Make or break for the European Union - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SataniX;33653895] That being said, I still think he should have not vetoed it and instead negotiated which could have have far better benefits for Britain as a whole instead.[/QUOTE] It did go on for some 10 hours so I assume he did try to negotiate before walking away.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33655440]What of countries that have already merged? Let's look at Britain for example. It is made up of 3 countries mostly (Wales, Scotland and England) along with Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland have their own parliaments and the people do widely celebrate their own identity, culture, language, etc but in large polls conducted many people do not wish to become their own separate nation. Scotland for example used to be its own fiercely independent nation, and very slowly with time it has become more "British" than "Scottish". And with each successive generation this United Kingdom becomes more united. Many people I know whom are proudly Scottish profess very much that they wish to remain British too. It is the same with Europe, but on a larger scale, and it has already happened in many places. Germany and Italy for example used to be composed of dozens upon dozens of independent city states and kingdoms. As a result of the industrial revolution by the end of the 19th century both had formed into single nations. All that is needed is time and communication. Therefore I support strict border controls to be lessened inside Europe, free internet access, pro-european newspapers, encouragement by the media and the such, along with heavy investment into improvement of the railways, roads and ports. The faster a message is sent to a wider population the better.[/QUOTE] England went over a long campaign over the last few hundred years to try and erase Scottish, Welsh and Irish culture (until Ireland broke away when new found nationalism arose among the population) and in a lot of regards England destroyed a lot of what made the Scots - Scottish (the near destruction of their language for example). It was perfectly normal right up until the late 1930's to call the whole of Britain, England until Scottish nationalism arose and got rather offended by it, even historically we've done this; the oxford history of England is actually about the whole of Britain and the treaty of Berlin was written as the Prime minister of England, not Britain (the one part stood for the whole so to speak). Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments but they can't do much as they are still under Westminster for budgets and most law. Many Scots I know wish to be independent from Britain as they feel they are not represented enough, that Britain is actually English rather than 4 states. Actually, its gotten so bad from what I have experienced that a lot of them hate being called British and rather to be known as Scottish (I would've thought this would be more well known seeing the Scottish National Party is in power there, one of the soul reasons they exist is for independence form the union). Italy is still collection of city states, even during the Roman Empire it was like this, it is only under name they are 'unified'. From small collections of states gave away for one big nation, but each state was still culturally different to the other, I mean fuck me one part of Italy speaks a version of Arabic. A country can only grow so large until it culturally splits into dozens of different groups. Border control isn't even strict in Europe, where did you get that from, I can travel and move across all of Europe that is in the union freely as long as I have my passport. Pro-european newspapers? So you admit you are actually biased then - ok, theres no point with debating with someone living in the clouds with an agenda. Governments already invest into industry a lot wtf are you talking about. Giving people free internet does not change their culture, by this logic I should be more American now due to the massive population of Americans to British on the English side of the internet. Why don't you show me some evidence that has changed a group of people culturally since they have gained access to the internet. I'm actually pro EU but I can acknowledge a one state nation is some loony dream, you've shown your merit by admitting you would brainwash and limit freedom of the press to achieve this out of some 'greater good' philosophy you have.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33655440]What of countries that have already merged? Let's look at Britain for example. It is made up of 3 countries mostly (Wales, Scotland and England) along with Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland have their own parliaments and the people do widely celebrate their own identity, culture, language, etc but in large polls conducted many people do not wish to become their own separate nation. Scotland for example used to be its own fiercely independent nation, and very slowly with time it has become more "British" than "Scottish". And with each successive generation this United Kingdom becomes more united. Many people I know whom are proudly Scottish profess very much that they wish to remain British too. It is the same with Europe, but on a larger scale, and it has already happened in many places. Germany and Italy for example used to be composed of dozens upon dozens of independent city states and kingdoms. As a result of the industrial revolution by the end of the 19th century both had formed into single nations. All that is needed is time and communication. Therefore I support strict border controls to be lessened inside Europe, free internet access, pro-european newspapers, encouragement by the media and the such, along with heavy investment into improvement of the railways, roads and ports. The faster a message is sent to a wider population the better.[/QUOTE] What of countries that have already seperated. Or countries that had been under control of a different larger entity for a long time. Can you imagine the french merging together with the germans. Czechs and slovaks merging together again, the polish joining into this larger superstate once more. There's just far too much bad blood in Europe for this to work. A certain confederacy of nations - yes. But not a distinct federation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33655440]What of countries that have already merged? Let's look at Britain for example. [b]It is made up of 3 countries mostly (Wales, Scotland and England) along with Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland have their own parliaments[/b] and the people do widely celebrate their own identity, culture, language, etc but in large polls conducted many people do not wish to become their own separate nation. Scotland for example used to be its own fiercely independent nation, and very slowly with time it has become more "British" than "Scottish". And with each successive generation this United Kingdom becomes more united. Many people I know whom are proudly Scottish profess very much that they wish to remain British too. It is the same with Europe, but on a larger scale, and it has already happened in many places. Germany and Italy for example used to be composed of dozens upon dozens of independent city states and kingdoms. As a result of the industrial revolution by the end of the 19th century both had formed into single nations. All that is needed is time and communication. Therefore I support strict border controls to be lessened inside Europe, free internet access, pro-european newspapers, encouragement by the media and the such, along with heavy investment into improvement of the railways, roads and ports. The faster a message is sent to a wider population the better.[/QUOTE] Just so you know, Northern Ireland is also considered a "country" of the UK, and it has its own parliament too.

I don't even understand why ive been following this story for the last few days. Cameron's Fucked our chances with the EU anyway.

[QUOTE=Caesar;33656571]Just so you know, Northern Ireland is also considered a "country" of the UK, and it has its own parliament too.[/QUOTE] I know, just that it is somewhat disputed by various people.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;33656063]What of countries that have already seperated. Or countries that had been under control of a different larger entity for a long time. Can you imagine the french merging together with the germans. Czechs and slovaks merging together again, the polish joining into this larger superstate once more. There's just far too much bad blood in Europe for this to work. A certain confederacy of nations - yes. But not a distinct federation.[/QUOTE] Pretty much all of this is caused by ignorance or feuds being given from generation to generation. Imagine if every parent would educate their children saying "Europeans are, at the very heart, the same people." What would happen? Well, if this went on for multiple generations, a unified Europe could be possible. The opposite is happening now, though. "We are not British, but we are Scottish/Irish/Welsh" or whatever. To give you an idea of a country where this HAS worked, look at France, of all places. They forcefully annexed part of Flanders in 1677, and recently they have accepted the people there to keep speaking Flemish if they wanted to, and to embrace their culture. Not one of these people wants to separate from France. Or how about Brittany, or Alsace-Lorraine? If everyone is a bit more open-minded, and I understand the idealistic part of me is speaking now, Europeans really aren't that different. We can work together, maybe not as one kingdom or something like that, but a confederation or even a federation could work.

[QUOTE=Tomthetechy;33656646]I don't even understand why ive been following this story for the last few days. Cameron's Fucked our chances with the EU anyway.[/QUOTE] Didn't Cameron fuck up a fair lot of things?

[QUOTE=deltasquid;33656787]Pretty much all of this is caused by ignorance or feuds being given from generation to generation. [/QUOTE] uh Czechslovakia broke up because both of these nations were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the Great War. After World War II, they were bunged together to make one country, even though they had very little to do with each other. The first chance they got after the Russians admitted they could manage their own affairs, they split up due to Slovakia being economically backward and a burden on Czech land. Flanders now belongs to Belgium and they're a mix of French, Belgian and Roman-Flander culture. People being so ignorant isn't the reason why the whole world isn't one united landscape.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;33656787]Pretty much all of this is caused by ignorance or feuds being given from generation to generation. Imagine if every parent would educate their children saying "Europeans are, at the very heart, the same people." What would happen? Well, if this went on for multiple generations, a unified Europe could be possible. The opposite is happening now, though. "We are not British, but we are Scottish/Irish/Welsh" or whatever. To give you an idea of a country where this HAS worked, look at France, of all places. They forcefully annexed part of Flanders in 1677, and recently they have accepted the people there to keep speaking Flemish if they wanted to, and to embrace their culture. Not one of these people wants to separate from France. Or how about Brittany, or Alsace-Lorraine? If everyone is a bit more open-minded, and I understand the idealistic part of me is speaking now, Europeans really aren't that different. We can work together, maybe not as one kingdom or something like that, but a confederation or even a federation could work.[/QUOTE] Okay, and how exactly are you going to force the parents to try and teach the children things the parents themselves don't believe. The more you put pressure on them, the more likely you will get to see dissent among them. That doesn't even bring under account the vastly different economical realities of the current EU nations.

Absolutely love this clip: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_djN8wZJg[/media] David just got completely rejected, can't stop laughing. [editline]10th December 2011[/editline] It's just the look on his face, hahaaha

[QUOTE=wraithcat;33657244]Okay, and how exactly are you going to force the parents to try and teach the children things the parents themselves don't believe. The more you put pressure on them, the more likely you will get to see dissent among them. That doesn't even bring under account the vastly different economical realities of the current EU nations.[/QUOTE] I didn't give it as an example of what we [b]should or could[/b] do, I just used it as an example to put it into perspective.

Forever Alone!

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33654022]Anything is possible with time. Whole nations with unique cultures and languages have been wiped off the face of the earth before.[/QUOTE] Usually by means of genocide.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;33658922]Usually by means of genocide.[/QUOTE] Or trade, education and other such less violent methods.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33660647]Or trade, education and other such less violent methods.[/QUOTE] If you're referring to the Vergonha and Welsh Knot, they didn't work and were both despicable.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;33656787]If everyone is a bit more open-minded, and I understand the idealistic part of me is speaking now, Europeans really aren't that different. We can work together, maybe not as one kingdom or something like that, but a confederation or even a federation could work.[/QUOTE] I don't really see what advantage a central government has over the current EU. What exactly is the point of combining into one federation, especially when individual countries have well-functioning governments already?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33660647]Or trade, education and other such less violent methods.[/QUOTE] Gonna take at-least a century.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;33662417]I don't really see what advantage a central government has over the current EU. What exactly is the point of combining into one federation, especially when individual countries have well-functioning governments already?[/QUOTE] Good question. It all boils down to the "Monnet vs De Gaulle" problem. Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism? My argument is that Supranationalism worked for Britain quite well. Britain is a union. You didn't have a confederation of 4 equal and separate governments when you, guys, are managing your enormous empire. You have a central government that is supreme over the others and decides on stuff. The problem with this is that England is obviously the dominant one in this union but that is not the case with the EU. Germany CAN be countered. So instead of 27 separate and equal governments that can't decide on shit like whether the sky is blue. You have one federation. Second point is that you cannot have 27 separate governments when they uses the same bloody currency. That doesn't work. Political union comes firsts, currency goes second. Unfortunately, the EU choose to put the cart before the horse. The other argument for the need for integration and federation is, what the whole point of the EU actually is, 'strength in numbers'. The EU, at the moment, is the largest economical block on the planet and that is good. Do you really think that jolly old Britain can still exert it's influence around the globe? You can still say "yes, barely." today but what about in 20 years time? Do you think that even the most powerful economy in Europe, Germany, can stand up to Russia alone if interests collides? Russia can pretty much roll its tanks to Europe if it wasn't for America. Actually, no need for rolling tanks, all it needs to do is to close down the oil pipes. In an increasingly multi-polar world, the shift of strategic focus from Europe to the Far East, and the tough financial drain America is in, I would say it's delusional to think that America is still willing to pay for Europe's security and interests, which many Europeans have taken for granted. This federation thing isn't some idealistic bullcrap, it's a way for Europe to have some say in the international stage. Of course, it's possible for Europe to remain the same and be content with 27 tiny states but they shouldn't complain when they are being cornered by other powers.

[QUOTE=Van-man;33662574]Gonna take at-least a century.[/QUOTE] Should still encourage it heavily though, a century is better than five. And each year it is done the easier the next becomes.

I think the UK should fuck of out the EU and get on with it so they cant take our fucking money and abuse our relationships such as france or germany, holding grudged since WWII fucking grow up.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33660647]Or trade, education and other such less violent methods.[/QUOTE] Majority of continental wide unity have always ended in genocide and forced culture change Soviets did it Mongolians did it Nazis did it Romans did it Could go on, if you honestly believe better trade and education somehow equates one big super state then you're mad. You're implying we who appose one big nation are somehow ignorant - stupid compared to your ideals. Though you've already stated you would restrict freedoms of the press to achieve this. If you look through history, Europe has always apposed and fought against continental wide unity. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=redhaven;33662817]Good question. It all boils down to the "Monnet vs De Gaulle" problem. Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism? My argument is that Supranationalism worked for Britain quite well. Britain is a union. You didn't have a confederation of 4 equal and separate governments when you, guys, are managing your enormous empire. You have a central government that is supreme over the others and decides on stuff. The problem with this is that England is obviously the dominant one in this union but that is not the case with the EU. Germany CAN be countered. So instead of 27 separate and equal governments that can't decide on shit like whether the sky is blue. You have one federation. Second point is that you cannot have 27 separate governments when they uses the same bloody currency. That doesn't work. Political union comes firsts, currency goes second. Unfortunately, the EU choose to put the cart before the horse. The other argument for the need for integration and federation is, what the whole point of the EU actually is, 'strength in numbers'. The EU, at the moment, is the largest economical block on the planet and that is good. Do you really think that jolly old Britain can still exert it's influence around the globe? You can still say "yes, barely." today but what about in 20 years time? Do you think that even the most powerful economy in Europe, Germany, can stand up to Russia alone if interests collides? Russia can pretty much roll its tanks to Europe if it wasn't for America. Actually, no need for rolling tanks, all it needs to do is to close down the oil pipes. In an increasingly multi-polar world, the shift of strategic focus from Europe to the Far East, and the tough financial drain America is in, I would say it's delusional to think that America is still willing to pay for Europe's security and interests, which many Europeans have taken for granted. This federation thing isn't some idealistic bullcrap, it's a way for Europe to have some say in the international stage. Of course, it's possible for Europe to remain the same and be content with 27 tiny states but they shouldn't complain when they are being cornered by other powers.[/QUOTE] We don't need to form a super state to achieve that.

[QUOTE=Flem;33665688]I think the UK should fuck of out the EU and get on with it so they cant take our fucking money and abuse our relationships such as france or germany, holding grudged since WWII fucking grow up.[/QUOTE] Hahahahahaha seriously? You're paying far, far less than any other member state, and you're getting a hell of a lot in return. We don't even want you, go on, get out. We couldn't care less. It's bound to happen anyways, in a few years we'll just kick you out.

[QUOTE=Flem;33665688]I think the UK should fuck of out the EU and get on with it so they cant take our fucking money and abuse our relationships such as france or germany, holding grudged since WWII fucking grow up.[/QUOTE] Sorry buddy, but we can't rely on diplomatic and economic unions with America and Canada anymore - we're not an Empire. We need good standing with Europe in order to help us. What happens if the markets change and London isn't a trading city anymore? We'd be fucked.

[QUOTE=Vasili;33667863]We don't need to form a super state to achieve that.[/QUOTE] To have what? Global influence? Today, yes, Britain can still do that, thanks to America alone. But I'm talking about a couple of decades time. America will be like Britain during the dawn of the 20th Century. Other nations are catching up until Britain can no longer afford the doctrine of "two power standard". Britain abandoned the Far East to a friendly Japan and abandoned the Americas to a friendly USA in order to confront the expanding German navy. With the focus transferring to the Middle East and the Far East, take a guess which they will abandon first? Remember how USA took the back seat on Libya and it's the Europeans who did most of the work? Yeah, exactly. Like I said, staying with the status quo of 27 separate countries is possible, just don't complain when you guys are being put into the sidelines.

[QUOTE=Vasili;33667863]Majority of continental wide unity have always ended in genocide and forced culture change Soviets did it Mongolians did it Nazis did it Romans did it Could go on, if you honestly believe better trade and education somehow equates one big super state then you're mad. You're implying we who appose one big nation are somehow ignorant - stupid compared to your ideals. Though you've already stated you would restrict freedoms of the press to achieve this. If you look through history, Europe has always apposed and fought against continental wide unity. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [/QUOTE] And England/Britain did it. This new 26 EU-state "agreement" won't be signed until March as far as I know. So maybe the UK will change its stance by then.

[QUOTE=Vasili;33655925]England went over a long campaign over the last few hundred years to try and erase Scottish, Welsh and Irish culture (until Ireland broke away when new found nationalism arose among the population) and in a lot of regards England destroyed a lot of what made the Scots - Scottish (the near destruction of their language for example). It was perfectly normal right up until the late 1930's to call the whole of Britain, England until Scottish nationalism arose and got rather offended by it, even historically we've done this; the oxford history of England is actually about the whole of Britain and the treaty of Berlin was written as the Prime minister of England, not Britain (the one part stood for the whole so to speak). Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments but they can't do much as they are still under Westminster for budgets and most law. Many Scots I know wish to be independent from Britain as they feel they are not represented enough, that Britain is actually English rather than 4 states. Actually, its gotten so bad from what I have experienced that a lot of them hate being called British and rather to be known as Scottish (I would've thought this would be more well known seeing the Scottish National Party is in power there, one of the soul reasons they exist is for independence form the union). Italy is still collection of city states, even during the Roman Empire it was like this, it is only under name they are 'unified'. From small collections of states gave away for one big nation, but each state was still culturally different to the other, I mean fuck me one part of Italy speaks a version of Arabic. A country can only grow so large until it culturally splits into dozens of different groups. Border control isn't even strict in Europe, where did you get that from, I can travel and move across all of Europe that is in the union freely as long as I have my passport. Pro-european newspapers? So you admit you are actually biased then - ok, theres no point with debating with someone living in the clouds with an agenda. Governments already invest into industry a lot wtf are you talking about. Giving people free internet does not change their culture, by this logic I should be more American now due to the massive population of Americans to British on the English side of the internet. Why don't you show me some evidence that has changed a group of people culturally since they have gained access to the internet. I'm actually pro EU but I can acknowledge a one state nation is some loony dream, you've shown your merit by admitting you would brainwash and limit freedom of the press to achieve this out of some 'greater good' philosophy you have.[/QUOTE] European culture has Americanized a LOT since WWII, and the other way around. I'd say that's as good an example as any of cultural change.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33642994]I'm pretty sure Sweden is a part of Europe.[/QUOTE] No fucking shit, of course I meant that Sweden should be an independent country, not part of a European Federation.

[QUOTE=Caesar;33674874]And England/Britain did it. This new 26 EU-state "agreement" won't be signed until March as far as I know. So maybe the UK will change its stance by then.[/QUOTE] Either that or the government will fall apart before then and someone else will sign it. It seems that Cameron is being accused of acting as the leader of his party and not the prime minister. I mean it can't be a good sign when most of the lib dems think he has done the wrong thing.

[QUOTE=Jsm;33676118]I mean it can't be a good sign when most of the lib dems think he has done the wrong thing.[/QUOTE] I beg to differ; if you've pissed off the Lib Dims you must be doing something right.