European Politics Thread.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for a common defence - to save money. We spend half of what the US does on our militaries, but we only have a tenth of the strength. Maintaining 25 militaries instead of one is bloody expensive, and the results are not good.

Remember it depends on if people wanna join up or not aswell.

The British Army has fallen short of recruiting targets over the past few years due to low unemployment.

How about we have one Earth Defence Force that can protect us from aliens?

[EiZei 0]

The British Army has fallen short of recruiting targets over the past few years due to low unemployment.

We have a simple solution for that.. it starts with a C and ends with a N.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well, what a lot of international hot air.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]Indeed.

What the British don't seem to understand about Europe is that most of the people in the other member states actually want it to work. Strange, eh?

Very clever. Define 'work' (luckily you are not a French farmer so this may be possible ) in this context (with regards to every member states position). Most of the people in the other member states are divided about precisely what they want out of the EU just as they are in the UK.

Quote[/b] ]Britain on the other hand behaves like an unwilling kid being dragged along on a family excursion.. absolutely determined to make it as unpleasant as possible for everyone involved.

The thing is, Britain isn't a little kid, it does have a choice. It doesn't have to go on the excursion. So why sit in the back seat whining and ruining it for everybody else?

A slightly condescending black/white simplification perhaps?

But i cannot imagine that Denoir would ever be condescending about those who disagree with him, like, say, the people of Sweden.

Quote[/b] ]Europe is clearly going into a direction where the British do not want to go. There is no point forcing an unwilling population to come along, and there is no point in Britain ruining the cooperation for everyone else. It is quite apparent that the British are not ready to abandon the nation state model. So it is better that we part as friend than to let the resentment build up. Let the British come back if and when they are willing and have at least roughly the same vision as the rest of Europe.

Europe isnt going anywhere at the moment, and its misleading to suggest otherwise. (Its official- we are having a 'period of reflection).

Also your suggestion that europe is moving further and further from Britain seems dischordant with your suggestion that the rejection of the constitution was all due to excessive British input (if the constitution was too British then the non vote must be a sign that Britain was politically getting its way too much up until the moment of the referendums). It is true that most British people are not completely willing to abandon the 'nation state model', but throughout europe at this moment they are hardly alone in that and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Leaving the EU would be a terrible move for Britain and i believe a terrible move for the EU. More on this later.

Balschoiw-

Quote[/b] ]Time to set up a vote in the UK if they want to leave the EU.

They will vote yes and then let them have it.

Good riddance. They´re obviously too much "islandish" for the EU.

I think such a vote would not result in us leaving the EU, thats wishful thinking for both hardcore euroskeptics and hardcore integrationists..

Why is it so hard to understand that each country has a nuanced position. There is no 'continental system' diametrically opposed to an 'anglo-saxon' system. That is a patently fictitious assertion and a gross distortion. The fact is that every country in the EU is different and has a somewhat different system. If i am pushed for a British vision of europe (that is one the politicians might spout with reasonable support from the people), briefly it is one in which the countries differences and great variety (including political) are respected and encompassed in a system -without- a 'one size fits all' policy on all matters. Thats far from being an island mentality.

In fact i think its merely a pragmatic comprehension of the wide variety of opinions and national positions that the EU must attempt to represent and embody, allow or give space to and a coherent and positive alternative vision of europe.

This 'with us or against us' stuff frankly smacks of fear and reminds me of The Bush Administration. The fact is a lot of the old leaders are on the way out and there is just the possibility of a Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown axis with eastern support emerging to cater to a less urgently federalist vision of europe. This would explain a certain amount of the current desperation to discredit Blairs position and the post-'non' gloom seen among the most fervent integrationists. It may not happen but the threat is there.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]I don't know, if you've noticed the trend: shared laws, common currency, constitution... It goes far beyond a free-trade agreement. That's where Europe is going and if you are not a willing participant in such a development, then you should leave.

