Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: The Norwegians have half of North Sea oil? Who do you think has the other half? | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:59:53 11/23/04 Tue In reply to: Mister New Statesman 's message, "Well, couldn't you possibly argue that Britain is where it is today because of Europe?" on 19:33:40 11/23/04 Tue And I'm not sure about your figures for Italy. The locals here are quite convinced that they get more money per capita from the EEC than they contribute to it. As far as I am concerned, Britain and Germany are the greatest net-contributors to the Euro-'budget'. Holland gives more per head than either, but has a population of about three people and so hardly contributes that much. Britain used to give more per head to charity than the USA, but the USA still gave three times as much, because of its more signigicant population. (Now that we are more prosperous, of course, we give less than the USA per capita by about 60%...) Moreover, you seem to be mistaking British members of the FCS for 'little Englanders' - those chaps who want our island to be an island in every sense: culturally, economically, politically, intellectually. On the contrary; the word "federal" in the title is your clue that we are, in fact, just as much federalists as Europhiles. We differ not in the principle of internationalism, co-operation and harmony; but we differ from the Europhiles simply in that we believe in a Federation with a different set of people. It is cultural and sentimental as much as economic: it is a failing of socialists such as yourself to see no human motive but the economic imperative. A stable and harmonious relationship is good for Britain, but that does not mean that I feel that creating a single European state reflects my fundamental interests. Moreover, you express your admiration for Europe and the European way of life. I too love Europe - I have been living here for some time - but that does not make me European. I like women, but that does not make me a woman. In addition, I've met dozens of people like me - British students who have been studying in Europe - who say exactly the same thing. I simply will not accept that, in an era of free trade, we need to live in a European Superstate in order to maintain our economic interests. To be sure, the US of E would not harm our economic interests. But given the political attitudes of France and Germany, our cultural identity - for which you may not have much respect, but I do - would certainly be erroded. Go and read Jean Monnet, where he says that he wants "to create a political, economic and military superpower TO RESIST THE ENCROACHMENT OF ANGLO-SAXON VALUES." Does this inspire your confidence in the tolerance of Europeans towards our distinctive historical and cultural experience? Maybe it does exactly the opposite, and that is why you approve of it. Like Messrs Blair and Brown, you instinctively deride British traditions because they somehow call to mind images of the past which you don't like, although you're not sure what they are. So, if we can enjoy the same economic prospects outside and inside, but our cultural integrity only on the outside, why not stay out? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: RE: To Mister So and So | |
|
Author: Mister New Statesman [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:58:25 11/23/04 Tue "Nonsense - London has been a trading capital long before the Euro was a glint in a Eurocrat’s eye. If Europe and its institutions are responsible for London’s success, why have the cities that have embraced Europe’s institutions more enthusiastically not been more successful?" - Because London was a natural financial centre, and it makes sense to situate one's European HQ there: but only if Britain is in the EU, because there's no point in having a regional headquarters that is outside the region. I grant you the fact that the Euro does not make that much difference in all of this, for it is trade that is the primary concern here. "Oh my God, you don’t really believe that do you. Name a single political institution in the world that has gained more power, and somehow become more benign! Please." - One single political institution? What about the U.S. government? Let me remind you that, for the first few decades, Presidents were not popularly elected and the Senate was appointed by the states. You may not agree with the political decisions of the U.S. of A, but at least you can grant that (apart, of course, from that rather inconvenient electoral college nonsense) it is a democratic system. And one could further argue that, considering the fact that the Lords is an unelected house and that FPTP gives such enormous majorities, Britain's system is more like an electoral dictatorship. This is, of course, in contrast to European concensus politics in which the majorities are listened to and nobody has a stranglehold on power. I am not going to argue for the merits of either, because there are large and obvious weaknesses in proportional representation, but if Europe evolved into something like American democracy then at least it would be a democracy. "I’m afraid they [Northern Europeans] already have [accepted being governed by corrupt bureaucrats]." - No, they haven't. Let me remind you that two of the most vocal opponents of Barroso's election were German (Martin Schulz of the Socialists and Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the Greens), one was Danish (Jens-Peter Bonde, of the same group as UKIP) and one was British (Nigel Farage of UKIP). The same goes with this new furore over Jacques Barrot, the French transport commissioner who "forgot" to tell everyone that he was convicted of embezzlement a few years ago. People are raising a stink about this - you have to pay attention to European affairs. Pick up a copy of the European Voice every so often. Go on. "Replacing a sovereign Parliament with an unelected Commission, a puppet Parliament, European arrest warrants, presidential Government and unrestricted expenses are NOT BRITISH TRAITS as far as I can tell." - I was talking more about culture, actually, as in popular culture, language, music, literature