as a citizen of the UK and meeting many people. I obviosly dont mean every 65million people, wait i dont have back up for that population, i could be wrong.

[brgnorway 0]

Say yes to an independant Wales

[Badgerboy 0]

Say yes to an independant Wales  

Ha, everyone would starve to death in weeks, trust me!

We can't even get the assembly building finished properly, even though most of us didn't even vote for it, and we piss money away constantly.

Christ, if we went independant, I'd move to England.

[Bordoy 0]

Say yes to an independant Wales  

No, its not like we over there, beat all of them up and take there women once a year, is it? lol

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]is that British people like being British

Did the Mail tell you that? We are having a referendum to decide that, so don't go making sweeping generalisations without any official statistics.

I for one, are happy to be both. It's not a case of once we are signed up, we burn all the flags, hang the Queen, and remove Britain from all the history books. Get a grip, and stop being a victim of fear mongering.

Agree with the badger, i'm a pro euro Britain, its the best path forward for our country. It doesnt mean we have to lose our identity, hang the queen as badger said, ect...

...stop reading the daily mail, its full of right wing scaremongering about how immigrants are going to come over and take our jobs and our women, spread 1001 lethal desiezes and convert the country to the relatively unknown pali-pali religion practiced by a single remote tribe in the amazon basin. Basically its the George Bush of tabloids, it uses fear to scare you into believing and supporting it

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Xawery-

Quote[/b] ]The national progressiveness and political conservatism you speak of are not part of a nation's culture - they are simply terms to denote the current political climate (looking back, national progressiveness can hardly be called a characterising feature of the German culture).

I must disagree. Is not the current political climate part of a nations culture (culture being itself changeable as you have stated yourself)? At the very least is the political climate not partly shaped by culture and vice versa? I find it hard to believe not.

Further, i would suggest that grand ideals fixated on europe have played a much greater part in German or for that matter French political thinking throughout much of history than in the case of the UK. Whilst i would not for a second seek to compare the fine principles and ideals of the EU as espoused by France or Germany to the despicable theories of Hitler (its absurd to even say it) or for that matter the vision of the founders to the megalomania of Napoleon, it is nonetheless striking that such idealists and visionaries are consistently more entwined into the structure of power in continental europe than in Britain (and perhaps certain other exceptionalist countries- though Britain is the most striking example in the EU)

For Britain, political theories have tended to slowly permeate the culture, visionaries have often been distrusted and theory has been much more divorced from practice. Of course there are exceptions but there has been much less of the sudden often violent revolutionary overthrow of previous orders, and more in the way of a gradual evolution. This is one of the things im talking about when i mention the different historical experiences of countries in europe. Its something to be aware of for those who see Britain simply as some kind of awkward stupid country that doesnt understand. All nations have different historical perspectives by which any kind of national consciousness has been shaped.

Quote[/b] ]Second, interaction with other cultures leading to the eradication of one's own is one of the most often repeated and most heavily flawed arguments. It assumes that culture is static which it obiously is not.

Perhaps some would assume so but i was assuming no such thing. If culture can be said to exist at all then at any given moment it will consist of certain things, ideas, ways of living etc. Interaction with other cultures leads inevitably to the alteration of these cultural signifiers thus resulting in a new culture. Of course this is an ongoing and gradual process and so can be hard to percieve on a daily basis.

Quote[/b] ]There is this general misconception that British culture has managed to escape foreign influences over the years by clinging on to the 'sweet isolation'. This is however a complete illusion. Centuries of colonising and being the world's trade have ensured a constant influence of other cultures. This supposedly idiosyncratic British culture you hold so dear is an aggregate of outward influences, just like any other culture. Live with it.

When i said 'the most persistent and homogeneous cultures are those isolated from outside influences' I wasnt actually thinking of Britain at all but more of the cases of isolated tribes whos way of life has scarcely changed in thousands of years. I apologise for not making that clear, but i try to keep my posts under 5000 words usually.

