Federal Europe will be 'a reality in a few years', says Jose Manuel Barroso
287 replies, posted
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562083]No, because if you don't like the political party that's in power right now, you can vote for another one. You're giving the people an alternative to the status quo (which you didn't have in nazi Germany)[/QUOTE]
ha
Gee, doesn't this sound familiar.
[I]*cough*[/i] 1788 [i]*cough*[/I]
[QUOTE=Eltro102;40562105]whats wrong with that if your ideology is going to be good for the people[/QUOTE]
are you being ironic or
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562097]the cultural differences between US states are tiny because they were created in a relatively short space of time during a vast colonial explosion. they are basically descended from roughly the same, mostly anglo-saxon/germanic/irish people, modulo different immigrants coming later from the different oceans. comparisons to america are also misleading because europe is a much more densely populated place, where profound cultural differences can be found at the other end of a few hours' car journey.[/QUOTE]
True enough, but I like to believe that humans are good enough to set aside differences like culture to achieve a common goal, especially if we work on making a state that leaves culture and arts to the individual member states and only focus on the things that should be united.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40562092]And besides that, another superpower to counterbalance the Americans and Chinese might be useful.[/QUOTE]
Which is a warmongering attitude.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562035]Except that isn't necessary. There's a difference between Flemish and Walloon culture (although that isn't the best example for the moment) but Belgium is a country. There's a difference between New England and California, but that doesn't interfere with the federal things going on in the USA.[/QUOTE]
Belgium holds the world record for longest country in Anarchy because of it's issues of two cultures under one flag. I was there. I've also lived in New England, Texas, and Oregon. The change is seriously miniscule. These are [I]countries[/I] they have been seperate for many many years and have fought hard to be independant. i.e. The Netherlands.
[QUOTE=Vasili;40562127]Which is a warmongering attitude.[/QUOTE]
No, it's realpolitic. Economics, not tanks.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562115]ha[/QUOTE]
oh man, you're totally right, how did I not see the flaw in my logic.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562097]the cultural differences between US states are tiny because they were created in a relatively short space of time during a vast colonial explosion. they are basically descended from roughly the same, mostly anglo-saxon/germanic/irish people, modulo different immigrants coming later from the different oceans. comparisons to america are also misleading because europe is a much more densely populated place, where profound cultural differences can be found at the other end of a few hours' car journey.[/QUOTE]
I believe that there's difference between colonies that had few years before united into a federation and countries that lasted for thousands of years; nations that fought with each other for centuries.
EDIT: Fuck, I can't read, I agree with the guy I quoted.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562126]True enough, but [B]I like to believe that humans are good enough to set aside differences[/B] like culture to achieve a common goal, especially if we work on making a state that leaves culture and arts to the individual member states and only focus on the things that should be united.[/QUOTE]
then you're delusional
[QUOTE=Graavis;40562135]Belgium holds the world record for longest country in Anarchy because of it's issues of two cultures under one flag. I was there. I've also lived in New England, Texas, and Oregon. The change is seriously miniscule. These are [I]countries[/I] they have been seperate for many many years and have fought hard to be independant. i.e. The Netherlands.[/QUOTE]
I know about Belgium. I [i]live[/i] there.
And you know what?
"anarchy" is bullshit. It took us time to find common ground, but we did find common ground in the end. It's up to the voters in 2014 to decide if this is what they wanted or not. But the country was still being managed. It was stable. The Flemish and Walloon governments governed capably while the federal level was trying to reach a consensus.
Working together can be difficult, but it's [i]possible[/i]. And I'm certain that, with more states being united, instead of just two, an "us versus them" mentality won't be as pronounced as it is in Belgium.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562139]oh man, you're totally right, how did I not see the flaw in my logic.[/QUOTE]
you actually think that voters have power in a democracy?
even if they did, adding another 500 million people to compete with is going to dilute whatever bargaining power you had to begin with.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562126]True enough, but I like to believe that humans are good enough to set aside differences like culture to achieve a common goal, especially if we work on making a state that leaves culture and arts to the individual member states and only focus on the things that should be united.[/QUOTE]
We had that. It was called Goulash Communism. Was destroyed.
To be honest, I'd love this to happen, but I don't think right now there is a way. When I just look at how e.g. Poles hate pretty much everybody else I don't see them integrated into a government along with all the countries they despise because of history, which by the way is fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562168]then you're delusional[/QUOTE]
In that case, the Italian city-states would never have united, nor would Greece have or Germany have, nor would the Roman empire lasted for as long as it did...
Face it, wars of independence like the American one, the Dutch revolts, were more about money than something as vague as culture.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562177]I know about Belgium. I [I]live[/I] there.
[/QUOTE]
oh that explains the hard on for a united states of europe
Ein politic, ein folk
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562177]I know about Belgium. I [i]live[/i] there.
And you know what?
"anarchy" is bullshit. It took us time to find common ground, but we did find common ground in the end. It's up to the voters in 2014 to decide if this is what they wanted or not. But the country was still being managed. It was stable. The Flemish and Walloon governments governed capably while the federal level was trying to reach a consensus.
Working together can be difficult, but it's [i]possible[/i]. And I'm certain that, with more states being united, instead of just two, an "us versus them" mentality won't be as pronounced as it is in Belgium.[/QUOTE]
are your standards really so low?
there was once a time when governments did things, you know.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562180]you actually think that voters have power in a democracy?
even if they did, adding another 500 million people to compete with is going to dilute whatever bargaining power you had to begin with.[/QUOTE]
We seem to have a difference in how we view a democracy. to you, a democracy seems to be another battlefield to settle one's agenda. To me, a good democracy is one where people can have discussions to see what works and what doesn't, and then apply that to the state. You don't "compete", you "discuss".
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562197]In that case, the Italian city-states would never have united, nor would Greece have or Germany have, nor would the Roman empire lasted for as long as it did...[/QUOTE]
all of those things took place at the point of a sword or musket. if you want to endorse unabashed imperialism then I'll be right behind you but I somehow don't think that's what you intended.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562177]I know about Belgium. I [i]live[/i] there.
And you know what?
"anarchy" is bullshit. It took us time to find common ground, but we did find common ground in the end. It's up to the voters in 2014 to decide if this is what they wanted or not. But the country was still being managed. It was stable. The Flemish and Walloon governments governed capably while the federal level was trying to reach a consensus.
Working together can be difficult, but it's [i]possible[/i]. And I'm certain that, with more states being united, instead of just two, an "us versus them" mentality won't be as pronounced as it is in Belgium.[/QUOTE]
But why? They are already "united" enough in my opinion. They aren't really warring against eachother much and are helping eachother out.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562210]are your standards really so low?
there was once a time when governments did things, you know.[/QUOTE]
And our government is doing things. The EU is doing things, even better than my current government, if I said so.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40562225]We seem to have a difference in how we view a democracy. to you, a democracy seems to be another battlefield to settle one's agenda. To me, a good democracy is one where people can have discussions to see what works and what doesn't, and then apply that to the state. You don't "compete", you "discuss".[/QUOTE]
you hit the point exactly. in short, I see the system as it is and you do not.
democracy is civil war by other means.
This kinda boils down to whether you think the cultural, linguistic and national diversities in Europe is a good thing, [I]or[/I], you want another melting pot like USA.
I prefer the former.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562250]you hit the point exactly. in short, I see the system as it is and you do not.
democracy is civil war by other means.[/QUOTE]
I really just don't know what to say any more to this.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;40562099]It's watering down, though. Most Scottish military units are being amalgated into a single unit called the "Royal Scottish Brigade." In my opinion, it's gobshite, but my family has served the Queen with honor for years.
I don't know, Federal Europe could work, but division in culture could slowly rip them apart.[/QUOTE]
Those sorts of things you talk about were invented out of thin air by Walter Scott in the 1800s.
Scottish identity/culture/nationalism didn't exist before the 19th century. Before that, you had a few groups of people in different parts of "Scotland" joined by the fact they were all ruled by the same monarch.
[editline]7th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eltro102;40562105]whats wrong with that if your ideology is going to be good for the people[/QUOTE]
lmao are you serious
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40562260]This kinda boils down to whether you think the cultural, linguistic and national diversities in Europe is a good thing, [I]or[/I], you want another melting pot like USA.
I prefer the former.[/QUOTE]
pretty much
[img]http://radishmag.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2-5-ice-cream-diversity.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40562250]you hit the point exactly. in short, I see the system as it is and you do not.
democracy is civil war by other means.[/QUOTE]
democracy =/= freedom. especially if you are one of the minorities ./agreed
A Federation of this sorts wouldn't be a bad thing in general, but it just wouldn't work right now.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40562268]Those sorts of things you talk about were invented out of thin air by Walter Scott in the 1800s.
Scottish identity/culture/nationalism didn't exist before the 19th century. Before that, you had a few groups of people in different parts of "Scotland" joined by the fact they were all ruled by the same monarch.[/QUOTE]
actually yeah i knew this, scotland was a stupid example.
ive got to stop trying to argue on facepunch, im absolutely dreadful at it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.