Enropean Union
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2165767.stm Earlier development: - Martha Andreasen raises her voice against EU accounting standards. - Few months later Martha Andreasen loses her job. Tomaz
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2165767.stm Earlier development: - Martha Andreasen raises her voice against EU accounting standards. - Few months later Martha Andreasen loses her job. Tomaz
The EU is riddled with corruption - which makes me very uneasy about further integration. What makes me laugh is that when the WorldCom/Enron scandals unfolded in the US, some Europeans poured scorn on the measures taken by the US government - ha! At least the US government is trying to come down on companies that "cook the books" (even if it appears to some like a token effort) - had these scandals of occurred in Europe I expect the EU ministers would simply have accepted a massive bribe to look the other way. Europe has to put its own house in order before I will be convinced that further political integration is for anyones benefit other than the mandarins in Brussels.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2165767.stm Earlier development: - Martha Andreasen raises her voice against EU accounting standards. - Few months later Martha Andreasen loses her job. Tomaz
The EU is one of the most corrupt governmental bodies in the world. This kind of stuff is why I'll be voting no to joining the Euro. Michael Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
-
The EU is one of the most corrupt governmental bodies in the world. This kind of stuff is why I'll be voting no to joining the Euro. Michael Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
Michael P Butler wrote: This kind of stuff is why I'll be voting no to joining the Euro. I'd be surprised if Blair even dares take the isuue to the polls! Let's face it, with Rupert Murdoch in Fleet Street, there is little chance of your "average Joe" voting Yes - The Sun will start a massive "VOTE NO" campaign (along with The Daily Mail, Express, etc.) and that'll be that. If rumours are to be believed, New Labour will hold the referendum next Autumn ... if so, they have an uphill struggle on there hands convincing people it is in their interests. Just because people came back from their European holidays thinking "aren't the new notes and coins nice?" doesn't mean they'll vote for it. I am still in two minds - if joining the Euro really is in our best interests as a nation, then let's do it. I don't see New Labour trying very hard to win hearts and minds though. What will we get out it? Our economy is doing good, interest rates are rock-bottom and Sterling and the US Dollar are very strong currencies. Would the UK joining give the Euro the boost is obviously needs or would it f*** up our economy and leave us taxpayers subsidizing poorer EU countries? Big questions that need some answers - and soon!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Michael P Butler wrote: This kind of stuff is why I'll be voting no to joining the Euro. I'd be surprised if Blair even dares take the isuue to the polls! Let's face it, with Rupert Murdoch in Fleet Street, there is little chance of your "average Joe" voting Yes - The Sun will start a massive "VOTE NO" campaign (along with The Daily Mail, Express, etc.) and that'll be that. If rumours are to be believed, New Labour will hold the referendum next Autumn ... if so, they have an uphill struggle on there hands convincing people it is in their interests. Just because people came back from their European holidays thinking "aren't the new notes and coins nice?" doesn't mean they'll vote for it. I am still in two minds - if joining the Euro really is in our best interests as a nation, then let's do it. I don't see New Labour trying very hard to win hearts and minds though. What will we get out it? Our economy is doing good, interest rates are rock-bottom and Sterling and the US Dollar are very strong currencies. Would the UK joining give the Euro the boost is obviously needs or would it f*** up our economy and leave us taxpayers subsidizing poorer EU countries? Big questions that need some answers - and soon!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
I really and truly hope that the UK does not join the Euro. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Would the UK joining give the Euro the boost is obviously needs Who cares about what the Euro needs? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: would it f*** up our economy and leave us taxpayers subsidizing poorer EU countries Even worse, it reduces your sovereingty and opens the door to even more Euro-initiatives. Interest rates would be set in Brussels and (I really hate this bit) it would make it easier for Europe to "harmonize" taxes X| X|. And in EU speak harmonization means taxes going *up* to German levels not the other way round. The UK would be screwed going into the Euro-zone. You don't know how much I hope that the Euro fails and that the UK does not join! I have nothing to gain by the UK joining or the Euro failing. I'm just worried about what a united Europe will look like in 50 yrs time when Germany, by that time, will be dominant in Europe again (not only economically as it is now, but politically). Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
I really and truly hope that the UK does not join the Euro. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Would the UK joining give the Euro the boost is obviously needs Who cares about what the Euro needs? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: would it f*** up our economy and leave us taxpayers subsidizing poorer EU countries Even worse, it reduces your sovereingty and opens the door to even more Euro-initiatives. Interest rates would be set in Brussels and (I really hate this bit) it would make it easier for Europe to "harmonize" taxes X| X|. And in EU speak harmonization means taxes going *up* to German levels not the other way round. The UK would be screwed going into the Euro-zone. You don't know how much I hope that the Euro fails and that the UK does not join! I have nothing to gain by the UK joining or the Euro failing. I'm just worried about what a united Europe will look like in 50 yrs time when Germany, by that time, will be dominant in Europe again (not only economically as it is now, but politically). Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! ;) Brian Azzopardi wrote: Even worse, it reduces your sovereingty ha ha. Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. Democracy? ROTFL. All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way. Sigh. The problem is that the arguments from both sides are just so facile. The pro-Euros will wave shiny new notes and coins in peoples faces and hope that people will want to adopt them simply because they are new. The anti-Euros bemoan the fact that the Queens head won't be on our coins anymore - and this somehow means we lose our "national identity". ha ha ha. I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments. Brian Azzopardi wrote: I'm just worried about what a united Europe will look like in 50 yrs time Perhaps a united Europe is inevitable. Perhaps a united World lies even further ahead - a single global currency and government. Shudder.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! ;) Brian Azzopardi wrote: Even worse, it reduces your sovereingty ha ha. Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. Democracy? ROTFL. All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way. Sigh. The problem is that the arguments from both sides are just so facile. The pro-Euros will wave shiny new notes and coins in peoples faces and hope that people will want to adopt them simply because they are new. The anti-Euros bemoan the fact that the Queens head won't be on our coins anymore - and this somehow means we lose our "national identity". ha ha ha. I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments. Brian Azzopardi wrote: I'm just worried about what a united Europe will look like in 50 yrs time Perhaps a united Europe is inevitable. Perhaps a united World lies even further ahead - a single global currency and government. Shudder.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Perhaps a united Europe is inevitable. Perhaps a united World lies even further ahead And when Emporer Palpatine finds out where we live we will *REALLY* be in trouble!! ;P Davy www.latedecember.com
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Perhaps a united Europe is inevitable. Perhaps a united World lies even further ahead And when Emporer Palpatine finds out where we live we will *REALLY* be in trouble!! ;P Davy www.latedecember.com
Davy Mitchell wrote: Emporer Palpatine does anyone remember if the Emporer was referred to as Palpatine in the Original StarWars trilogy or is it a name subsequently given to him in the New trilogy and in the followup books
Stupidity dies. The end of future offspring. Evolution wins. - A Darwin Awards Haiku
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! ;) Brian Azzopardi wrote: Even worse, it reduces your sovereingty ha ha. Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. Democracy? ROTFL. All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way. Sigh. The problem is that the arguments from both sides are just so facile. The pro-Euros will wave shiny new notes and coins in peoples faces and hope that people will want to adopt them simply because they are new. The anti-Euros bemoan the fact that the Queens head won't be on our coins anymore - and this somehow means we lose our "national identity". ha ha ha. I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments. Brian Azzopardi wrote: I'm just worried about what a united Europe will look like in 50 yrs time Perhaps a united Europe is inevitable. Perhaps a united World lies even further ahead - a single global currency and government. Shudder.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! Who cares about them? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. People say this alot but it seems that they have misunderstood the concept. Sovereingty today is taken to mean lots of stuff like interest rates, economic policy etc. These were added on to the meaning only later. The concept of sovereignty was invented after the 30year war in 1643 (IIRC) and the founders of the treaty (I forgot the names) basically agreed that the internal affairs of a country are it's own affairs and that no country had the right to intervene in the goings on of another. If a country today changes its interest rates in response to market conditions it does not mean it has lost some of its sovereingty. When countries sign up to treaties such as the Geneva Convention or EU or whatever they *chose* to do so. Their soveriengty was not eroded by some uncontrollable outside force but they gave it up in exchange for something else. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way It's always been like that, even in Caeser's days. Soverigty has little to do with who wields political power inside a country. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments If you care about the economics you've missed the point. The EU is a political project with huge political consequences. The EU elite use the economics to lure people. Does this sound like a consipiracy theory? If it does that's because it is. Going from the earliest stages of the EU and what the early writings it is clear that the eventual goal is a united europe X|. Economics will not really matter if you're country does not exist any more does it? For a socialist you're being very materialistic and cynical Robert :) What's changed? Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Davy Mitchell wrote: Emporer Palpatine does anyone remember if the Emporer was referred to as Palpatine in the Original StarWars trilogy or is it a name subsequently given to him in the New trilogy and in the followup books
Stupidity dies. The end of future offspring. Evolution wins. - A Darwin Awards Haiku
The original Star Wars book that I had back in 1978, refered to Sentator Palpatine in the "prologue" 'Journal of the Whills'. I can't recall any dialogue from the movies that refer to him as anything other than the Emperor. Michael Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
-
The original Star Wars book that I had back in 1978, refered to Sentator Palpatine in the "prologue" 'Journal of the Whills'. I can't recall any dialogue from the movies that refer to him as anything other than the Emperor. Michael Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
IIRC the movies referred to Senator Palpatine as well. I haven't seen the movies in a while (at least a year :|) so I might be wrong. Preferred storyline: - I am your father. Search your feelings and you'll know it's the truth. Together we can rule this galaxy like father and son. - Ok dad. Let's kick some butt!
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! Who cares about them? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. People say this alot but it seems that they have misunderstood the concept. Sovereingty today is taken to mean lots of stuff like interest rates, economic policy etc. These were added on to the meaning only later. The concept of sovereignty was invented after the 30year war in 1643 (IIRC) and the founders of the treaty (I forgot the names) basically agreed that the internal affairs of a country are it's own affairs and that no country had the right to intervene in the goings on of another. If a country today changes its interest rates in response to market conditions it does not mean it has lost some of its sovereingty. When countries sign up to treaties such as the Geneva Convention or EU or whatever they *chose* to do so. Their soveriengty was not eroded by some uncontrollable outside force but they gave it up in exchange for something else. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way It's always been like that, even in Caeser's days. Soverigty has little to do with who wields political power inside a country. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments If you care about the economics you've missed the point. The EU is a political project with huge political consequences. The EU elite use the economics to lure people. Does this sound like a consipiracy theory? If it does that's because it is. Going from the earliest stages of the EU and what the early writings it is clear that the eventual goal is a united europe X|. Economics will not really matter if you're country does not exist any more does it? For a socialist you're being very materialistic and cynical Robert :) What's changed? Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Going from the earliest stages of the EU and what the early writings it is clear that the eventual goal is a united europe And what's wrong with that? If it brings stability to Europe, then it's a good thing! And for the conspiracy theory: Get real! It's not like it's the continuation of Der dritte Reich. Of course the EU has a political agenda, just like the Union had before the US became the US. I don't see americans whining about their United States (if you ignore some southern hillbillies who still haven't let go of the confederation). If we keep up drawing lines between ourselves, we'll keep up getting pissed at eachother for stepping over the line. Then why not trim away the uneccesary lines? Preferred storyline: - I am your father. Search your feelings and you'll know it's the truth. Together we can rule this galaxy like father and son. - Ok dad. Let's kick some butt!
