Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Commonwealth v. European Union

46 replies to this topic
Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#1

Posted 22 October 2011 - 01:47 AM

I know we have a lot of British members... one of my professors was talking about how many in Britain want to withdraw from the EU and get cozier with the Commonwealth realms. What exactly does that mean and would the British members here (and those who live in commonwealth realms/member states) support closer ties?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#2

Posted 22 October 2011 - 10:57 AM

Only an idiot would want to withdraw from the EU. The Euro-sceptic agenda pushed by closet racists and the neo-Right, and it's based on absurd fallacies and a complete misinterpretation of both how the EU operates and how it benefits us. I do support closer relations with out Commonwealth partners, but we would be truly idiotic to abandon the EU project. Personally, I'd like to see the UK taking a more active role in EU diplomacy as well as just sitting around enjoying the trade benefits- driving for in integrated European peace-keeping military force would be a wise idea in my view, as would re-negotiating our positing within the union.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#3

Posted 22 October 2011 - 08:22 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Oct 22 2011, 05:57)
Only an idiot would want to withdraw from the EU. The Euro-sceptic agenda pushed by closet racists and the neo-Right, and it's based on absurd fallacies and a complete misinterpretation of both how the EU operates and how it benefits us. I do support closer relations with out Commonwealth partners, but we would be truly idiotic to abandon the EU project. Personally, I'd like to see the UK taking a more active role in EU diplomacy as well as just sitting around enjoying the trade benefits- driving for in integrated European peace-keeping military force would be a wise idea in my view, as would re-negotiating our positing within the union.

Do you worry that erodes your national identity though? I can already see you have the English flag as your icon, not the British one. I know a lot of Brits who complain the EU is eating away national identity. Same with Frenchies and Germans.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#4

Posted 22 October 2011 - 09:03 PM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Oct 22 2011, 21:22)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Oct 22 2011, 05:57)
Only an idiot would want to withdraw from the EU. The Euro-sceptic agenda pushed by closet racists and the neo-Right, and it's based on absurd fallacies and a complete misinterpretation of both how the EU operates and how it benefits us. I do support closer relations with out Commonwealth partners, but we would be truly idiotic to abandon the EU project. Personally, I'd like to see the UK taking a more active role in EU diplomacy as well as just sitting around enjoying the trade benefits- driving for in integrated European peace-keeping military force would be a wise idea in my view, as would re-negotiating our positing within the union.

Do you worry that erodes your national identity though? I can already see you have the English flag as your icon, not the British one. I know a lot of Brits who complain the EU is eating away national identity. Same with Frenchies and Germans.

I think the whole "eroding national identity" thing is a pretty poor argument. National identity is a very fluid concept anyway, and mostly composed of stereotypes anyway. I would argue that there's not that much of a "national identity" in most nations anyway- the UK and it's member states don't really possess a defined one in my view. There are certain elements of it which could be argued to exist, and some elements which do define neighbouring nations from each other other than just the language barrier, but I don't think that even a much more interventionist EU actually threatens those anyway. Just my personal view, but I work and study alongside a lot of EU and non-EU nationals and I don't see that much of a distinction between a French individual, a Fin or even for that matter a Nigerian or Pakistani. We're all pretty similar when it boils down to it.

OchyGTA
  • OchyGTA

    Rap game GTA forums

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2010

#5

Posted 22 October 2011 - 09:33 PM

I have to agree with Sivi, pulling out entirely from the EU would be foolish, especially in this climate when we need our biggest trading partners most of all. The far right do tend to blab about how much we put in and how little we get back but in the long run, we will benefit from mos of the EU budget going to poorer EU nations making them more powerful trading partners. The only part of EU policy I dislike is CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) which doesn't really seem to benefit us at all. The benefits do out weigh the costs but I have to disagree on the joint military force idea. I honestly think its not needed unless the EU was to become a United States of Europe so to speak. Further political integration? Hmmm, thats a difficult one as it is well known the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy in Brussels and I don't think we need that sort of hassle at the moment. Further ecomic integration is a big no no at the moment with the Euro said to be on the verge of collapse. Its almost as if the Germans and the French are fighting a lost battle, it just depends how long they want to go on fighting for. Anyway, this argument was a bit all over the place but I would much rather stick with the EU for the moment than try to improve with the Commonwealth. I'm sure there are still restrictions on this since we first joined anyway.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#6

Posted 29 October 2011 - 11:27 PM

The Commonwealth exists almost entirely for population exchange (and to have some formal ties, obviously). It's not really about economic and military co-operation, it isn't comparable at all to the EU.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#7

Posted 30 October 2011 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Oct 22 2011, 21:03)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Oct 22 2011, 21:22)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Oct 22 2011, 05:57)
Only an idiot would want to withdraw from the EU. The Euro-sceptic agenda pushed by closet racists and the neo-Right, and it's based on absurd fallacies and a complete misinterpretation of both how the EU operates and how it benefits us. I do support closer relations with out Commonwealth partners, but we would be truly idiotic to abandon the EU project. Personally, I'd like to see the UK taking a more active role in EU diplomacy as well as just sitting around enjoying the trade benefits- driving for in integrated European peace-keeping military force would be a wise idea in my view, as would re-negotiating our positing within the union.

Do you worry that erodes your national identity though? I can already see you have the English flag as your icon, not the British one. I know a lot of Brits who complain the EU is eating away national identity. Same with Frenchies and Germans.

I think the whole "eroding national identity" thing is a pretty poor argument. National identity is a very fluid concept anyway, and mostly composed of stereotypes anyway. I would argue that there's not that much of a "national identity" in most nations anyway- the UK and it's member states don't really possess a defined one in my view. There are certain elements of it which could be argued to exist, and some elements which do define neighbouring nations from each other other than just the language barrier, but I don't think that even a much more interventionist EU actually threatens those anyway. Just my personal view, but I work and study alongside a lot of EU and non-EU nationals and I don't see that much of a distinction between a French individual, a Fin or even for that matter a Nigerian or Pakistani. We're all pretty similar when it boils down to it.

That is the single most depressing thing I've read in quite some time. I understand your reasons for what you believe, but the whole arguement of national identity isn't invalidated simply because you don't value it.
I do value it, I'm proud of where I come from and I want our history and culture to be preserved against the threat posed by people who think 'we're all the same'. We're not. Nations have different ideas, different experiences, different stories to tell. You can label me a racist or a right winger all you want, but so much of what I see from the EU is based around the idea of assimilation rather than allowing each member state to retain its identity. The single currency, the influx of immigrants, the backwards laws. It all stinks.

You're right, we shouldn't leave the EU. At least not yet. If we abandoned these people, our key allies, in their moment of need I think it would be political suicide. Whilst I view the EU with scepticism, I truly value France and Germany as allies and more than that I value them as different cultures with a proud, noble history.
I think they've been duped, I think they've been humiliated. I think they have been utterly hoodwinked by ultra-leftist elements who want to do away with everything that makes France French or makes Germany German.
It may start small, but as they expand and accumulate nation after nation, lands will be flooded with immigrants and culture will be diluted and watered down until nothing remains but the failed 'multiculturalism' that seems to satisfy no one.

I truly, deeply despise the European Union because I believe it is nothing but a microcosm of the modern morality in which proud peoples are emasculated and humiliated in order to make things 'fair'. Greece, the cradle of democracy, forced to beg for scraps. France, the land of Napoleon, experiencing horrible racial tensions and riots. England, our home, held at the mercy of thugs and criminals who are invariably portrayed as the victims of our own sins.
There is something deeply wrong with the world. And it all stems from the 'softly, softly' approach of institutions such as the European Union who preach self loathing as though it were a Heavenly virtue.

They've got the ambitions of a megalomaniac but the willpower of a hippie. It is a backwards, schizoid animal that must be heavily reformed and reviewed. I believe our future lies in Europe. But we are English and must always remain English. No universal currency, no dictatorial powers over our laws and no grasping attempt to bring in nations who are not and never shall be European.
Is that so much to ask?

myhame
  • myhame

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011

#8

Posted 30 October 2011 - 05:39 AM

In my view I am sorry but I think that we need to become stronger. Our country, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, are nothing alone. If can all combine and become an Imperial Federation of some kind, as was proposed to Queen Victoria in the late nineteenth century, we could prosper once again. Right now, we have been reduced to the pet of the United States. They are our master. We are their little bitch. We do whatever they desire, and they protect us. We do not protect ourselves! European defense is almost totally managed by US forces since the US is the primary contributor to NATO. Why can we not join together? We share a common heritage. It's not like the Indians would ever rejoin us unfortunately, though if we become strong from combining together, we could take it back.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#9

Posted 30 October 2011 - 05:49 AM Edited by Irviding, 30 October 2011 - 05:52 AM.

QUOTE (myhame @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 00:39)
In my view I am sorry but I think that we need to become stronger. Our country, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, are nothing alone. If can all combine and become an Imperial Federation of saome kind, as was proposed to Queen Victoria in the late nineteenth century, we could prosper once again. Right now, we have been reduced to the pet of the United States. They are our master. We are their little bitch. We do whatever they desire, and they protect us. We do not protect ourselves! European defense is almost totally managed by US forces since the US is the primary contributor to NATO. Why can we not join together? We share a common heritage. It's not like the Indians would ever rejoin us unfortunately, though if we become strong from combining together, we could take it back.

But do you honestly think those countries, which are now no longer even British dominions, and Britain has no constitutional authority over any of them any longer, would want to enter into this imperial federation? Speaking of imperial federation, I found some interesting stuff on that from googling it. Who knows, if they had done that in the late 1800s perhaps the British empire would not have ended the way it did, and the entire second half of the 20th century would not have gone the way it did. As for your comments on NATO, a lot of Americans who actually know where our military money goes (a lot of the right wingers just say "LOL PAY FOR THE TROOPS OR WE GON GET INVADED BY THE TALHEDZ THAROUH THE MECKKSACO" and have no idea where it goes) tend to complain about spending so much on Europe's protection.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#10

Posted 30 October 2011 - 10:40 AM

QUOTE (myhame @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 15:39)
In my view I am sorry but I think that we need to become stronger. Our country, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, are nothing alone. If can all combine and become an Imperial Federation of some kind, as was proposed to Queen Victoria in the late nineteenth century, we could prosper once again. Right now, we have been reduced to the pet of the United States. They are our master. We are their little bitch. We do whatever they desire, and they protect us. We do not protect ourselves! European defense is almost totally managed by US forces since the US is the primary contributor to NATO. Why can we not join together? We share a common heritage. It's not like the Indians would ever rejoin us unfortunately, though if we become strong from combining together, we could take it back.

Yes we could easily do that... but what exactly would we be achieving?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#11

Posted 30 October 2011 - 10:53 AM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 01:03)
I do value it, I'm proud of where I come from and I want our history and culture to be preserved against the threat posed by people who think 'we're all the same'. We're not. Nations have different ideas, different experiences, different stories to tell. You can label me a racist or a right winger all you want, but so much of what I see from the EU is based around the idea of assimilation rather than allowing each member state to retain its identity. The single currency, the influx of immigrants, the backwards laws. It all stinks.

There's a distinction between believing that the UK's cultural heritage is muddy and unclear, and not being proud of my origins. I've also never said that we're all "the same". But our heritage isn't national, it's regional. The same is true of every other nation, really. Our perception of "national image" comes generally from stereotypes- but we can see marked difference in the culture and heritage of different regions of countries, sometimes more so than the countries themselves. For instances, culture in the far North of England is closer to that of Scotland than it is to the South of England. The South East is markedly different to the South West. There's no uniform "national heritage" for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland save for a few small dates and events, and even these are seen differently by different parts of the nation. Just because British identity isn't visible on a national level doesn't mean that an identity doesn't exist- it's just more culturally and regionally based.

Incidently, what rules and regulations have you seen imposed by the EU that you believe have promoted cultural assimilation? I'm just intrigued, as the way you say it implies that you've seen certain events or items of legislation, endorsed and supported by the EU, that have been specifically targeted at reducing the cultural identity of member states. What are these?

QUOTE (myhame @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 06:39)
In my view I am sorry but I think that we need to become stronger. Our country, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, are nothing alone. If can all combine and become an Imperial Federation of some kind, as was proposed to Queen Victoria in the late nineteenth century, we could prosper once again. Right now, we have been reduced to the pet of the United States. They are our master. We are their little bitch. We do whatever they desire, and they protect us. We do not protect ourselves! European defense is almost totally managed by US forces since the US is the primary contributor to NATO. Why can we not join together? We share a common heritage. It's not like the Indians would ever rejoin us unfortunately, though if we become strong from combining together, we could take it back.

I'm not going to begin to tell you all the things wrong- both morally and factually- about this statement. Aside from this- do you really think that the UK, Canada, Australia and India, for example, share national interest outside of a very small area (almost entirely related to violent political Islam in South-East Asia and the Pacific)? In simple balances of power, we don't have enough military strength to re-gain our empire. Hell, the entire reason it collapsed is because we didn't have enough military strength to maintain it. I really think you should do a little more reading into the historical background of recent conflicts, save for "My First Anti-American Guide to Modern History" with the foreword by Nick Griffin. You might be quite surprised.

Besides, we have already joined together with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We're four of the Five-Eyes states.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#12

Posted 30 October 2011 - 11:34 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 20:53)
Incidently, what rules and regulations have you seen imposed by the EU that you believe have promoted cultural assimilation? I'm just intrigued, as the way you say it implies that you've seen certain events or items of legislation, endorsed and supported by the EU, that have been specifically targeted at reducing the cultural identity of member states. What are these?

Didn't you hear? They're viscously tearing apart England's national identity by being "softies". mercie_blink.gif

Because you know, people these days aren't man enough to have flags on ever corner and weekly Soviet-style military parades to scare the neighbours... the neighbours who want nothing more than to trade and reach some form of political consensus. He has no rationale for his nationalism, he's seemingly a deeply cynical man, so I imagine patriotism is a good source of romance.

QUOTE (Typhus)
I truly, deeply despise the European Union because I believe it is nothing but a microcosm of the modern morality in which proud peoples are emasculated and humiliated in order to make things 'fair'. Greece, the cradle of democracy, forced to beg for scraps. France, the land of Napoleon, experiencing horrible racial tensions and riots. England, our home, held at the mercy of thugs and criminals who are invariably portrayed as the victims of our own sins.
There is something deeply wrong with the world. And it all stems from the 'softly, softly' approach of institutions such as the European Union who preach self loathing as though it were a Heavenly virtue.

So your solution to racial tension with economic immigrants, national debt, crime and class-conflict... is to not be fair or soft? You seemingly want the inverse which are presumably unfairness and firmness. Now what should we be being unfair and firm about? What do you even want? What will quell your vague political angst?

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#13

Posted 30 October 2011 - 02:42 PM Edited by Typhus, 30 October 2011 - 03:35 PM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 11:34)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 20:53)
Incidently, what rules and regulations have you seen imposed by the EU that you believe have promoted cultural assimilation? I'm just intrigued, as the way you say it implies that you've seen certain events or items of legislation, endorsed and supported by the EU, that have been specifically targeted at reducing the cultural identity of member states. What are these?

Didn't you hear? They're viscously tearing apart England's national identity by being "softies". mercie_blink.gif

Because you know, people these days aren't man enough to have flags on ever corner and weekly Soviet-style military parades to scare the neighbours... the neighbours who want nothing more than to trade and reach some form of political consensus. He has no rationale for his nationalism, he's seemingly a deeply cynical man, so I imagine patriotism is a good source of romance.

QUOTE (Typhus)
I truly, deeply despise the European Union because I believe it is nothing but a microcosm of the modern morality in which proud peoples are emasculated and humiliated in order to make things 'fair'. Greece, the cradle of democracy, forced to beg for scraps. France, the land of Napoleon, experiencing horrible racial tensions and riots. England, our home, held at the mercy of thugs and criminals who are invariably portrayed as the victims of our own sins.
There is something deeply wrong with the world. And it all stems from the 'softly, softly' approach of institutions such as the European Union who preach self loathing as though it were a Heavenly virtue.