I agree its always been more than a free trade agreement. However on two of the things you mentioned (laws and constitution) there is no single or monolithic view on what they should consist of, how they should be implemented/where to draw the lines etc . Britain has as much right as any country to voice reasonable opinions on these issues (as does Euro-phobic Sweden), -thats- the EU. Consent of all nations is a pre-requisite, if you dont like that development then get out and form a Swedish hegemony.

harley 3 1185 -

Quote[/b] ]I have said what kind of EU I would like, and it would be interest of the new member states and the upcoming ones to keep it as simple as possible.  Do we really need a constitution?  Is it so necessary that if two countries say "Non" and "Ne" that the entire European Union is put at risk?  It is not the idea of the European Union which is flawed; it is the politicians.

And to be brutally honest, if 24 other member states including the most powerful countries in Europe feel threatened by Britain, then that's just pathetic.  Britain does NOT want a Constitution, but there are a great many of us who want a European Union.  Do not confuse Constitution with the EU; it's not our fault if your leaders did.

I agree that the EU is not at risk, only some peoples vision of it. Now that the EU is a reality rather than a dream it has a life of its own, there is a limit to the extent that it can continue be 'designed' into one shape beyond the will of the various nation states publics. People want a say, and what theyre saying is dischordant and various. Deal with it. The EU must embrace that diversity of opinion. However the EU has always been about more than just a simple border or trade system, besides which the single market itself necessitates all kinds of other things like EC/EU wide legislation by its very nature which i think British people must simply accept to a certain extent as a part of the deal. But what the laws should be or the extent of subsidiarity is a 100% legitimate and worthwhile thing for the British or anyone else to debate within the EU.

Donnervogel-

Quote[/b] ]Uhmm afaik most French people are totally pro EU. They wouldn't want to leave it. They said no to the constitutions, that's true. They didn't say no to the EU though. And for the french part a large block of the no camp was against it because for them it didn't go far enough in certain areas.

Right, i agree.

Quote[/b] ]The French opinion is very contrary to the british opinion where most people seem to be against the EU itself and the constitution is going too far for them as they already have trouble accepting the current organisation.

Wrong, most British people arent against the EU, though they may be against one vision of the EU. I rail against this idea that there is only one vision of europe as though everything has already been predetermined. And i think Dutch voters did too, and many French voters.

You gotta love that gift to the euroskeptics Valery Giscard D'estaing when he suggested that the mistake of the yes campaign was sending out the treaties to every household. Or those who suggested that the answer was to hold new referenda until they got the 'right' answer. What does that say about EU respect for democracy? Such hubris comes before a fall. Your grand vision means crap if the people dont want it or arent convinced.

Quote[/b] ]So those are different reasons. But there is a decisive thing about it. The British don't want the same EU as most of the continent. They're going in a different direction.

I think thats wrong. Which 'direction' are we going in? Towards America? Hardly. Blair is hated by much of the Labour party for his cozying up to Bush. There is really nothing more than a historic predisposition to view america as partners or allies (our 'special relationship' in which Britain historically draws the short straw). Instead, Britain (as well as the more free market east, maybe portugal and some others) and the rest of europe are more likely to converge and come together. Or at least they damn well should. Germany and France can learn some things from the British economy, and we can learn some things from their social systems. Its really not so hard to find the common basis on which to cooperate once you get past the chestbeating strutting politicians playing to domestic audiences.

Quote[/b] ]I don't want to kick them out. I personally think it would be a big loss for the EU and I think the EU needs britain somehow. But when the british people don't want to be in the EU, why should they be there? I want an EU with a population that knows why it's good for them.

Thank you, i agree (though you are Swiss?). But we do want to be in the EU (apart from a vocal minority). We just have our own idea of the EU. Is that so hard to understand or come to come to terms with? I dont think its 24 versus Britain, we have many supporters on reform, its just that currently Chirac has played the rebate card, partly to divert from the embarrasment of his referendum failure and partly to shift blame onto Britain and win european support for France (no doubt also he would genuinely like to see it ended whilst jealously  guarding the CAP which more or less necessitated the rebate in the first place). Judging by the media on the continent he seems largely to have succeeded with this maskirovka.

Quote[/b] ]If they think it only hurts them and thus sabotage attempts to make the whole thing more democratic (right now it's totally unbearable for my democratic sense) and gives it more effectiveness then it would really be better to go on without such nations.

I dont think virtually anyone in Britain is against making the EU more democratic, including i think a lot of fervent euroskeptics, because even though democracy might give

unwanted legitimacy to EU decisions (a) its very hard to argue against increased democracy when they spend their time denouncing 'unelected Brussels bureaucrats' and (b) they genuinely want a europe more representative of the views of the masses. And of course the British public is in favour of increased democracy. This makes me wonder what kind of misinformation has been circulating in the european press lately.

All of this current furore will die down and probably nothing much will have changed, the stupid rhetoric gets us nowhere obviously but a debate on the future of europe is truly needed. The Netherlands, France, Germany and everyone agrees on this. Im very happy that there is now a debate and that 'europe' (which is a rather lazy and deceptive shorthand imho) has become a big issue in this country, but i could do with less rhetoric, political grandstanding, demonisation, us versus them mentality and hotheadedness.

I am not ashamed or afraid to call myself a european, as well as being a Londoner yadda yadda. But i resent anyone telling me what sort of european i should be, or narrowly defining what a european is (as for instance someone who believes in the French social model). Whether we like it or not we are all europeans, even the French.

So lets have a party .

But should there, could there ever be a neat yet non partisan decision on precisely what 'europe' must be or mean, what it should be? I think it must be left an open question, not fully resolved, we all must be allowed the space to grow together in our own time, i have always said anything forced will fail and i have been proven right.

*ding ding* Thats round 1

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]*ding ding* Thats round 1

We will see round 2 during the weekend when the Brit rebate is on the table to be discussed.

The question will be: How much european are you ?

Anyway I agree with most of your post, but the situation seems to be a bit different:

EU CONSTITUTION SURVEY

I don´t know how relevant this poll is as it was conducted, or better say payed by the "Say No" movement.

What I´d really liked to know is what the people are against about ? Can they clarify their ideas ?

It seems to be trendy to be anti-EU and this is furthermore fueled by politicians who give wrong informations about the EU and it´s doings. For example in germany Westerwelle the head of FDP says that EU regulates the form and size of bananas, which is simply untrue. He also mangled about the so called "Gurkenverordnung" that defines classes for cucumber. They portrayed it like the cucumber has to be exactly like the EU says which is nonsense of course. The "Gurkenverordnung" only defines quality classes for traders and big companies and therefore unites different country standards to simplify industrial trade and useage of cucumber within the EU. Traders and producers of cucumber are very happy with the unified set of rules and definitions.

What I find most amusing is that people happily jump on the train without thinking for a second and scream "We don´t want no EU regulated cucumbers !!!".

It´s a stupid world we live in...

[Bordoy 0]

The British Army has fallen short of recruiting targets over the past few years due to low unemployment.

We have a simple solution for that.. it starts with a C and ends with a N.

Conscription?

If thats it, then i don't like it. Because you going to make the Army full of people who don't want to be there.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

well how european are you anyway?

http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/country_europe_G2_drag-drop.html

[Bordoy 0]

well how european are you anyway?  

http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/country_europe_G2_drag-drop.html

23/44

Avg error 402 miles

Pct Correct 52%

I got all of western europe correct. All the eastern block i got wrong apart from Latvia, lol

[EiZei 0]

well how european are you anyway?

http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/country_europe_G2_drag-drop.html

40/44

The rest I had about right except for San Marino.

Quote[/b] ]

Conscription?

If thats it, then i don't like it. Because you going to make the Army full of people who don't want to be there.

Last time I checked war wasn't about wanting to be there.

By having a "people's army" composed of every aspect of our society - not just the poorest - and a democratic goverment at the same time I think we could prevent unnecessary military adventures.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

damn, it doesnt fit, how can that be???

[Balschoiw 0]

Got lost with Andorra and those minor spots, placed belgium offset and confused Slovakia with Slovenia

Not bad overall:

39/44 questions,

Avg Error 57 miles

Pct correct : 89 %

553 secs

[denoir 0]

Bah, good luck on a blank map dropping Luxemburg in the right place

39/44 questions

Avg Error: 37 miles

Pct Correct: 89%

247 seconds

I missed all the small ones by some margin (Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino) - they are difficult to place exactly unless you have the neighbouring countries in place.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Sheesh.

