European Politics Thread.

[denoir 0]

WoW, France supporting China on that law. Is the French govt. doing this for greed because of Airbus and weapons? Then again, it was France who was the first western Europe country to accept communist China.

Nonsense, it was Sweden that first became friendly with communist China.

Anyway, yes of course it's about greed (or "business", as US likes to call their similar deals). China is growing rapidly in economic strength, and it has far better relations with Europe than with the US. So it's a golden opportunity.

The EU position has been to fully cooperate with China while at the same time try to push them to become more respectful of human rights. Right now however, China seems to be pulling the strings. As a matter of fact, they pulled a couple of fast ones on the EU recently, that made the EU more weary of dealing with the government in Beijing.

The French government are however pretty much on their own here. Little support exists in the rest of the EU for their current position.

Of course, the Commission would sell anything to China, and fully ignore the human rights issue. The Parliament is however in the way and they have shown that they can really bite.

Sort of an interesting combination - you have the Commission which represent the governments, that is basically a cynical used car salesman, having no principles. On the other side you have the European Parliament who are all a bunch of naive idealist hippies. So far they have been complementing each other pretty well.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nonsense, it was Sweden that first became friendly with communist China.

http://www90.homepage.villanova.edu/michael....ge.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

Quote[/b] ]In a European Union context, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands are often seen as belonging to a Northern group.

Lets make it better. France was the first western european "power" to have a relationship with communist china.

[turms 0]

What? are you seriously saying now that the nordic countrys are not part of europe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

You should know when to quit really.

[billybob2002 0]

What? are you seriously saying now that the nordic countrys are not part of europe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

You should know when to quit really.

   

Quote[/b] ]In a European Union context, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands are often seen as belonging to a Northern group.

               

I just consider Sweden, Northern Europe.. Since, Denior considers it apart of Western Europe, I changed it to first western european "power"

[denoir 0]

Politically it's western Europe. And that is what "western Europe" usually denotes. Btw, from geographical point of view, the first map you posted is nonsense. Spain and Italy are southern Europe. Iceland is certainly northern Europe etc

And btw, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe

Quote[/b] ]

Western Europe is distinguished from Central Europe and Eastern Europe by differences of history and culture rather than by geography. However, these boundaries of Europe are subject to considerable overlap and fluctuation, which makes differentiation difficult. Thus the concept of Western Europe is associated with liberal democracy; and its countries have been considered to share many cultural, economic and political traditions with the United States of America and Canada — which have received millions of Western European settlers since the discovery of the New World.

....

Until the enlargement of the European Union of 2004, Western Europe was sometimes associated with that Union, although non-members such as Norway and Switzerland unquestionably were considered parts of Western Europe. Today the connection to NATO or to the European Union increasingly may be perceived as historical. A common understanding of Western Europe includes the following parts:

the Nordic countries (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark)

the British Isles (United Kingdom and Ireland)

the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg)

Germany

France and Monaco

the Alpine countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria)

the Apennine peninsula (Italy, San Marino, Vatican City)

the Iberian peninsula (Spain, Andorra, Portugal)

in a political and economic context also Greece, Cyprus, Malta, and occasionally even Turkey.

It ought to be borne in mind that the concepts of Europe's division overlap. The Nordic countries being counted to Western Europe does not at all hinder their also being considered part of Northern Europe. Similarly, the Alpine countries may be considered part of Central Europe, and Italy, the Iberian countries, Monaco, Greece and southern France part of Southern Europe as well.

The Alpine country of Slovenia may by some be counted to Western Europe, similarly to how some would consider Estonia as a Nordic country, and hence maybe also to Western Europe.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]Lets make it better. France was the first western european "power" to have a relationship with communist china.

Do you have something to back that up? If my memory serves me correctly, it was UK that was first supporting Mao - rather early in the war. (Not 100% sure about this, but I don't have time to check it out right now). Also, Italy would be a probable candidate as they had a very strong communist movement at the time in the country.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do you have something to back that up? If my memory serves me correctly, it was UK that was first supporting Mao - rather early in the war. (Not 100% sure about this, but I don't have time to check it out right now). Also, Italy would be a probable candidate as they had a very strong communist movement at the time in the country.

Communist China has in the People's Republic of China not during the "war" years but after. The US was really pissed at De Gaulle about this.

http://www.info-france-usa.org/printfr...._pf.asp

Quote[/b] ]They were very strongly reasserted on 27 January 1964 when General de Gaulle's France was the first major Western nation to recognize the People's Republic of China.

[denoir 0]

The US was really pissed at De Gaulle about this.

http://www.info-france-usa.org/printfr...._pf.asp

Quote[/b] ]They were very strongly reasserted on 27 January 1964 when General de Gaulle's France was the first major Western nation to recognize the People's Republic of China.

That's interesting, but a bit vague. The question there is the "major western European power" part. Usually as far as France is concerned, only France is in that group - possibly the British.

[Akira 0]

Well. There should be years available that Sweden and France got formal with China. That should put it to rest.

[EiZei 0]

In the sixties the taiwanese goverment was just as bad as the mainland one IIRC.

[ran 0]

Swedish swedish report on french defence industry

Just came accross this one, it's a few months old, did you get to read it Denoir ?

[denoir 0]

Swedish swedish report on french defence industry

Just came accross this one, it's a few months old, did you get to read it Denoir ?

Nah, I don't read that type of stuff anymore.

[ran 0]

Quite interesting

Seems like the swedes have a pretty high opinion of themselves héhé

I don't read this kind of stuff either usually (yes, the state of our defence industry is something I genuinely care about aslong as the things i'm given to play with work ), but some parts were pretty interesting

[EiZei 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4473001.stm

Quote[/b] ]

New Pope condemns Spain gay bill

By Robert Piggott

BBC News, Rome

Gay rights campaigners celebrate vote

The vote was welcomed by Spanish gay rights campaigners

Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.

The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.

A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.

He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office a year ago making it clear he intended to remove what he called the church's undeniable advantages and make Spain a secular state.

There are likely to be further tensions with Pope Benedict XVI. Mr Zapatero has made it clear that he intends to streamline divorce law and even to relax the conditions placed on abortion.

The bill would make Spain the first European country to allow homosexual people to marry and adopt children.

Tsk, Ratzinger sure didn't wait too long to realize our worst fears.

[Akira 0]

Least we didn't have to wait long...

[Mr_Tea 0]

Whe knew it from the start that he is an very conservative cleric. He is now doing exactly that what I expected. And this is only the beginning.

[denoir 0]

Quite interesting

Seems like the swedes have a pretty high opinion of themselves héhé

Heh, nothing compared to the French national ego

EiZei:

Quote[/b] ]Tsk, Ratzinger sure didn't wait too long to realize our worst fears.

It comes hardly as a surprise as he was known as a conservative. Although, I certainly disagree with him, I can understand his point of view though. Religion claims to be absolute - the word of god and all that. It would be odd indeed if they changed their doctrine depending on current trends in society. As religions claim to have the absolute truth, changing that truth would undermine the very foundation the religion stands on.

Having said that, in practice religion has always, even if slowly, changed and adapted to the world around it. So it's naive to think you can keep it unchanged. In a few generations of cardinals it will probably be different.

I'm right now more interested in how the new pope will handle science. John Paul II was quite open-minded there, basically aligning Catholicism with main-stream science (accepting evolution, the big-bang theory etc).

[kerosene 0]

I wish the tabloids in Britain were taking a more mature attitude towards his appointment, it makes the whole country look retarded and stuck in the past.

It's really not that shocking that a 13 or 14 year old living in a time before televison or the internet was in the Hitler Youth, and "gasp" the Wehrmacht, as though anyone really gets much of a choice about those kind of things in that situation.

I think its been a long time since the catholic Church challenged mainstream science, i.e they challenged it when it wasn't main stream, as far as I know that particular kind of anti-science Christianity is very American, the Anglican Church don't challenge it either. I guess, at the very least they know if they want to be taken seriously they have to mkae certain concessions.

I've never really understood Christians who can't simply accept that if there was a big bang and evolution, that mabye that was gods plan and it's not heresy.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]it makes the whole country look retarded and stuck in the past.

It´s just ridiculous to hear and read those comments. There was not much of a choice in Nazi germany. Hitler Youth was obligatory. I´d be more worried about Prince Harry dressing up with swastika for a funny party...

But I guess mainstream Brits just want to read such to keep up the image of a germany that has ended to exist almost 60 years ago.

BTW, I have never seen more Nazi relicts offered at markets than in the UK, and I´ve been to a hell lot of places on this planet.

Maybe it´s just an island thing, I don´t understand because I´m german, bavarian, and the town I grew up is only 10 km´s from Marktl, where the pope spent his first 2 years

Anyway, I had a bet on Ratzinger, as I always tend to bet on the least opportunity to happen. He´s a real conservative, a beholder, so to say, but maybe there will be some surprises coming up. He is a really informed theologist and knows what he´s talking about. He is no idiot, in fact I guess he would be able to talk anyone here into the ground with a knowledge background we will never have. A smart one, but still it´s the catholic church he represents and the vatican is moving ellyptic like a big fat planet. I´ve read some article today that he wants to allow divorced people to attend the full sacriments, wich they are not allowed today. My aunt got divorced a decade ago and lives witha new partner. She is a strong believer and it was really hard for her that she was not allowed to attend the sacriments anymore. My father, a very critical catholic suggested her to travel to Rome before he died, to nihilate her marriage, but she opposed that. So maybe he´s not that conservative as we might think. Again, gay marriage is a no-no for everyone inside the vatican and it is hardly surprising. So why make a fuzz about it, when the pope says it, and okay it when G.W says it ?

