The UK is not pulling out of the Single Market.
It is precisely because we know the world is globalised that we needed to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot. The Merkozy plan would have merely insured that financial services were conducted outside of the EU.
Unlike in the British plan where they would have been conducted merely not under the rules of the EU.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Congratulations America
It's not about nationalism at all, and people who think it's about that (say a Steely or LF) are more than a bit obtuse. It's really a debate about federation or not, where I want a federation and Randblade doesn't. The reason why I want the Brits out is that as a nation they are against federalism.I was reading back, since it's an extension of Rand's newer thread about the Eurozone becoming a single state (after this thread went to hell).
I'm still not quite sure what Hazir and Rand are fighting about, other than nationalism.
But it's worth asking why Cameron thinks London can or will continue to be a global financial center, in a world where technology and HFT can be more important than the location of consultants or portfolio managers...to the point he'd pull out of a cooperative trading agreement. I can understand the motivation, but only to a certain point...and then I'm perplexed.
It's not like the UK has the same trading power as a united Eurozone that includes manufacturing powerhouses like Germany. It's not as if the UK is an energy or commodity exporter. It's not like the pound sterling is used or valued the same way as the eurodollar. Seems like Cameron has decided that London is the epicenter of the global financial services industry, and nothing will be allowed to change that assumption. Why?
That just doesn't make sense to me, since even Wall Street in NYC is competing with HFT in other US states like NJ or CT, and Chicago mercantile and commodity exchanges are competing with local/regional traders that can bypass them entirely. It's a global world now. Is it just me, or has Cameron and his conservative coalition decided that London should remain important....simply because they've historically been important?
Congratulations America
The problem with the federation idea is that it doesn't seem to have much popular support anywhere, and eurocrats are consistently trying to sneak it through the backdoor. Perhaps people (not just Brits) wouldn't be complaining about the loss of sovereignty every time the EU asks for something if these actions weren't forced down their throats.
Hope is the denial of reality
The EU is not a federation though. Maybe rather than trying to force it through the back door then complain about the Brits, how about asking the people of Europe if that's what they want? I'm open and honest about not wanting a federation.
If it's about being a federation then why is it you strongly insist that all the members retain their individual positions in organizations like the UN *in addition to getting new EU positions as well*? Because what you want is more and more advantages and powers accruing to Europe, regardless of whether they're in keeping with an integrating/integrated federation. The only time I recall conflating you and your positions with nationalism was the thread Dominique Strauss-Kahn's replacement as IMF President where you were absolutely opposed to the mere idea that the position can be held by anyone but a representative of Europe, another topic which has nothing whatsoever to do with European federalism. The topic of this weird bitter fighting/flirting you do with Rand is the degree of integration in Europe but I don't think it's the origin of your positions. I'm not sure about Rand's positions, he's less interested in seeing them tattooed into every poster's hide.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I think 2 permanent EU members in the UNSC is ridiculous, and I think EU countries would be better served by a single representative in all these international fora. I think one single vote and voice for the EU is much more effective than a host of voices for individual European countries.
The replacement of DSK was an entirely different matter; I wanted a EU head for the IMF. For the simple reason that I wanted the EU to have an effective grip on that institution. And I still think that third world countries that think differently can go screw themselves.
Congratulations America
If you want a serious discussion about the issue it would help for example if you wouldn't use terms like 'forced down their throaths'. People in Europe could vote for anti-EU parties that then could decide not to cooperate and stick to that stance. That however is not how people vote. That means that people have given OTHER politicians than those euro-hating parties a mandate to decide and negotiate in the EU. Only in the UK there is this 'original lie' that somehow things are entirely different and they didn't know what they were getting into.
It was clear that Maastricht was a step towards a more integrated type of Europe, Lisbon was hardly done by stealth either. Everybody knew that it was a re-run of the Constitution, and still people kept voting for politicians that would ratify it. And don't get me started about the Irish to have to re-do their referenda; they have an alternative to voting yes the second time every time. They could even try to test their standing with the rest by sticking to their noes. I can only remark that they didn't, because in reality what they had a problem with was not the EU forcing down their throaths something they didn't like, but because they didn't like the consequences of their no-vote all that much.
Congratulations America
Highlighted the word that shows why you're wrong. Whether you like it or not the EU is a collection of nations, just as much as the UN is a collection of nations. It is not a federation of states. No single nation can claim to represent all 27.
Who would have represented the EU during the Lybian conflict (Germany chose not to take part, UK and France did)? Or during Iraq? If the EU were a single nation then there should be one representative, but its not.