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! Who cares about them? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. People say this alot but it seems that they have misunderstood the concept. Sovereingty today is taken to mean lots of stuff like interest rates, economic policy etc. These were added on to the meaning only later. The concept of sovereignty was invented after the 30year war in 1643 (IIRC) and the founders of the treaty (I forgot the names) basically agreed that the internal affairs of a country are it's own affairs and that no country had the right to intervene in the goings on of another. If a country today changes its interest rates in response to market conditions it does not mean it has lost some of its sovereingty. When countries sign up to treaties such as the Geneva Convention or EU or whatever they *chose* to do so. Their soveriengty was not eroded by some uncontrollable outside force but they gave it up in exchange for something else. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way It's always been like that, even in Caeser's days. Soverigty has little to do with who wields political power inside a country. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments If you care about the economics you've missed the point. The EU is a political project with huge political consequences. The EU elite use the economics to lure people. Does this sound like a consipiracy theory? If it does that's because it is. Going from the earliest stages of the EU and what the early writings it is clear that the eventual goal is a united europe X|. Economics will not really matter if you're country does not exist any more does it? For a socialist you're being very materialistic and cynical Robert :) What's changed? Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: It's always been like that, even in Caeser's days ha ha. I know what's coming - I should be more pragmatic right? It's just the way it is? etc. etc. That goes against my nature unfortunately. Corruption, bribery and blackmail may well be the norm, but it still makes me fume. Anyway, I digress! Just remember that our ("the people") only enemy is APATHY. :) Brian Azzopardi wrote: If you care about the economics you've missed the point. I know the politics and I know the ultimate goal is a United States of Europa, but you'll never sell that to the British people. My point was (is) that if President Blair wants people to vote YES in any referendum then he'd better get his spin-doctors working overtime to convince people like me that the economic benefits are worth it. As I have said before, this is VERY unlikely. People in the UK have more important things to worry about than the bloody Euro. I don't think it'll happen here in the UK for a long time, if at all. It's probably more likely we'd end up using the US dollar. :-D
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! Who cares about them? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. People say this alot but it seems that they have misunderstood the concept. Sovereingty today is taken to mean lots of stuff like interest rates, economic policy etc. These were added on to the meaning only later. The concept of sovereignty was invented after the 30year war in 1643 (IIRC) and the founders of the treaty (I forgot the names) basically agreed that the internal affairs of a country are it's own affairs and that no country had the right to intervene in the goings on of another. If a country today changes its interest rates in response to market conditions it does not mean it has lost some of its sovereingty. When countries sign up to treaties such as the Geneva Convention or EU or whatever they *chose* to do so. Their soveriengty was not eroded by some uncontrollable outside force but they gave it up in exchange for something else. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way It's always been like that, even in Caeser's days. Soverigty has little to do with who wields political power inside a country. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments If you care about the economics you've missed the point. The EU is a political project with huge political consequences. The EU elite use the economics to lure people. Does this sound like a consipiracy theory? If it does that's because it is. Going from the earliest stages of the EU and what the early writings it is clear that the eventual goal is a united europe X|. Economics will not really matter if you're country does not exist any more does it? For a socialist you're being very materialistic and cynical Robert :) What's changed? Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: For a socialist you're being very materialistic and cynical Robert What's changed? Cynicism comes with age. Materialism? I'm not materialistic - all I need is my wife, cats and my Rickenbacker 330 6 string electric guitar. :laugh:
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
IIRC the movies referred to Senator Palpatine as well. I haven't seen the movies in a while (at least a year :|) so I might be wrong. Preferred storyline: - I am your father. Search your feelings and you'll know it's the truth. Together we can rule this galaxy like father and son. - Ok dad. Let's kick some butt!
