Comment Re:Wonderful (Score 1) 182
OOooh! You must be from the UK
(Only place I've ever heard of that happening)
OOooh! You must be from the UK
(Only place I've ever heard of that happening)
They will probably charge you per mile driven. There is already talk of this in Europe, because the European governments relied on taxing how much people drove via fuel tax (this is why our fuel is ~$12 a gallon here). However the rise of Hybrid and electric cars is threatening that income stream, so the idea now is mandatory tracking boxes in each car, and you are charged a variable rate per mile depending on where you drove, how far you drove, and at what time.
The optimist would say that this would mean the abolition of fuel duty, but since when did a politician remove a tax stream? Most likely it would be re-labeled as a "green tax" and it would be in addition to the per-mile charging. With the benefit of total knowledge of where you've been, for how long and at what time!
Still, they are thinking ahead for more creative ways of taxing you, don't you worry, they will find a way
I find it hard to believe that a segment of a population over a 50 year period has the ability to act in a coordinated manner, as you describe.
You don't need the entire segment to co-ordinate for this to work, just the power-hungry minority at the top. In fact I'm pretty sure most of the population didn't care either way, as long as they could live in peace and prosper. For example, the same can be said for Syria. I really doubt that the majority want a civil war, or want to split the country up, etc... but you only need well armed minorities (usually backed by foreign proxies) at the top to fight and the rest either follows, runs away or gets caught in the crossfire.
I think you might be a little bit biased by your experiences. That is of course the point of experience, but I'm concerned that it won't translate very well.
Of course I am biased by my experiences, it would be foolish not to be, just like you are biased (I presume) by yours. As long as you are aware of your bias and are willing to reason with those who disagree, I see no problem with it.
After all, once upon a time I was a left-winger (remember, my entire country was communist, so everyone was pretty much a party member), but experiences of life made me realise some fundamental truths about the human condition, and why communism will never succeed (unless we evolve/develop into it). As a result I ended up swinging to the right (but not as far as the rest of my country, which has swung so far right that they seem to live in some xenophobic paranoia that any immigrant we let in will eventually demand succession on whichever hunk of land they decide to live on. For a country of many nationalities and races, this makes life somewhat difficult for everyone.)
It may translate really well, it may not. The point is not to say "This will 100% happen to you", but to illustrate that the best of intentions can backfire spectacularly, sometimes with catastrophic results for all involved. It seems too high a risk to mess with naturally evolved systems like this, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.
In any case, I wasn't talking about immigration when I mentioned brown people, I was poking at the right wing slackjaws who seem to pull out the fear of anyone different as an argument to why we need to isolate ourselves more.
Ah, well, misunderstood then, I saw it in the context of immigration. Well, people will fear the unknown, and that will always be the case. The solution is fostering interaction and communication.
I find that kind of attitude to be inhumane, and that is why it feels to me like we are failing as humans. What truly separates us from them is a line on a piece of paper, and sometimes the color of our skin - the rest is learned.
Yes, and genetic traits that may predominate in certain areas. However, what is learned is what defines a country, a people, and their history is their legacy of their ancestors. To dilute/suppress/remove all that in the interest of "eliminating separation" is a travesty in my opinion, to be resisted at all costs.
That is why I believe it to be possible to co-exist, regardless of race and culture. And yes that is hugely idealistic, but I see no problem with that at all, and I certainly see no problem working towards that goal.
That is fine and all, but I don't see why countries can't co-exist. If they are well enough integrated in trade, and foster communication, I see no reason things would change.
My initial take on it was not to open our borders and let anybody in, but to expand the EU to include people where they live now. Subtle difference I fear might have gotten a little lost in all my other ramblings
Yes, yes it was
Having good connections within the EU political machinery, and know quite a few EC's personally, I can see exactly the corruption, waste, and how they stiff the little guy.
With all this going on, I just can't support the EU, it goes against my morals.
Plus, if you really want to expand it that much, a change of name would be appropriate, you are very much hitting the end of "Europe" and hitting Asia/Africa. Plus, how on earth would you fit in countries such as Russia or other big countries?