So your solution to racial tension with economic immigrants, national debt, crime and class-conflict... is to not be fair or soft? You seemingly want the inverse which are presumably unfairness and firmness. Now what should we be being unfair and firm about? What do you even want? What will quell your vague political angst?

Stop blaming ourselves when others attack us.
Stop the historical revisionism which has made us ashamed of our Imperial past.
Exert more control over the media to stop their rampant, shameless support for our enemies.
Give Scotland and Wales complete independence.
Have flags on every corner and weekly Soviet-style military parades to scare the neighbours who want nothing more than to trade and reach some form of political consensus.

Is that sufficient for you? Or would you like me to phrase it as an insult so you can truly comprehend what I'm saying? Apparently that's the only way you can express yourself, so maybe it would help if I accused you of having no rational basis for your opinions.

General Goose
  • General Goose

    Because Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2009

#14

Posted 30 October 2011 - 05:01 PM

Typhus, I disagree with you pretty strongly, especially on giving Scotland and Wales complete independence, but I'm curious as to what you mean by "more control over the media to stop their support of our enemies." Firstly, what do you define as "our enemies"? And secondly, I'd say we already put more than enough control on our media for a country that is supposedly meant to have freedom of speech.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#15

Posted 30 October 2011 - 05:34 PM

The entire other side of my family is Scottish and lives in Scotland (irviding comes from my last name Irving - pretty Scottish tounge.gif) and has absolutely no interest in independence. Scotland would not survive without being a member of the UK

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#16

Posted 30 October 2011 - 11:51 PM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Monday, Oct 31 2011, 03:34)
The UK would not survive without Scotland being a member

fixed tounge.gif

But yeah, Typhus, you still don't seem to have any rational basis for what you want.... and what you want isn't even clear. Last time Britain was attacked they went into a bloody war with Argentina, Britain is currently involved in two wars. Revisionist history? Britain had the world's largest empire for several centuries, obviously there's a lot to be proud of, but there's definitely A LOT that we need to recognise as being bad... for instance, are you against the Australian Prime Minister apologising to the aborigines for the attempted genocide, and what about the actual genocide that Britain was involved in in Tasmania and all over North America? How is looking at Britain's past through rose tinted glasses any less disgusting than refusing to be proud of your countries' past accomplishments out of a sense of progressivism? Your problem here doesn't seem to be with any actual legislation, group or even opinion, just with a general lack of nationalism.

I don't know what you want to accomplish with government-controlled media and military parades. Do you think Britain is losing her wars? Do you think she'll win once the whole nation rallies together in hatred of the Taliban (I've still yet to see any pro-Taliban news pieces)? I don't mean to insult you, but how can I have a debate with someone who has no idea what he is for or against? The way you describe it, it sounds like your issue is with a general, vague attitude of apathy towards Britishness that cannot be addressed, or even consistently identified, really. Britain isn't going anywhere no matter how many Muslims or Pollacks they let in, you don't need to cling to the past.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#17

Posted 31 October 2011 - 01:21 AM Edited by Irviding, 31 October 2011 - 01:29 AM.

I think the Pakistanis deserve to come in considering what you guys did to them when they were a part of the Raj.

To clarify my Scotland comment, the thing is the government is devolved enough already. I just don't see why they need further independence.. and even in Scotland, according to my relatives at least, the proposal is to keep the Queen and still share the same military. It's not like Ireland where the black and tans raped and pillaged the entire country and they had a good reason for wanting to leave. What's the point with Scotland? Just keep it all as one country... if you break it up, global influence is lost by Britain as a whole too.

myhame
  • myhame

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011

#18

Posted 31 October 2011 - 05:06 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 10:40)
Yes we could easily do that... but what exactly would we be achieving?

It would achieve the making of our Britain GREAT once again.

Rown
  • Rown

    weltvolkzeit

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#19

Posted 31 October 2011 - 05:28 AM

Did you mean to suggest that the anglo-commonwealth retake India?

QUOTE (myhame @ last page)
It's not like the Indians would ever rejoin us unfortunately, though if we become strong from combining together, we could take it back.


The 0.124 billion versus the 1.2 billion? Not defending against, but aggressing. over land. in Asia?


If you didn't mean to suggest that then forgive my snark.

If you did... well I'm hoping for the former.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#20

Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:52 AM

QUOTE (Rown @ Monday, Oct 31 2011, 00:28)
Did you mean to suggest that the anglo-commonwealth retake India?

QUOTE (myhame @ last page)
It's not like the Indians would ever rejoin us unfortunately, though if we become strong from combining together, we could take it back.


The 0.124 billion versus the 1.2 billion? Not defending against, but aggressing. over land. in Asia?


If you didn't mean to suggest that then forgive my snark.

If you did... well I'm hoping for the former.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

lol

You better do it within the next 25 years then before India's military catches up.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#21

Posted 31 October 2011 - 09:53 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Monday, Oct 31 2011, 02:21)
To clarify my Scotland comment, the thing is the government is devolved enough already. I just don't see why they need further independence.. and even in Scotland, according to my relatives at least, the proposal is to keep the Queen and still share the same military. It's not like Ireland where the black and tans raped and pillaged the entire country and they had a good reason for wanting to leave. What's the point with Scotland? Just keep it all as one country... if you break it up, global influence is lost by Britain as a whole too.

Talks of exiting the union always come to a head when Conservatives are in power in Westminster. It's largely to do with the legacy of the Thatcher government in the North- the Scots don't like the idea that much of their legislation comes from a government who did so poorly in Scotland that many candidates lost their campaign deposits. Which I suppose is fair enough, but they seem perfectly happy to benefit from the flip side of the West Lothian Question or to exercise undue amounts of influence in Westminster elections in comparison to their population size, so it's swings and roundabouts really.

Scotland couldn't survive without the union. It's entirely economically dependent on England- specifically, the South East- to subsidise it's obscenely public sector-heavy and disproportionately costly work-force. Devolving powers has done nothing besides demonstrating that, if Scotland were in charge of it's own fiscal future, it would be broke by now. Free prescription services? Free elderly care? Free university tuition. All paid for to the greatest proportion by English taxpayers who never see the benefits of them. Put simply, Scotland just wouldn't have the financial nous- and certainly doesn't have the economic independence- to function as a separate country.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#22

Posted 31 October 2011 - 03:35 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Oct 31 2011, 04:53)
Scotland just wouldn't have the financial nous- and certainly doesn't have the economic independence- to function as a separate country.

Which is exactly why all of their proposals make them independent with conditions... it's like "keep queen, NHS, military, economic aid, but we are independent, okay?" So clearly even they recognize they can't survive without being a member of the UK.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#23

Posted 01 November 2011 - 11:03 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Monday, Oct 31 2011, 16:35)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Oct 31 2011, 04:53)
Scotland just wouldn't have the financial nous- and certainly doesn't have the economic independence- to function as a separate country.

Which is exactly why all of their proposals make them independent with conditions... it's like "keep queen, NHS, military, economic aid, but we are independent, okay?" So clearly even they recognize they can't survive without being a member of the UK.

Not really independence though, is it? All the rhetoric about Scotland deserving a right to self-determination is just ironically wasted breath at the end of the day, as that determination is always going to be based on Westminster, whether the SNP like it or not. Perhaps even more amusing is the growing popularity of Plaid Cymru in Wales- similar basic story, but a nation that's even more heavily dependent on England's coffers to maintain its economic survival.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#24

Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:37 PM

Yeah I find it interesting that they try to pass all these referendums but there is no inherent authority whatsoever for them to be able to "exit" the UK

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#25

Posted 03 November 2011 - 01:22 PM

Right, there are a few Euro-related things I'd like to add into this topic- as it's been quite active I think it's probably the best place to put them.

I wouldn't buy into the "Euro in crisis" rhetoric at all. I was at an incredibly interesting conference on European economics yesterday, and there are a few things that were said and discussed which are very important to the "Europe versus Commonwealth" debate. Firstly, the Euro is not going to collapse any more than the Sterling is going to collapse. Fact is despite the wobbles in the stock markets over Euro-zone sovereign debt crisis, there's no chance of a Euro-wide collapse. Indeed, the worst that will happen is that Greece will be ejected from the Euro, or will be bailed out by the rest of the Euro zone. The former is no skin of the Euro's nose- in fact, it would probably stabilise the currency and the single market. The latter seems scary but is quite possible- after all, Greece only represents about 2.5% of the entire Euro economy, so it's chump change for the likes of France and Germany. The best parallel would probably be the various separate states of the US, some of which have defaulted before and been bailed out by the central administration with greater influence over state policy to ensure that the money isn't squandered. This is highly possible in the Euro too.

Now, other pressing issues. The Euro (and Euro zone), despite all the issues, still fares better than either the Sterling or the Dollar on the international markets. The overall sovereign debt as a percentage of GDP of the Euro zone is lower than either the US or the UK. Indeed, the Sterling has lost 25% of its value against the Euro in the last two years alone. Far from suggesting a Euro zone in crisis, it suggests that they're holding together better than many of those currencies and nations who have been critiquing the Euro system. Given the current economic climate, I actually believe that integration into the Euro zone could be beneficial for the UK- and not just for economic reasons. We've become the rank outsider of the EU over the last few years, not because of our rejection and exclusion in some policy areas but because of out constant and stark criticism of the Euro. It's got to the point where other European leaders are unwilling to accommodate with the UK in aspects of economic decision making, which is bad for the UK and no real problem for the Euro. We're stagnating, whilst the big players in the Euro continue to grow, and even though I would like to see some kind of re-negotiation with regards to some aspects, I don't think we've got any leverage so the answer is likely to be a flat "no". We leave the EU, we loose out massively and everyone else looses out very little. But what can we do?

My view- the EU already has a foreign policy department, though it's far from cohesive or effective. It's been involved in peacekeeping operations in the past, but it pales in the comparison to NATO in terms of operational ability. However, most EU states are also NATO member states, and thus contribute through that mechanism. But NATO's reputation is tarnished in some parts of the world, for obvious reasons. Why not utilise the EU NATO states as an engine of foreign policy and liberal interventionism for EU interest, without the tarnished association of the United States? I mean, the UK and France are the premier foreign policy players in the EU as it stands, and the UK does have something of a "we want to be more powerful than our economy or population suggests" attitude, so why not use that as a medium? It gives the UK an area of the EU in which it can become the centre-piece in policy, it keeps Euro-scepticism in check and ensures that the EU has geopolitical clout outside of the economic sphere. And if interventions are managed in the same way as Libya was- which was, to all intents and purposes, an EU intervention anyway- then everyone benefits to some degree.

My €0.023203419 (that's £0.02), but what we need is another kind of integration. If we won't buy into the Euro because we're too self-centred, we can at least be the centre-piece of the EU's cohesive foreign policy and strategic arm.

myhame
  • myhame

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011

#26

Posted 04 November 2011 - 07:11 PM

Silvispacem, that is absolutely disgraceful. You are a disgrace to all Britons. How can you justify your ideal that we should be the EU military force? I refuse to be the pet of other nations. We've been it with the United States for too long already

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#27

Posted 04 November 2011 - 07:49 PM

QUOTE (myhame @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 20:11)
Silvispacem, that is absolutely disgraceful. You are a disgrace to all Britons. How can you justify your ideal that we should be the EU military force? I refuse to be the pet of other nations. We've been it with the United States for too long already

You've got no idea what you are talking about, that is becoming ever increasingly clear to see. You've got no understanding of politics and international relations, and your blind and xenophobic belief in the superiority of the United Kingdom über alles is as amusing as it is deluded and offensive. What makes you think that we've been the "pet" of the United States, or indeed that a EU-based military alliance would make us the "pet" of Europe? You don't appear to have any understanding of European history, strategy, or any of the topics which your comments actually cross. In fact, I don't think you've even got any understanding of British history. You certainly don't seem to understand any part of it between about 1896 and the present day.