I'm trying to recall a line in the movies that mentions Palpatine and can't think of any. Maybe in the attack briefing in Jedi but I think they all refer to "The Emperor". Oh well, it gives me an excuse to watch the movies again. Michael Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Who cares about what the Euro needs? The politicians in France and Germany, obviously! ;) Brian Azzopardi wrote: Even worse, it reduces your sovereingty ha ha. Sovereingty! This is already being eroded little by little with or without any help from the EU. Democracy? ROTFL. All that matters is how much money you have - if you are a big enough company then you can steamroll over more or less anything in order to get your way. Sigh. The problem is that the arguments from both sides are just so facile. The pro-Euros will wave shiny new notes and coins in peoples faces and hope that people will want to adopt them simply because they are new. The anti-Euros bemoan the fact that the Queens head won't be on our coins anymore - and this somehow means we lose our "national identity". ha ha ha. I want to hear the ECONOMIC arguments. Brian Azzopardi wrote: I'm just worried about what a united Europe will look like in 50 yrs time Perhaps a united Europe is inevitable. Perhaps a united World lies even further ahead - a single global currency and government. Shudder.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The pro-Euros will wave shiny new notes and coins in peoples faces and hope that people will want to adopt them simply because they are new. Couldn't agree more. I saw a programme on BBC a while ago (might have been a late night money one), anyway, they produced an entire segment following tourists on holiday given "shiney new notes". The problem was at the end when they interviewed the people and asked, should the UK adopt the Euro, the majority of people said (paraphrasing) "yeah, we might get overcharged initially, but it makes paying for things so much easier". Great, the average voter is going to decide whether or not it lets them buy their bread and shopping on holiday and if it does its got to be good! My real issue is that we get screwed royally by the EU. The whole idea is to remove protectionist trade barriers to allower freer movement of goods and services across member states. Anyone tried buying a car from France or Germany? How about purchasing alcohol in France and then driving back? Every time customs jump on us demanding we pay duty... why? We're not supposed to pay it!! (N.b. most of the time its because they argue its for re-sale, of course the burden is on the person driving to prove they're for personal consumption. How the hell am I supposed to prove that in the next 6 months I'll get through 8 crates of lager, or 20 bottles of wine etc.) I have no problem with Europe, however, the problem is there's no way you can expect the different economies to perform the same, as a result you cannot expect to set the same interest rates, taxes, social policy. We already pump too much cash into subsidising olive farmers in the middle of nowhere who over produce stuff the world doesn't want! I don't understand why people complain about their industry's dying, and expect the government to just purchase what they produce? Why should they? STOP FARMING IT :) Arrgh, rant :) I feel better for that. -- Paul "I need the secure packaging of Jockeys. My boys need a house!" - Kramer, in "The Chinese Woman" episode of Seinfeld MS Messenger: paul@oobaloo.co.uk Sonork: 100.22446
-
The EU is one of the most corrupt governmental bodies in the world. This kind of stuff is why I'll be voting no to joining the Euro. Michael Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
Michael P Butler wrote: The EU is one of the most corrupt governmental bodies in the world. This kind of stuff is why I'll be voting no to joining the Euro. It can't be more corrupt than the Romanian Government. Best regards, Alexandru Savescu
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Going from the earliest stages of the EU and what the early writings it is clear that the eventual goal is a united europe And what's wrong with that? If it brings stability to Europe, then it's a good thing! And for the conspiracy theory: Get real! It's not like it's the continuation of Der dritte Reich. Of course the EU has a political agenda, just like the Union had before the US became the US. I don't see americans whining about their United States (if you ignore some southern hillbillies who still haven't let go of the confederation). If we keep up drawing lines between ourselves, we'll keep up getting pissed at eachother for stepping over the line. Then why not trim away the uneccesary lines? Preferred storyline: - I am your father. Search your feelings and you'll know it's the truth. Together we can rule this galaxy like father and son. - Ok dad. Let's kick some butt!