39/44 Questions

Avg. Error: 46 Miles

Pct. Correct: 89%

Time Total 358 Secs

Boy, those Central European Countries are tricky devils to pin down aren't they?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

42/44 of 44 questions

average error 9 miles

pct correct 96%

time total 267 secs

My first was the Czech republic which i found hard to place exactly without country borders (even though i was there a month ago), and then i got San marino wrong too (+had to semi guess Malta), the rest were relatively easy, + i know all the capitals too

Quote[/b] ]Bah, good luck on a blank map dropping Luxemburg in the right place

True i think an awful lot of it is due to what orders they come in. Fun though.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Tres bien, IsthatyouJohnWayne (God, I love that name ). This maybe belongs in the U.S. Politics thread, but we all seem to be happy geographers here (and full of ourselves ). Therefore, try The U.S. States Game, then when you've done it, stick your score and level here. I apologise, Placebo, if this should elsewhere.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Last time I checked war wasn't about wanting to be there.

By having a "people's army" composed of every aspect of our society - not just the poorest - and a democratic goverment at the same time I think we could prevent unnecessary military adventures.

that's is quite offensive mate. Who said I am poor or my brother is, or everyone else is?

90% of officers have degrees. Many soldiers have A-Levels but are not good enough to join as an officer.

I am moderately well off but why in six months when i join does that make me poor?

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]Last time I checked war wasn't about wanting to be there.

By having a "people's army" composed of every aspect of our society - not just the poorest - and a democratic goverment at the same time I think we could prevent unnecessary military adventures.

that's is quite offensive mate. Who said I am poor or my brother is, or everyone else is?

90% of officers have degrees. Many soldiers have A-Levels but are not good enough to join as an officer.

I am moderately well off but why in six months when i join does that make me poor?

Just because you and some of your mates are well-off does not mean everybody is. I don't have any statistics regarding britain but it is clear that at least in the US people recruited are not so well off in average.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Yes EiZei, we have all seen Fahrenheit 911; we know that thanks to certain aspects of American society it is the relatively badly-off citizens who join-up to escape gang warfare, in some cases poverty and other for other reasons in order to try and better themselves, for they know if they can survive a four year stint in the military that they are guaranteed a college education under the G.I. Bill of Rights. However, for a great number of volunteers before the campaign in Iraq escalated into chaos, there were a geat many who joined because they believe in America, and wish to serve it some way. And there are those who like the military way full stop.

I'm guessing that Bordoy wished to join because he likes the military way, and that he is relatively patriotic (relative to the average American who'll wave their flag all day and all night long). In this thing called a democracy, when our nation is not DIRECTLY threatened, we have the right and the privelige not to join up if we do not want to. Examples of economic coercion into the British military are few and far between, unlike the U.S. Military.

[denoir 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]Indeed.

What the British don't seem to understand about Europe is that most of the people in the other member states actually want it to work. Strange, eh?

Very clever. Define 'work' (luckily you are not a French farmer so this may be possible :;): ) in this context (with regards to every member states position). Most of the people in the other member states are divided about precisely what they want out of the EU just as they are in the UK.

I'm not saying that all other members have a completely homogeneous vision, but the British are completely out of phase. Forcing the people into a union that they hate with passion is a recipe for disaster. In the worst case scenario it may in the long term lead to the failure of the raison d'etre of the European Union - peace. Integration is no guarantee for peace per se - the Yugoslav Federation clearly showed that. If there is to be integration, it has to be consensual.

And if you haven't noticed mr John Wayne, a significant majority of your countrymen resent, hate and despise everything about the EU. They see it as the ultimate evil in this world. You won't find that kind of hatred anywhere else in Europe.

You (the majority of the British) want an economic union, but not a political one. The rest of the member states want further integration, including my careful little Sweden.

Quote[/b] ]A slightly condescending black/white simplification perhaps?

But i cannot imagine that Denoir would ever be condescending about those who disagree with him, like, say, the people of Sweden.

The simplification comes because of the simplistic mindset of the British on this issue. Take a look at what your countrymen and your media are saying. A majority of the British absolutely hate the European Union.

As for the Swedish, I think they made a mistake by voting no to the Euro, but the whole thing was far more on a reasonable level than what we are getting from your island. There was no anti-EU polemics, no expression of hatred to the EU project. The vote came directly after Germany et al started violating the stability pact. The vote was a careful one saying that we'll wait a while before joining. Opinion polls showed consistently that a significant majority of the Swedish were positive to Sweden joining in 5-10 years.

