Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on May 29, 2009, 05:10:29 pm
-
What the title says.
I wonder if politicians will ever realize it... it will take several decades, if not centuries, to have a grown and mature EU. We have authorities, we have a bunch of people coming out with ideas, laws and so on... but, in reality, we don't have that much. The supposed power of the citizens is, in reality, in the hands of a very limited group of bureaucrats. Someone says, "Try to feel like a true European citizen" but heh, it's a damn hard thing to do.
There are too many differences and political conflicts, too many. I can't think of decisions made to help the EU as a whole, but rather decisions that damage some countries to help other countries in a pathetically legitimate way. I don't know how the situation is in the rest of Europe, but I can ensure you that here the whole idea of "European Union" is damn abstract. I tried to consider it a concrete deal a while ago, but soon afterwards I felt like I was dreaming and continued to think about my country's business, only. That feeling wasn't unexpected, anyway.
What are your thoughts? Do you also consider yourself a true European citizen? If so, why? What are your expectations? For the non-Europeans, what do you think about the EU?
-
I like the EU cause it means Germans call their money "oi-roes." ("eu" is pronounced "oi")
-
Yeah, and in Spanish "Eu" means "I". What does it add to the discussion?
("Eu" is also used in particular variants of the dialect of my region. In my town, we use the variant "iu")
-
From outside of Europe....I think the whole idea of the EU is a natural progression. European countries have a lot to share with each other and there is a very rich history packed together in a relatively small area geographically. Given todays realities it only makes sense to have such an organization.
If you think about it Canada and the United States, both which cover a very large area and are broken into provinces and states aren't completely different. There ARE differences to this of course ...a much longer history for sure but it is possible for some sort of arrangement to work out where the member states making up the EU can operate both as a group and as separate identities. So far I see the EU as a positive force on the whole. It'll be interesting to see how this goes in the long run....but ask a person on the ground during 1940 to 1945 if a economically and in some ways politically united Europe was possible some 60ish years later and I think they would have certified you for the looney bin.
-
The supposed ideals are valid - they're the direct consequence of the outcome of WW2... but... it's the way the whole EU is being managed that bugs people like me. I see ideals, I see authorities willing to create a strong entity... but I don't really feel like those authorities are working on making us feel citizens of the EU.
-
Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture. Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years. There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.
-
While the political dimension may not be all that well developped yet, the economic realities of the "EU" are actually already quite huge.
-
Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture. Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years. There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.
I wish I had culture :-(
-
You're American, too bad.
I'm proud to be European.
-
I'm southern. I have culture. :3
-
I'm American. I have plenty of culture. 233 years worth of it.
Honestly, the EU strikes me as the natural conclusion to a Pax Europa idea, which I hardly see as a bad thing. I don't see it ever culminating in one singular-voiced political entity, at least not in the near future. But in terms of pluralistic peace, I think the idea of open-free flowing trade and transport is a key ingredient to lasting contiguous regional peace.
I'm not European. My knowledge of the EU extends to what I read in the news, a few skimmings, and general (and niche-specific) European history up to WWII. But from what I understand, I don't think the purpose of the EU is to force people to shed their personal heritage or allegiance to their own states, but rather encourage individual states to work toward peace and equality through trade and like-legislation. I could be entirely wrong.
-
I'm an American, and I don't see the EU becoming very concrete. The way I see it, Europe is highly nationalistic, just look at what happens at soccer games. Europe is powerful, but it doesn't feel like one concrete entity in the way the U.S. does, at least to me. Europe is extremely diverse, and I just don't see the various nations shedding their national and ethnic identity and culture and becoming European. Part of the problem is Europe's system of government. The European Union seems to me to be an attempt to form essentially a United States of Europe, which requires a strong belief in Federalism as a working political system, and as far as I know Europe's current political climate is very top-down with little delegation of power to states/provinces.
-
Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture. Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years. There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.
To be fair the same could be said about the northern and southern states, even going so far as to fight a war over it. Even today there is still a big gap between them.
I think the EU has potential, but really in the coming decades closer integration in the EU will become a necessity. With India and China both rising, that's about 1/3 of the entire world's population just between those two countries, the smaller states will get increasingly crowded out. In the end people will wake up and see this, and they will unify for the same reason the old german states unified with prussia: either unify or face insignificance.
-
As some moderately okay textbook pointed out, it used to be 'the United States are', not 'the United States is'.
-
well its different today when you have an all-powerful federal government that trumps individual state laws wholesale. For uniformity's sake, and the fact that travel today is so much quicker and easier for the average citizen, it would be silly and archaic to not have a federal authority that has this ability. Like, if it was all about 'states rights' a citizen going from connecticut to new jersey could have the law differences of going to another country. Which is exactly where the EU sits now.
-
You should come to visit over here in south America and I assure you after your visit you'll see why the EU is actually the right path for the region.
Here, the opposite is taking place and this is getting nastier every day it passes by.
And don't worry about having lousy politicians and bureaucrats.. those are everywhere and they will never be gone, not even in the best nation you be free of them.
-
You should come to visit over here in south America and I assure you after your visit you'll see why the EU is actually the right path for the region.
Here, the opposite is taking place and this is getting nastier every day it passes by.
And don't worry about having lousy politicians and bureaucrats.. those are everywhere and they will never be gone, not even in the best nation you be free of them.
Yeeeeahh sorry about that. Our country had all of your good politicians assasinated :-(
-
Actually it is pretty interesting, if you want to get a handle on the EU I would really recommend taking an economic route to learning about it. Understanding the economics of post war Europe really makes a lot of the history and issues currently facing the EU pretty clear. The double edged sword they face with admitting eastern countries for example. On one edge is the issue that the high population and poorer economies of these countries would change the balance of power in the EU. The other edge is that the moderate governments that are seeking entrance into the EU are depending on acceptance, if they are denied those governments could crumble, leaving god knows in their wake.
-
I'm under the perception that the EU is closer to world peace than anyone else on Earth. :nervous:
-
Have any of you guys checked the "readers recommend" section of the new have your say on the BBC? Appearently lots of anti-EU feelings in the UK if that is any measure to go by.
-
Have any of you guys checked the "readers recommend" section of the new have your say on the BBC? Appearently lots of anti-EU feelings in the UK if that is any measure to go by.
euroscepticism (and what could almost be called europhobia for the UK) is on the rise everywhere in the EU.
Generally to blame for that are:
a) ignorance by the europeans: having for example barely any idea how decisions are made in the EU / who really steers it; or having become complacent (you never appreciate what you have until its gone)
b) the blamegame played by the national governments
c) media that are beholden to particular people and their viewpoints rather than to the truth (I'm pointing explicitely, but not exclusively, to the UK and Italy).
a) and b) are often enough to sides of the same coin, resulting in the EU being blamed for this and that while it's the national governments that either called the shots on the whole thing, or even requested the measure to be taken. Basically using the EU to do what needs to be done, but then blaming the EU for doing it. It's pretty disgusting.
