European Politics Thread.

[Postduifje 0]

I'm attending a conference on March 9th about the future of the European Union held among students from 20 Dutch and Flemish universities and Dutch 1st chamber representatives because of the 50th anniversary of the treaties of Rome.

Subjects are:

1. Europe as a value community:

"Inhabitants of the Union should have obligatory education about central European values and freedoms"

2. Boundaries of the Union:

"The European Union should introduce a B-membership"

3. Economy and Environment:

"Members should transfer all authority about environment and energy to the Union"

4. The institutional future of the Union:

"Europe should be a federal state"

If anyone can recommend some interesting readings about these issues it would be very appriciated

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

I'm attending a conference on March 9th about the future of the European Union held among students from 20 Dutch and Flemish universities and Dutch 1st chamber representatives because of the 50th anniversary of the treaties of Rome.

Subjects are:

1. Europe as a value community:

"Inhabitants of the Union should have obligatory education about central European values and freedoms"

2. Boundaries of the Union:

"The European Union should introduce a B-membership"

3. Economy and Environment:

"Members should transfer all authority about environment and energy to the Union"

4. The institutional future of the Union:

"Europe should be a federal state"

If anyone can recommend some interesting readings about these issues it would be very appriciated

Errm, the text in italics means what? Is it the conclusion the discourse have to lead to? Then where is the point of arranging a conference?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Errm, the text in italics means what?

I guess the italics are the debatable part, like pro´s and con´s for the statements put in italics.

[Bordoy 0]

I'm attending a conference on March 9th about the future of the European Union held among students from 20 Dutch and Flemish universities and Dutch 1st chamber representatives because of the 50th anniversary of the treaties of Rome.

Subjects are:

1. Europe as a value community:

"Inhabitants of the Union should have obligatory education about central European values and freedoms"

2. Boundaries of the Union:

"The European Union should introduce a B-membership"

3. Economy and Environment:

"Members should transfer all authority about environment and energy to the Union"

4. The institutional future of the Union:

"Europe should be a federal state"

If anyone can recommend some interesting readings about these issues it would be very appriciated

Errm, the text in italics means what? Is it the conclusion the discourse have to lead to? Then where is the point of arranging a conference?

There the bits to debate.

Europe should be a federal state.........good?, bad? Why?

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]

This is not a stable time for Europe. Borders are changing, people are moving en mass, military alliances decaying and re-aligning.  It hasn't been more uncertain in my life time.

Perhaps you could provide examples of where these things are happening within the EU?

[ZG]BUZZARD Posted on Jan. 15 2007,01:11

The Creation of the EU army, The many nations who have withdrawn from the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq and the 500,000 immigrants who arrived in Britian from Eastern Europe last year.

Quote[/b] ]Indeed. But return on domestic financial services exported are in GDP. Not to confuse with the return the foreign investment creates (for example when buying new machinery with it which increases the efficiency and thus productivity of the company - this is not counted to UK GDP).

Again you didn't get what I was explaining all the time.

Your powers of explanation are very good, I got it the first time. It is still however, incorrect.

The return on foreign investment is not calculated as part of GDP. As it is not domestically produced.

You might note, that your provided link agrees with this.

If we were really clutching at straws, we might be able to say that converting that return into english currency contributes towards GDP. (A banking service).

Banking services are calculated part of GDP. Gross Domestic Produce.  

Foreign investment. Is part of "foreign investment" and is in no way "domestic".

Foreign owned companies in Britian, such as Nissan for example contribute to British GDP not Japanese. All profits made in the U.K. are calculated as domestic product.

i.e. Made here.

GDP is calculated not only by the Office for Statisitics, but by many other statisticians all over the world.

The same calculation is used by all.

If we all counted our foreign investments as our own domestic produce, as well as our own foreign owned domestic product, they would be calculated twice and the numbers would be wrong.

Foreign investment.

Traditionally, when the currency/exchange rate is high, it is cheaper for you to invest abroad, than it is for people from other countries to invest here.

The Pound has been very strong for a long long time now.

Britain for example is the largest foreign investor in the U.S.A.

