Euros - Page 5

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 08:54

"and you have been only here to say I'm a troll and I have no points."

There's little else to say in reply to you. If you look at Vel's economic integration point, it is utter bollocks, but at least substantiated enough to argue against it.

So many British are eurosceptic. So the EU is disunited? And further... what?

laurentius · July 30, 2003, 08:56

Pekka you don't seem to get it. Having unity doesnt require that everyone agrees with each other or even admit they have anything in common with someone else. Unity among ppl does not require 100% approval

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 08:57

You complain about my whining same thing all over again and again. If you really understood what I said, you'd also see that I have answered to that question already. Numerous times.

I'll say it again: So, maybe some British folks are not an exception to this case. Central Europe hegemony.
And because we are not unified, we will never truly succeed either.
OK?! And read the threads again if you have anything to ask, because prolly I have already answered it.
Thanks.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 08:59

"Central Europe hegemony."

Ah, Austria rules the EU. Always suspected it....

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 08:59

laurentius, of course it doesn't mean that. That would be impossible. But.. ok let's look about the real situations, like the mess in Iraq some time ago. How unified was Europe? It was a damn crisis. So how unified is that? We are unified in paper.

laurentius · July 30, 2003, 09:01

Look Pekka WE CAN DISAGREE BOUT SOMETHING AND STILL BE UNIFIED AND EUROPEAN ok?

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 09:02

SURE WE CAN. But there are so many signs of not being unified, then what are the real signs of being unified then? You know, Iraq was unified too before Saddam fell. My point? It doesn't necessarily mean it is so.

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 09:04

And sure, we can be unified in some leves and that we are. That's why I said we are unified in paper.
Maybe I have higher standars for unity, but that is a big word to me. Just because I'm married to someone doesn't mean we are unified.

dannubis · July 30, 2003, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is that why Chirac told the nations that disagreed with France and Germany's stance over Iraq that they should shut up?

they did exactely the same however as the US administration (the defender of freedom remember ?)

DAVOUT · July 30, 2003, 09:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
And sure, we can be unified in some leves and that we are. That's why I said we are unified in paper.
Maybe I have higher standars for unity, but that is a big word to me. Just because I'm married to someone doesn't mean we are unified.

I realize that those poor Americans are not unified : the Democrats always desagree with the Republicans.

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 09:12

DAVOUT, is it a little different when you talk about countres inner affairs, and when you talk about affairs of many nations?

With those conclutions I could say UN is unified as Europe is too. It says right that in the papers.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 09:16

Foreign policy areas where we are unified: trade policy, Kyoto, ICC, Macedonia, Congo.

Foreign policy is essentially a competeing competence in the EU for now. So if we are not united on an issue, states act individually. If in the US Congress and President are not united, it's gridlock - they do nothing. Sure the President can act to some extent, but if Congress shuts off the money tab, he's toast.

Az · July 30, 2003, 09:17

****. nevermind.

DAVOUT · July 30, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
DAVOUT, is it a little different when you talk about countres inner affairs, and when you talk about affairs of many nations?

I see, it is less serious to desagree within the same borders than between associated countries.

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 09:32

DAVOUT, So you say there is no unified country in the world, or that the UN is unified?

DAVOUT · July 30, 2003, 09:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
DAVOUT, So you say there is no unified country in the world, or that the UN is unified?

Dont mix up things ! I am not talking about the UN. I am just compassionnate about the Americans who have organized the desagreement.

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 09:42

Yes, but when they day ends, they are all Americans. YEs and we are all Europeans, but what does that mean anyway? I was talking about this earlier, go read earlier posts and threads as info on that. Just on the paper man...

And, it doesn't matter if it is the US or some other single country we are talking about in this matter. They come to conclusion most of the times, where as in Europe we will only have forever going fights.