People should always remember that because of the way the EU has beens et up it is always national states that call the shots. Nothing gets done without approval from Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, etc.
the second part of a) deals with the fact that the EU -or its direct predecessors- have been around for quite a time now, and that they've been working on the common market since pretty much the beginning. Take into account that in the core-EU (i.e.e the 6 orginal members) no one under 50 (excepting immigrants) has known a time without the EU. Familiarity breeds contempt eh. The common market as put in action by the Maastricht Treaty is itself nearly 20 years old, and has been working pretty much as a charm.
and c) obviously refers to the fact that the media are a powerful tool. And if used to report nothing but negative news about something (especially if it's done because the owner has an axe to grind) it can't be surprising that eventually people will adopt the same stance. REpeat a lie often enough and people will believe it
-
I'm Canadian.
I think the EU is both a natural evolution and beneficial idea on paper, but the reality is that not all the kinks have been worked out which is causing problems within the system. From an outsider's perspective, the biggest problem is the membership guidelines aren't all that tough. As a result, you're seeing economically advanced countries in a free-trade, free-workforce conglomerate with economically disadvantaged nations. Net migration through EU membership nations should theoretically be zero, but it's not. In addition, logistical social programs vary by region and individuals can take advantage of this to relocate and work in another membership nation with potentially higher wages and better social assistance.
In addition, Immigration standards for all EU countries are not identical, so some countries may take in individuals that others don't and then allow them to gain citizenship - effectively allowing them access to everyone else.
The EU is an absolutely fantastic idea, but the legal aspects designed to balance the movement of people haven't caught up with the actual realities, which is causing a lot of anti-EU sentiment (particularly in some parts of Britain, from what I hear).
Ultimately, before the EU is a success member nations are all going to have to be on roughly equal economic footing BEFORE they join and migraion/immigration standards are going to have to be decided at the continental level rather than by individual nations. As it currently standards, the net migration appears to be westward and that is going to cause problems because the former Soviet bloc nations that have joined are not going to catch up to the Western European nations in standard of living or economic progress.
-
Have any of you guys checked the "readers recommend" section of the new have your say on the BBC? Appearently lots of anti-EU feelings in the UK if that is any measure to go by.
It isn't. That part of the BBC website is so full of crazies that it has a website dedicated to cataloguing the stupidity (http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/about/). In a way it's quite impressive that a single website can manage to have its own version of Fundies Say the Darnest Things.
EDIT : Damn, I'd forgotten how funny Speak You're Branes is. :D
-
You're American, too bad.
I'm proud to be European.
You're Canadian. :P
-
Was waiting for that. Jesus you people are slow.
-
You're Canadian. :P
It's in his signature, you know... :rolleyes:
-
EU is such a natural progression seeing as how all the member states have such a long and proud history and rich common culture of trying to murder and/or dominate each other, I mean how could it not work?
-
Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture. Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years. There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.
To be fair the same could be said about the northern and southern states, even going so far as to fight a war over it. Even today there is still a big gap between them.
I think the EU has potential, but really in the coming decades closer integration in the EU will become a necessity. With India and China both rising, that's about 1/3 of the entire world's population just between those two countries, the smaller states will get increasingly crowded out. In the end people will wake up and see this, and they will unify for the same reason the old german states unified with prussia: either unify or face insignificance.
That's a problem, because the supposed solution is eradicating all European cultures other than the British one. Obviously, people don't think this solution is appropriate... but it is suspected to be the only way to "save" Europe from the increasing power of *certain* Asian countries.
euroscepticism (and what could almost be called europhobia for the UK) is on the rise everywhere in the EU.
Generally to blame for that are:
a) ignorance by the europeans: having for example barely any idea how decisions are made in the EU / who really steers it; or having become complacent (you never appreciate what you have until its gone)
[...]
a) and b) are often enough to sides of the same coin, resulting in the EU being blamed for this and that while it's the national governments that either called the shots on the whole thing, or even requested the measure to be taken. Basically using the EU to do what needs to be done, but then blaming the EU for doing it. It's pretty disgusting.
People should always remember that because of the way the EU has beens et up it is always national states that call the shots. Nothing gets done without approval from Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, etc.
the second part of a) deals with the fact that the EU -or its direct predecessors- have been around for quite a time now, and that they've been working on the common market since pretty much the beginning. Take into account that in the core-EU (i.e.e the 6 orginal members) no one under 50 (excepting immigrants) has known a time without the EU. Familiarity breeds contempt eh. The common market as put in action by the Maastricht Treaty is itself nearly 20 years old, and has been working pretty much as a charm.
Euroscepticism is greatly justified. We barely trust our national governments so there's no reason to trust foreign politicians who may, eventually, damage your country to help their own. A lot of decision are taken for the sake of Europe (as a whole), but a comparable number of decisions is made to have a "winner" in a diplomatic fight between two countries.
c) media that are beholden to particular people and their viewpoints rather than to the truth (I'm pointing explicitely, but not exclusively, to the UK and Italy).
[...]
and c) obviously refers to the fact that the media are a powerful tool. And if used to report nothing but negative news about something (especially if it's done because the owner has an axe to grind) it can't be surprising that eventually people will adopt the same stance. REpeat a lie often enough and people will believe it
I understand what you're trying to say.
I'm not a big fan of British media for several reasons I don't want to enlist here. Italian media are a totally different matter: the President of the Council of Ministers (better of called Prime Minister, it's more familiar for native English speakers), Silvio Berlusconi, is both a politician and a businessman.
This means that he has full and only apparently indirect control of the Italian media. He's the owner of 3 of the 6 main Italian broadcasting channels, and he also has enormous influence on the owners of the remaining 3 broadcasting channels. Not to mention the press, which is more or less under his direct control. This clearly means that the average Italian will never, ever know about Berlusconi & Co.'s crimes. The only way to know the truth is the Internet, and that's what I do. On YouTube, for example, you can find news the Italian media would never make public. If you understand Italian, I suggest to search "Beppe Grillo" and/or "Marco Travaglio" (I prefer the second) on YouTube.
The problem is that people simply don't dare to accuse him of the crimes he committed and that's why someone is pointing him out as the new Benito Mussolini. Many members of the actual Italian government had (and still have?) contacts with mafia. I guess you know about the Mills affair and its consequences, since it had some international importance (especially in the UK).