It would be absurd of course to think a country like the UK with a metropolis like London and the colonial history you mention could escape such change. So yes, i agree with you although i must point out that i dont hold dear any mythic 'sweet isolation' or fabled idiosycracy.

Yet it is also probably true that the nature of the 'island nation' history means that outside influences may have come from other more disparate sources and may be of a somewhat different nature (e.g. many european countries have significant communities of people who are linguistically tied to others across national borders, scarcely true in the UK, our primary language zone is instead extended out to N. America Australia and elsewhere)

Quote[/b] ]If you are so afraid of losing your culture, promote it, fight for it! Organise and support exhibitions, history workshops, poetry readings, what have you. Be proactive. This reactionary complaint about 'furriners contaminating our culture' is nothing short of infuriating. You cannot escape the trend of globalisation, and by this I mean the increasing interaction between nations and cultures. To truly isolate oneself you would have to become some kind of Taliban.

I quite agree. Conservation of dead culture is not my concern here (although i think its very important to maintain respect for or knowledge of the history of a country, there are plenty of people willing and able to preserve it here in Britain), but more the practicalities and realities of merging the nations of europe. As long as there is one person doing something, one person following and one person criticising, then there is culture.

If it seemed the UKs hesitancy or caution in the EU would lead to the EU collapsing then i would be more committed to Britain unreservedly and fully participating, but the Euro seems to be doing reasonably without Britain , so i dont see that there is any major panic or rush necessary on our part (as British voters) to commit ourselves to full european integration. I think that is still a dream for the future.

[denoir 0]

Oh, boy.. where to begin.

Ok. Like this. Being proud of your country and being pro-European is not mutually exclusive.

I just got back from a short vacation in Athens. I have never in my life seen so many national flags as the Greek ones. The Greeks are very proud of their country and history - and rightfully so. They are however also very pro EU. There is no conflict between those.

The concept of a nation-state is antiquated and does not fit very well with any modern European vision. Nobody is trying to 'convert' the different nations to being just Europeans. We're talking about two completely different levels here. You're English and you are British and you are European. Unlike constructions like the UK the EU works on a least common denominator principle. We recognize the common needs and visions we have and extract it from the national level and put it on an EU level.

The EU has a few core elements:

[*] Trade and economy

[*] Democracy and human rights

[*] Social protection and labor laws

Since the European countries for the most part trade with each other, the removal of borders, customs etc is sensible for all.

The 'harmonization' of the economies is another desirable goal. Right now the various EU countries are desynched leading to big production and trade irregularities that cost all of us a shitload of money. Synchronizing the economies will hurt like hell in the short term, as it is a rape of the natural rhythm of the market economy. In the longer term 10-15 years, the payoffs will be huge. The common currency and ECB are the way to do it. Critics say that "one size does not fit all", and they're quite right. That's the problem that the EMU tries to solve. The economies of the EU member states are not in synch and it hurts us all.

As for democracy and human rights - I think this is where truly the EU excels. This goes especially for the new member states - the ex-eastern block ones. Before their EU entry negotiations started most of them had various forms of shaky über-capitalsm and there were plenty of issues. The EU sets very strict criteria on what has to be achieved before you are allowed to join. As a result many countries got their shit together and made a proper laws. Remember the political mess in Romania? Well, look again - they've more or less concluded their negotiations for entry in 2007. They're as democratic and open as any other EU country. Take a look at the changes Turkey has made in their attempts to join.

The third core issue of social protection is one that the British tend to have a problem with. The EU position it is the responsibility of the state/union to make sure that all citizens have a good quality of life. This includes everything from social security and medical care to labor laws.

The UK objection is that it will hurt the economy to force companies to give a solid minimum wage, to regulate firing/hiring procedures and to by law to regulate maximum number of work hours, minimum vacation etc

And they're quite right. It will hurt the companies; it will hurt the economy. The European position is however that there is more to life than just money. That the interest of the companies aren’t necessary what's best for the citizens. And to put it bluntly, if you don't agree with that, you have no business being in the EU. If Britain truly believes in a laissez faire organization of society, then it should be looking to join the USA not the EU.