and all that. But if you want to talk politics: Unelected commission? First of all, the commission is chosen by the member-states and not by itself. It is, thus, responsible to the wishes of the national governments. Plus, it only has power to initiate legislation, not to pass it. That is down to the Parliament and the Council. The Council is the ensemble of government ministers from the member-states, THUS representative of the wishes of the national governments, and THUS representative of the wishes of the people. Reading up on this might be a good idea. Talking out of one's arse is generally not a good idea. Puppet Parliament? Well, I thought that you wanted power for the member-states! The Parliament has so few powers because national governments do not give it powers. Now, however, it is beginning to flex its muscle. I am not sure what your opinion is on whether this is a good thing, because your views confuse me. European Arrest Warrants? Ah, yes, but issued by whom? The European Public Prosecutor. Who is responsible to whom? The member-states. Presidential Government? Utter crap. In fact, if anything the Commission more closely represents a European Cabinet, with the President of the Commission gradually becoming more and more like a European Prime Minister. He is elected, or at least his selection is influenced, indirectly by the European Parliament and not directly by the European people. As for Ed? Well, where do I begin? Yes, I have read Monnet's declaration at The Hague Conference, I think it was. I am a Political Science student, you know. But if you look at the contemporary European current of thought, it seems that he's not getting what he's looking for - if anything, we're getting a very Anglo-Saxon Europe. The welfare state is being dismantled, working hours are increasing, retirement ages are increasing, the usage of English is increasing. If you ask a European of the age of about 17 or 18 where he or she wants to study at university, it will either be their own country or Britain. This is a good thing, at least for you lot, because you want to propagate British "values" across the world. And Britain will not lose its identity in a US of E, because it has no reason to. Just because a federal system of government is developed does not mean that national identities will disappear. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Utter Garbage | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:25:31 11/23/04 Tue - Because London was a natural financial centre, and it makes sense to situate one's European HQ there: but only if Britain is in the EU, because there's no point in having a regional headquarters that is outside the region. I grant you the fact that the Euro does not make that much difference in all of this, for it is trade that is the primary concern here. The EU has nothing to do with it. Regional Headquarters have nothing to do with political boundaries. Most American companies’ “European” headquarters also encompass the Middle East and Africa. - One single political institution? What about the U.S. government? Let me remind you that, for the first few decades, Presidents were not popularly elected and the Senate was appointed by the states. You are trying to compare a single political entity with a group of nations that has only achieved the unity attained thus far by deception and lies. Don’t make me laugh. You may not agree with the political decisions of the U.S. of A, but at least you can grant that (apart, of course, from that rather inconvenient electoral college nonsense) it is a democratic system. And one could further argue that, considering the fact that the Lords is an unelected house and that FPTP gives such enormous majorities, Britain's system is more like an electoral dictatorship. An electoral dictatorship maybe – but also one of the few countries in Europe, that has not had a REAL dictatorship in the last two generations. "I’m afraid they [Northern Europeans] already have [accepted being governed by corrupt bureaucrats]." The European Commission is corrupt, and as they are EU members, they are subject to a corrupt institution. Unelected commission? First of all, the commission is chosen by the member-states and not by itself. Chosen is not elected, remember? The fact that our Governments selects them is irrelevant. You would presumably argue that we elect our judges, using the same logic. The Government does not have the power to dismiss them. Therefore there is no accountability, and no democracy. The Parliament that you referred to also does not have the power to dismiss them individually. The can only sack the entire commission, and the commission are under no obligation to respect the wishes of the Parliament, and can nominate the exact same members, should they choose. As you can see, I have read up on it. Talking out of one's arse is generally not a good idea. You would know all about that! Puppet Parliament? Well, I thought that you wanted power for the member-states! I want power for our own Parliament. The Parliament has so few powers because national governments do not give it powers. Now, however, it is beginning to flex its muscle. I am not sure what your opinion is on whether this is a good thing, because your views confuse me. My views are clear, see above. European Arrest Warrants? Ah, yes, but issued by whom? The European Public Prosecutor. Who is responsible to whom? The member-states You mean the member states’ Governments, and if they object to their actions, they can do what exactly? Presidential Government? Utter crap. The new constitution will introduce a EU present, or have you not read it? In fact, if anything the Commission more closely represents a European Cabinet Except for the fact that they are not elected. with the President of the Commission gradually becoming more and more like a European Prime Minister. Except for the fact that they are not elected. He is elected, or at least his selection is influenced, indirectly by the European Parliament and not directly by the European people. Influenced? Please explain how a mature democracy operates on the notion of influence, and not accountability. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |