Support NeoGAF

[Alcibiades]

The Independece Party to the rescue after the Tories find themselves in disarray for like a decade now...

read this articles by Dick Morris (former Clinton advisor, and partially the reason kept himself pretty moderate and kept a balanced budget)

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/25678.htm

U.K.'S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

June 15, 2004 -- ON Sunday, a small group of freedom-loving Brits, the United Kingdom In dependence Party, scored amazing gains in the European Parliamentary elections, winning almost 20 percent of the vote.

The ranks of the once-tiny party were swelled by those who are getting increasingly disgusted with the anti-democratic, socialist and appeasement-oriented bureaucrats who run the European Union.

It has been my pleasure and joy to work with the UKIP during the past year, honing its message into a single word: "NO" — which aptly states its members' desire to resist further homogenization by the largely socialist activists of the European Union.

The dictates of the European Union, headquartered in Brussels, have gradually eroded British independence. The EU has increasingly sought to control every aspect of economic life through regulations issued by civil servants, accountable only to themselves. Socialist policies lose at the polls — but the EU bureaucrats seek to roll back the Thatcher-ite reforms in Britain and force high tax and strict labor laws on all the nations of Europe.

Recently, for example, the French and Germans who lead the European Union demanded that the Eastern European countries — who have just joined the union — raise their corporate tax rates to match those legislated in Paris and Berlin so as to avert a drain of corporate resources to Eastern Europe.

The very weakness of the European Parliament is eloquent testimony to the scant value the EU places on democracy. For example, its members are not permitted to introduce legislation. They may only vote "yes" or "no" on the regulations proposed by the unelected EU bureaucracy. (The British people voted in the European Parliamentary election on Thursday of last week, but Brussels declared that the U.K. could not count the votes until Sunday when the other members had their elections. Exit polls were similarly verboten).

For years, Britain has grumbled about the economic diktats from Brussels. But when the European integrationists recently sought to adopt a new constitution, creating a common foreign and defense policy for Europe, they went too far, arousing the ire of the man and woman in the street in the U.K.

At first, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he would accept the new constitution without a vote of the people. But weeks before the UKIP surge, he was obliged to back down and promise a vote.

This upheaval in Britain has important implications for the United States. Our most valued ally is facing a mortal threat to its freedom. And while Blair stands tall in the battle against terrorism, he has been uncommonly willing to see future British foreign and defense policies sublimated to the European consensus. The Conservative Party, which one would expect to be the bastion of British independence, refuses to countenance U.K. withdrawal from the EU and, as a result, has lost all bargaining power with the Brussels bureaucrats.

Bismarck said that whenever somebody appealed to him to do something in the name of Europe, he noticed that it was something they dared not ask in their own name. So it is today. The socialists and anti-democratic bureaucrats who predominate in the EU dare not squelch British independence directly, so they are seeking to coat it over with a binding Europe-wide nation committed to largely French and German policies of appeasement, high taxes and government regulation.

The voters of Britain have arrested their nation's journey down this slippery slope and freedom is the stronger for their efforts.

how disgusting to see a government with so few checks and balances, it'll fall under it's own weight eventually...

http://www.thehill.com/morris/061604.aspx

U.K. voters strike a blow for freedom in EU election

A mouse instead of a lion roared in London this week.

The United Kingdom Independence Party, heretofore confined to the fringes of British politics, scored a resounding showing in the European parliamentary elections, winning 17 percent of the vote and quadrupling its number of seats.

The surge in vote share for this party was animated by an intense opposition to further progress down the slippery slope of regional integration and the surrender of the U.K.’s powers to act independently in economics, finance or diplomacy, or in defense of freedom.

The U.K. Independence Party, of course, opposes the euro and the new proposed European Constitution, but it also calls for British withdrawal from the European Union itself and the renegotiation of a free-trade agreement in its place.

Why should we in the colonies care?

Because the forces that have hijacked the EU are steering it straight into a socialist economy, an appeasement-oriented foreign policy, a jury-less judiciary and a move away from government by democracy toward rule by bureaucracy. Under the guise of “uniformity” in European laws, the EU is insisting that other nations raise their corporate tax rates — personal rates will doubtless follow — to the high levels currently in force in France and Germany.

The Brussels government of the European Union is unelected, and the vast bureaucracy it has spawned lords its power over those who are elected by the voters.

The elected members of the pathetic European Parliament, for example, cannot introduce legislation[/b] and must only vote up or down the measures sponsored by the bureaucracy.

It has been my pleasure to work with the U.K. Independence Party in helping the British regain some measure of freedom and control over their national fate.

Otto von Bismarck said it best when he noted that whenever anyone urged him to act in the name of Europe, “it was usually because they wanted me to do something they would not be able to ask on their own.” The goals of France and Germany for regional domination proceed now under the cover of European unity, disenfranchising the British people and relocating all vital decisions to Brussels from London.

Europe has high taxes. U.K. taxes are about 20 percent lower. Europe administers justice while Britain uses juries. The Euro-heritage is one of microeconomic regulation, with labor laws that prohibit dismissals and require gigantic vacation and other fringe benefits. Britain hues more closely to the US model.

The quasi-socialist governments on the continent find Britain, with its low taxes, low regulation, low unemployment and high economic growth rates, a threat to their ideology. In the name of European integration, they seek to assimilate Great Britain into a socialist union on the continent.

The role of political parties on the continent, particularly in Germany, is not primarily to achieve political power but to mediate the needs and demands of the voters so that they can be accommodated within a nominally democratic context.

The very nature of a parliamentary system, devoid of checks and balances, limits the individual’s freedom. The orientation of European governments to rule by bureaucracy and to intensive government regulation has found a natural home in the EU.

But Britain has yet to surrender to this high-tax, intrusive, regulatory economic framework. Insisting on keeping its own currency, the U.K. has resisted homogenization, to the discomfort of its own political leaders and the Euro-homogenizers. Now the voters of the U.K. have taken matters into their own hands and turned their backs on the three main political parties that continue to urge participation in the EU. Almost a fifth cast their lot with the U.K. Independence Party, saying, in effect, that a free-trade agreement is useful and important but regional integration is quite another story.

For the United States, bereft of reliable allies in the Paris-Berlin-dominated Europe, the move toward Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher policies in the U.K. can only come as a positive omen for the future.

how sad to see such a the great British Empire heading towards being France's lapdog...

 

[Shompola]

"anti-democratic, socialist and appeasement-oriented bureaucrats who run the European Union."

Last time I checked a wast majority of the EU parliamant was CONSERVATIVE and not socialistic at all.

"how sad to see such a the great British Empire heading towards being France's lapdog..."

great? you mean thiefs.

 

[Ripclawe]

 

[maharg]

Wait a second, isn't the removal of trade barriers a conservative/capitalist platform?

 

[Dekajelly]

Yes, I agree with Kilroy... FUCK the EU...

 

[Ripclawe]

in this case no, removal of trade barriers is a necessary "evil" since it would make no sense to have different trade restrictions and trying to have a united states of europe.

this pretty much sums up the EU summit, France/Germany vs UK and new europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1242605,00.html

 

[dskillzhtown]

"how disgusting to see a government with so few checks and balances, it'll fall under it's own weight eventually..."

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Hamfam]

EU needs to be reformed to be a more functional federal state, with checks and balances, etc.. Problem is, alot/more people aren't willing to accept the obvious truth that it will eventually be a super state, and so won't accept such checks balances and so on.

That's why I sorta support Tony Blairs route. He's set up a load of red lines, and staying within the EU, to negotiate itself.

Simply pulling completly out of the EU, which the UKIP wants to do, destroys any potential for a great European alliance of countries, like the United States of ever setting up. Well, at the very least, it stops us being apart of it.

 

[SFA_AOK]

"I don't hate the Spanish.... that's not to say I necessarily trust them!"

(Kilroy's words, not mine!)

 

[TheDrowningMan]

The UK Ignorance Party is pathetic.

It offers no genuine solution (its ridiculous "pull out completely!" mandate is simply stupid) & prays on the racism & xenophobia that exits within far too many people in this country.

It says something about the party that it dragged Joan Collins along to support it - Not only does she not live here, but she's never voted in her life!

Utterly pathetic.

 

[Che]

"The United Kingdom finds voice against corrupt socialists"

First of all they're conservative. Second of all do the american-style laws passed like the patent laws or the "security" laws seem to you socialistic? Plus I should point out that war mongers like Tony Blair are NOT socialists. And whoever says that gives socialism a bad name.

 

[Evolution VIII]

The European Union could never be a United States because you have different cultures and country ethics trying to pull the entire Union in its own direction. On top of that, each leader in the EU wants things to be their way or no way. You have too many leaders with different ideas on how to do things and many not willing to work with other members of the EU and you just have a recipe for disaster.

Wait a second, isn't the removal of trade barriers a conservative/capitalist platform?

Well, if the success of the EU is to be had, it can't really have trade barriers among its members. I mean this is the reason why the EU formed in the first place. And at its core, the EU is a socialist movement; it really has nothing to do with capitalism, but rather to better distribute goods and services among its members' people.

 

[Hamfam]

The European Union could never be a United States because you have different cultures and country ethics trying to pull the entire Union in its own direction. On top of that, each leader in the EU wants things to be their way or no way. You have too many leaders with different ideas on how to do things and many not willing to work with other members of the EU and you just have a recipe for disaster.

Sounds EXACTLY like the US....

California and Texas alone are almost like on completly oppositte sides of the globe. And that doesn't even begin to go into the sort of multi-cultural ethnic groups in the US.

And stuff about the politicians all wanting their way, or no way. -_^ Need I say more?

 

[Kuramu]

Mr Chirac insists that the commission president must speak French, as well as hail from a member state that is in the eurozone and the Schengen passport-free area. That rules out the vast majority of potential candidates, including any from the eastern newcomers

sounds like Chirac wants the EU to be one large france

 

[cja]

The UK Ignorance Party is pathetic.

It offers no genuine solution (its ridiculous "pull out completely!" mandate is simply stupid)

Pulling out of an institution that was entered into 13 years ago without any democratic mandate is not stupid.

& prays on the racism & xenophobia that exits within far too many people in this country.

By extension I assume you think the governments and people of European countries that have chosen to remain outside the EU such as Norway and Switzerland are racist and xenophobic? You don't seem to understand the difference between the institution of the European Union and the geographical location known as Europe. When people say then are anti-Europe they are talking about the body that spends £75bn per annum and which has not had its accounts vetted in ten years. They are talking about a government that has no democratic accountability in its two primary levels of policy making (the Parliament is tertiary). You are the one who is ignorant.

 

[Evolution VIII]

Sounds EXACTLY like the US....

California and Texas alone are almost like on completly oppositte sides of the globe. And that doesn't even begin to go into the sort of multi-cultural ethnic groups in the US.

And stuff about the politicians all wanting their way, or no way. -_^ Need I say more?

No it doesn't sound exactly like the US. Each state within the US still works towards one common goal: to ensure the economic and political prosperity of the United States. We don't have trade barriers between states because we know it is counterproductive and counterintuitive to the ideals of a capitalist society. I mean we don't say, "One nation, under God (sorrty atheists), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" for nothing.

 

[Hitokage]

Evolution VIII: I demand you also apologize to the Buddhists on the forum.

 

[Evolution VIII]

Evolution VIII: I demand you also apologize to the Buddhists on the forum.

:lol: Sorry all those who do not believe in God.

 

[Hamfam]

No it doesn't sound exactly like the US. Each state within the US still works towards one common goal: to ensure the economic and political prosperity of the United States. We don't have trade barriers between states because we know it is counterproductive and counterintuitive to the ideals of a capitalist society. I mean we don't say, "One nation, under God (sorrty atheists), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" for nothing.

Huh? The whole point of the EU is to get rid of the trade barriers between the countries. That argument hardly supports your "The EU can never be like ths US", because that's exactly the goal the EU is moving towards.

 

[iapetus]

By extension I assume you think the governments and people of European countries that have chosen to remain outside the EU such as Norway and Switzerland are racist and xenophobic?

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. The suggestion is that the UKIP is trying to appeal to xenophobia to argue its case rather than making the social and economic case for leaving the EU. Which I'd agree with to a certain extent, although it's also clear that there are people in the UKIP who believe what they believe for much better reasons.

 

[Evolution VIII]

Huh? The whole point of the EU is to get rid of the trade barriers between the countries. That argument hardly supports your "The EU can never be like ths US", because that's exactly the goal the EU is moving towards.

Removing trade barriers is only part of the solution, but even that is a problem in and of itself. You also need to remove political and social barriers, and that may not happen for several years. To that end, the EU will never be like the United States because the as I've mentioned before, all Americans (or I should say most Americans) work towards one economic, political, and social goal whereas the EU some are willing to work towards a free trade area, but are refusing to work towards any of the other goals.

 

[cja]

Want to apologise to TheDrowningMan, shouldn't have called him ignorant earlier in the thread, his comments just got me rather heated!

"anti-democratic, socialist and appeasement-oriented bureaucrats who run the European Union."

Last time I checked a wast majority of the EU parliamant was CONSERVATIVE and not socialistic at all.

The reason for that is because most EU state governments are socialist (or the left-wing party - however you want to state it) at the moment. When it comes to the EU elections between national elections the protest vote goes towards the parties not in power and so the conservatives hold sway in the EU parliament. That's how it generally went a couple of weeks ago, Spain was an exception afaik. I'd argue the EU parliament is of very little importance in the ruling structure within Brussels anyhow.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. The suggestion is that the UKIP is trying to appeal to xenophobia to argue its case rather than making the social and economic case for leaving the EU.

UKIP appeal to xenophobia, Conservatives to fascism, Labour to marxism, Lib Dems to muslim fundamentalism ... it is very easy to claim that these parties can appeal to extremes because other than the BNP there aren't any real extremist parties to vote for in the UK, so people with strong socially obscure beliefs may well vote for the more popular parties. People moan about lack of choice that the main political parties give them all the time yet when someone does offer something different be it Nadar for the greens in the US or UKIP in the UK they're promoted as freaks and a sideshow.

 

[iapetus]

Labour appeal to Marxism? What's that strange spinning noise I can hear from Highgate Cemetery?

 

[Pimpwerx]

The EU is a great idea that will really benefit the people of Europe. The economic boom could be really worthwhile. Yeah, it's a bit of a socialist democracy, but not fully. IMO, the real problem is the politicians who are bickering over absolute bullshit when they should be considering the citizens of the EU as a large body with a common goal. There need to be some changes in the leadership structure for sure. I think the selection of the executive commission looks sketchy as hell. It should be put to vote among the people of all the member states. That could be complicated, but that's the whole point of the EU, to simplify everything by doing it as one. The politicians just realize that they could soon be demoted from presidents of small countries to mere governors of big states. But WTF should the British people care about the egos of these fucking fat cats? That's all it is, a desperate power struggle to keep relevance. God forbid these politicians actually have to start answering to a greater power.

For the EU to work, the current leaders of the member states need to basically dissolve their power and control to an executive commission of independant members voted in by some EU-wide popular vote. It won't happen though. Everyone's gotta have their finger in the pot, and Europeans are being taken for a ride on the whole thing. PEACE.

 

[reggieandTFE]

I'm an American who finds the European model of capitalism much preferable to our own and am in favor of a strong EU that can provide a counter to US hegemony. However, the bureaucratic bullshit that is tied around the neck of the EU will never let this happen.

It almost seems comparable to what happened with socialism when the Bolsheviks got a hold of it. Great idea, horrible destructive implementation.

 

[Alcibiades]

The problem isn't comparing Texas and California being different to England and France being different, it's comparing how the nature of each government would take into account the people living there...

I'd prefer we compare Mexico and Canada, and the use of NAFTA to ensure free trade without needed integration between countries...

Sure, there are VAST differences (though not as apart as foreigners might think) between Texas and California, and state governments are always doing their own thing, but in the end the federal government is always there to protect individual liberties...

The US, more than being formed as a collection of states, is formed to protect individual rights...

I know I wouldn't trust a system WITHOUT checks and balances to somehow vouch for my individual liberties...

 

[Hamfam]

Removing trade barriers is only part of the solution, but even that is a problem in and of itself. You also need to remove political and social barriers, and that may not happen for several years. To that end, the EU will never be like the United States because the as I've mentioned before, all Americans (or I should say most Americans) work towards one economic, political, and social goal whereas the EU some are willing to work towards a free trade area, but are refusing to work towards any of the other goals.

huh? They're moving towards an EU federal state on economic, social and all policies. And that system won't fail because they're are different opinons etc.. thoughout the EU, since as I've already explained, and should be pretty obvious, exists in every country, especially in the US.

 

[Hamfam]

The problem isn't comparing Texas and California being different to England and France being different, it's comparing how the nature of each government would take into account the people living there...

I'd prefer we compare Mexico and Canada, and the use of NAFTA to ensure free trade without needed integration between countries...

No, you see, the point is, that the EU is moving towards (or my point, that is, CAN move towards) a federal state like the US, so they would have the same federal goverment, as opposed to different goverments. (Since the whole point of the constitution and other steps is to move towards that goal) And there really isn't anything culturally between the countries that would make that impossible.

Sure, there are VAST differences (though not as apart as foreigners might think) between Texas and California, and state governments are always doing their own thing, but in the end the federal government is always there to protect individual liberties...

The US, more than being formed as a collection of states, is formed to protect individual rights...

I know I wouldn't trust a system WITHOUT checks and balances to somehow vouch for my individual liberties...

The EU needs checks and balances (Which I've said before), and that's why I think this slow, trickle, trickle, of powers going over to the EU is a bad thing. I think the leaders of countries need to get together, and set out a really great system for the EU.

Plus, the EU is going to have a charter of fundamental human rights too (which is part of this constitution) and other things.

 

[Ripclawe]

huh? They're moving towards an EU federal state on economic, social and all policies. And that system won't fail because they're are different opinons etc.. thoughout the EU, since as I've already explained, and should be pretty obvious, exists in every country, especially in the US.

you can't compare the EU/US that way, the US grew from one place to an entire country, there may be a differing of opinion for some cultural aspects but you still have broad area of common interests/cultural sameness that makes it work.

The EU is a bunch of different countries/cultures/norms/economic thinking that is being forced to abandon their "independence" for the sake of making a United States of Europe, its fitting a square into a circle. Its dishonest to try and compare United States to the EU and say it works here, it will work there.


The Fact that France and Germany are determined to be the leaders of the EU by trying to boss everyone around proves that the system will not work as they want unless drastic behavioral changes are done.


plus the fact the EU central bank flat out stated the EU cannot compete with America.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=5461966

 

[Hamfam]

huh? The public are the ones voting to ammend the EU constitution, and accept the Euro, etc... You can't say it's being "forced upon them". You say the US just started from one place, and grew to others, well that's what is democratically happening within the EU. Did you think one day the EU just "pops up"?

And remind me again how much of the South actually voted to be apart of the Union? Oh, that's right, they tried to pull out of it. So much for a harmonic union. Infact, how many states in general, within the US originally actually willingly chose to be apart of it through the public voting for it, as opposed to having it forced upon them?

Riiiiight.

 

[Spainkiller]

The US, more than being formed as a collection of states, is formed to protect individual rights...

lol.

Wait a second, isn't the removal of trade barriers a conservative/capitalist platform?

Yes. At a base level, it allows existing markets to be flooded with cheaper products from other countries. Which, of course, is hugely capatilst.

 

[Alcibiades]

No, you see, the point is, that the EU is moving towards (or my point, that is, CAN move towards) a federal state like the US, so they would have the same federal goverment, as opposed to different goverments. (Since the whole point of the constitution and other steps is to move towards that goal) And there really isn't anything culturally between the countries that would make that impossible.

thing is, states do have different governments, a house/senate/governor/judical branch, etc...

and they all hold sway in the forming of the national government, with balances based on population and being a member state...

in the 2002 elections, the STATE legislature (Republican) was going to take control (granted to it by the US Constitution) of the electoral votes if things got out of hand (not that they hadn't already)...

getting England and France to adopt almost mirror governments for their own nations would be like trying to get Canada and Mexico to do the same...

sure they are both Democratic, but that's not enough, there are cultural barriers to overcome...

California and Texas may be their own countries in some ways, but culturally (except MAYBE Hawaii), all the states in the US are really pretty similar, and the stability that exists took over a century but has worked out chinks decade by decade...

The EU needs checks and balances (Which I've said before), and that's why I think this slow, trickle, trickle, of powers going over to the EU is a bad thing. I think the leaders of countries need to get together, and set out a really great system for the EU.

Plus, the EU is going to have a charter of fundamental human rights too (which is part of this constitution) and other things.

" I think the leaders of countries need to get together, and set out a really great system for the EU."

who wouldn't want that, but that's wishful thinking, when everyone is trying to make sure their own country (or "state) gets more power in deciding the government of the EU...

The US works because even small population states like Wisconsom, the Dakotas, etc... are given power (senate, less electoral college sway) to balance the power mandated by population counts (the US House, more electoral college sway, etc...)

I highly doubt someone like Chirac or Sheorder are going to "get together" and "set out a really great system for the EU", because that would mean giving Eastern Europe A LOT of control, which seems doubtful at the moment, and Britain/Tony Blair's actions are irrelevant going to do anything to change that... (maybe diplomatically they can do something but just look at what happened with diplomacy and the Iraq War)...

The US government was formed out of a protest against absolute monarchy, unfair taxation (without representation), and with the intent of protecting individual rights (like freedom to demonstrate, practice religion, etc...)...

France and Germany seem to be working against those very principles which jump-started the thought-out government the Founding Fathers would form...

that's the difference, Jefferson, Madison, and gang did "get together, and set out a really great system for the US", and it even set components for natural evolvement...

The idea of creating and EU for the sake of setting up a pole of power in parallel the US is a totally different starting point than creating a government for the purpose of protecting individualism and against the powers of the state (in other words a not all-powerful federal government)....

the state and local governments (and now US Senate) represent the people and the Founders were intent on limiting the power of the national government, exactly the opposite of the route the EU is going...