Given that the permanent members of the UN-SC is to be perfectly frank meant to represent the powerful nations in the world (at least as it was in 1945), with all 5 being nuclear powers, what nuclear weapons can the EU fire? What military does it have?
UKIP is the "anti-EU" party in the UK, we don't vote for them.
Please name any nation that has explicitly voted for the abolition of the current nations and forming a federation instead.
So? None of the things you mention is how it should be. I think there should be no German Wehrmacht, no British navy and on French force de frappe.
Congratulations America
The anti-EU parties have a whole lot of other baggage. People aren't going to abandon their long-term parties over one issue, even one as important as this.
Just because they knew they were helpless to stop it short of by voting for extremist parties doesn't mean they supported it. You're making it sound that if people refuse to be one-issue voters that they de facto support every policy on their party's platform.It was clear that Maastricht was a step towards a more integrated type of Europe, Lisbon was hardly done by stealth either. Everybody knew that it was a re-run of the Constitution, and still people kept voting for politicians that would ratify it. And don't get me started about the Irish to have to re-do their referenda; they have an alternative to voting yes the second time every time. They could even try to test their standing with the rest by sticking to their noes. I can only remark that they didn't, because in reality what they had a problem with was not the EU forcing down their throaths something they didn't like, but because they didn't like the consequences of their no-vote all that much.
Hope is the denial of reality
We recently had an article about how moronic some of those people can be, solely on the basis of "I'm against the EU".
Namely, an English town which dissolved its 46 years old partnership with a German and a French town for no good reason at all. Stuff like that just boggles the mind. And the politician responsible was even proud of it - sort of like a small child filled with glee when it stomps some beetles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/de...mps-twin-towns
I'd take the last paragraphs with a grain of salt, though. They interviewed the German mayor in Der Spiegel and there he actually stated the complete opposite of what the Guardian states...
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You think that do you? Maybe you should vote for a party seeking their abolition
The EU is not 'one issue', it's the basic issue of how Europe rules itself. And I think it's ridiculous how a tiny minority stuck in the past makes it sound as if they are the voice of the nation. Every single word they say about the EU is a big fat lie. Their logic is about as bad or worse as the 'birthers' in the US; no matter what facts you put in front of them they either ignore them or twist them to fit their lies.
As for those anti-EU parties having a lot of other bagage; that is no coincidence. They are an unsavioury lot whose hate for Europe is just one of many expressions of their hate for everything 'other'.
Congratulations America
The EU is "one issue". Most Constitutional issues are "basic issues of how ... rules itself" but that's irrelevant. A bigger earlier this year in the UK was the Referendum on Voting Reform. Changing from FPTP voting to AV voting (and potentially from there to STV or other forms of PR getting acronym sick yet?) would have gone to the heart of how we rule ourselves even more. Yet the truth is very few really care - on either subject. To a few extremists its the be all and end all, but most people actually just move on and care far more about other stuff.
Yes UKIP care passionately about the EU, and the Lib Dems cared passionately about voting reform, but most of the rest of us care about other stuff. For me I care about the economy, so I vote Tory. The EU is a tool, no more or less, in assisting the economy via the Single Market.
What parties have we got in Europe - any at all, large or small - that want to abolish their own national sovereignty and form a single European nation? Either large or small, who is going out there arguing for that?
It's always interesting to see how euro-haters always use the mess they created against federation. The problems of Europe now with the euro are the result of too much inter-governmentalism which doesn't work. Just like inter-governmentalism didn't work for the common market. And every time we have to hear how federation doesn't work (preferably in a field where there is no federal solution at all).
Oh, and you can stuff your argument that the 'EU is a single issue' where the sun doesn't shine.
Congratulations America
But the largest contributor to the IMF is....the US. You wouldn't like an American as head of the IMF, and prefer a European Union "head" instead. But that comes with your other contingencies that seem more like nationalism than federation (assuming you'd disapprove of any Greek as head of the IMF).
One single vote and voice might seem "effective", but probably too far into central planning where individual national "voices" are being disregarded or ignored.
Who said that Federalism doesn't work?
All I asked was who's voting for Federalism.
The Eurozone (as a trading "federation") is a bit like NAFTA. Sounds great to have preferred partners and members....almost like getting frequent flier miles or gas discounts by using certain credit cards. Until we realize that those "partnerships" can mean corporate lobbyists trying to influence legislation, legislators adding import/export taxes or tariffs, and tax shelters with special names (Belgium Triangle or Swedish Sandwich, or whatever).
The Euro as a new currency sounded good, but only after trading currencies made billions (trillions?) for those trading and speculating on currencies, which were tied to commodities...that were tied to politics and legislators. Pretty sure that Russia's biggest holder of oil and natural gas is a gazillionare because he traded commodities using the USD and exploited his knowledge of Russian energy and trade policy.