This also extends to environmental policies etc. The EU position is here as well that companies can only be trusted to do what's in their self-interest and that there is indeed a role for a controlling and regulating government.

[xawery 0]

IsthatyouJohnWayne -

First of all, let me say that it is quite refreshing to be able to polemise on a civilised level.

Quote[/b] ]I must disagree. Is not the current political climate part of a nations culture (culture being itself changeable as you have stated yourself)? At the very least is the political climate not partly shaped by culture and vice versa? I find it hard to believe not.

As with most non-dogmatic discussions, our differences lie in semantics. It depends on how you define culture. I see culture as a concept which is far more all-encompassing, while the current political climate can be ascribed to a relatively small group of people (i.e. politicians). I agree that this is debatable. What is find more striking is what you write next:

Quote[/b] ]Further, i would suggest that grand ideals fixated on europe have played a much greater part in German or for that matter French political thinking throughout much of history than in the case of the UK. Whilst i would not for a second seek to compare the fine principles and ideals of the EU as espoused by France or Germany to the despicable theories of Hitler (its absurd to even say it) or for that matter the vision of the founders to the megalomania of Napoleon, it is nonetheless striking that such idealists and visionaries are consistently more entwined into the structure of power in continental europe than in Britain (and perhaps certain other exceptionalist countries- though Britain is the most striking example in the EU)

You seem to believe that either

a. the EU is run by Germany and France, or

b. a country must match Germany or France's historical profile to fit in the EU-process.

The EU can be called many things, but idealistic and visionary is not amongst them. In my view this is a problem. What the EU has become is a very pragmatic, economy-driven union of states. Our mutual values and cultural interconnectedness (which some would rather have erased from our collective memories) are vastly underemphasized. The way things are going now, there is absolutely no ground for any fears about 'losing identity to a European Superstate'. In varietate concordia. Until that becomes 'e pluribus unum', such accusations can only be classified as scaremongering.

There is another adjective that cannot be seriously used to describe the EU, and that's 'revolutionary'. The creation of the EU has been a steady, well reflected upon process, guided by a desire for consensus. Bear in mind that the predecessor of the EU was co-created by the Benelux countries - small but strong pragmatists with a historical development akin to that of GB. In other words: the fundaments of the EU are not exclusively influenced nor dominated by the drastic historical development you speak of.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps some would assume so but i was assuming no such thing. If culture can be said to exist at all then at any given moment it will consist of certain things, ideas, ways of living etc. Interaction with other cultures leads inevitably to the alteration of these cultural signifiers thus resulting in a new culture. Of course this is an ongoing and gradual process and so can be hard to percieve on a daily basis.

Yes, but if you admit that culture is not static, then a snapshot of it ("culture at any given moment") cannot be used to describe culture because, as we both agree, it is dynamic. It's like taking a photograph of a lorry waiting for the light to change to green, and using this photograph to describe the lorry's whole trip.

I'll skip the next part where you agree with me, and move on to this bit:

Quote[/b] ] Yet it is also probably true that the nature of the 'island nation' history means that outside influences may have come from other more disparate sources and may be of a somewhat different nature (e.g. many european countries have significant communities of people who are linguistically tied to others across national borders, scarcely true in the UK, our primary language zone is instead extended out to N. America Australia and elsewhere)

This is rather ironic. Of course there are linguistic ties to other nations, you just happened to unite them in a union under the various acts of union. And what about the Republic of Ireland? Also, you seem to be forgetting the close ties the UK has to Germany. England would be quite different now if it had not been for the Saxons. By the by, English is a Germanic language...

Also, the UK is not the only country whose language has spread throughout the world. The same can be said for Spain and France. Pretty much every (ex)colonial power.