One of the most disgusting things he did "to help Italy" was proposing a law that made him invulnerable to justice. He was to be proved guilty of about 3 shocking crimes, but the hammer of justice has been stopped. Pathetic things like this happen only in case of dictatorship.
What's the connection between this excursus and the topic? Well, if you have control of the media you also have control of the country's interaction with the EU.
-
I think the EU is a bloody stupid idea.
It was great when it was the EEC - Everybody loved that and thought it was a great idea.
Then it became the EC and people were a bit unsure, but figured it was a natural progression.
Now in the EU phase I don't think anybody is happy other than powermongering politicians.
When this all started and we were just cutting red tape, most everybody liked that and we mostly got on. Now, policy and law is being run roughshod over every country without giving a **** what the peoples in that country think about it, and even if a country doesn't agree THEY DON'T GET A CHOICE - Most recent casualty is Sweden who is being sued because they don't want to implement a stupid draconian law!
There is no feeling of "Let's all decide how do such and such in a mutually beneficial and agreeable way" anymore, it's been more "This is how we're going to do this, if you don't agree well tough ****."
But this is how this sort of thing does; The more power and area of control, the less important the little details and minorities seem to matter, but the trick is that it *is* the little details that often matter the most when things shake out!
Sometimes I think I should move to Norway...
But I'm too lazy and my Norwegian is awful... :( Takk for sist! :P
-
The thing that amuses me about the EU is that it frequently seems as if they might as well include the US in it because...it's NATO, without the US.
-
The thing that amuses me about the EU is that it frequently seems as if they might as well include the US in it because...it's NATO, without the US.
You're kidding, right? The US is so trade protectionist that they can't even live up to the provisions of NAFTA. You really think they could participate in something like the EU?
Not to mention that (IIRC) there are several EU member states that are not part of NATO, and there are other countries that are part of NATO but not in the EU.
-
You're kidding, right? The US is so trade protectionist that they can't even live up to the provisions of NAFTA. You really think they could participate in something like the EU?
Not to mention that (IIRC) there are several EU member states that are not part of NATO, and there are other countries that are part of NATO but not in the EU.
I meant more as a political entity then as an economic one.
-
Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture. Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years. There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.
I wish I had culture :-(
I'm American, I have culture. Sounds like a personal issue :p
-
You're kidding, right? The US is so trade protectionist that they can't even live up to the provisions of NAFTA. You really think they could participate in something like the EU?
Not to mention that (IIRC) there are several EU member states that are not part of NATO, and there are other countries that are part of NATO but not in the EU.
I meant more as a political entity then as an economic one.
The EU is an economic entity :D
-
Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture. Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years. There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.
I wish I had culture :-(
I'm American, I have culture. Sounds like a personal issue :p
Yeah, but you're not really living in the US.
-
While the political dimension may not be all that well developed yet, the economic realities of the "EU" are actually already quite huge.
This is about how I see it. I think the EU is best served by leaving as much of the legal/governance issues to the individual countries and focusing on developing the economic aspects. I think the economic aspects work great, the political ones are doomed to failure if they try to overreach.
--Non-European
-
I think it'll blend together eventually, but it'll do no good to rush things artificially.
-
bear in mind the EUs own accountants have failed to sign off the EU accounts for IIRC the past 12 years due to gross corruption.....
-
bear in mind the EUs own accountants have failed to sign off the EU accounts for IIRC the past 12 years due to gross corruption.....
Nothing the feds money policies of the last decades couldn't easily top by leading us into the current world-wide crisis.
You could argue they aren't "directly" responsible, but really only in as much as parents supplying their infant kids with matches, scissors and sharp knifes aren't responsible for anything that might happen next;)
And with the deamphasis of values like "responsibility" and "integrity" and an overemphasis placed on short-term profits personal bonus packages and shareholder value "über alles" by several of leading/shining "examples" of our economy it really wasn't that hard to see where it would lead. Matter of fact Enron already showed exactly where it might lead several years ago on a smaller scale.
In any case... at this point, squibbling about national policies or even entitities like the US or the EU or China or whatnot strikes me as a bit shortsighted in general. Seems more like we need to reorient ourselves alltogether to find out how economies actually work(ed). Adam Smith may have stated that individual benefit maximization improves benefits for society as a whole, but it is often forgotten and rarely quoted that Adam Smith was also a moral philosoph and his economic theories really are taken out of context when you ignore what he wrote about values and morals in a functioning society.
Corruption is a nasty thing, no question... but it really is just one symptom amongst many.
Our society appears to have become obsessed with the question of "what do i get? (when i do that)" and sort of forgotten the question of "who am i? (when i do that)".
A sentiment/distinction that might ironically appear familiar to anyone who has seen Babylon 5, but which happens to be also a theme in quite a number of philosophical and business-ethics publications.
(which is propably where B5 got the notion from in the first place heh.).
-
While the political dimension may not be all that well developed yet, the economic realities of the "EU" are actually already quite huge.
This is about how I see it. I think the EU is best served by leaving as much of the legal/governance issues to the individual countries and focusing on developing the economic aspects. I think the economic aspects work great, the political ones are doomed to failure if they try to overreach.
--Non-European
As I tried to say earlier: it's these same countries that then get together and try to do things on the EU level, even if they don't have to, because there are advantages to do doing stings on an EU basis.
The EU is run by the nation-states, not the other way around.
-
bear in mind the EUs own accountants have failed to sign off the EU accounts for IIRC the past 12 years due to gross corruption.....
hardly.
They have indeed failed to sign off on the accounts, but it's not because of corruption only. A big part of the why they haven't signed off is because a lot of the money the EU doles out (like the regional projects , i.e. the projects that helped Ireland and Spain so much) are administered by the national governments and are out of control of the EU. If the national governments muck up, or don't send accurate numbers back, the accounts can't be signed off.
-
EU authority are a potential and total failure... decisions should be made by citizens...
-
Maybe there's just a lot of people in Europe who simply don't want to be part of a federation of any kind. There's no shortage of people in the UK alone who'd quite like the component parts to go their own way, even down to the county of Cornwall becoming independent.
I think one of the best terms to describe the EU is mission-creep. When the referendum was held in the UK back in the 70's, I believe the understanding was that we were buying into a trading bloc. It was known as the European Economic Community back when I was a kid. As the nineties wore on things started to get a little more cosy; too cosy for many people's liking. Now it's all European Union, and that is starting to sound awfully like a federal nation in the making.
Maybe it is time to go back to the drawing board, let people really vote for what they actually want on this one issue (at the minute the only vote you get is at a political party level, so it all gets mixed in with other stuff) and see where we come out.
Might not like the answer, but at least folks had a proper say.