I still think he´s just an interim pope as he is pretty old. Maybe in a few years we will see something completely different wich will of course not change the direction of vatican itself, but maybe highlight the issues that really need to be delt with like use of condomes, birth control and things like that.

Just my 2 euro-cent.

[denoir 0]

I think its been a long time since the catholic Church challenged mainstream science, i.e they challenged it when it wasn't main stream, as far as I know that particular kind of anti-science Christianity is very American, the Anglican Church don't challenge it either.

Yeah, at least in the western world, it's only in America where "creationism" is actually taken seriously. I think the root of that is religious influence in politics, which in turn influences public education. In Europe, at the time of Darwin, the Church had already lost its position as a political power player. So it didn't have the power to go against scientific evidence, or to force an alternative agenda into the school system.

From Wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]

In a 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings a sample of about one thousand Americans were asked which statement came closest to their views on the origin and development of human beings.

Of those polled,

45% chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so",

37% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process",

12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", and the remainder

6% either volunteered a different response or had no opinion.

I think it more than anything shows how important the basic public education is. That people will most of the time believe what they have been taught - without thinking too much about it. It's difficult to imagine that 45% of Americans have never heard of dinosaurs or fossils of species that don't exist today.

In the same manner people believe in scientific theories, without actually knowing much about them.

The overall lesson to be learned, I think, is the immense value of a responsible and unbiased education. People won't think too much for themselves, so the education system has a responsibility of teaching people quality knowledge that is as much as possible free of bias and ideology.

Religion and evolution is only one example. To give an example from Sweden instead: Here the social democrats have been in power for more or less 70 years (with a few interruptions now and then). This in turn has influenced the education system, which I think has a distinctively socialist bias. The ideals and morality that is indirectly propagated is not very different form the manifesto of the social democrats. While some of the ideals indirectly taught are universally accepted, some ideals are questionable - and most of all, other ideals are omitted.

This leads to a certain twisting of the population's perception of the world. As long as you are inside the system, you won't notice it. The internet, talking to non-Swedes etc are good antidotes and allows you to find some middle ground between what you have been taught and what others have been. Here again, America is a bit at an disadvantage as it is a fairly closed system. And again, even with global communication, people often choose to associate with people similar to them.

But still, I think it is a step in the right direction (although the current American-European schism would indicate the possibility that increased communication could actually lead to increased mutual disliking )

[miles teg 1]

As an anthropologist I've had MANY loooong debates about the theory of evolution although I'm not an expert in the matter myself as I'm a cultural anthropologist and not a physical anthropologist (they're the human evolution specialists).

Still they are not always full of crap. They actually do present some logical arguements as far certain weaknesses in evolutionary theory go. For example, while the DNA evidence showing clear evolutionary links is very hard to dispute, why these splits happened is very much in question. Point mutation is an area where the theory of evolution has alot of difficulty when it comes to studies on genetic mutations that have been done. There is no doubt that evolution does happen, but there is serious doubt about its causes and whether or not its really random, especially when some evolutionary changes would take enormous odds to produce certain highly specialized species such as plants that mimic a certain species of male wasps and the pheremones that female wasps of that species produce in order to get them to help polinate that plant species. What is missing in the fossil record are the vast numbers of evolutionary mistakes that would be required before a beneficial mutation occured.

However aside from this, other aspects of evolutionary theory are quite strong and can be readily proved with good evidence.

So all in all I think it is healthy for people of religion to question evolution as it forces scientists to search for answers to these questions. But likewise I think they should also seriously look at the strong points of the theory of evolution and seriously take a look at their own interpretations of their religious texts.

The fact of the matter is that science does not answer everything. That is one chief reason why religion is still a powerful force in the United States.

I consider myself very well educated yet that has not dampened my own religious beliefs which for me do not contradict science at all but rather compliments science. The decline of religion in Europe I believe is not so much due to a superior education but rather because of a slow shift in cultural beliefs as religion slowly but surely began to be seen as backwards, wrong, and old.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

There is no doubt that evolution does happen, but there is serious doubt about its causes and whether or not its really random, especially when some evolutionary changes would take enormous odds to produce certain highly specialized species such as plants that mimic a certain species of male wasps and the pheremones that female wasps of that species produce in order to get them to help polinate that plant species.

Actually, that's a common misconception. First the odds are far bigger. Primarily because these are not random changes -  they are directed by natural selection.  Good mutations survive, bad disappear.

The random errors that can occur in the DNA are also actually not quite random. You have the laws of physics which direct what type of chemical bonds you can make. Most combinations are physically impossible - which vastly reduces the number of possible combinations.

The second point that people miss is the extreme time scale these changes have required. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of years for a species to evolve from another. We're talking about millions of years of evolution - a time scale that is very difficult to comprehend for us who live some 100 years or so.

Life on earth begun evolving some 3,5 billion years ago. Humans have existed for some 30,000 years. If we mapped the time of the evolution to a year where January 1st was when the earliest life started on earth and December 31st was today then humans came to exist 4.5 seconds to midnight on December the 31st.

Quote[/b] ]What is missing in the fossil record are the vast numbers of evolutionary mistakes that would be required before a beneficial mutation occurred.

Actually, we're not missing it - it's also a fairly common misconception. First of all, most radical mutations that make significant changes kill off the entity long before it is born. Second, there are only a finite combinations possible - on several levels. You can't connect the base pairs any way you want - the laws of physics prevent you from doing that. On a different level, even if you make a change in the genetic code, the proteins you create must have a specific form etc For instance growing a fifth leg on a cow is basically impossible.

For a mutation to make a difference, everything has to click. That's why evolution happens in big leaps. You have various changes in the background that don't lead to anything until it all aligns and the sum of the changes actually produce a possible solution. Mutations happen all the time - a series of mutations that together make an impact happen very rarely.

The other important thing is that fossil evidence mostly tells us only about bone configuration. So most of the variations in the purely organic tissue rot away. And finally we have we have thousands of fossils as a sample of billions upon billions upon billions of animals that have lived. So there's very little chance of us finding the bones of a species that didn't live for too long. Finding one mutated individual is nearly a statistical impossibility.

Quote[/b] ]

So all in all I think it is healthy for people of religion to question evolution as it forces scientists to search for answers to these questions.

Science forces scientists to look for answers. The contribution that religion makes is to slow down the education of the people.

Quote[/b] ]The fact of the matter is that science does not answer everything.  That is one chief reason why religion is still a powerful force in the United States.

That's what is unique in the context of teaching evolution to the US. I'm not exaggerating when I say that in the rest of the western world, evolution is as accepted as the fact that the Earth is round. And that the teachings of "creationism" is seen as no better than than teaching the "flat Earth theory". Denial of evolution is thought of as so silly that basically all western religions have accepted it - with the notable exception of American protestants.

Quote[/b] ]The decline of religion in Europe I believe is not so much due to a superior education but rather because of a slow shift in cultural beliefs as religion slowly but surely began to be seen as backwards, wrong, and old.

I'm not so sure about that. In countries where religion is very important, such as Poland or Malta there are still no creationists to speak of. Basically religion has accepted science as the provide of facts about the world, while religion sticks to the moral and 'spiritual' aspects of life. The idea that religion can provide an alternative view of the physical reality of the world has been abandoned for a long time. To the best of my knowledge the US is the last western country where people consider religion to be an authority on explaining the physical world.

[Bordoy 0]

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/britain...._eu.htm

Quote[/b] ]Britain could become 'prisoner' of the EU

tough secession clause in the new European constitution would make it illegal for Britain to leave the European Union without permission.

Article 46 of the secret draft text, obtained by The Telegraph, says the terms of departure for any country wanting to leave must be approved by two thirds of member states.

The draft is to be presented this week to the 105-strong Convention on the Future of Europe by the praesidium, headed by the former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing. It is releasing the Europe's first constitution piece by piece over the next few months.

The text - still subject to last-minute changes today - would allow a minority bloc of states to impose conditions, offering no guarantee that a departing country could keep its trading rights or reclaim currency reserves held by the European Central Bank.

David Heathcoat-Amory, a Tory MP on the convention, called the text outrageous. "It's a prison clause, not a secession clause," he said.

"We thought we could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act if the worst came to the worst, but this shows we're no longer talking about a voluntary union you can leave whenever you want.

"It is the final extinction of parliamentary sovereignty."

Mr Heathcoat-Amory said the two European commissioners on the praesidium, France's Michel Barnier and Portugal's Antonio Vitorino, had pushed through a highly integrationist text.

As this already gone through or is part of the new constitution everyone is voting on?

[denoir 0]

Actually, it's entirely illegal right now. There are no provisions for leaving the EU as it is. So if you want to leave the EU, the new constitution is a necessity.

[iNeo 0]

So two thirds must approve of any member leaving the union? No way that's going to happen..

[EiZei 0]

So two thirds must approve of any member leaving the union? No way that's going to happen..

What would they gain by forcing somebody to stay?