The interesting thing about all this is that you claim not to believe in any 'fabled idiosyncrasy', but in the meantime you try to prove the UK's difference by emphasising aspects which are also presenet in other EU countries. I cannot shake off the feeling that the British (pardon the generalisation) would like to believe that they're very different from the rest of Europe, and thus conveniently disregard obvious common values and traits. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Quote[/b] ]I quite agree. Conservation of dead culture is not my concern here (although i think its very important to maintain respect for or knowledge of the history of a country, there are plenty of people willing and able to preserve it here in Britain), but more the practicalities and realities of merging the nations of europe. As long as there is one person doing something, one person following and one person criticising, then there is culture.

If it seemed the UKs hesitancy or caution in the EU would lead to the EU collapsing then i would be more committed to Britain unreservedly and fully participating, but the Euro seems to be doing reasonably without Britain , so i dont see that there is any major panic or rush necessary on our part (as British voters) to commit ourselves to full european integration. I think that is still a dream for the future.

Again, the idea that the EU is striving to become some kind of merged superstate where national culture is verboten shines through your statements. This is not the case. If anything, the EU is trying to become a suprastate; a common forum to facilitate cooperation between European countries. Do you know how much redundancies have been eliminated by creating a single European market? Within the EU, financial institutions no longer have to worry about foreign exchange risk. I can wire money from the Netherlands to Poland at practically no cost using the IBAN and BIC numbers. Competition is thriving - if I don't like the prices here, I'll hop to Germany and buy the things I need at a lower price using a single currency (I do this when it comes to buying whisky).

The EU is an economic union. And that's a good thing, because strong economic ties are the best guarantee for peace.

I cannot help but get annoyed at the fact that people refuse to reap economies of scale and benefits of economic and financial harmonisation, simply because they get all misty-eyed at the thought of seeing € instead of Šin front of their account balance.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Mmm, this could take a while.

Quote[/b] ]First of all, let me say that it is quite refreshing to be able to polemise on a civilised level.

Yes, its nice to be made to think now and again by someone with a different perspective (one thing that keeps me coming back to this forum).

Quote[/b] ]You seem to believe that either

a. the EU is run by Germany and France, or

b. a country must match Germany or France's historical profile to fit in the EU-process.

The process of european union can be said to have begun with the Schuman declaration (founding of Euro Coal and Steel community) explicity with the aim of preventing a future war between France and Germany. Germany can reasonably be seen as the primary national powerhouse of federalism in, and for the federalisation of, europe. And France has been, well, France (just examine De Gaulles contributions to what's now the EU to see some obviously self interested intergovernmentalism at work).

No i dont think Germany and France somehow 'run' the EU. But i would affix to their political elites words like 'key', 'influential', and 'powerful' when looking at the way the EU was and continues to be formed. They are less important now with expansion perhaps but i dont think anyone can be quite sure of what the new balance of power is or will be, and i suggest that these two countries will still be very influential.

I seek to understand the EU partly from the perspective of history and domestic politics .I think this technically makes me a bit of a 'liberal intergovernmentalist', but this is such a mouthful i prefer 'hopeful pragmatist'. Of course it takes an age to look at the history and domestic politics of every single member so its easier to look at major countries and blocs (France and Germany being two of the longest standing major countries engaged in the effort to 'unite').

I am not in principle against federalisation though, i like the idea in fact (hence the 'hopeful'). I only question the method and speed it occurs (and of course what exactly it means/entails).

Quote[/b] ]The EU can be called many things, but idealistic and visionary is not amongst them.

I dont agree. There are though a number of different ideals and visions. Interestingly, since you seem to enjoy the pointing out of ironies, one of the very first visionaries of a modern european union was actually Winston Churchill with his quite well known 'united states of europe' speech.

Quote[/b] ]What the EU has become is a very pragmatic, economy-driven union of states

Good, and thats the kind of well grounded basis for citizens to become aquainted with and attached to, needed for further federalisation (and 'spiritual' union) to occur.