Your self-absorbed, unquestioning and naive devotion to a nation of which you appear to have little to no actual understanding is hilarious. And pathetic. You're basically coming across sounding like the most fascist of BNP members, but less intelligent.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#28

Posted 04 November 2011 - 08:13 PM Edited by Typhus, 04 November 2011 - 08:16 PM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 23:51)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Monday, Oct 31 2011, 03:34)
The UK would not survive without Scotland being a member

fixed tounge.gif

But yeah, Typhus, you still don't seem to have any rational basis for what you want.... and what you want isn't even clear. Last time Britain was attacked they went into a bloody war with Argentina, Britain is currently involved in two wars. Revisionist history? Britain had the world's largest empire for several centuries, obviously there's a lot to be proud of, but there's definitely A LOT that we need to recognise as being bad... for instance, are you against the Australian Prime Minister apologising to the aborigines for the attempted genocide, and what about the actual genocide that Britain was involved in in Tasmania and all over North America? How is looking at Britain's past through rose tinted glasses any less disgusting than refusing to be proud of your countries' past accomplishments out of a sense of progressivism? Your problem here doesn't seem to be with any actual legislation, group or even opinion, just with a general lack of nationalism.

My problem is that we have liberal students who are so f*cking...insane that they defend al Queda. We have a media that is so right-wing that just last week they wrote an article about the future of the EU. Want me to outline their enlightened opinions?

- Putin is a mad dictator who wants to reform the USSR.
- Nicolas Sarkozy is - no joke - the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.
- England will be forced to adopt the Euro by a multinational peacekeeping force comprised of French troops backed with Russian money.

I knew The Daily Mail was bad, but that level of scaremongering should be illegal. Both the left and the right want to tear England apart in different ways. Either by appeasing our enemies or initiating domestic purges against those they dislike. Madness, I'm sure you'd agree.
Here's my problem and let me outline it with no pretensions. I want us to keep our heritage, I want us to be proud of our country and I also want us to be key players in the EU.
Can these things coexist? I hope so. Because believe it or not, I am not in favour of leaving the EU. Rather I everything scaled back. I want a military alliance, based on trade agreements and a desire to keep the peace.

Where I start getting worried is when the EU has a flag, when people speak of a EU military force, when there is a universal currency. All these things seem like an attempt to rob us of our individuality as a nation.

I am a patriot. Not a nationalist. In this country that would imply a great deal of racism and hypocrisy and I try my damndest to be a realist. But I am of the firm opinion that European co-operation cannot be at the expense of English dignity and pride.
Nor the dignity and pride of France or Germany, nations I care for and respect a great deal.

Does that make more sense?

Oh, and military parades and abundant flags would help everyone feel a part of this country. More patriotism would break down the barriers of race which have turned Englishman against Englishman. You really wouldn't believe the rampant bigotry of the working classes.
I love my people and want our past to be remembered with honour and our future to be peaceful and prosperous.
That's quite reasonable, right? smile.gif

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#29

Posted 04 November 2011 - 08:57 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 21:13)
- Putin is a mad dictator who wants to reform the USSR.

At least that bit of it is right. wink.gif

Der_Don
  • Der_Don

    #FreeShinji

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2008

#30

Posted 10 December 2011 - 04:30 PM

First of all, yes I know this topic has been dead for quite a while.
But after Britain's veto to the new EU-treaty yesterday, I think this deserves a bump.

What do you guys think of Cameron's decision? The English media and most of the conservative politicians welcomed his move.

It think his behaviour is ridicoulous, Britain will be isolated, they won't have anything to say in Europe in the future. And I don't quite understand what his problems are... as far as I know he's concerned about the financial transaction taxes, but before his election, Cameron wanted more regulation for the City, and now he doesnt think they need anymore regulation?

Is this maybe even the end of the British EU-membership?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users