As I said, in my opinion the result was bad for Sweden, but even if wrong, it was a rational decision. It was not motivated by hatred to the EU or by nationalism.

I don't know why the UK media portrays Sweden as a British ally in the EU. It really couldn't be further from the truth. The EU-sceptics here are first of all far left (i.e similar to the French communists) who think that the EU is too business driven. Second, they are a minority. Third, British and Swedish interest diverge basically on all issues. We do want strict labour laws and we opposed the "rebate" to that degree that we refused to join in the first place unless we got an exception. Today we pay a quarter of what we would otherwise have done. We don't even agree on the CAP. Sweden just wants more money, but we have a very "French" attitude to our small agriculture: We want to keep it at any cost.

Quote[/b] ]It is true that most British people are not completely willing to abandon the 'nation state model', but throughout Europe at this moment they are hardly alone in that and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It's a question of degree. The British mainstream is at the level of the French FN and other right-wing populist parties.

Britain is far from the only one behaving like an ass, but it's simply that its ideology is different. The French can be as stubborn and obstructive as the British. There is however a significant difference, and that is that France's ideology is closer to the other member states than Britain's. Germany, Netherlands et al are all Europhiles and want further integration. The Scandinavian countries are more Eurosceptical, but they share the socialist ideals with France. Here in Sweden the leftists are the Eurosceptics, so they see Britain as a threat.

Quote[/b] ]

Also your suggestion that europe is moving further and further from Britain seems dischordant with your suggestion that the rejection of the constitution was all due to excessive British input (if the constitution was too British then the non vote must be a sign that Britain was politically getting its way too much up until the moment of the referendums).

Not at all. The other member states want to move roughly in one direction, but the British have been slowing down and obstructing it. The constitution was a culmination of that.

We've obviously reached a point where an ideological base for the Union has to be defined. To achieve that we need some form of consensus on what the future of EU should be. Should it just be an economic tool, or do we want more? While Britain has the attitude it has today, a consensus is impossible. You can't build a solid foundation on an nearly infinite sequence of compromises and special cases. Britain leaving the EU won't solve everything, but it will solve a lot.

Quote[/b] ]Wrong, most British people arent against the EU, though they may be against one vision of the EU. I rail against this idea that there is only one vision of europe as though everything has already been predetermined.

The British people are against what the EU has become and where it is going. There is very little chance of going back now, to abandon the integration that has happened.

You should have never signed the Maastricht deal. I'm sure some form of nice free trade deal can be made. The British want a trade union, not a political one. Fine why not, we can do free trade. Why force the rest to adopt to that vision that they clearly don't share.

Quote[/b] ]You gotta love that gift to the euroskeptics Valery Giscard D'estaing when he suggested that the mistake of the yes campaign was sending out the treaties to every household. Or those who suggested that the answer was to hold new referenda until they got the 'right' answer. What does that say about EU respect for democracy? Such hubris comes before a fall. Your grand vision means crap if the people dont want it or arent convinced.

Well, first of all Giscard D'estaing is the primary author of the constitution and a hard-core federalist. Of course he wants his work to be accepted - that doesn't mean that he is representative of the EU.

Quote[/b] ]Which 'direction' are we going in?

Free trade/economic zone rather than political organization.

Quote[/b] ]Towards America?

Most certainly. Your doing ten times more business with America. Sure, you do trade with Europe, but that's a small part of you economy. You are primarily bankers and you invest more money in American companies than in European ones, and American companies invest more in your companies than the rest of Europe does.

The optimal solution for you would be a transatlantic trade agreement. Incidentally, that is what you tried to form a while ago as an alternative to the EC and EFTA. For various reasons that project failed.

Quote[/b] ]Germany and France can learn some things from the British economy, and we can learn some things from their social systems. Its really not so hard to find the common basis on which to cooperate once you get past the chestbeating strutting politicians playing to domestic audiences.

You don't get it do you? It's not France and Germany alone. All of Europe is becoming more social and less market-liberal. We're far more socialist here in Sweden than they are in Germany and France. Ireland, the classic liberal economy is getting socialist rapidly. Eastern Europe has been weak in the social aspects because they couldn't afford it. The people however are very displeased that they lost the benefits they had under the communist rules. So when they can afford it (which will be soon), you can bet your ass they'll be going socialist.

(Incidentally, I'm personally not at all too fond of that direction as I'm politically a liberal. The point here however is where it is heading)

Quote[/b] ]I dont think its 24 versus Britain, we have many supporters on reform, its just that currently Chirac has played the rebate card, partly to divert from the embarrasment of his referendum failure and partly to shift blame onto Britain and win european support for France (no doubt also he would genuinely like to see it ended whilst jealously guarding the CAP which more or less necessitated the rebate in the first place).

On the rebate issue, it is 24 against Britain. It's not really difficult to make a case for it. You want little Estonia to be paying you? That kind of inconsideration can piss anybody off. Why should the Netherlands who pays most per capita be paying the British. Where is their rebate?

As for the CAP, while it certainly is questionable altogether, France "only" receives a quarter of it. So it is not unfair in that respect. They're not getting it because they're French, but because their agriculture looks the way it does. You are getting the rebate just because you are British.

Quote[/b] ] Judging by the media on the continent he seems largely to have succeeded with this maskirovka.

Oh yes, it was such a beautiful play. Chirac can on occasion be truly brilliant. We had a situation where Chirac/France was weakened by the referendum and Schröder/Germany by the announced extraordinary election. Blair just won an election and Britain is next in line for the presidency. So potentially, Blair was in an über-strong position.

With the simple rebate play, Chirac managed to rally the other 23 states against Britain and create an outcry in the UK, putting more pressure on Blair. In addition Blair made a mistake by before the council meeting announce that a time of reflection is needed. That prompted traditional British allies, such as Poland to in no unclear terms tell him to mind his own business.

So in two weeks time Blair went from being the potential strong man of Europe to being in the weakest position of them all.

Quote[/b] ]

I am not ashamed or afraid to call myself a european, as well as being a Londoner yadda yadda. But i resent anyone telling me what sort of european i should be, or narrowly defining what a european is (as for instance someone who believes in the French social model). Whether we like it or not we are all europeans, even the French.

I'm not telling you what "European" means. The Norwegians, the Croats, the Swiss, the Romanians et al are all Europeans, but not part of the EU (yet anyway). You can be any type of European you want that's not the issue here.

The issue is that your country and the British demos wants something very different out of the EU, something that is not compatible with what the others want. Should for instance Sweden's vision of EU be that it should become a tennis club for women from the West Indies, it would be difficult to make it compatible with the ones that want it to be a political union. A compromise of it being a tennis club with political leanings would not be acceptable to either party. You can't compromise on everything. Even if you are outside the EU, you will still be Europeans.

[denoir 0]

The British Army has fallen short of recruiting targets over the past few years due to low unemployment.

We have a simple solution for that.. it starts with a C and ends with a N.

Conscription?

If thats it, then i don't like it. Because you going to make the Army full of people who don't want to be there.

Well, there is little chance of conscription being introduced in the case of a common defence policy. The trend across Europe is in the other direction - professional military forces.

I think that there isn't too much interest of building the EU into a military superpower. What would be the point? We're for the most part dedicated to international cooperation through the UN. So beyond protecting the Union's territorial integrity (not a problem with strategic nukes) we would only need a force capable of leading and helping international missions. In Europe's case, that would mostly be peace-keeping.

[Necromancer- 0]

AHHH! I missed Russia!!!

Just kidding.

33/44 Questions were correct..

[Donnervogel 0]

@IsthatyouJohnWayne

Hmm I'm not going to answer your points now because I feel denoir pretty much said anything I would want to say and because I lack time now.

To clear you up. I am Swiss, I live in Switzerland. But I am also Czech and thus EU citizen.

[Colossus 2]

The British Army has fallen short of recruiting targets over the past few years due to low unemployment.

We have a simple solution for that.. it starts with a C and ends with a N.

Conscription?

If thats it, then i don't like it. Because you going to make the Army full of people who don't want to be there.

Well, there is little chance of conscription being introduced in the case of a common defence policy. The trend across Europe is in the other direction - professional military forces.

I think that there isn't too much interest of building the EU into a military superpower. What would be the point? We're for the most part dedicated to international cooperation through the UN. So beyond protecting the Union's territorial integrity (not a problem with strategic nukes) we would only need a force capable of leading and helping international missions. In Europe's case, that would mostly be peace-keeping.

Sounds like the opposite of what the U.S. wants these days

I'm sort of against conscription because that will lead to more deaths then if it would be a pro-soldier. Just think of Iraq these days and the italian agent that was killed.

Almost no experience, nervous and relative young people is not the type you want in a warzone where the enemy might be amongs the people.

Young people that start there grown-up lifes by shooting at others may have problems after they return home after going to war, seeing horrible things.

The thought is just...  

When I got called in I asked not to go because of my view of this and got a civilian job instead. It's also a fact that the Norwegian army don't need as mcuh people either, the number of conscripts has droped in the last years because they want a more proffersional army/defence force.

...and also that the military minister screwed up in the bugdet

[ElBandito 0]

I come from a country which has done very well from the Europian Union, namely Ireland (everything here is co-funded by the EU) and having read the previous points I'm wondering where and what the problem acctually is. It seems obvious there is a problem with how we percieve the Europian dream. Like all dreams we have our hopes and desires wrapped up tight in it(you know a better world, good life, greener grass etc.) As well as seeing the product of our nightmares seeded within (Super-states, militaristic adventurism, death of national identity and all those other tabloid favourites.) Understandably considering the risurgence of 19th century political thinking in the most modern of states.

We have a system what I think can be seen as the most modern attempt at reforming national politics. A nation of nations if you will. One which holds the basics of freedom (all types even the ones you don't like), equality, education, health etc at its core. America I think was the last great attempt at this though I think the nuts and bolts were really introduced by the Brits - good education, free health care, equality based justice system (shame about them now). As actual American history doesn't display these qualities though the individual American may.

We recognise our futures (beyond rethoric) lie together. I've noticed that despite the disagreements this seems to be true. I agree that our old concept of nations must change (all of us, not just Britain). We're afraid of loosing our identities, yet a nation itself is nought but a lump of rock with people on. (like a sandwhich ) What we think of as a nation is really the beliefs of those people and beliefs are not easily changed by laws (I'd say rather the opposite). We need to learn that identity CAN NOT BE TAKEN (surpressed - yes), only given away.

What we seem to be arguing about is the psuedo-science of politics (baring the common defence question). I think as a whole we need to step back from the details of how we make our Europe ,to the question of who we let design and implement this for us. The no votes popular in European referendums seem to be votes more against that nations current goverment or dare I say it - the current model of democracy. Or to put it another way the percieved failure of our governments to actually represent us. The No vote for the Maastricht Treaty in Ireland as a case in point. No the first time, yes the second. The no was more about lack of information from the government as well as a feeling the government didn't care what the voters thought.

Anyway sorry for the preachiness, it just seems to me that maybe we need to find a way to actually let the masses write the constuition. Probably cost a fuck load but I think it'd be worth it. I think the problems with Europe are trust and confidence. Not with other nations but within our own. I don't think we trust our politicians not to screw us.

[denoir 0]

The No vote for the Maastricht Treaty in Ireland as a case in point. No the first time, yes the second. The no was more about lack of information from the government as well as a feeling the government didn't care what the voters thought.

Ireland rejected the Nice treaty, not the Maastricht treaty. I guess the information wasn't as good the second round either  

Anyway, I really don't think it is a good idea for the people to get involved in policy writing. Democracy is the rule of the mediocre - the average person is simply too incompetent to be trusted with such a task. Having seen the contradictory statements from the ongoing council meeting, I however fear that the politicians we have now are at least equally incompetent.

I think that Europe needs a good leadership - people that can present a coherent vision to the people. Unfortunately, the current batch of leaders don't cut it.

[harley 3 1185 0]

I agree that today's cut of politician just isn't upto the task of change - alas, our visions of what a politician should be accomplishing right now are no doubt rather different .

However, if I were you Denoir, stop posting on a Games forum and go out and make it happen! (If you already are, then good on you ). Join a party, make your voice heard, and if your message is clear enough and sticks; you might just get somewhere.