Quote[/b] ]The way things are going now, there is absolutely no ground for any fears about 'losing identity to a European Superstate'. In varietate concordia. Until that becomes 'e pluribus unum', such accusations can only be classified as scaremongering.

'

Mottos prove nothing. There are already cultural changes and changes of national identity taking place. I think having established that culture is fluid (and accepting my argument that increased interaction makes it more so), it is inevitable that old national identities (meaning what we have now) will to a greater or lesser extent be increasingly blurred and lost over time to be replaced with something new, presumably involving an emerging pan european consciousness. More so than if no project of european union was embarked upon.

Whether this is something worth fearing is another question.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but if you admit that culture is not static...

Ill leave this as probably another slightly unrewarding semantic disagreement (ok, a state of change necessarily involves eradication of what was previously the case, and thus culture in a state of change is obviously being simultaneously eradicated and renewed so 'snapshots' in the form of cultural signs or records are simply indicators of this, significant interaction though would significantly increase the rate of change and so make a culture less static, i was speaking relatively, its a silly argument)

Before answering the rest of your post and also Denoirs id like to wait a while (and take a deep breath   )

[iNeo 0]

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>Europe will be mostly Islamic by 2099</span>

Europe will have an Islamic majority by the end of this century based on current demographic and migration trends, a leading US Middle East specialist says.

"Europe will be part of the Arab west - the Maghreb," said Bernard Lewis, a Princeton University professor and author of numerous books on the Middle East, in an interview with the newspaper Die Welt.

In addition to immigration, Lewis said Europeans were marrying too late and having too few children whereas Muslims in Europe married early and had far larger numbers of children.

"Current trends show Europe will have a Moslem majority by the end of the 21st century at the latest," said Lewis as quoted by the paper.

Germany, the biggest European Union (EU) country, currently has over 3 million Muslims out of a total population of 82 million.

EU leaders will in December decide on whether to open membership talks with mainly Muslim Turkey which currently has a population of 70 million but is expected to outgrow Germany in coming decades.

[*] worldonline.co.za

[*] Europa wird am Ende des Jahrhunderts islamisch sein

Old news, but still.

[denoir 0]

I wouldn't put too much stock into that.

Had you made a prediction 1904 how Sweden would look 1999 according to the trends then, you would have concluded that the entire population of Sweden would be living in America

Current trends mean little in the long run. For instance a trivial example - the soon-to-come common EU immigration laws will severely reduce immigration from non-European countries.

Furthermore the assumption that Muslims will emigrate to Europe in the same numbers as now is very questionable.

Not to mention that the population dynamics will change. Sure, right now Europeans arn't having too many children, but that can change in as little as few years etc

[feersum.endjinn 6]

I doubt that demographics are going to change that radically. True, birth rates in Europe are low but they are getting lower also for 2nd generation immigrants and for 3rd generation they're almost on same level as native population. There is much stronger link between birth rate and level of education and than religion or ethnicity.

Also many people do not realize that many arab immigrants are not necessarily muslim, plenty of refugees that came here from places like Lebanon and Iraq were actually christians.

[Acecombat 0]

Now if only the majority of the Muslims were Islamic themselves

[FallenPaladin 0]

That`s only a theory and I guess no one of us (except the ones which will become veeeery old) will live to see it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I disagree with that article. I think in Germany more muslims are turning into atheists than germans being converted. Furthermore our imigration policies have become so strict that only very few muslims are nowadays entering the country.

Their brith rate is high but with the growing living standards and the integration process their birth rate will drop. Just look at 3rd generation immigrants.

[iNeo 0]

I think in Germany more muslims are turning into atheists than germans being converted.

It's not about Europeans converting, that's very rare. It's just the flow of people moving in and their heavy birth rate compared to Europeans.

It's worse here in Sweden cause no party dares criticizing the immigration and we already have 5-6% Muslims.

[kerosene 0]

Does anyone think that this whole thing has a note of hysteria to it. Everything i read in papers and a lot of what comnes from politicians, espically in regard to Turkeys entry into the E.U seems to suggest their are a lot of people out there who think "our way of life is going to be destroyed! or something - "it will be as thoufgh the battle of vienna never happened" being a good example.

[xawery 0]

Yep. It's exactly the same thing that happened right before the EU expansion. According to the politicians, Western Europe was going to be flooded by hordes of cheap Polish labour, stealing our jobs, pillaging the countryside and eating our babies. It really felt like WW2 propaganda. Lookie here, none of that happened. Apart from the baby eating part, perhaps:;):

The verdict is simple: PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF CHANGE, IN WHATEVER FORM.

[llauma 0]

I think in Germany more muslims are turning into atheists than germans being converted.

It's not about Europeans converting, that's very rare. It's just the flow of people moving in and their heavy birth rate compared to Europeans.

It's worse here in Sweden cause no party dares criticizing the immigration and we already have 5-6% Muslims.

Why would they? Less then 1% of the population seems to share your oppion looking at the last election. If so many wants a party that criticizes the immigration then elect them into power.

[iNeo 0]

Why would they? Less then 1% of the population seems to share your oppion looking at the last election. If so many wants a party that criticizes the immigration then elect them into power.

People don't want to vote for a party that more or less only focuses on immigration politics, so they keep voting for the regular ones for their other politics.

Was it fp or m that proposed a test in Swedish for getting your citizenship... that increased their popularity which proves my point. If only they'd dare to look at things realistically, people would appreciate it. But it's still taboo.

[iNeo 0]

According to the politicians, Western Europe was going to be flooded by hordes of cheap Polish labour

Actually the immigration from Poland and ex Eastern block countries have increased, almost doubled at least over here, what was feared was "social tourism" which hasn't been proven happen.

[denoir 0]

Why would they? Less then 1% of the population seems to share your oppion looking at the last election. If so many wants a party that criticizes the immigration then elect them into power.

People don't want to vote for a party that more or less only focuses on immigration politics, so they keep voting for the regular ones for their other politics.

Was it fp or m that proposed a test in Swedish for getting your citizenship... that increased their popularity which proves my point. If only they'd dare to look at things realistically, people would appreciate it. But it's still taboo.

Well, if you want less immigration, you should appreciate the new common EU policy that will soon be agreed on. It will severely reduce the number of non-European immigrants.

Personally, I don't agree with it as I think it's just hysteria. I believe that borders should be more or less open - that moving wherever you want is a human rights.

Having said that, I can understand some of the worries that those that want to reduce immigration have. Or to put it in another way - I don't think immigration is the problem - I think integration is. It's a difficult question however. I'm not quite sure how you can have a multi-cultural society if the cultures have vastly different values and want very different things.

Quote[/b] ]Actually the immigration from Poland and ex Eastern block countries have increased, almost doubled at least over here, what was feared was "social tourism" which hasn't been proven happen.

Funny thing about that - the migration of people in the western European countries is more than 10 times higher than the migration from the eastern European countries to the western.

I think it has a lot to do with outdated views on some countries that used to lag behind the west. That picture isn't right today and in many ways they are rapidly catching up or are alredy there.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In the UK for instance Net Migration has been out of the country for decades. It increased massively during Margaret Thatcher's era; people voting with their feet.

Predominantly those who migrate from one country to another tend to be the upwardly mobile middle class of a country. They migrate because they have reached an economic ceiling in the job they do in their country of origin.

Hence doctors and nurses migrate from the UK to the USA and Canada and from Eastern Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia and the Indian Sub Continent in to the UK. It is the Wage diferential. Predominantly they return to their country of origin on retirement as their savings and pension tend to go much further and they like to be close to family.

When I was in India I was treated for Typhoid by a doctor who had been a cardio thorasic surgeon in Manchester after migrating to the UK for 30 years he then retired back to his native Goa and bought a private hospital that specialised in treating Politicians Ambasadors and the like.

He had a very large house with tens of servants.

Kind Regards Ian