 

[Evolution VIII]

huh? They're moving towards an EU federal state on economic, social and all policies. And that system won't fail because they're are different opinons etc.. thoughout the EU, since as I've already explained, and should be pretty obvious, exists in every country, especially in the US.

No they're not. If they were, there wouldn't be such opposition to joining the EU in the first place. Difference of opinion is one thing, but what you have here is countries still wanting to be independent yet part of the EU. Can the EU be a successful institution that can counter the American might in social, economic and political affairs? Certainly, but not unless they start acting as one unit with one head.

And remind me again how much of the South actually voted to be apart of the Union? Oh, that's right, they tried to pull out of it. So much for a harmonic union. Infact, how many states in general, within the US originally actually willingly chose to be apart of it through the public voting for it, as opposed to having it forced upon them?

Well, in the case of the South, it was actually good to have them forced back into the Union, unless you think that slavery should've been kept legal. And almost all of the states voluntarily chose to join the US because 1) it was the US that was buying most of the land to extend it westward and 2) most people who settled in the newer states were still American and subscribed to American ideals and values.

 

[Alcibiades]

lol.

what I meant was that the purpose of the US wasn't to link states together just for the sake of one government, but to have states be the proponents of what the people wanted without a full-out mob democracy (so the end result was a representative democratic republic)...

 

[Spainkiller]

what I meant was that the purpose of the US wasn't to link states together just for the sake of one government, but to have states be the proponents of what the people wanted without a full-out mob democracy (so the end result was a representative democratic republic)...

Well I'll give you that. It didn't really work though - there tend to be only a few states that actually matter now. Florida, Texas, California, Washington, for example. Everybody else just follows their lead.

 

[Alcibiades]

kind of, but the fact that so many Senate seats belong to small states shows they still are there to balance the power of populated states...

besides, right now Bush and Kerry are focused on like 17 "swing" states if you can believe it, and only Florida out of the "big 4" is among them...

so middle states do hold sway and power...

the government is actually pretty beautiful when you consider all the balance of power there is, cause Texas, New York, and California of course have tons of seats in the house, so they aren't exactly powerless...

the US isn't perfect, but it certainly is one of the finest I've heard/read about...

 

[Spainkiller]

I agree with you on some points, and would also agree that the US system is very nice. But only in theory. Unfortunatly it's just as - and more so in a lot of cases - corrupt as everywhere else. If nobody could be bought, as it were, then the democratic structure would certainly be a model for other countries to follow in the future. However, people are bought, and despite certain forms of funding from corporations to politicians/parties being illegal, the sheer power of said corporations means they can more or less do what they want. The fact that many politicians sit on the board of directors for the big players also harms the democratic process.

The reason that so many people pick up on the US for being corrupt is that it's so insanely powerful and the effects are seen on a global scale.

I feel that I'm missing your point though. It's 12:42AM over here and I've got work in the morning

 

[Hamfam]

thing is, states do have different governments, a house/senate/governor/judical branch, etc...

and they all hold sway in the forming of the national government, with balances based on population and being a member state...

Right, and why can't a system like that set up with the EU? Infact, the EU is set up with different branches, etc... right now, the only problem is, it's not very coherant. It doesn't even have a foreign minister or anything right now. That's what my point is: The EU should reform itself to be a better system.

getting England and France to adopt almost mirror governments for their own nations would be like trying to get Canada and Mexico to do the same...

sure they are both Democratic, but that's not enough, there are cultural barriers to overcome...

California and Texas may be their own countries in some ways, but culturally (except MAYBE Hawaii), all the states in the US are really pretty similar, and the stability that exists took over a century but has worked out chinks decade by decade...

What cultural barriers exist in regards to any two European countries, that don't exist between Texas and California? And that's NOW, after years are being under the same system, before it'd be even more difference.

Since "cultural barriers" seems to be the argument here saying that an EU federal system couldn't work, could we actually hear what these so called cultural barriers are? And before you say them, to save me the trouble, ask yourself, "Can this also be applied to the US? Or any country?"

The US works because even small population states like Wisconsom, the Dakotas, etc... are given power (senate, less electoral college sway) to balance the power mandated by population counts (the US House, more electoral college sway, etc...)

I highly doubt someone like Chirac or Sheorder are going to "get together" and "set out a really great system for the EU", because that would mean giving Eastern Europe A LOT of control, which seems doubtful at the moment, and Britain/Tony Blair's actions are irrelevant going to do anything to change that... (maybe diplomatically they can do something but just look at what happened with diplomacy and the Iraq War)...

that's the difference, Jefferson, Madison, and gang did "get together, and set out a really great system for the US", and it even set components for natural evolvement...

The idea of creating and EU for the sake of setting up a pole of power in parallel the US is a totally different starting point than creating a government for the purpose of protecting individualism and against the powers of the state (in other words a not all-powerful federal government)....

Chirac and Shroeder aren't creating the EU, it's the part of all the EU nations, and the population of all the EU nations will vote on it, this current EU constitution needs to be passed in all countries to be adopted, by a referendum. How can you say that Shroeder and Chirac are going to set up a goverment totally beneficial to them, when that process is even more democratic than even the US was probally set up? The purpose and setting up the EU then of course, can, and eventually will ultimately be there for the people.

You have a point about the US founders starting off with dictatorship, and giving freedoms, and the EU having the freedoms, and wanting to be a union. But really, ultimately, the whole point of the EU is to benefit the people, economically and whatever. Also, human rights are a CRUCIAL part of the EU, Turkey and lots of countries are actually being made to reform alot of their human rights, and other policies before they are given the chance of joining.

The only thing stopping the EU from being a system that benefits its people, like the US, is cultural differences, but seriously, I can't think of any so called cultural differences that will make that impossible, that's any different from the US, or even most countries.

 

[Evolution VIII]

kind of, but the fact that so many Senate seats belong to small states shows they still are there to balance the power of populated states...

besides, right now Bush and Kerry are focused on like 17 "swing" states if you can believe it, and only Florida out of the "big 4" is among them...

so middle states do hold sway and power...

the government is actually pretty beautiful when you consider all the balance of power there is, cause Texas, New York, and California of course have tons of seats in the house, so they aren't exactly powerless...

the US isn't perfect, but it certainly is one of the finest I've heard/read about...

Exactly, and this is one of the reasons why the EU will not work, at least in the short run. Too many countries that are "rich" and belong to the G23 are not willing to give an iota of power to the poorer and former Soviet countries because they feel they haven't earned it yet. There is a lot of xenophobia and elitism that is present in the EU and it will never work until these kinds of differences are set aside.

 

[Spainkiller]

Either way, you can't argue that entering the EU would certainly be interesting. In the short-term I think it's going to be a bit of a blunder, but it's also an inevitability that the UK will enter at some point, and eventually, it will be seen as the right thing to do.

 

[Hamfam]

No they're not. If they were, there wouldn't be such opposition to joining the EU in the first place. Difference of opinion is one thing, but what you have here is countries still wanting to be independent yet part of the EU. Can the EU be a successful institution that can counter the American might in social, economic and political affairs? Certainly, but not unless they start acting as one unit with one head.

Right, that's my point, the EU should start acting like one unit and one head.

And yes, you've got a point about some countries wanting to be apart of Europe, but not fully part of the EU. I think those countries should be made to choose whether they aren't or are part of the EU, and we can start making coherant steps in the direction we're moving in ANYWAY.

Well, in the case of the South, it was actually good to have them forced back into the Union, unless you think that slavery should've been kept legal. And almost all of the states voluntarily chose to join the US because 1) it was the US that was buying most of the land to extend it westward and 2) most people who settled in the newer states were still American and subscribed to American ideals and values.

You're saying the cultural divide in the case of the South didn't matter, because it was "good" and benefitted the South. Well, that doesn't change the fact they didn't want to be apart of the union. And the EU, just like the US, will also benefit the people that are part of it.

Plus, in the same paragraph of acknowleding a huge cultural difference, you said both the south/north subscribed to the same American ideals of values and freedom. @_@ Wanting slavery, not wanting slavery, was a big issue, and there certainly wasn't an agreement. Even now, California seems to be much more so to the left, Texas much more so to the right. Yet the union works!

 

[Evolution VIII]

I agree with you on some points, and would also agree that the US system is very nice. But only in theory. Unfortunatly it's just as - and more so in a lot of cases - corrupt as everywhere else. If nobody could be bought, as it were, then the democratic structure would certainly be a model for other countries to follow in the future. However, people are bought, and despite certain forms of funding from corporations to politicians/parties being illegal, the sheer power of said corporations means they can more or less do what they want. The fact that many politicians sit on the board of directors for the big players also harms the democratic process.

Obviously corruption will always exist because there are individuals who are motivated by self-interests. However, the US government's corruption is kept to a minimum and it also follows the rules that it set forth.

 

[Evolution VIII]

You're saying the cultural divide in the case of the South didn't matter, because it was "good" and benefitted the South. Well, that doesn't change the fact they didn't want to be apart of the union. And the EU, just like the US, will also benefit the people that are part of it.

I didn't say the cultural divide in the South didn't matter, but that it was the wrong choice. The reasons for not being part of the Union was terrible and don't try to use that as justification for them not wanting to be a part of it.

Plus, in the same paragraph of acknowleding a huge cultural difference, you said both the south/north subscribed to the same American ideals of values and freedom. @_@ Wanting slavery, not wanting slavery, was a big issue, and there certainly wasn't an agreement. Even now, California seems to be much more so to the left, Texas much more so to the right. Yet the union works!

There was a subscription to same cultural ideals and values (just not for blacks). Racism still existed in the North as it did in the South. Also, the fact that the South was so regressive in its economic and political ideals still exist to this day (with the majority of the country's poor living in the South). Of course I don't need to explain that to you.

And although California may be leftist and Texas is rightish, they still have one agenda: the ensurance of the political and economic prosperity of the US. They work towards one common goal despite having differing opinions.

 

[Hamfam]

I didn't say the cultural divide in the South didn't matter, but that it was the wrong choice. The reasons for not being part of the Union was terrible and don't try to use that as justification for them not wanting to be a part of it.

That doesn't make any sense as an argument though. The point is that there was a cultural difference. What does it matter if one side was more right than the other? One side will be more right in ANY cultural divide. Using your logic, the EU is justified, because I can simply jump on any side of the cultural divide I want and say, "Okay, the EU is cool, because I can force these opinions on the others!"

There was a subscription to same cultural ideals and values (just not for blacks). Racism still existed in the North as it did in the South. Also, the fact that the South was so regressive in its economic and political ideals still exist to this day (with the majority of the country's poor living in the South). Of course I don't need to explain that to you.

And although California may be leftist and Texas is rightish, they still have one agenda: the ensurance of the political and economic prosperity of the US. They work towards one common goal despite having differing opinions.

Okay, since you seem to be just brushing over all the cultural divides in the US, (even one going as far as to create a civil war) could you explain to me what cultural divides in Europe are any different?

And also, uh, a european country would just as much look out for the political/economic prosperity of the EU, as the US does for the US. Why exactly would that change with Europe if it was set up as a more federal system like the US?

Let's remember, ultimately, everyone looks out for the economic prosperity of THEMSELVES. The system itself only matters as far as because of this, people will look out for the country their apart of. People in Britain will want their country to be better off, people in California will want their state to be better off. Putting them under the same goverment system just changes the country/goverment or whatever they want to do best.

------

You sound more like you're arguing why a European continent of different countries without a single "union/goverment", can't be like the US, (what with keep emphasizing that the US people, unlike the EU, will look out for "the political/economic success of the US"), when the whole point of this argument is that an EU federal type system like the US could be set up, and be beneficial to its people.

 

[Evolution VIII]

That doesn't make any sense as an argument though. The point is that there was a cultural difference. What does it matter if one side was more right than the other? One side will be more right in ANY cultural divide. Using your logic, the EU is justified, because I can simply jump on any side of the cultural divide I want and say, "Okay, the EU is cool, because I can force these opinions on the others!"

At no point did I ever say that the EU was not necessary, just that it won't be like the US. Reason being is that there is cultural divide between several different countries that had been independent for several years, and by joining the EU some will have less than others as opposed to having an equal share. Even in the divided North and South, the states that seceded to form the Confederation still worked towards one goal albeit a wrong and heinous one. So you still can't compare the EU's situation to that of late-1800s United States.

Okay, since you seem to be just brushing over all the cultural divides in the US, (even one going as far as to create a civil war) could you explain to me what cultural divides in Europe are any different?

I'm not brushing all over the cultural divides in the US, but it is you who keeps trying to say that the US pursuits different interests. Do cultural divides exist in the US? Yes. Does this have an influence on the overall goals of the US in regards to economic, political and social agendas? No. Even with cultural divides we still subscribe to capitalist policies, we still subscribe to the two-party political system, and we still believe in the advancement of human rights for all of America's citizens and equal opportunity.

Does any of the latter exist in Europe? Not really. For starters, there are those who want a complete socialist economy and others who want a capitalist economy, there are more than two parties in each EU's member countries' political system which does nothing to promote the interests of individuals, and xenophobia and elitism has a profound effect upon the decisions made by current EU members.

And also, uh, a european country would just as much look out for the political/economic prosperity of the EU, as the US does for the US. Why exactly would that change with Europe if it was set up as a more federal system like the US?

But the EU members still will look out for the individual interests of their countries, not for the sake of the EU. Although Arizona has different economic agendas than California, they both still want to ensure the success of the US. However, I highly doubt that France really wants to ensure that Germany is more successful than it, let alone a small country like Poland.

Let's remember, ultimately, everyone looks out for the economic prosperity of THEMSELVES. The system itself only matters as far as because of this, people will look out for the country their apart of. People in Britain will want their country to be better off, people in California will want their state to be better off. Putting them under the same goverment system just changes the country/goverment or whatever they want to do best.

California may want to attract more businesses than Arizona, but it still all goes to the same pot which is to ensure that US grows. However, if California is more successful than Arizona, it will be able to attract new business and citizens, which of course helps it out when it comes to electing officials for the federal government. I'm not sure, but I don't think the EU reports GDP as an aggregate total of all its member countries (correct me if I am). So if Britain outperforms France or Germany, it won't mean that it would get more seats in the EU Parliament.

 

[Alcibiades]

Right, and why can't a system like that set up with the EU? Infact, the EU is set up with different branches, etc...

not saying it's not possible, just that it's unlikely cause right now every "member state" is its own country with its own liberties and government, and the point of the EU isn't just free trade like a treaty, it's the creation of a government (which would serve the purpose, intentional or not, of taking away individual liberties at least a step at at time, since it'll have some power over the citizens it won't just be each country overseeing it's citizens)...

right now, the only problem is, it's not very coherant. It doesn't even have a foreign minister or anything right now. That's what my point is: The EU should reform itself to be a better system.

what makes you think it'll reform into a better system?

what make me think it won't? the leadership right now that seems to be hostile to sharing too much power, and seemingly wanted it to be centralized with France/Germany...

What cultural barriers exist in regards to any two European countries, that don't exist between Texas and California? And that's NOW, after years are being under the same system, before it'd be even more difference.

let's see, 30% of France wanted Saddam to beat the US and Iraq to come out a victorious dictatorship... can you say the same for Eastern Europe?

actually, California and Texas started out very alike, as part of former Mexico, with eventual US migratations as part of the "US West"

sure they've grown apart in terms of social matters, but even then, for the most part both are liberal (not in the right/left sense) thinking places where most people are just working to seek satisfaction as part of the government system they are in... heck, they both speak a lot of Spanish because of traditional Mexican migration... they both have pretty conservative rural/smaller town areas, and more liberal big cities, with mainstream suburban ares... jeez the similarities are pretty endless, people are just doing their own thing not minding other's business I'd say, as long as they are free to pursue their happiness they are fine...

Since "cultural barriers" seems to be the argument here saying that an EU federal system couldn't work, could we actually hear what these so called cultural barriers are? And before you say them, to save me the trouble, ask yourself, "Can this also be applied to the US? Or any country?"

I'd say their are quite some cultural differences between a country that had 1/3 of it's population wishing Saddam would be a victor compared to lets say Britain and Eastern Europe... sure in the US everybody had their own opinion, but once the war started, California and Massachussets didn't want President Bush to be embarresed and lose, they wanted to win the war even if they were against it...

Chirac and Shroeder aren't creating the EU, it's the part of all the EU nations, and the population of all the EU nations will vote on it, this current EU constitution needs to be passed in all countries to be adopted, by a referendum. How can you say that Shroeder and Chirac are going to set up a goverment totally beneficial to them, when that process is even more democratic than even the US was probally set up? The purpose and setting up the EU then of course, can, and eventually will ultimately be there for the people.

More democratic doesn't necessarily mean less power-grabbing...

If the US was "more democratic" Texas, California, NY, and Florida would rule the country and you wouldn't see Bush and Kerry forming platforms that appealed to the mid-west ("middle America", the heartland, etc..)

it's a balance of democratic (population-decided) and representative (each state getting a say through a republic form of government - think The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, without the evil Sith conspiracy) controls through different levels of government...

from that Guardian article RipClawe posted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1242605,00.html) though, it seemed like France was trying to keep other smaller countries pretty isolated...

You have a point about the US founders starting off with dictatorship, and giving freedoms, and the EU having the freedoms, and wanting to be a union. But really, ultimately, the whole point of the EU is to benefit the people, economically and whatever. Also, human rights are a CRUCIAL part of the EU, Turkey and lots of countries are actually being made to reform alot of their human rights, and other policies before they are given the chance of joining.

well, the point of the US/Founding Fathers was not so much to "benefit the people" per se, but to grant freedoms (from "God") and really #1 was PROTECT RIGHTS (despite the slavery contradiction), with economics not really being the main point, but fairness (like the tax issue, they cared more that they weren't getting a say and being treated fairly compared to mainland England...

that's true about human rights in other countries, but that's a side-effect of forming this EU, not the purpose...

]The only thing stopping the EU from being a system that benefits its people, like the US, is cultural differences, but seriously, I can't think of any so called cultural differences that will make that impossible, that's any different from the US, or even most countries.

let's see, the truth is the US doesn't really "hate", it's goes about enjoying itself and if someone bothers us we get mad of course, while at the same time been "somewhat" of a policeman when it benefits us...

Europe on the other hand can't stop hating... sure there's that "freedom fries" deal by a couple of wackos in Florida, but I doubt 1/3 of the US would want France to lose a conflict if it went on it's own (lets say in somewhere in Africa or something), while France on the other hand actually hates the US... 1/3 wanted us to lose... quite some cultural differences if you ask me...

 

[Alcibiades]

I agree with you on some points, and would also agree that the US system is very nice. But only in theory. Unfortunatly it's just as - and more so in a lot of cases - corrupt as everywhere else. If nobody could be bought, as it were, then the democratic structure would certainly be a model for other countries to follow in the future. However, people are bought, and despite certain forms of funding from corporations to politicians/parties being illegal, the sheer power of said corporations means they can more or less do what they want. The fact that many politicians sit on the board of directors for the big players also harms the democratic process.

The reason that so many people pick up on the US for being corrupt is that it's so insanely powerful and the effects are seen on a global scale.

I feel that I'm missing your point though. It's 12:42AM over here and I've got work in the morning

the corruption point is taken, and it's actually not subdued at all... that said, the Union is stable and the environmentalist lobby is there against the oil lobby, the unions against the business, etc...

as long as you have voices represented in government somehow, corruption entirely taking over is unlikely...

it's not perfect, but it works....

 

[Hamfam]

At no point did I ever say that the EU was not necessary, just that it won't be like the US. Reason being is that there is cultural divide between several different countries that had been independent for several years, and by joining the EU some will have less than others as opposed to having an equal share. Even in the divided North and South, the states that seceded to form the Confederation still worked towards one goal albeit a wrong and heinous one. So you still can't compare the EU's situation to that of late-1800s United States.

They worked towards a single goal together as seperate entities, but against completly different goals, not even wanting to be apart of the union as an entity of the US. The south didn't even want to be apart of the US, yet it was forced on them, yet you're saying the EU can't work because there's apparently nationalism between countries? (Despite the fact countries are actually voting and choosing to be in the EU, as opposed to the South did)

I'm not brushing all over the cultural divides in the US, but it is you who keeps trying to say that the US pursuits different interests. Do cultural divides exist in the US? Yes. Does this have an influence on the overall goals of the US in regards to economic, political and social agendas? No. Even with cultural divides we still subscribe to capitalist policies, we still subscribe to the two-party political system, and we still believe in the advancement of human rights for all of America's citizens and equal opportunity.

Does any of the latter exist in Europe? Not really. For starters, there are those who want a complete socialist economy and others who want a capitalist economy, there are more than two parties in each EU's member countries' political system which does nothing to promote the interests of individuals, and xenophobia and elitism has a profound effect upon the decisions made by current EU members.

The only reason there seems be a single economic stance in the US, is because there's only one majority in the US, (Because it's all one single country). If you split the US up into different states, etc... you'd start to see the differences emerge. Even now there are differences in the US. You can't say that California doesn't have (for what little power they have the ability to) a more socialist type approach than alot of other places.

If you make a single goverment, then there will be a single acted upon belief, and a majority sharing that belief, and minorities dis-agreeing with that belief. You have that in the US, you'll have it in the EU.

As for the rest: Europeans also believe in the advancement of human rights, and equal opportunity, at-least as much as the US does.

But the EU members still will look out for the individual interests of their countries, not for the sake of the EU. Although Arizona has different economic agendas than California, they both still want to ensure the success of the US. However, I highly doubt that France really wants to ensure that Germany is more successful than it, let alone a small country like Poland.

I really don't understand where you're going with this. Do you really think the states in the US are always thinking about the other states? The only reason they care about the US as a whole, is because that's their country. What's best for their country, is best for them. If France and Germany were part of the EU, they'd want the EU to do well.

 

[Hamfam]

I'll reply to your post later efralope, your posts are much longer.

 

[Alcibiades]

I'd like to make a quick point that the idealism of each state working towards "common US goal" is a tad overrstated...

the truth is everybody (individually as people) is just really pursuing their own happiness, and the system of government in the US is just a good fit somehow...

not saying that would work elsewhere...

like collective societies (like Japan) might want a stronger head of state, etc...