<After Kim Jon Il's death was made public, the Asian markets saw a huge spike in military industrial stock trading. Someone's making millions of Euro or US dollars, perhaps by currency exchanges alone, but that may not do much good for the millions of NK citizens who don't have enough money to buy their own food.>
*shrugs*
Twinning is out of date, and has been for a long while now. It was something of a boon in the post-war years, but had declined since. Why should the council pay for something which is of little interest or benefit to any of the people they represent? Has nothing to do with anti-EU sentiment, and everything to do with being an outdated anachronism.
My father's local town in Wiltshire which I used to visit for most summers as a child and teenager is similar to the town discussed in the article, Bishop's Stortford, a small commuter town. It is twinned with a small town in Normandy.
Every summer the town would fill with French exchange students, and English students would trek across to Normandy. By the mid-eighties the number of French students coming over every summer dwindled, up to the early nineties by which time the exchange had stopped. The town's Twinning Association has been all but abandoned. The schools in the town had set up their own exchange programmes, and not just with France.
Twinning is simply a century-old form of cultural exchange surpassed by the modern era.
And this article is just more British media horseshit about Europe and Euro-scepticism, trying to make a story when there isn't one. If you say the last paragraph is one that should be taken with a pinch of salt, I'd say the rest of the article should be too.
Well, the thing is: It costs a negligible amount of money (if at all). And the way it was done, that is the real kicker. No talks, no explanations, nothing. Not to mention that the timing makes the whole thing suspicious as well.
My father is responsible for such a twinning program so I know what I'm talking about - costs are really not a factor.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I didn't read the article, but Twinning isn't as out of date as you may think. And it doesn't necessarily mean councils paying for things with little interest or "benefit".
I live in an area that's "old" in relative US terms, because it's on the east coast. Our street names are British inspired---King, Queen, Prince, Princess, George, Mount Rose, etc. We have a sister or twinning relationship with English towns, as white or red rose cities. It's a century-old form of "cultural exchange" that's been turned into a tourism and marketing tool for the modern era. Plus, we've got Philadelphia, Gettysburg and Valley Forge....so.....
Pretty much any real liberal in Europe is in favour of federalism. And a huge portion of the population of all EU nations are demanding federalist solutions, even if they don't always understand that themselves. But demanding that ''Europe" does something in Libya means that you presume that there is a Europe with enough federal powers to actially act in Libya.
Congratulations America
Most liberals in western continental Europe. Many of the liberals in eastern Europe don't exactly favor Union.
Hope is the denial of reality
Please provide a link (preferably in English) to any parties manifesto or otherwise explicit commitment to vote for a Federal government.
Working together does not require a federal government. Europe did act in Lybia - with Europe being France, the UK and other interested parties.
Some European countries acted in Libya, it is yet another example of your continuous lies when you write that 'Europe' acted.
As for your question, the EPP is committed to closer union and rejects the notion that the EU is merely a free trade zone. That's just the representatives of about 1/3 of all of the EU's electorate. Also the EPP is far from the most radical party in Europe when it comes to federalism.
Congratulations America
How is it a lie when I said specifically in that sentence that France, the UK etc had acted. What do you think of when you think of Europe? It is the truth.
The EPP is an umbrella group of real parties. Please name any actual parties standing for election that explicitly supports the EU becoming a Federal State. Should be easy. Even with the EPP please provide for me a quote of how they believe the EU should be a Federal Government.
France + UK != Europe.
I suggest you read Angela Merkel's latest speech to the Bundestag on the topic of Europe. If you think I am going to dig up some 150 party manifests you're crazier than I thought.
Congratulations America
France+UK != Europe.
On the other hand I would use Europe to describe:
Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Denmark
France
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
Romania
Spain
Turkey
Plus UK
Or do you think that those 12 nations can not be accurately described as Europe? In which case, if they can't then what can?
No need to dig up 150 manifestos, I only asked for 1. There isn't a single party of government anywhere in Europe I can think of that has explicitly said they want to abolish their own nation to become part of a federation of Europe.
Question for Hazir,
Since you've refused to name even a single national party that believes in Federation, I'm just wondering about the Netherlands 2005 constitutional referendum. Despite your consistent whining about the UK, the fact is the UK has never voted down any EU referendum. Denmark has (twice if you include the Euro), Sweden has counting the euro, Ireland has twice, France has as has your own nation. Funny that. No nation has ever voted in a referendum for a federation.
Just curious: In 2005, did you like most of your own nation vote no? Or did you vote for the losing side?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote