• Federal Europe will be 'a reality in a few years', says Jose Manuel Barroso
    287 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40561936]no, scotland has a veneer of a national identity half invented by mel gibson but everything beneath the skin is english to the core. the reason is because the english destroyed a lot of scottish culture a few hundred years ago, leaving the country emasculated and weak. england:scotland is not the same thing as say, britain:france[/QUOTE] Ayep. A brief jaunt into history would show that Scotland today is not the Scotland of the past. We're english people with funny accents and a manufactured national identity. (Officially a bilingual nation but our second language isn't really taught as part of our curriculum?) Mostly because England suppressed our national identity as part of the Union. The EU would likely be the same. And, considering that the EU member states have very different politics (Compared, say, Hungary to the UK. One is incredibly right wing and religious at the moment, and the other is more left-leaning/equalitarian, even with a Tory government) - the EU is too different across the board for a federalisation of it to work.
Americans in this thread seem to love this idea. I'm sorry but you don't really get any say in this. It does not involve you. And clearly you don't understand that most Europeans don't want this, for perfectly valid reasons.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;40568889]Ayep. A brief jaunt into history would show that Scotland today is not the Scotland of the past. We're english people with funny accents and a manufactured national identity. (Officially a bilingual nation but our second language isn't really taught as part of our curriculum?) Mostly because England suppressed our national identity as part of the Union.[/quote] So, what exactly? Do you think you'll all be speaking German in 50 years if there's a federation? Many students in Europe learn English as the 'default' second language anyway, so this seems a relatively unfounded concern. [QUOTE=Craigewan;40568889]The EU would likely be the same. And, considering that the EU member states have very different politics (Compared, say, Hungary to the UK. One is incredibly right wing and religious at the moment, and the other is more left-leaning/equalitarian, even with a Tory government) - the EU is too different across the board for a federalisation of it to work.[/QUOTE] Again, this is not terribly different from how certain states in the US are very conservative and support the more extreme aspects of the Republican party, and others are more progressive and support the more dogmatic aspects of the Democratic party (few though there are). Don't try to make it more complicated than it needs to be simply because you already disagree with the idea of federalisation. [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellsten;40568921]Americans in this thread seem to love this idea. I'm sorry but you don't really get any say in this. It does not involve you. And clearly you don't understand that most Europeans don't want this, for perfectly valid reasons.[/QUOTE] Realistically no one in this thread 'has a say in this', and you are in no position to impose rules on the discussion here.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40568839]Except for the major fact that the EU is not an authoritarian command economy governed by a dictator. And the rest of the EU, at least at some point, is obligated to join in so that it carries weight, but the UK had no good reason other than nationalism to negotiate out of the Schengen Area.[/quote] The UK did not join because we don't have any land borders to any EU countries besides Ireland, Ireland wanted to retain a free movement treaty already in place with the UK and also declined the Schengen agreement. Under those circumstances why would we want to implement a no passport policy? You're also avoiding the point you raised that the UK is in no position to complain, those two "perks" are pathetic when we pay £billions a year. [quote]Crippling currency? It may be having sovereign debt issues at the moment, but people are quick to forget that the EU is the largest trade bloc in the entire world, and the Euro's existence only serves to solidify that. States opting out or avoiding it because they predict weakness only begets the Euro being weak, so to a certain extent it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.[/quote] It's not about the Euro being weak, if anything it's too strong. Lumping countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece with the powerhouse that is Germany in a single currency with no common fiscal policy is ridiculous. Even with common fiscal policy, Southern Europe is in such a state that it will be the German taxpayers who are left with the bill. [quote]And as for referendums, think of the Swiss Confederation or the United States. Was there a referendum among all Swiss people when the confederation was formed among people who to this day speak 3 different languages? Was there a referendum when my state, California, joined the union in 1850? You elect your governments to represent you (though in many cases a single person is only voting for one person in their parliament or one party that selects MEPs), what you are suggesting is impractical and deals with a matter that has undue influence from popular opinion.[/QUOTE] Except we have had a referendum on the EU, albeit a long time ago, other countries have had proposed referendums postponed, cancelled or re-held - how is it in any way impractical to allow EU citizens an actual say on EU matters?
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40568921]Americans in this thread seem to love this idea. I'm sorry but you don't really get any say in this. It does not involve you. And clearly you don't understand that most Europeans don't want this, for perfectly valid reasons.[/QUOTE] k by that principle you dont get a say either because you believe ridiculous shit and clearly dont understand that most europeans dont share your views
I'm not saying you don't get a say because we disagree with you. I'm saying you don't because you're not even part of this continent. [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] You lot also seem to miss the fact that European nations are very different to American states.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40568985]The UK did not join because we don't have any land borders to any EU countries besides Ireland[/QUOTE] umm neither do iceland and greece [QUOTE=butt2089;40568985]It's not about the Euro being weak, if anything it's too strong. [/QUOTE] "crippling currency" = "too strong" can you at least do megafan a favour and be consistent with your circular reasoning [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellsten;40569010]I'm not saying you don't get a say because we disagree with you. I'm saying you don't because you're not even part of this continent.[/QUOTE] i think you're saying "you dont get a say" because you are intellectually lazy and cant even bother defending your own flimsy ground
[QUOTE=thisispain;40569019]umm neither do iceland and greece[/quote] Megafan said that the reason was nationalistic, what I put was that we have no land borders with schengen countries therefore why would we want no border controls? [quote]"crippling currency" = "too strong" can you at least do megafan a favour and be consistent with your circular reasoning [/QUOTE] What, his response to me saying the Euro is crippling was saying that it's weak..
[QUOTE=butt2089;40568985]The UK did not join because we don't have any land borders to any EU countries besides Ireland, Ireland wanted to retain a free movement treaty already in place with the UK and also declined the Schengen agreement. Under those circumstances why would we want to implement a no passport policy? You're also avoiding the point you raised that the UK is in no position to complain, those two "perks" are pathetic when we pay £billions a year.[/QUOTE] The other states pay into it as well, and the UK is not the largest net contributor either. Your rhetoric about how 'pathetic' the UK's role in this is does not serve your point very well. Here are the exact figures: [IMG]http://puu.sh/2PcSn.png[/IMG] As you can see the UK is at least €4,000,000,000 behind Germany, and there are a number of others such as France and Italy that have a slightly lower net contribution. Even at net contribution Euros per capita, Germany pays a higher rate than you, at €121.95 compared to the UK's €86.19. [QUOTE=butt2089;40568985]It's not about the Euro being weak, if anything it's too strong. Lumping countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece with the powerhouse that is Germany in a single currency with no common fiscal policy is ridiculous. Even with common fiscal policy, Southern Europe is in such a state that it will be the German taxpayers who are left with the bill.[/QUOTE] That seems to be little more than conjecture given the fact that although Germany pays the largest portion of the EU budget, the remaining ~80% is paid for by the other states. It's at best disingenuous and at worst flat-out incorrect to say that German taxpayers are shouldering the southern states' burden. And I have always advocated for a unified fiscal policy to accompany the Euro. [QUOTE=butt2089;40568985]Except we have had a referendum on the EU, albeit a long time ago, other countries have had proposed referendums postponed, cancelled or re-held - how is it in any way impractical to allow EU citizens an actual say on EU matters?[/QUOTE] Because allowing each state to have a veto on every change to the EU makes it function about as well as the UN Security Council, which is to say not very well. [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellsten;40569010]I'm not saying you don't get a say because we disagree with you. I'm saying you don't because you're not even part of this continent.[/QUOTE] We're not having a referendum in this thread, we're having a discussion about something that may or may not happen. Your nationality is not relevant when discussing economics.
I'm just going to give a list of polities in Europe from the top of my head, that formed from the joining up of smaller polities, rather arbitrarily, yet are still going strong today. Italy (Anybody remember Naples? Papal states? Sardinia-Piedmont?) Spain (Castille? Aragon? Leon?) United Kingdom (Mercia? Alba? Danelaw? England? Scotland?) Germany (Prussia? Brandenburg? Bavaria? Schesweig-Holstein?) France (Brittany? Burgundy? Normandy? Alsace-Lorraine?) Those countries formed in the past few centuries, where such a country had never existed before (nationalism didn't really get going till the 1800s), helped mainly by advances and improvements in government bureaucracies, transportation, communications, and infrastructure. Given that entities larger than Europe have been held together without falling apart, (using more incompetent rulers and angry people than in the past) I would say a federal Europe is perfectly feasible.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40569112]The other states pay into it as well, and the UK is not the largest net contributor either. Your rhetoric about how 'pathetic' the UK's role in this is does not serve your point very well. Here are the exact figures: [IMG]http://puu.sh/2PcSn.png[/IMG] As you can see the UK is at least €4,000,000,000 behind Germany, and there are a number of others such as France and Italy that have a slightly lower net contribution. Even at net contribution Euros per capita, Germany pays a higher rate than you, at €121.95 compared to the UK's €86.19.[/quote] Slightly lower? Try €1,600,000,000 ahead of the next contributor. So because Germany is the only country that pays a higher net contribution that we do, out of 27 countries, we should be completely satisfied? [quote]That seems to be little more than conjecture given the fact that although Germany pays the largest portion of the EU budget, the remaining ~80% is paid for by the other states. It's at best disingenuous and at worst flat-out incorrect to say that German taxpayers are shouldering the southern states' burden. And I have always advocated for a unified fiscal policy to accompany the Euro.[/quote] Well firstly look at Greece, Spain and Portugal as I mentioned and look at your figures. If you add up all of the net contributions to the EU, 35% comes from Germany. Even just gross contributions Germany contributes over 20%. [quote]Because allowing each state to have a veto on every change to the EU makes it function about as well as the UN Security Council, which is to say not very well.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily vetoes, opt-outs are more practical or even just demonstrating that the particular proposal is not popular with that country is better than nothing.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40569192]Slightly lower? Try €1,600,000,000 ahead of the next contributor. So because Germany is the only country that pays a higher net contribution that we do, out of 27 countries, we should be completely satisfied?[/quote] No one's saying you should be completely satisfied, we're saying don't act like you're being oppressed. [QUOTE=butt2089;40569192]Well firstly look at Greece, Spain and Portugal as I mentioned and look at your figures. If you add up all of the net contributions to the EU, 35% comes from Germany. Even just gross contributions Germany contributes over 20%.[/quote] That's not how that works, net contribution isn't a number you can add together, because even the others that are at a deficit in their contribution are still paying money towards the EU. But yes, Germany pays 20% of the EU budget because they are the largest and most powerful economy in the union. This should be no surprise. [QUOTE=butt2089;40569192]Not necessarily vetoes, opt-outs are more practical or even just demonstrating that the particular proposal is not popular with that country is better than nothing.[/QUOTE] This is true, but if even 5 states opt-out via referendum and the union falls through because only the states on the lower end of the spectrum signed up, you would just as quickly point to that and cite that as the reason for the project's failure. It's nice to think that everyone should just have their own referendums on this, but both the poorer and the richer states need to be together for it to work.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40569223]No one's saying you should be completely satisfied, we're saying don't act like you're being oppressed.[/quote] Well that's a hard feeling to come by when European leaders constantly tell us how limited negotiation is, that Europe is not an 'a la carte' menu of just benefits, there must always be drawbacks. [quote]That's not how that works, net contribution isn't a number you can add together, because even the others that are at a deficit in their contribution are still paying money towards the EU. But yes, Germany pays 20% of the EU budget because they are the largest and most powerful economy in the union. This should be no surprise.[/quote] Yes the countries in deficit contribute, however their deficit is paid for by other countries, Germany being the largest provider of that money. Of course it's no surprise, but my point was that German taxpayers would be shouldering the largest burden, going by their contribution and Germany's economic strength, they will be. [quote]This is true, but if even 5 states opt-out via referendum and the union falls through because only the states on the lower end of the spectrum signed up, you would just as quickly point to that and cite that as the reason for the project's failure. It's nice to think that everyone should just have their own referendums on this, but both the poorer and the richer states need to be together for it to work.[/QUOTE] I didn't actually have a federal Europe in mind when thinking of opt-outs etc. I was thinking more along the lines of previous treaties and agreements. I think the sheer scale and implications of a federal Europe would require substantial internal debate for member states, etc. whereas just holding a referendum would not be at all useful
[QUOTE=butt2089;40569298]Well that's a hard feeling to come by when European leaders constantly tell us how limited negotiation is, that Europe is not an 'a la carte' menu of just benefits, there must always be drawbacks.[/quote] Well here's the secret, they're not wrong. Using that line of reasoning as an excuse for austerity policies is flimsy, but they're right about there being drawbacks. This isn't a pick-and-choose so that you only get what most benefits your country. [QUOTE=butt2089;40569298]Yes the countries in deficit contribute, however their deficit is paid for by other countries, Germany being the largest provider of that money. Of course it's no surprise, but my point was that German taxpayers would be shouldering the largest burden, going by their contribution and Germany's economic strength, they will be.[/quote] It's no more egregious than a wealthy person paying more in tax because they have a larger supply out of which to be taxed. There's no concerted effort to 'shoulder' it onto Germany, if anything they have the largest sway within the EU. [QUOTE=butt2089;40569298]I didn't actually have a federal Europe in mind when thinking of opt-outs etc. I was thinking more along the lines of previous treaties and agreements. I think the sheer scale and implications of a federal Europe would require substantial internal debate for member states, etc. whereas just holding a referendum would not be at all useful[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I guess.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40569010]I'm not saying you don't get a say because we disagree with you. I'm saying you don't because you're not even part of this continent. [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] You lot also seem to miss the fact that European nations are very different to American states.[/QUOTE] okay then so you can't criticize any country you are not from [QUOTE=Hellsten;40488605]Quick, sound the world-police siren.[/QUOTE] except you've already done that. gj
Don't know if this has been posted yet but here's the full transcript of what he actually said [url]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-387_en.htm?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed[/url] No mention of federalism
[QUOTE=Megafan;40569357]Well here's the secret, they're not wrong. Using that line of reasoning as an excuse for austerity policies is flimsy, but they're right about there being drawbacks. This isn't a pick-and-choose so that you only get what most benefits your country.[/quote] Excuse for austerity policies? Sorry you've lost me there, can you explain? The common market and the ease of migration benefits every country, as do other policies, but why must it be that some countries have significant drawbacks? [quote]It's no more egregious than a wealthy person paying more in tax because they have a larger supply out of which to be taxed. There's no concerted effort to 'shoulder' it onto Germany, if anything they have the largest sway within the EU.[/QUOTE] I appreciate that there is no effort to shoulder it onto Germany, it is just a result of Germany's economic strength - but would that not leave a sour taste for Germany and present an obstacle for a federal Europe? That they may be the ones essentially paying the debts of other countries
[QUOTE=butt2089;40569611]Excuse for austerity policies? Sorry you've lost me there, can you explain?[/quote] It's often said that "everyone's got to sacrifice" and deal with austerity policies in struggling EU states to get out of their respective debt crises. [QUOTE=butt2089;40569611]The common market and the ease of migration benefits every country, as do other policies, but why must it be that some countries have significant drawbacks?[/quote] Well it depends what drawbacks you mean specifically, but aligning nations' policies to a certain standard of quality takes work, and sometimes it's difficult. [QUOTE=butt2089;40569611]I appreciate that there is no effort to shoulder it onto Germany, it is just a result of Germany's economic strength - but would that not leave a sour taste for Germany and present an obstacle for a federal Europe? That they may be the ones essentially paying the debts of other countries[/QUOTE] You might ask Germans. As I said, though they are paying the largest single proportion of that, they are by no means the only ones paying for it.
[QUOTE=smurfy;40569595]Don't know if this has been posted yet but here's the full transcript of what he actually said [url]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-387_en.htm?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed[/url] No mention of federalism[/QUOTE] His speech is about deep Economic and Monetary union which is federalist, the Telegraph article points out that this leads the EU down the path to being completely federal [QUOTE=Megafan;40569655]It's often said that "everyone's got to sacrifice" and deal with austerity policies in struggling EU states to get out of their respective debt crises.[/quote] Well those 'austerity' policies are only pulling EU countries inline with the Growth and Stability pact that already existed prior to the financial crisis, although I'm still about confused about where this fits in with the drawbacks the net contributors face [quote]Well it depends what drawbacks you mean specifically, but aligning nations' policies to a certain standard of quality takes work, and sometimes it's difficult.[/quote] To be clearer, the UK benefits from the common market and the relaxed immigration controls - in order to maintain access to the free market we must also subscribe to all other EU directives, why? Even if you remove the cost out of the equation, why must we sign up to everything? [quote]You might ask Germans. As I said, though they are paying the largest single proportion of that, they are by no means the only ones paying for it.[/QUOTE] I would very much like to find concrete statistics, I see various articles suggesting that there is a growing percentage of Germans who are dissatisfied with supporting southern Europe, but nothing more than that.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;40566090]The fact that it's still a law and hasn't been repealed yet is still a major fucking point, don't try and sweep it away like it's nothing. And seriously, "caning", "whipping" or anything of the like is cruel and unusual punishment, think about it for more than five seconds and then come back and try and justify your point. Jesus you're a pontz.[/QUOTE] and locking someone away for several years is not "cruel" also "unusual" is not an argument, it's just status quo bias. if we lived a society where caning was the norm, prison terms would seem "unusual" [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40569156]I'm just going to give a list of polities in Europe from the top of my head, that formed from the joining up of smaller polities, rather arbitrarily, yet are still going strong today. Italy (Anybody remember Naples? Papal states? Sardinia-Piedmont?) Spain (Castille? Aragon? Leon?) United Kingdom (Mercia? Alba? Danelaw? England? Scotland?) Germany (Prussia? Brandenburg? Bavaria? Schesweig-Holstein?) France (Brittany? Burgundy? Normandy? Alsace-Lorraine?) Those countries formed in the past few centuries, where such a country had never existed before (nationalism didn't really get going till the 1800s), helped mainly by advances and improvements in government bureaucracies, transportation, communications, and infrastructure. Given that entities larger than Europe have been held together without falling apart, (using more incompetent rulers and angry people than in the past) I would say a federal Europe is perfectly feasible.[/QUOTE] erm the trouble is that (with perhaps the exception of spain), all of those places were unified by force the negative effects of Il Risorgimento are still felt to this day in southern italy since the place was basically plundered of all its wealth by the piedmontese conquerors. two sicilies used to be one of the wealthiest places in europe. [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;40569112]The other states pay into it as well, and the UK is not the largest net contributor either. Your rhetoric about how 'pathetic' the UK's role in this is does not serve your point very well. Here are the exact figures: [IMG]http://puu.sh/2PcSn.png[/IMG] As you can see the UK is at least €4,000,000,000 behind Germany, and there are a number of others such as France and Italy that have a slightly lower net contribution. Even at net contribution Euros per capita, Germany pays a higher rate than you, at €121.95 compared to the UK's €86.19.[/QUOTE] the difference is that germany gets vast political clout within the union, as do france and italy. the UK pays the second-most into the union but does it have the second-most power? does it hell.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40571885] two sicilies used to be one of the wealthiest places in europe. [/QUOTE] Yeah no. I mean, not at the time of Risorgimento. It was a poor country with no social mobility or industries whatsoever. The problems with the Mezzogiorno do not stem from the northeners getting all the wealth, since there was no wealth to begin with. The fact is, every time someone reformed Italy, it was done as a whole; that is, everyone gets the same reforms: industrial and liberal policies that were really good for the North but awful for the South and just made everything worse. Also, complicity with the Mafia, Camorra, and so on. Anyway, there is a pretty good reason for Europe to think at federalism, or at least tighten the political ties: if european countries don't ban together and protect their global interests as a whole, they will be done for in the near future. China, Pakistan, India, Brasil. All these new, emerging economies with milions or billions backing them won't give jack shit about what Germany, France, Italy or the UK have to say. And of course the USA have an edge if talks with Europe can't be done eye to eye: who would want a partner that's as powerful if not more powerful than you instead of a lot of smaller, more easily managed allies that, as a single, can't really say no to you when it matters?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40571885]the difference is that germany gets vast political clout within the union, as do france and italy. the UK pays the second-most into the union but does it have the second-most power? does it hell.[/QUOTE] Well it doesn't pay the second-most, it has the second-highest net contribution, you shouldn't conflate the two. I would say if the UK government wants more sway within the EU, they should adopt the Euro. All of the other major states in Western Europe have already. That is I think at least part of the reason France and Italy have a bigger role than the UK, in relation to Germany.
[QUOTE=thisispain;40564997]whos fault is that any european can google this shit for 12 fucking seconds its not an authoritarian empire just because you cant be arsed to vote young western europeans have it so fucking easy, they have no idea what its like to not be able to vote. to have a government that outright tells them it doesnt give a shit about them.[/QUOTE] People call themselves European? I've yet to meet somebody who doesn't refer to themselves as English, Spanish, French etc Seems only the Americans call us European, much to my chagrin.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40572193]Well it doesn't pay the second-most, it has the second-highest net contribution, you shouldn't conflate the two. I would say if the UK government wants more sway within the EU, they should adopt the Euro. All of the other major states in Western Europe have already. That is I think at least part of the reason France and Italy have a bigger role than the UK, in relation to Germany.[/QUOTE] yes because the euro is doing so well right now [editline]8th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;40572163']Yeah no. I mean, not at the time of Risorgimento. It was a poor country with no social mobility or industries whatsoever. The problems with the Mezzogiorno do not stem from the northeners getting all the wealth, since there was no wealth to begin with. The fact is, every time someone reformed Italy, it was done as a whole; that is, everyone gets the same reforms: industrial and liberal policies that were really good for the North but awful for the South and just made everything worse. Also, complicity with the Mafia, Camorra, and so on.[/QUOTE] [quote]'In size and number of inhabitants she ranks as the third city of Europe, and from her situation and superb show may justly be considered the Queen of the Mediterranean,' wrote John Chetwode Eustace in 1813. Until 1860 Naples was the political and administrative centre of the Kingdom of The Two Sicilies, the most beautiful kingdom in the world. Consisting of Southern Italy and Sicily, it had a land mass equal to that of Portugal and was the richest state in Europe... For five generations - from 1734 till 1860 - it was ruled by a branch of the French and Spanish royal family of Bourbon who filled the city with monuments to their reign... The 'Borboni' as their subjects called them, were complete Neapolitans, wholly assimilated, who spoke and thought in Neapolitan dialect (indeed the entire court spoke Neapolitan)... Until 1860, glittering Court balls and regal gala nights at the San Carlo which staggered foreigners by their opulence and splendour were a feature of Neapolitan life... In 1839 that ferocious Whig Lord Macaulay was staying in the city and wrote, 'I must say that the accounts I which I have heard of Naples are very incorrect. There is far less beggary than in Rome, and far more industry... At present, my impressions are very favourable to Naples. It is the only place in Italy that has seemed to me to have the same sort of vitality which you find in all the great English ports and cities. Rome and Pisa are dead and gone; Florence is not dead, but sleepeth; while Naples overflows with life." The Borboni's memory have been systematically blackened by partisans of the regime which supplanted them, and by admirers of the Risorgimento. They have had a particularly bad press in the Anglo-Saxon world. Nineteenth-century English liberals loathed them for their absolutism, their clericalism and loyalty to the Papacy, and their opposition to the fashionable cause of Italian unity. Politicians from Lord William Bentinck to Lord Palmerston and Gladstone, writers such as Browning and George Eliot, united in detesting the 'tyrants'; Gladstone convinced himself that their regime was 'the negation of God.' Such critics, as prejudiced as they were ill informed, ignored the dynasty's economic achievement, the kingdom's remarkable prosperity compared with other Italian states, the inhabitants' relative contentment, and the fact that only a mere handful of Southern Italians were opposed to their government. Till the end, The Two Sicilies was remarkable for the majority of its subjects' respect for, and knowledge of, its laws - so deep that even today probably most Italian judges, and especially successful advocates, still come from the south. Yet even now there is a mass of blind prejudice among historians. All too many guidebooks dismiss the Borboni as corrupt despots who misruled and neglected their capital. An entire curtain of slander conceals the old, pre-1860 Naples; with the passage of time calumny has been supplemented by ignorance, and it is easy to forget that history is always written by the victors. However Sir Harold Acton in his two splendid studies of the Borboni has to some extent redressed the balance, and his interpretation of past events is winning over increasing support - especially in Naples itself. Undoubtedly the old monarchy had serious failings. Though economically and industrially creative, it was also absolutist and isolationist, disastrously out of touch with pan-Italian aspirations... Beyond question there was political repression under the Bourbons - the dynasty was fighting for its survival - but it has been magnified out of all proportion. On the whole prison conditions were probably no worse than in contemporary England, which still had its hulks; what really upset Gladstone was seeing his social equals being treated in the same way as working-class convicts, since opposition to the regime was restricted to a few liberal romantics among the aristocracy and bourgeoisie... The Risorgimento