Jorgen you're a swede. And IIRC, it's been a long time since sweden was involved in a war (even Hitler ignored you :) ). Meanwhile the rest of Europe has been unstable for at least the last 400 years. You seriously think that something like the EU will bring stability? You gotta be joking. Europe is inherently unstable. The EU is an attempt to impose peace but it won't work because peace only comes if there is stability which is an inherent property of a system. And Europe is definetly not such a system. Read some history and you'll know why. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Of course the EU has a political agenda, just like the Union had before the US became the US. But the 2 are fundamentally different. Each european country has a history going back hundreds of years and they've been fighting each other for just as long. That's a lot of historical baggage. The US has no history to speak of. What's more the US shares a (reasonably) common language and culture. On the other hand the English don't like the French, the Germans don't trust the French and everyone fears Germany. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If we keep up drawing lines between ourselves, we'll keep up getting pissed at eachother for stepping over the line. Then why not trim away the uneccesary lines? Yeah right! Obvious innit. As if redrawing some lines on a map will remove the underlying causes of war. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2165767.stm Earlier development: - Martha Andreasen raises her voice against EU accounting standards. - Few months later Martha Andreasen loses her job. Tomaz
The EU is nothing but an attempt on the part of Europe to achieve economically what it was never able to achieve militarily. The Euro-Elites have always wanted a unified political/Economic system which they could control. The only difference now is that the evolution of economic systems has provided them with a strategy the never had in the past. The Brits would be insane to join. They would be much better served becoming part of a North American economic coalition. North America has much closer cultural affinity with Britain than does Europe.
-
Jorgen you're a swede. And IIRC, it's been a long time since sweden was involved in a war (even Hitler ignored you :) ). Meanwhile the rest of Europe has been unstable for at least the last 400 years. You seriously think that something like the EU will bring stability? You gotta be joking. Europe is inherently unstable. The EU is an attempt to impose peace but it won't work because peace only comes if there is stability which is an inherent property of a system. And Europe is definetly not such a system. Read some history and you'll know why. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Of course the EU has a political agenda, just like the Union had before the US became the US. But the 2 are fundamentally different. Each european country has a history going back hundreds of years and they've been fighting each other for just as long. That's a lot of historical baggage. The US has no history to speak of. What's more the US shares a (reasonably) common language and culture. On the other hand the English don't like the French, the Germans don't trust the French and everyone fears Germany. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If we keep up drawing lines between ourselves, we'll keep up getting pissed at eachother for stepping over the line. Then why not trim away the uneccesary lines? Yeah right! Obvious innit. As if redrawing some lines on a map will remove the underlying causes of war. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Jorgen you're a swede. And IIRC, it's been a long time since sweden was involved in a war (even Hitler ignored you ). 2-300 years of peace or something like that (if you don't count the cold war which we were litteraly in the middle of!). I couldn't be more fortunate. I guess this is one of the reasons why I think war is not an option. Brian Azzopardi wrote: You seriously think that something like the EU will bring stability? You gotta be joking. I'm not joking. I swear! ;) Think about it. After the second world war many people realized that war is not an option. Europe was basically a pile of dirt in 1945. The price all countries involved had to pay was enormous in both human lives and money. I dare say that most europeans are not hot headed "holy crusaders" anymore. The only way you can change things without having to pay the ultimate price is by politics. And this is where the Union comes into play. Instead of having one doing propaganda about some other country(ies), you can send representatives to a parliament where each representative can have a debate. The tensions are considerably less if you debate in "our house" rather than over the hedge. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Europe is inherently unstable. I'd say was unstable. The only place where you find instability now are at the outer rims of Europe (balkans mostly). But I think that's going to change since: a) we're hunting down the people who commited serious war crimes and put them in a court to show everybody else that "prepare to pay the price before you act" b) surely, all the people in that area must be pretty fed up with wars. If we, the EU, help them in the peace process, i think they'll solve their issues without weapons. That's a lot cheaper solution than war! Brian Azzopardi wrote: But the 2 are fundamentally different. Yes. Europe and the US are fundamentaly different in one way, but at the same time very similar. Ignoring the fact that the native americans exists, america was mostly split between France, England and Spain. Now, I'm not a historian by any means, but IIRC there were constant territorial wars between these countries.. right? Brian Azzopardi wrote: The US has no history to speak of. What's more the US shares a (reasonably) common language and culture. They shared the same history up until 1500-1600. And they shared