They have a president and a leader who they chose, even if it was a tight call and many people disagree. We do not have that. We are still bunch of countries at the end of the day, that's all. And that is why I think of Europe, I think of bunch of loose alliances, and then EU, one alliance or union more.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 09:49

"Yes, but when they day ends, they are all Americans. YEs and we are all Europeans, but what does that mean anyway?"

And what is the meaning of "they are all Americans"?

Does it mean more when the Flams and Walloons say "Yes, but when they day ends, we are all Belgians"?

Oh wait, they'd barely say that....

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 09:52

It means they are one nation, one nationality, with their own systems and president, and of course, military.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 09:56

So the point is that the US states and the belgian entities are more institutionally united than the EU member states?

Would you say the same (one nation, one nationality, with their own systems and president, and of course, military) about the US in 1860?

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 09:59

No, are you trying to say that we should come United States of Europe?

Sure, the US was divided back then and civil war broke out.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 10:04

"No,"

So what's the point then? The lack of EU-nationalism?

"are you trying to say that we should come United States of Europe?"

No, we have to build a new type of federal system for this, not simply copy what is around (where the german or swiss model would be much better, though).

"Sure, the US was divided back then and civil war broke out."

So the US were so disunited back then that they started killing each other.
But you say the current intra-EU bickering means the EU will fail?

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 10:15

I am not completely disagreeing with you. I think we have almost same things in our heads, but I am more extreme with my view and what the result will be.

It was a typo, I meant to say Now, not No.

But yes, in order for us to be united and more equal, we need to build a federal system. I agree with you. And yes, I know that is one of the goals of some guys in the EU too. And because our situation, like every situation when it comes to this, is unique, we need some modifications to existing models, or completely new model. And I agree that then we can talk about unity, and then we can find some kind of satisfying equality, though fully it will never come, as it is impossible. But close enough, and then I accept it too, that we can use that term.

I'm not saying things going on in the Europe and in particular in EU will make us fail. But I suspect that we will fail in succeeding. I believe that we will never be truly succesful superpower. Because once we unify ourselves and all that with the federal changes, I predict some real unity, but that there will be split, and that leads to destruction of the federal model. Either in way of total war, like in the US, or peaceful divorce from each other.

Combat Ingrid · July 30, 2003, 10:38

After reading several pages of Pekka's ~~whining~~ EU-critical argumentation, I recalled (for some reason) this quote from "Life of Brian":

Quote:

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace -- shut up!

Saras · July 30, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Central Europe hegemony."

Ah, Austria rules the EU. Always suspected it....

It is well known that the center of Europe is 30 km from Vilnius.

So bow, ye unworthy eurocoms!

Saras · July 30, 2003, 10:40

Rol, are you a "federalist?

Pekka · July 30, 2003, 10:40

Combat Ingrid, so are you trying to say EU brought those things to us? No they didn't, not a single thing of those, we had them already.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 10:42

"But yes, in order for us to be united and more equal, we need to build a federal system."

Coming from a federal state, I'd say we already have one at the EU level, just that it is still evolving.

"And I agree that then we can talk about unity, and then we can find some kind of satisfying equality, though fully it will never come, as it is impossible. But close enough, and then I accept it too, that we can use that term."

Well what exactly would have to change to reach a satisfactory level of equality? That complaint still puzzles me.

"But I suspect that we will fail in succeeding. I believe that we will never be truly succesful superpower."

I'm happy if the EU does not evolve into a superpower, but that's another issue.

"Because once we unify ourselves and all that with the federal changes, I predict some real unity, but that there will be split, and that leads to destruction of the federal model. Either in way of total war, like in the US, or peaceful divorce from each other."

That's the main reason why the EU federal system is slowly evolving rather than being implemented in one or two big jumps. Allows flexibility to react to crisis before it blows up everything.

DaShi · July 30, 2003, 10:43

The only real way to tell a Euro from a non-Euro is by the droppings they leave behind.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 10:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras
Rol, are you a "federalist?

Of course.

Just not in the bastardized english meaning.