Domestic banking/Banking services very probably do make up 1/3 of our GDP. Have a look at the FT 100 and see how many of our biggest and most successful companies are banks.

Quote[/b] ]Of course, as a teacher you must be aware that Churchill was one of the earliest modern advocates of a united Europe and was actively promoting the unification of Britain and France as one country prior to WW2.

As a teacher, not only is my spelling open to imperfection, but I am also capable of looking things up for myself without someone having to provide me a link.

Had you done the same with regards to Churchill, perhaps your statement about him would ring a little more true.

When Churchill talked about a United States of Europe, he wasn't proposing that Britain be a part of it, but rather an external ally.

If I might quote him....we have our own dreams.... We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not compromised.

Unlike students, it is beholden on me to look things up, before I mention them, I don't have time or the impetus to "back up" my every statement with some spurious or arguable Google links.

I personally consider it a matter of respect to the person I am discussing with to endeavour to get my facts straight before mentioning them; rather than attempt to prove them after.

Please don't bother linking on my account. Should I need further evidence to convince myself of either the validity or invalidity of your statements I am quite able to get them for myself and then our posts won't deteriorate into the debunking of eachothers sources.

Quote[/b] ]The EU doesn't push anything. The member nations, of which the UK is one of the three most powerful, operate a democratic system economic and social co-operation and interdependence. It is not 26 nations trying to take control of Britain.

The EU Constitution was poorly promoted and poorly named. It wasn't a constitution, it was a simplification of already existing laws that would have saved time and money. The newspapers that vilified the idea of the constitution were the same ones that complained about the bloatedness of the EU and its legislation, precisely what it was intended to combat.

The EU foreign minister was intended to save money by not having to send a group of ministers from each country when all were in agreement. The post was not intended to replace each nation's minister.

There is so much legislation because the Europhobes make any reform - e.g. the constitution - impossible. UKIP have stated that their sole intent is to disrupt the process

There is so much legislation becuse there are so many legal systems involved. One for each country plus one for the EU.

UKIP aren't adding to any legislation at all, as far as I am aware they are actively voting against all EU legislation.

I believe they argue that our existing legislation is already adequate for the job.

They aren't objecting to it and asking for ammendments.

Neither are they slowing it down, they are just a minority of MP's raising their voices. Democracy doesn't even have to listen to minorites at all.

The EU is bloated. Adding another layer of beurocracy is not my idea of the solution to beauocracy.

I don't belive that the EU is 26 nations trying to take control of Britain.

Neither Am I intrested in become interdependant with another 25 nations.

And if I was intrested in becoming interdependant with another 25 nations, none of the EU nations would be near the top of my list.

I like my European fellows but I have closer ties elsewhere, not to mention more lucrative ones.

If as you say the EU doesn't push things, then why after the Irish rejected the EU constitution at the polls were they made to vote again?

Doesn't "no" mean no?

Why when the constitution has been voted against by three countries already is Germany tabling it for another go?

No, doesn't mean "no" to pushy people.

It means "you didn't understand me properly". "You misunderstood what I wrote". or maybe "The newspapers have vilified it".

[Donnervogel 0]

"you might notice" that you didn't understand it - again. Anyway I'm in the middle of my exams atm. I don't have time for this now. Have fun.

[Baff1 0]

[quote name=Eda Mrcoch,Feb. 19 2007,18:42

There the bits to debate.

Europe should be a federal state.........good?, bad? Why?[/quote]

Bad.

The weakness of the democratic process is it's treatment of minorites.

They can't change any illegetimate or unfair ruling against them by voting.

A black minority couldn't vote themselves out of segregation for example. Or vote themselves the vote.

In order to get justice, they had to resort to means outside of the political system. Outside of the rule of law.

The larger the democracy, the greater the number of minorites.

Allow me to elaborate with an example.

The centre of populations are in the cities. City people if given the vote can vote to ban people from rural backgrounds from killing animals.

In the country or in agriculture, the need for pest control is well understood. In urban area's where the glimpse of wild life is a rare treat, it is abhorrent to consider killing them.

Here we can see two sets of people whose difference in regional location provides incompatable moralities.

Given democratic process, the only people affected would also be the only people it affected. The Urbanites would win. The ruralites would be unfairly oppressed by people they don't know, have never met and for whom the whole issue isn't perhaps quite so immdiate.

No vanishing livestock.... no sunday afternoon forays suddenly cancelled... no farming bussiness at risk.

These are the injustices of Democracies. A minority, no matter how justified or correct in it's manner cannot outvote a larger body.

The problem with the EU as a federal state, is it creates an even larger body, even further removed from many of the regions and peoples it seeks to rule over.

Secure in it's Democratic unaccountability to all minorities.

As it stands our governments are already too centralised. People in government offices interefere with my daily routine in far too many unecessary ways already.

Local services follow one size fits all directives from above or lose their jobs.....

But it's not a one size fit's all world.

Neither odes it have to be, or work most efficiently in this way.

The man in Brussels doesn't know more about rubbish collection in Barrow Infurness; than the life long rubbish collector in Barrow Infurness. He never will.

Why pay him to interfere?

Big government is morally and fundamentally wrong.

Inneffecient, interfering, oppresive.

[Baff1 0]

"you might notice" that you didn't understand it - again. Anyway I'm in the middle of my exams atm. I don't have time for this now. Have fun.

I understand perfectly, you are trying to say that the financial returns made from foreign investment are calculated under GDP.

Which is incorrect.

Understanding you isn't the problem.

Your reasoning seems to be that all money entering the system is measured under GDP. Which it is not.

That the returns on money invested from abroad are counted towards total GDP since the money has re-entered the domestic ecomony, (and since the invested money is part of the production process). Which they are not.

You think that the returns from foreign investment is calculated as part of GDP under the name "banking services". Which they are not.

All this I understand. But that doesn't make it correct.

GDP is only one of many ways of looking at an economy.

It doesn't give you an absolute reading for the total wealth produced by any nation, neither does it attempt to do so.

It gives the total value of all goods and services produced domestically in a given period of time.

The domestic productivity of a nation.

It does not deal with ownership or the transferals of money.

If my rich Australian aunty dies and leaves me 70 million, despite this new wealth entering the domestic economy, it is not measured under GDP. It has not been produced domestically.

Neither are the fruits of foriegn production. They are not domestically produced.

Only domestic production is calculated towards GDP.

GDP is not a measure of wealth, or economy. GDP is a measure of productivity.

Good luck with your exams, hope you don't study economics.

[Donnervogel 0]

I understand perfectly, you are trying to say that the financial returns made from foreign investment are calculated under GDP.

Which is what I did not say. I think I have said it in previous postings already that you need to differ from financial returns made from the investment (which are not calculated because they are generated in a foreign economy) and financial compensation for "exporting" a "service" (which is calculated because the service is based in the domestic economy). But I really don't have the time to start repeating myself over and over again. Stop laying things in my mouth that I did not say please, because it kinda "forces" me to respond. Anyway if we can't agree I suggest we drop it. It is not serving any purpose to the current discussion here and as I said I am busy with other things. Actually I just drop by to see if they finally released the Arma patch...

[xawery 0]

Phew, where to start...

Quote[/b] ]The EU is bloated. Adding another layer of beurocracy is not my idea of the solution to beauocracy.

How is the EU bloated? It employs about as much civil servants as the city of Amsterdam. The EU's budget is a measly 195 bn dollars. That is a small price to pay for gaining entrance to new markets, financial stability, harmonised legislation etc.

Quote[/b] ]I don't belive that the EU is 26 nations trying to take control of Britain.

Neither Am I intrested in become interdependant with another 25 nations.

And if I was intrested in becoming interdependant with another 25 nations, none of the EU nations would be near the top of my list.

This might come as a shock, but you ARE interdependant with the EU, as well as the rest of the world. This isn't the 19th century where you could live in splendid isolation. This is the age of globalisation, where dependency on foreign markets and cross-border capital flows align your interests parallel to those of your trade partners. You may not like it, but that's the reality.

Quote[/b] ]If as you say the EU doesn't push things, then why after the Irish rejected the EU constitution at the polls were they made to vote again?

Doesn't "no" mean no?

Why when the constitution has been voted against by three countries already is Germany tabling it for another go?

The EU didn't force the Irish to vote again, the national government did. Two countries may have rejected it (Ireland is still pending), but 18 have ratified it. Why should such a vast majority be held back by a minority? All this will result in is the isolation of the nay-sayers. Needless to say, it will be their loss.

Incidentally, you are quite right in saying that the EU lacks decisiveness. The decision-making process needs to be streamlined. Ironically, the effort to improve it by introducing qualified majority voting was frustrated by eurosceptics who complain that the EU is a "sluggish leviathan"... Score +10 XP for flawed logic!

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Italian prime minister is to resign unless im much mistaken

[xawery 0]

He already has, I fear. At least that's what Wikipedia claims; I wasn't able to find any sources on the matter.

[Colossus 2]

BBC News

Sure looks like it.

[xawery 0]

Amazing that a prime minister would resign over decisions taken by his predecessor. After all, it was Berlusconi who approved the plans to expand the US airbase and keep Italian troops in Afghanistan.

[klavan 0]

Amazing that a prime minister would resign over decisions taken by his predecessor. After all, it was Berlusconi who approved the plans to expand the US airbase and keep Italian troops in Afghanistan.

Prodi's resign is not exlusively related to that. Today our government was beaten while voting a proposal for the future plans about foreign affairs strategy for the next future (Afghanistan, but also Lebanon, NATO, etc.). The "US base problem" wasn't even debated today.

It was only a matter of time before something like this happened as a consequence of the left wing parties attitude against any kind of italian involvement on foreign countries and against the government defence politics.

Klavan

[xawery 0]

True. If those two communists would have complied with gov't policy there would have been no problem. Of course, if the right wing parties had supported their own plans instead of trying to bring the gov't down, there would have been no problem at all. Jeez, Italian politics sometimes remind me of a circus... but then again, so does the British parliament

[klavan 0]

True. If those two communists would have complied with gov't policy there would have been no problem. Of course, if the right wing parties had supported their own plans instead of trying to bring the gov't down, there would have been no problem at all. Jeez, Italian politics sometimes remind me of a circus... but then again, so does the British parliament

Indeed. But a government must be autonomous and cannot rely on their political adversaries to live. The italian right wing parties already supported Prodi in the past on foreign affaris policy, but this time they decided to stay apart to see if Prodi could handle this problem with his allies exclusively. Obviously he can't.

And yes I agree with you, our politics are just ridicolous....

Klavan

[Colossus 2]

Back to the Cold War, are we? Seems like the big bear is threatening to start a new arms race if Finland joins NATO. Thinking that they control their former comrades doesn't help either. Georgia and now Estonia. Not that opinions matter any more, they all get killed for criticizing the Russian goverment.

Russia sure has a good deal of demons form their past.

[kerosene 0]

Quote[/b] ]The weakness of the democratic process is it's treatment of minorites.

They can't change any illegetimate or unfair ruling against them by voting.

A black minority couldn't vote themselves out of segregation for example. Or vote themselves the vote.

In order to get justice,they had to resort to means outside of the political system. Outside of the rule of law.

When exactly did this happen? even in South Africa, equal rights were granted when the government changed, not by illegal/terrorist actions.

Quote[/b] ]

These are the injustices of Democracies. A minority,no matter how justified or correct in it's manner cannot outvote a larger body.

So what? What exactly do you propose as an alternative? An "enlightened minority" that will lead the ignorant masses?

"Killing animals" wanst banned by "urbanites". Hunting with dogs was regulated. It still happens. In any case other forms of hunting are stilll legal.

Quote[/b] ]

Neither does it have to be, or work most efficiently in this way.

The man in Brussels doesn't know more about rubbish collection in Barrow Infurness; than the life long rubbish collector in Barrow Infurness. He never will.

I'd be curious to know about all this government intervention in your daily life? The idea that we're micro-manged by the EU is somewhat ridiculous, given the 40 hour working week exemption, etc.

Whether or not you want to be interdependant with other nations is irrelevent, its a fact of world we live in. National economies are inextricably linked to each other.

British influence in the EU is underestimated by Little Englanders, I'd rather we had a strong voice in a regional body, than no voice at all.

[Baff1 0]

Aparteid ended in South Africa after a very long campaign of terrorism.

Yes, the government granted black people the right to vote, but not willingly.

Nelson Mandela is a convicted terrorist.

The Hunting Act 2004 bans the hunting with dogs of all wild mammals, and all hare coursing.

If it still happens, it is happening illegally (or they are hunting fish).

Examples of government micromanagement of my daily life.

17.5 % of every finacial transaction I make is taxed. Fuel, tobacoo, alcohol and other stuff, more than that. Any and every time I spend money the government interferes.

All my employment is taxed. Every time I go to work, they interefere.

My car must be taxed and insured. I must wear a seat belt when driving it. Use child saftey seats and baby safety seats. I must not speed and drive in a government assigned manner. I may not talk on the telephone.

My car's speed, location, time of travel and number plate is recorded by the government no less than 4 times every time I drive to my nearest town.

Every single item on sale must be safety approved by government standards. Every advert on TV approved by other standards commitee's. The kitchen's at the burger van the same.

My local newsagent must have liability insurance. A Tobacco lisence. It must pay it's employee's a minimal wage.

All these things drives it's prices up, which affects me.

My rubbish must be placed in seperate coloured bins. My guns in a hidden cabinet. My house may not be physically altered for any purpose other than sanitation. (No satelitte dishes or solar panels for me, no change of floor tiles or window catches).

Half my TV channels are governmental. All forms of media are government censored.

My choice of weed killer restricted. The fuel I use in my lawnmower prescribed.

I honestly can not think of any single thing in this country that is not subject to government regulation.

Not one.

Can you?

I think Britains voice within the EU is very strong. We have one of the largest militaries, we are one of it's largest markets, we are one of it's largest contributors of taxation.

I'm all up for having a strong voice in the EU, but not at any price.

I think there is a balance, we have to decide how much we are willing to pay and whether the rewards match the investment.

Our current position in Europe leaves us with more aces being outside of the EU than it does within.

Lets look at the Norwegian model.

All goods exported from Norway to the EU must meet the EU standards.

Norway has no vote in this standard.

All EU goods sold in Norway, must meet Norwegian standards.

The EU has no vote in this standard.

In Britain, we sacrifice our right to set our own standards in exchange for the ability to influence the standards others set to us.

As a net importer from the EU, we lose out from this deal.

They set more standards on us, than we set on them.

We make a net loss on trading with Europe.

If we were to stop trading with Europe completely or enter into any kind of trade dispute, we would each be richer to the tune of a couple of thousand pounds a year per  U.K. citizen.

Always negotiate from a position of power.

The EU wants our market and it wants our taxes. We make a loss on it's markets and a loss on it's taxes.

What's in it for us?

I'm very keen to have a strong voice with the regional body of the EU. This is completely different from me being keen to have a foreign regional body have control or even strong influence over me.

It's quite simply wrong for a man living 500 miles away from me in a different country, from a different culture, religion, language base, etc to have any vote over anything that affects me at all.

I want to have a strong influence within the EU, but not at any price. This isn't my highest priority in life. The are many other things I value more.

One of the things I value the highest is freedom.

By example, I'm not willing to choose any EU country above Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Not for any reason.

We have a debt of honour.

It is also wrong to further advance the EU when it's declared aims are in direct opposition to our own intrests.

An economic rivalry to China or India doesn't help for us.

A trade block with the U.S. or the Commonwealth isn't what we are looking for. This is anti British intrests.

As a member of the EU, we can, and often are, voted into it.

We make more money in the U.S., and the Commonwealth buys more of our goods. Pandering to the EU is self defeating.

We don't have more say within the EU, we have more say without. People with no moral right and limited or conflicting intrest are being allowed voice in decisions which do not concern them.

As you say we have plenty of national influence in Europe. We have a strong hand to play.

You won't win at cards by allowing the other players to choose which of your cards you are going to play.

If we leave the EU, Europeans will all still trade with us. European nations will all still militarily co-operate with us.

They will all still welcome our tourists.

Sell us holiday houses.

They will all still share intelligence.

In fact they will all carry on with us exactly the same as they do now.

Only we shall have control over our own borders.

We shall save 13 Billion a year in tax.

We shall save even more by only paying for one parliament and legal system instead of two.

We shall not enter into trade wars with our own preferred trading partners.

We shall not be subject to one size fits all European wide rulings, but instead will be able to make our own rulings for ourselves, better customised to the individual and local concerns of our citizens.

Should the EU or any other government come up with superior systems to our own, we shall be entirely free to adopt them even outside of that body.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ][quote name=Eda Mrcoch,Feb. 19 2007,18:42

There the bits to debate.

Europe should be a federal state.........good?, bad? Why?[/quote]

bad, why? i'm a member of a minority, i'm breton (member of a celtic nation- Brittany ). currently, we are colonized by France. but we have our language, our culture etc. A federal europe would be for us like france a non-existence (sorry if this expression is not good)

we want our independance in Europe as a state. because when you are member of a nation, you know your past, you live your present, and you can have a future. In Brittany, the economic situation is not good, we have pigs, and the tourism, we want more.

i hope to see soon the independance of Scotland, our celtic brother. this is an hope for us.

frankiz breizh

[SPQR 0]

I also have breton's blood, from my mother's side. As history fans knows, Great Britain was owned first by true celtic britains who fled to Bretagne, France, from Angles and Saxons invasions.

So that I command all anglo-saxons to return back to their first and true motherland, Germany, and return power to us, true Britons.

Also, as I live in Aquitaine, land of Bordeaux, which used to be lead by Alienor d'Aquitaine, who spoused the King of England and gave her land to the Crown, I commend France to give back Aquitaine to Great Britain, a far more dynamic and succesful economy than the dying rotting french economy.

Kenavo

[Sennacherib 0]

I also have breton's blood, from my mother's side. As history fans knows, Great Britain was owned first by true celtic britains who fled to Bretagne, France, from Angles and Saxons invasions.

So that I command all anglo-saxons to return back to their first and true motherland, Germany, and return power to us, true Britons.

Also, as I live in Aquitaine, land of Bordeaux, which used to be lead by Alienor d'Aquitaine, who spoused the King of England and gave her land to the Crown, I commend France to give back Aquitaine to Great Britain, a far more dynamic and succesful economy than the dying rotting french economy.

Kenavo

why always write this kind of text. a text perfectly "Jacobin", and keep trotting out all the time in other terms)

i'm sure that the Slovenian are happiest now. their economy is better now, and is equal at the french economy in some parts

Quote[/b] ]Britons.

lol, a part is always in Great-Britain, the welsh people.

personally i don't care of the past, I look towards the future.

the french people have voted against the european constitution. if they want to live alone, ok not a problem. but they must let the others live their life.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

I have never been a big fan of France. Now it seems they may actually remove themselves from the "bag-on" list by becoming a respected nation. Sure it's yet to be seen but at least they are trying.

....yes I realize some will be "offended" by this comment. To bad. You probably get offended by Fraggle Rock.

The point is, I now respect France! Sure not all are happy with the new leader.

But the fact remains that the people were at least open to the possibility that the government was headed in the wrong direction!

Now i can only hope for that in my own country...

[igor drukov 0]

we want our independance in Europe as a state. because when you are member of a nation, you know your past, you live your present, and you can have a future. In Brittany, the economic situation is not good, we have pigs, and the tourism, we want more.

I live in Paris and I support the independence of Brittany: GDP per head in Ile-De-France reaches 41 662 euros, for 23 653 in Brittany (national average: 27 123).

...

Well, after doing the maths, and for the sake of efficiency, I even support the independence of Ile-De-France!