was a disaster for Naples and for the south in general. Before 1860 the Mezzogiorno was the richest part of Italy outside the Austrian Empire; after it quickly became the poorest. The facts speak for themselves. In 1859 money circulating in The Two Sicilies amounted to more than that circulating in all other independent Italian states, while the Bank of Naples's gold reserve was 443 million gold lire, twice the combined reserves of the rest of Italy. This gold was immediately confiscated by Piedmont - whose own reserve had been a mere 27 million - and transferred to Turin. Neapolitan excise duties, levied to keep out the north's inferior goods and providing four-fifths of the city's revenue, were abolished. And then the northerners imposed crushing new taxes. Far from being liberators, the Piedmontese administrators who came in the wake of the Risorgimento behaved like Yankees in the post-bellum Southern States; they ruled The Two Sicilies as an occupied country, systematically demolishing its institutions and industries. Ferdinand's new dockyard was dismantled to stop Naples competing with Genoa (it is now being restored by industrial archeologists). Vilification of the Borboni became part of the school curriculum. Shortly after the Two Sicilies' enforced incorporation into the new Kingdom of Italy, the Duke of Maddaloni protested in the 'national' Parliament: 'This is invasion, not annexation, not union. We are being plundered like an occupied territory.' For years after the 'liberation,' Neapolitans were governed by northern padroni and carpet-baggers. And today the Italians of the north can be as stupidly prejudiced about Naples as any Anglo-Saxon, affecting a superiority which verges on racism - 'Africa begins South of Rome' - and lamenting the presence in the North of so many workers from the Mezzogiorno. (The ill-feeling is reciprocated, the Neapolitan translation of SPQR being Sono porci, questi Romani.) Throughout the 1860s 150,000 troops were needed to hold down the south.[/quote]
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;40572163']Anyway, there is a pretty good reason for Europe to think at federalism, or at least tighten the political ties: if european countries don't ban together and protect their global interests as a whole, they will be done for in the near future. China, Pakistan, India, Brasil. All these new, emerging economies with milions or billions backing them won't give jack shit about what Germany, France, Italy or the UK have to say. And of course the USA have an edge if talks with Europe can't be done eye to eye: who would want a partner that's as powerful if not more powerful than you instead of a lot of smaller, more easily managed allies that, as a single, can't really say no to you when it matters?[/QUOTE] The BRIC nations will continue to care what EU countries have to say because that is where the money is, the UK is the largest investor into Brazil, the UK has good links to India and China (hong kong) and Russia is on Europe's doorstep. Also the EU as it exists now is a significant power, consider the joint military exercises by the UK and France, the military expansion of Germany and the huge projects the UK has, what more would federalism achieve? I mean, the EU already represents all 27 states at the WTO, for example. [QUOTE=Megafan;40572193]Well it doesn't pay the second-most, it has the second-highest net contribution, you shouldn't conflate the two. I would say if the UK government wants more sway within the EU, they should adopt the Euro. All of the other major states in Western Europe have already. That is I think at least part of the reason France and Italy have a bigger role than the UK, in relation to Germany.[/QUOTE] Why would joining the Euro give us any more say? Our relative exclusion from EU matters predates the Euro by decades.
Norway is an excellent example.
As someone who plays Paradox games if they did this and decided to make it all one big blob on the world map I would get so wet. Also insert 1984 joke here. Eurasia and whatnot.
Federal Europe. Nah. Won't be in a few decades. It requires certain amount of power (thus relevance) to have a proper federation. National governments will fight tooth and nail to prevent that, until it comes to their senses that the only way out is either federation or bust. When it comes to that choice, the elites would always choose the former. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40561783]did you not see yugoslavia in the 90s forcing together different people is a [I]bad idea[/I][/QUOTE] Switzerland [QUOTE=Coppermoss;40564158]The reason the US works as a federal state is that we were set up to be one; we don't have thousands of years of history to divide us. And think of the states, it would be weird for me to say "I'm a Georgian" instead of "I'm an American". Not everyone would want to say "I'm a European" instead of individual nations.[/QUOTE] You would hear more "I'm a Georgian" than "I'm an American" during the early days of America. You even fought a war whether you are a Georgian or an American. [QUOTE=Killuah;40561798]We first have to break down the bureaucracy barriers. So many independent governments under a bigger one, the EU is on the brink of being a bloated monster.[/QUOTE] Under a bigger one? The EU is quite small.
No thanks. I don't want more government telling me what to do. Keep the feds out of my blueberry fields.
[QUOTE=RentAhobO;40577089]No thanks. I don't want more government telling me what to do. Keep the feds out of my blueberry fields.[/QUOTE] It's just one with a different name.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.