-
Maybe there's just a lot of people in Europe who simply don't want to be part of a federation of any kind. There's no shortage of people in the UK alone who'd quite like the component parts to go their own way,
It seems to me that many of these people don't quite get that their empires are gone, and much of the old world influence went down with it.
-
It seems to me that many of these people don't quite get that their empires are gone, and much of the old world influence went down with it.
That quote could pretty much be made about national governments in general including the united states.
If anything then we have seen a steady erosion of pure political power across the all fronts, while economic and especially financial power concentrations that are not necessarily bound by any nations boundaries are becoming more and more significant.
The consequences or implications of that developpment for the "concept" of "democracy" in general are naturally not all that pleasing either.
-
EU authority are a potential and total failure... decisions should be made by citizens...
Until then, we could at least elect a federal government in the USA style which will be superior to the nationall governments in the big issues. I mean a government elected straight from the people. The same goes for a constitution.
-
EU authority are a potential and total failure... decisions should be made by citizens...
and the citizens decide to vote for parties that are generally pro-europe.
See, the people have decided.
-
I think one of the best terms to describe the EU is mission-creep. When the referendum was held in the UK back in the 70's, I believe the understanding was that we were buying into a trading bloc. It was known as the European Economic Community back when I was a kid. As the nineties wore on things started to get a little more cosy; too cosy for many people's liking. Now it's all European Union, and that is starting to sound awfully like a federal nation in the making.
Only the brits can believe that the EU, or its earlier iterations, were just about trade. Let me tell you this: from the beginning the EU/EC/EEC/ECCS was about politics. The founding treate (Treaty of Rome 1956 iirc) already states that the goal is to work to an ever closer Union.
The only reason why the economic facet is the one that was developed first is because the founding members (especially france) weren't quite ready to start on the military aspect first. Yes, the military. That was initially the aspect the 'EU' would be concentrating on.
It's also funny to hear people go on about how they joined the EEC and not the EU... as if trade isn't a deeply political matter.
As for the mission creep: blame the national governments for that. It's them who keep asking the eU to do more and more without giving it the tools to do so... And then they complain about Brussels doing this or that... Bunch of hypocrites.
-
I think this serves me right for breaking my golden rule of avoiding political discussions on the Internet or at work... especially coming in on page three. :)
Okay, okay, Kosh, and especially Crazy_Ivan80, can we play nice? I'd rather not go down the route of jibes about "empires" and "only the brits". It's not called for and it doesn't really help to advance the discussion. If anything, it makes people defensive and only serves to harden their position. But, if you'll permit me, I'll have a go at trying to explain my understanding of the English euro-sceptic position and some of the history behind it.
It seems to me that many of these people don't quite get that their empires are gone, and much of the old world influence went down with it.
The European empires are long committed to the history books, so I don't really think it's fair to bring it up here, and I'd argue that an aversion to being part of a superstate is an acceptance of that. Especially if you consider that a lot of people are wanting to break up or at least devolve what is left of our particular former empire, the UK, into its constituent parts. That would strike me as being quite the opposite of building an empire. We'd be getting even smaller and more local. For most of us, the Empire lies outside of living memory, so we never knew it or had the chance to miss it.
Plus it's a low shot! :)
and the citizens decide to vote for parties that are generally pro-europe.
See, the people have decided.
It's not always that simple. Right now we are having European and some local elections here in the UK. It looks like an increasingly euro-sceptic Conservative Party is going to come out on top of both, and the very euro-sceptic UKIP is going to get a strong showing in the euro ones (we're getting a vote in each election separately). If that's anything to go by, could we argue that it is time for the UK to back out?
But you have a good point in there about the original decision to get into and stay in Europe indicating that the people had chosen. It was under a Conservative regime that we both joined the EEC in the 70s and then signed up to the Maastrict Treaty in the 90s. But, if you take our local elections today, people generally go for the mainstream parties (who tend to jostle over the centre ground of politics) because they don't want to "waste a vote" on the fringe, if the fringe parties even bother to stand at all (around my way, none of them did). What that tends to mean is you end up voting for a party that doesn't necessarily represent your views on a lot of issues, for instance their stance on Europe, or voting for no-one. In my local case, that makes the most euro-sceptic option the Conservatives, who despite anti-EU rhetoric do seem to be generally committed to staying in. So there is no large, mainstream party offering an out.
One last point on that: the "people" change all the time. I wasn't alive when we entered the EEC, nor was I quite old enough to vote when we signed up to Maastrict. And I've nearly got more grey hair than brown these days! It stands to reason then that a decision made at some point in the past may not reflect the views of people now, so regularly reviewing the issue and going to the people makes sense. Things change.
Only the brits can believe that the EU, or its earlier iterations, were just about trade. Let me tell you this: from the beginning the EU/EC/EEC/ECCS was about politics. The founding treate (Treaty of Rome 1956 iirc) already states that the goal is to work to an ever closer Union.
Okay, please lets not get into "only the brits"-type statements. It's not polite or necessary.
You are right, it is ultimately all political. Most of these things are. But back when the referendum happened, the mid-70s, people didn't have anywhere near the access to information we do now. So specific wording on "ever closer unions" might well not have been picked up by a lot of folks, and they'd have had a much better excuse for missing it than they do now. It is much easier for us to just pop on the Internet and look these things up nowadays, but back then it was a handful of TV channels on a black and white TV for a lot of people, and it could be a bugger to get a phone installed! (My parents' experience, and mine as a real young 'un.)
Things have moved on a lot since then, so it actually makes more sense to listen to the "bloke in the street" now than it did then. We at least have the option (admittedly not always taken) of grabbing the information at our fingertips.
That said, there were no decent bloody directions to my local polling station this evening, even on the local council's website! :lol:
The only reason why the economic facet is the one that was developed first is because the founding members (especially france) weren't quite ready to start on the military aspect first. Yes, the military. That was initially the aspect the 'EU' would be concentrating on.
Well, we still ain't got that worked out, and it seems unlikely the UK will ever swap NATO for an EU Army. We'll see though. Not much more to say on that, but if you've got some info on that please share. It's an aspect I didn't know much about, and would welcome some insight. :confused:
It's also funny to hear people go on about how they joined the EEC and not the EU... as if trade isn't a deeply political matter.
The fact is the referendum in the UK was for the EEC, not the EU. That's not really something you can dispute. That people may well have not understood entirely what they were signing up for... seems pretty likely to me. Yes, trade between nations is deeply political, but I think the folks back then can be forgiven for thinking that was all they had agreed to. It was a very different time. Who knows what the voters of the mid-70s were thinking - most of us on HLP weren't born I suspect!
Here's a good link, by the way. I just found it and haven't had a chance to ready it all through, but it gives you a good idea of the information people were getting on EEC membership back then.
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
As for the mission creep: blame the national governments for that. It's them who keep asking the eU to do more and more without giving it the tools to do so... And then they complain about Brussels doing this or that... Bunch of hypocrites.
We do blame national governments for it, and today's European elections might well point to that. Our current national government is Gordon Brown's Labour Party, and they look to be in for a rough night. Whether that makes any difference or not is another matter (if it doesn't then that might explain why so many are feeling so disenfranchised with the whole democratic system here; "you cast you're vote and then it all ploughs on the same regardless" isn't a rare sentiment).
I'm not sure if that many people do call on the EU to do this or that. What do you mean by that statement? A lot of the people you seem to be referring to want the EU to butt out, so why would they give them tools to do anything? The opposite would be a more logical course. But I'd be happy for you to elaborate!
Bunch of hypocrites.
If you mean the politicians, I totally agree. If you mean folks like me, not only are you wrong but you are also being unnecessarily rude. Please can we be clear on what we say and agree to avoid insulting those who present a different perspective?
This is an interesting subject that Mobius has brought up; interesting enough that I've broken my unwritten politics rule and decided to plonk down with a glass of wine and post a fair bit on it when I'm way old enough to know better. That said, I'd quite like to discuss it further if we can agree to keep it civil and give the other guy a chance.
Over to you! :yes:
-
The European empires are long committed to the history books, so I don't really think it's fair to bring it up here,
I disagree, Europe has been calling the shots in the world for ~500 years, and have been bashing eachothers heads in for even longer to determine who has the right to be the world's policeman. Having that kind of influence for so long does cast a long shadow even now.
Well, we still ain't got that worked out, and it seems unlikely the UK will ever swap NATO for an EU Army.
Something that amazes me about the UK is how much it continues to side with the US about......everything, even though too often they end up getting the short end of the stick.
As I have said before, in the grand scheme of things and in the long term Europe faces a coice between integration and insignificance.
-
The European empires are long committed to the history books, so I don't really think it's fair to bring it up here,
I disagree, Europe has been calling the shots in the world for ~500 years, and have been bashing eachothers heads in for even longer to determine who has the right to be the world's policeman. Having that kind of influence for so long does cast a long shadow even now.
Excuse me, but that is utter nonsense. That line of thinking (worlds policeman) really hasn't played a major role in anyones head other than the US in recent history.
During World War 2, if you want to look at it in an abstract way, it was about a fundamental disagreement in ideology and about redrawing national borders on the map, but certainly not a desire to "be the worlds policeman". LOL
And the age of true "Empires" was already over even before WW2 LOL.
-
During World War 2 already, it was more about bashing each others head in to redraw national borders or force an ideology on others and not to "be the worlds policeman". LOL
At the time the world's policeman was Britain, if Germany won either of the world wars then Britain would have been displaced.
-
At the time the world's policeman was Britain, if Germany won either of the world wars then Britain would have been displaced.
... World War 2 was definitely not about a disagreement of "who should be the worlds policeman". If only it had been as "harmless" as that lol.
You are mistaking the nature, significance and seriousness of the conflict if you believe that. If Germany had won, or more to the point, if Nazi ideology had won (It's important to distinguish between Germany as a nation and the ideology/system that had the nation in its clutches here. Otherwise you might miss the point that Germans nowadays as a rule are propably happier than anyone else that "Germany" didn't win ;) )... "who would be the worlds policeman" would have become an irrelevant question.
The Cold War gives an impression of what a clash of ideologies looks like, but the conflict between Communism and Democracy, including slipups like the "red scare" and the McCarthy era as well as outright oppression in communist nations and even the constant threath of mutual nuclear annihilation, was really quite civilized, compared to what a global rise of Fascism would have looked like. lol. The US was in shock after they saw the destruction caused by their own atomic bomb in Hiroshima. It's pretty certain Hitler wouldn't have had such "qualms" if he had had the bomb at his disposal and if he had "won" this would have gotten really ugly really fast on a global scale. Heck... his internal politics included Genocide and his external politics included "Total War"; i am indeed very very very glad we will never find out with "certainity" what would have happened if he won, but i am pretty certain merely "displacing the worlds policeman" wasn't what that agenda was all about LOL.
-
You are mistaking the nature, significance and seriousness of the conflict if you believe that.
World War 2 was pretty much just a continuation of World War 1, and in many ways was about the same thing: Germany getting cheated at having an empire like Britain's. The jews were scapegoats, and blamed for their defeat in the first world war.
who would be the worlds policeman" would have become an irrelevant question.
If they had won then the cold war would have been between the US and germany, instead of with the soviet union.
It's pretty certain Hitler wouldn't have had such "qualms" if he had had the bomb at his disposal and if he had "won" this would have gotten really ugly really fast on a global scale.
They weren't close to finishing their own A bomb because many of their best nuclear scientists were jewish, and also quite a few were conscripted into the army, so there was no way they could have finished before the US. Even by the time they developed it, the war would effectively become a stalemate.
i am indeed very very very glad we will never find out with "certainity" what would have happened if he won, but i am pretty certain merely "displacing the worlds policeman" wasn't what that agenda was all about LOL.
It does matter, France and Britain in the last 500 years went to war many times over the question of who would be the dominant power, and it was finally settled with the defeat of napoleon.
-
You are talking about a trigger Kosh. You are talking about the situation that made it possible for Nazis to grab power. It's not even a trigger in itself, it's just a voliatile situation that with several other cirumcstances "allowed" a war to be triggered. This is also why the current economic crisis makes people so wary of a potential economic desaster lasting years... because once people have it bad enough, once people are angry enough, once people "feel" treated unfairly enough, there is always a potential of "political radicalisation" - in any nation. Not necessarily Fascism, but some kind of "dangerous potential" for some kind of radicalisation built uppon demagogy... certainly.
It would be a grave mistake to believe that this situation you mention, is actually the extent of "what the war was all about". The moment the Nazi's took power it became about their ideology (i.e. the specific manifestation of political radicalisation that the situation allowed to establish itself) that would have torn the world asunder if it had been allowed to spread. Communism really is quite harmless in comparison to an ideology that has a superiority complex and racism at its center LOL.
As far as the nuclear bomb goes. We were talking about a "what if" scenario. "What if Hitler had won". That was the post i was adressing.
When discussing a hypothetical situation that was brought up in another post i find it kinda pointless to point out that it didn't happen and/or was unlikely to happen. That part is after all, ... history LOL.
And no... if you believe that a similar cold war would have evolved between Germany and the US if the Nazis had won then i believe you underestimate the fanatism that was involved in the ideology and you also don't take into account that the US and Russia had to be at peace for a while for the cold war to develop (and for the arsenals of mutual destruction to be built up) in the first place. And there was also a "shock" involved of how destructive the bombs that were created actually were... again, no such qualms on the Nazi side. Nope, if the Nazis had won this would have been a hot war all the way to some kind of inevitable end - no matter how pointless or (self-)destructive.
-
Communism really is quite harmless in comparison to an ideology that has a superiority complex and racism at its center LOL.
Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of 40-60 million people.
You are talking about a trigger Kosh.
Historians generally consider them to be the same war.
You are talking about the situation that made it possible for Nazis to grab power. It's not even a trigger in itself, it's just a voliatile situation that with several other cirumcstances "allowed" a war to be triggered. This is also why the current economic crisis makes people so wary of a potential economic desaster lasting years... because once people have it bad enough, once people are angry enough, once people "feel" treated unfairly enough,
There were other reasons, the general feeling in Germany in the '30's really was that they were cheated from victory in ww1, and there was a lot of racial superiority. The Nazis got into power because they told the people exactly what they wanted to hear.
And btw, why the "lol"'s?
-
Communism really is quite harmless in comparison to an ideology that has a superiority complex and racism at its center LOL.
Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of 40-60 million people.
Generally when one says "in comparison" it means just that.
... history already has its monsters, no argument, but Nazi fascism on a global scale would quickly have become a monster even worse than Stalin.
That was matter of fact all what i was saying.
Historians generally consider them to be the same war.
Only if one ignores Nazi ideology and the resulting Holocaust ...
... nothing like that had happened ever before and it very much underscores just how disastrous a Nazi victory in WW2 would have been.
I would consider it quite shallow to ignore the implications.
There were other reasons, the general feeling in Germany in the '30's really was that they were cheated from victory in ww1, and there was a lot of racial superiority. The Nazis got into power because they told the people exactly what they wanted to hear.
The Weimar Republic was a Democratic nation. Hitler never got elected. He never even got close to having a majority.
You really want to check your facts and read up on how the "Machtergreifung" actually happened, before spouting falsehoods like the Nazis getting into power because they told "the Germans" what "they" wanted to hear.
-
The Weimar Republic was a Democratic nation. Hitler never got elected. He never even got close to having a majority.
You really want to check your facts and read up on how the "Machtergreifung" actually happened, before spouting falsehoods like the Nazis getting into power because they told "the Germans" what "they" wanted to hear.
You might want to consider doing that yourself.
Part of the NSDAP's strategy was to first gain power legally, using all the standard mechanisms of the Weimar Republic to get elected, then use their positions of power to destroy the democratic structures from within. That they used scare tactics, terrorism and other mechanisms, (like a propaganda campaign never before seen in Germany), doesn't change the fact that they got a pretty clear majority in all the relevant elections.
If you can, read the article about the Machtergreifung (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung) on the german Wikipedia, not the english one.
-
*points to the exit polls of EU Parliament votes*
:nervous:
-
If you can, read the article about the Machtergreifung (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung) on the german Wikipedia, not the english one.
You are capable of reading german right? Just wondering because this article doesn't really tell what you seem to think it does.
For reference: Hitler or his party were never publically elected .
(Claiming he was elected is sometimes used by opponents of democracy to point out the dangers of the democratic system.
It is however a false claim; he only came into power through the dismantling of democracy and not by virtue of winning a public vote)
He was appointed by Hindenburg the former Reichstag President as Chancellor as the Republic was already rattled terror and fear and then forced a law through "Reichstag" that allowed him to get rid of democracy alltogether and combine all executive powers in his hands. (The Majority the article speaks of refers to a majority in "Reichstag" to pass the law and this was indeed made possible by terror and extortion. But that would be kinda like forcing congress to pass a certain law by employing terror, extortion, personal threaths etc. and really has nothing to do with a public election. His party never reached a majority even close to assuming power on by its own, so it really all comes down to the tragic choice of Hindenburg who put him into a sufficient position to destroy the Republic and obliterate all opposition.)
In any case, claiming he actually was "elected by the people" is an insult not just to the people of Germany who lived at that time, but to democracy in general. Simply because its false.
It would be kind of as stupid as blaming "all the americans" for George W. Bushs mistakes, despite ca. 50% the nation voting against him.
Hitlers NSDAP never got past 37% before he assumed power ... and that was as he was still playing "public saviour" for politics/public opinions sake and no one knew what he was actually about.
and once it become clear what he was about, there was no democracy anymore anyways and anyone uttering a false word quickly got disappeared by state security.
People worried what their neighbors said about them, Husbands worried what their wives said about them and vice versa, even parents worried what their children said about them, because one wrong word of dissent or even just the suspicion of it matter of fact could get you killed.
For a good portray of what people who lived during that time actually faced i would recommend "10 Millionen Kinder" by Erika Mann. http://www.amazon.de/Zehn-Millionen-Kinder-Erziehung-Dritten/dp/3499221691/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244229204&sr=1-1 . Might open your eyes to the realities of the time as seen from the average persons point of view. The sequence of public disbelief followed by the shock of realization that now it is too late to do anything is captured quite well. Exploring it from the viewpoint of education and how the new regime moved right on to specifically target the youth with indoctrination to the point where they actually WOULD turn against their parents without hesitation is especially disturbing.
In any case... as said above, you don't want to go around claiming it was "the germans" who put Hitler into power because supposedly he "just told them what they wanted to hear", seriously ... you really don't want to.
-
You fail history. Forever.
In the elections on 6th of November, 1932, the NSDAP became the strongest party in the Reichstag, with 33.1 percent of the votes. Chancellor von Papen resigns. Lieutenant General von Schleicher takes the post, and tries (unsuccessfully) to break up the NSDAP.
On January 15, 1933, the Landtagswahl in Lippe is won by the NSDAP with a clear majority. This increases the pressure on the Schleicher Government.
On January 28, 1933, Chancellor Schleicher resigns, because President Hindenburg refuses to accept his plans for a minority government.
On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg asks Hitler to form a new Government.
All of this was perfectly legal. Hitler was in a position to form a new Government because his party was the majority leader in the Reichstag. They were elected. Simple as that.
If you have proof otherwise, please show it to me. Please note that anything AFTER January 30th doesn't really count as democratic anymore. After they had the power, they used it to ensure that they wouldn't lose it again, but that doesn't change the fact that they WERE elected legally.
-
*points to the exit polls of EU Parliament votes*
:nervous:
We've pretty much finished getting the local election results, and the current UK government has been pretty much wiped out, even in strongholds like the places I grew up in. The map's gone pretty much all blue in England now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm
The Euro results start coming out over the weekend, so it'll be pretty interesting to see how that compares with other European countries who have also gone to the polls.
It'll be a slightly odd situation if there is a high euro-sceptic return, as we'll have a bunch of people who are supposedly opposed to expanding European integration and influence sitting in the European Parliament... not quite sure how that's meant to work out. :confused:
-
You fail history. Forever.
In the elections on 6th of November, 1932, the NSDAP became the strongest party in the Reichstag, with 33.1 percent of the votes. Chancellor von Papen resigns. Lieutenant General von Schleicher takes the post, and tries (unsuccessfully) to break up the NSDAP.
On January 15, 1933, the Landtagswahl in Lippe is won by the NSDAP with a clear majority. This increases the pressure on the Schleicher Government.
On January 28, 1933, Chancellor Schleicher resigns, because President Hindenburg refuses to accept his plans for a minority government.
On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg asks Hitler to form a new Government.
All of this was perfectly legal. Hitler was in a position to form a new Government because his party was the majority leader in the Reichstag. They were elected. Simple as that.
If you have proof otherwise, please show it to me. Please note that anything AFTER January 30th doesn't really count as democratic anymore. After they had the power, they used it to ensure that they wouldn't lose it again, but that doesn't change the fact that they WERE elected legally.
Quite obviously, you can't and couldn't "form government" with a party holding merely 33% of the votes. They never had sufficient votes nationwide
And forming government together with another party would never have given them the free reign they needed to turn the country into a policestate.
More importantly, they did NOT have a willing coalition of parties assembled that would have been able to form government.
And again, Hitler himself was never "elected" by the public, he was "appointed" by Hindenburg, at a time that he could otherwise have not assumed power and only because Hindenburg saw himself under pressure from all sides and unable to solve the problems of the troubled republic. (which the instigatiors of the NSDAP party in the streets were certainly at least partly responsible for, see how that worked ?)
What came afterwards, was a strategic dismantling of the republic and its democracy including said terror campaign on the streets which also served as justification to pass "emergency laws" so they could ultimately assume power that the democratic system would never, could never, have granted to them .
Clear enough ?
-
You fail history. Forever.
I would be a little careful with such comments.
On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg asks Hitler to form a new Government.
At that moment, Hitler did NOT have a majority in the parliament!
His party had the most seats, but no absolute majority, and no coalition which would allow such a majority.
Then he changed a lot of laws via "Notstandsverordnung" (sth like "emergency law") from 4.2.1933 to 5.3.1933, then was a reelection and only then he got an absolute majority (with a coalition).
While there was significant support for him (note that in the election before he got into power his party dropped(!) from 37% to 33%), saying he was "elected democratically" is just wrong.
-
Quite obviously, you can't and couldn't "form government" with a party holding merely 33% of the votes. They never had sufficient votes nationwide
And forming government together with another party would never have given them the free reign they needed to turn the country into a policestate.
And again, Hitler himself was never "elected" by the public, he was "appointed" by Hindenburg.
What came afterwards, was a strategic dismantling of the republic and its democracy including a terror campaign on the streets, threaths and extortion, so they could ultimately assume power that the democratic system would never, could never, have granted to them .
Clear enough ?
Put that way, I would have to agree. Please forgive any slurs on your understanding of history.
-
Quite obviously, you can't and couldn't "form government" with a party holding merely 33% of the votes. They never had sufficient votes nationwide
They were by far the largest party in 1932, and considering that all the other strong parties were practically communists Hindenburg didn't really have a choice.
-
Of course he did, he didn't even have to appoint a member of ANY party as chancellor, what also happened before.
There also was the "Zentrum" - center party, which certainly wasn't communist.
The reason Hitler was appointed was because it was planned to control the NSDAP and the radicals that way. They held the believe Hitler would be controllable in that post when surrounded by moderates. They obviously were wrong.
-
*points to the exit polls of EU Parliament votes*
:nervous:
We've pretty much finished getting the local election results, and the current UK government has been pretty much wiped out, even in strongholds like the places I grew up in. The map's gone pretty much all blue in England now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm
The Euro results start coming out over the weekend, so it'll be pretty interesting to see how that compares with other European countries who have also gone to the polls.
It'll be a slightly odd situation if there is a high euro-sceptic return, as we'll have a bunch of people who are supposedly opposed to expanding European integration and influence sitting in the European Parliament... not quite sure how that's meant to work out. :confused:
I voted about two hours ago. I hope I made the right decision, I chose two noticeable people (a man and a woman) with a comforting curriculum.
Sadly, I'm afraid the leading government would send a lot of bad individuals to the EU Parliament... I hope they won't make Italy look like a country of idiots.
-
I like trading with Europe. I like seeing cooperation on things like border controls (so long as that cooperation is sensible). I like going on holiday to Europe, especially the Spanish and Greek islands. I like some French and Austrian wines, and I really like Italian cars (not just Maserati or Ferrari, but Fiat). But I consider myself to be a British subject, not an EU citizen. I do not like the way the EU is run, or the way legislation can be written and enacted into law even if not ratified by our elected MEPs. These ideas and opinions are not incompatible with each other.
We can be friends, trading partners and allies without creating a superstate that will undermine not only democracy in member states, but also the civil liberties of the individuals residing in those states.
-
We can be friends, trading partners and allies without creating a superstate that will undermine not only democracy in member states, but also the civil liberties of the individuals residing in those states.
It's ironically the very same conundrum that the United States faced since its formation and you will find a lot of similar sentiments when you look at history - or even present day.
The handling of Federal interests vs. State interests is a conflict that could almost be said to define what the United States of America actually are.
The problem with the ongoing economic globalisation however is that nations and national politics are becoming less and less significant.
Without the formation of credible political bodies as a counterweight, "decomacry" will become meaningless over time, as it won't be citizens or voters of any local nation who decide who shall be in power and make decisions,
but rather transnational concentrations of financial power that can easily apply pressure on any single nations policies.
-
United nations! :D
-
We can be friends, trading partners and allies without creating a superstate that will undermine not only democracy in member states, but also the civil liberties of the individuals residing in those states.
It's ironically the very same conundrum that the United States faced since its formation and you will find a lot of similar sentiments when you look at history - or even present day.
The handling of Federal interests vs. State interests is a conflict that could almost be said to define what the United States of America actually are.
Except as has already been pointed out the individual states of the USA are not countries with individual histories stretching back hundreds, sometimes thousands of years.
-
China is playing a dirty game. That country is full of internal differences, but the main government is trying to replace them with "the" Chinese culture.
I hope the EU will not do the same. I'm always ready to become a terrorist if that crappy language that English is will be supposed to take over Neolatin languages. :snipe:
:warp:
-
Would you say that Deutsche is a crappy language as well?
-
Mobius - in the other thread you criticized people that they shouldn't be too harsh when critizing/comenting other people's work. And now you just insulted many millions of people just because you think that English is crappy. Watch your words please, that was very inapriopriate (sp?)
-
So the Pirate Party won a seat.
-
China is playing a dirty game. That country is full of internal differences, but the main government is trying to replace them with "the" Chinese culture.
I hope the EU will not do the same. I'm always ready to become a terrorist if that crappy language that English is will be supposed to take over Neolatin languages. :snipe:
:warp:
English already has become the new "lingua franca" of the scientific discourse and de facto also of "the world" to a large extent.
Why that is so has to do with a lot things, but mostly because it is a) very very very easy to learn in comparison to either German, Chinese or Japanese and b) because it is already incredibly widespread.
Don't try to make this into some kind of convoluted politcal argument when it is really mostly about linguistics. There isn't anyone "forcing" anyone to speak a certain language, not in Europe and not in the US (which coincidentially has large Spanish speaking communities instead of just English speakers).
The EU won't force you to learn a language (LOL)... but just maybe... finding a common language in a multinational environment which includes German, French, Spanish, Greek, Polish et cetera... isn't that bad of an idea huh ? English fits that bill for above mentioned reasons. It's serving a function: Allowing people from different nations to easily communicate, and it is economical because it is one of the easiest to learn languages. It is a question of linguistics and pragmatism more than it could ever be of politics lol.
Und übrigens: Das ist die Meinung eines deutschen Muttersprachlers ;)
(For the nongermans, just saying that i'm actually a german native speaker myself lol.)
It's a global world... and we need to communicate and for that we need to speak the same language. Common sense dictates that people will gravitate towards an easy to learn language that is already widespread and not to a language only spoken by comparably few people mostly situated in a single nation... that is frigging hard to learn to boot lol.
-
It's especially easy to learn coming from German-root languages as they all share common roots.
-
It's especially easy to learn coming from German-root languages as they all share common roots.
German on the other hand... is not easy to learn and as such i am actually quite glad that german is my native and english my 2nd language.
P.S. The ordeal that learners who are confronted with German go through has been illustrated in a very funny/satirical way by Mark Twain: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/twain.german.html
-
German vocabulary is farily easy, but the grammar is hard. I don't believe that one language is overall more or less difficult than another, just that some points about it might be more or less difficult.
-
French isn't that bad either. I finished six weeks of weekly basic conversational French lessons last Friday, and I thought it wasn't that bad. The starting was a bit rough because we didn't know what our lecturer was saying, but by the end of the penultimate lesson, we had little problems understanding her.
The real problem with French is the spelling. Even until now, I still misspell the phrase "je m'appelle" once in a while.
-
United nations! :D
people don't have a vote there, only nations.
-
I do not like the way the EU is run, or the way legislation can be written and enacted into law even if not ratified by our elected MEPs. These ideas and opinions are not incompatible with each other.
We can be friends, trading partners and allies without creating a superstate that will undermine not only democracy in member states, but also the civil liberties of the individuals residing in those states.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/
Anyway, back to his speech of yesterday. Even allowing for the caveats about electioneering, does he really want British voters to believe that he believes that the EU is "completely unaccountable to the people of Britain"? I am not about to turn rabid federalist on you, but there are British ministers in EU meetings, British MEPs in the European Parliament, and British diplomats in every working group. They are not powerless: Britain is one of three Big Beasts, along with France and Germany, that wield serious clout in the EU. And they are all, at least last time I checked, accountable to the British people
----------------
the same goes for the other members of the Union. In the end the Whole of the Union's leadership is accountable to you, the voter. Not always in a direct way (like with the Commission) but the people you elect help determine how the Commission will look. Of course a directly elected EU government would be better but we're not there yet.
And like I said before: it's not because politicians are *****ing about this or that rule the EU implemented that these same politicians are'nt the ones that asked for it in the first place
-
German vocabulary is farily easy, but the grammar is hard. I don't believe that one language is overall more or less difficult than another, just that some points about it might be more or less difficult.
Italian is much harder than English under all points of view, even pronunciation (the word "tone" is more appropriate, in this case).
-
French isn't that bad either. I finished six weeks of weekly basic conversational French lessons last Friday, and I thought it wasn't that bad. The starting was a bit rough because we didn't know what our lecturer was saying, but by the end of the penultimate lesson, we had little problems understanding her.
The real problem with French is the spelling. Even until now, I still misspell the phrase "je m'appelle" once in a while.
French may be easy coming from Singaporean (or Hindu, what is Singapore's language?) but coming from English every structure is wildly different.
-
what is Singapore's language?
Official language is english, but because there are lots of chinese people there that language is commonly spoken, along with malay.
-
German vocabulary is farily easy, but the grammar is hard. I don't believe that one language is overall more or less difficult than another, just that some points about it might be more or less difficult.
German is much... much harder to learn as a second language than English. Documented linguistic and pedagogic fact.
Take it from someone who took Anglistics, including English didactics, as a second subject at the university.
Language acquisition in general is a quite thoroughly researched and documented process.
-
It's especially easy to learn coming from German-root languages as they all share common roots.
German on the other hand... is not easy to learn and as such i am actually quite glad that german is my native and english my 2nd language.
P.S. The ordeal that learners who are confronted with German go through has been illustrated in a very funny/satirical way by Mark Twain: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/twain.german.html
How can a language be "crappy" exactly ?
English is generally acknowleged as one of the hardest languages to lean btw.
I managed a "B" at school in German and I was totally indifferent to it at the time. Shame really, as I'd would have liked to have a second lanuage and, if it were to be "european", I would choose German.
-
German is a wonderful langauge for expressing yourself in. They have words for everything. :P
-
German is a wonderful langauge for expressing yourself in. They have words for everything. :P
... and all the words have genders and different articles too and can be fused together to form new and novel and especially very long words like the Donaudampfschifffahrtskapitän ! ;)
I can just recommend that Mark Twain article posted earlier, s really a good laugh :)
-
I always enjoyed those crazy compund words.
-
French isn't that bad either. I finished six weeks of weekly basic conversational French lessons last Friday, and I thought it wasn't that bad. The starting was a bit rough because we didn't know what our lecturer was saying, but by the end of the penultimate lesson, we had little problems understanding her.
The real problem with French is the spelling. Even until now, I still misspell the phrase "je m'appelle" once in a while.
In france, we have the same problem in the opposite way.
Generally i think about 80% of the times , i just have to reverse the order of the sentence .
But that's not a problem for me when i speack english, the real deal is the accent...