Borders drawn on our globe are quite arbitrary, which was what I was trying to point out originally. In Europe borders have been redrawn whenever a ruler decided they needed more space/taxable income/subjects - and had the power to enact the change in borders.
Well yeah, borders are whatever the one with the most power says they are. That is the way of the world.
To the people living in Europe at the present time, the borders may as well have been set by the roll of a dice, which to me makes the notion of "nationality" laughable.
Hmm, I'm not sure about the notion of "Nationality" being laughable, but I do admit that while some borders are drawn on obvious boundaries, others were done by force, or by foreign occupiers/empires.
I'm no more danish than the people living in southern Sweden, the difference is just that the Swedish army kicked our ass hundreds of years ago and took back the land, thereby changing the border and making the area Swedish. The same situation holds for pretty much any nation on the European continent.
Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that northern Sweden may feel different. So you are not talking about the removal of borders, just that re-drawing of them so that it represents the "situation on the ground"?
Left wing bias in schools? Yes, we had a story about that here not so long ago, where members of a right wing party's youth division were being mocked in school, and looked down upon even by their teachers. I havn't seen any of that myself, but it's been a while since I last set foot on school grounds, so what do I know?
Yeah, there is a lot of it. The EU is very much left wing, so there is bias everywhere, from schools onwards. Trust me, I am less than popular for my opinions, and am shocked by the closed mindedness of many people in the EU. They seem brainwashed to think right-wing=Hitler, which is nonsense. I guess all it did really was harden my position even more, so here we are
fully agree with you that the EU as it looks now is a cumbersome beast of less than ideal value.
I think it is a danger to itself and those who are in it. What was done to the Greeks in the name of preserving the EU (and bailing out the Franco-German banks by the back door, at the expense of Greeks) was disgusting, and if this is what I can expect of the future of the EU, I hope it is disbanded as soon as possible. If we all want to live together in peace, I think there must be a better way of doing it.
The red tape I am willing to accept is a fair bit less than the amount present now. But I think you'd be kidding yourself if you think the red tape would go away just by disbanding the EU, it would just become invisible to the common man. As it is now, the red tape is clearly visible, and we have a say in how it works.
I never thought it would become invisible, it would just be smaller, and easier to manage, and easier to influence. I don't see why disbanding the EU would make it invisible. Is that how it was in Denmark? Although if the red-tape is invisible yet doing its job, then that is perfect. That is how red-tape should be. Enough regulation to keep everything working, without interfering and slowing everything down.
The free trade and free movement of workers is fine, but it only applies inside the EU. Expanding the EU to include more nations would afford those advantages to more people, I see that as a good thing.
Yes, I don't agree with you there. Still, that doesn't require the EU. If I had the power, I would disband the EU, and most of the EC, except what is needed to keep Shengen and Free trade/movement of people working. I would change the name to be less Europe-centric, and work on expanding it worldwide.
In many ways I find myself agreeing a lot with the UK stance on the EU. The idea of a "broader", rather than "deeper" integration of EU nations really fits in with what I would like to see. If the EU could be reformed into something like that, and preserve the cultural identity of its constitutional nations while promoting tolerance, interaction and diversity, then I would drop all my objections to it and become rather pro-EU
Clearly EUs neighbor states see that as an advantage too (Turkey for instance). And since there are rules that need to be followed in order to join the EU, we can, by sheer willingness to include more in our little club, enact our will on them - without drawing weapons.
Most Turks I talked to have no interest in joining the EU, in fact most countries that have applied to join, or are in the process of joining (including Croatia) have populations that don't want the EU. It seems that the people are dragged into it by the politicians, which means that the politicians are not representing the people, but EU interests (be it due to bribery, corruption, or the EU threatening them, doesn't matter). This breeds resentment amongst the population, and doesn't bode well for long-term EU stability.
Plus, just because you force someone to do your bidding without violence, doesn't make it right. It is still imperialist oppression, just done in a more civilised way.
Interesting, although that could happen with or without the EU. I believe the EU significantly lowers that risk,the Nobel commitee agrees with me on this, although I held the belief for far longer than they did.
It does lower it, but doesn't remove it. The EU has so far only incorporated stable countries with well defined borders. Now it is expanding into the Balkans and Middle east (Turkey), areas of flux where there are more border disputes, violence, grudges and inter-ethnic hatred than anywhere else short of the middle-east.
It would be like trying to integrate Israel and Palestine into the EU, and thinking they would live in perfect harmony by this action.
As for the Nobel committee, I lost my respect for them a long time ago (and the peace prize that is given out is a joke, based on who they have given it to so far)
Depending on which countries we're talking about, I would guess the EU response would be to eject both countries from the EU, enact sanctions and whatever other political bullshit they could come up with in order to act tough and yet do nothing.
The EU has no power to eject any country from the EU against its will (in fact, there is no mechanism to leave the EU at all, even if you want to. This was by design, its like a trap. Of course by being a sovereign nation, a country would not need permission, and could just enact border control and leave EU institutions).
How can you enact sanctions if the EU is divided on the matter? For example, during the last round of Balkans fighting, the EU was split. The western side was on one side, Greece, central and other parts of Europe were for the other. In such a case sanctions could not work, because if one country enacts sanctions, the goods will just travel through the EU free trade zone to a country that doesn't enact sanctions, and trade that way.
Not to mention that the EU is not a military alliance. There are some neutral countries, and mostly NATO members, but there is nothing stopping a country joining that is a member of another alliance (like CSTO). What then?
It would work by removing the figureheads. We'd do that by putting a veil between the proposed plan and the people who came up with it. If all you could vote on was "plan A", "plan B" or "plan C", there would be alot more rational thought put into the act of voting, instead of toeing the party line without actually knowing what that line is. The details of the implementation is up for debate, I'm presenting an idea, not a final product.
That may work, but that assumes people are rational by default, and that they don't act rationally due to manipulation. I am not so sure, there are some damn irrational people in the world, and a lot who just want to follow orders and not think (thinking is hard!).
Requiring minimal knowledge of the process you're about to participate in is obvious to me. I don't see why that could not be done, after all this stuff is being taught in grade school - kids 10 to 15 years know more about our democratic process than supposedly educated people out of university. In any case the line I would like to draw between eligible to vote and not, is a lot less arbitrary than many of the other lines we draw for ourselves as a society.
Maybe, but you just try to exclude a population from their right to choose how they are governed. It would not be pretty.
Plus, like I said before, it is fundamentally undemocratic, and so open to abuse that it would be a danger to the core of democracy of that state.
If you want the population to be knowledgeable about the process and well informed, then I would recommend educating them. Make political studies and critical thinking a required course to be taught in school, like native languages and basic maths.
The question is, why don't politicians do that? It could be that a well informed populace that can't be lied to, swayed and manipulated to do the politicians bidding is not wanted by them, no? As such, you are trying to treat the symptom, rather than the cause of the problem.
What it boils down to really is that I would like people to form their own opinions, rather than take it from whomever is on TV and looks believable. First step to that is removing Goldilocks Pearltooth from TV, the second step is requiring voters have knowledge of the subject matter. It really is that simple, and no more un-democratic than the system we have now, where anyone with enough charm can sell any cause to anybody - I don't see that as any kind of advantage, in fact I see that as very, very dangerous.
See above. It is not in the interest of those in power to do that, EU, no EU, or whatever else. Those in power want to keep the masses stupid/distracted, lest they notice how badly they are being screwed and revolt, most likely with said "elites" heads on a pole.
Like I said before, people are tribal, we are the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution that rewards tribal behavior. You can not "unlearn" that, nor can you suppress it indefinitely. All you can do is manage it, and try to work with it, rather than stamp it out.
Previous attempts to stamp it out (mostly by left-wing governments, as they share your opinions on nationality for example) backfired in the most violent way down the line, and I don't want to see more violence bred out of the good intentions of a few misguided people in power.
... while in its current form it is slow and in need to be tethered, I see no reason for that to stay that way as technology advances.
Imagining that one day tech improves to the point when these things are as fast and nimble as a cat, and can last at least a few days in power, you could stick explosives on them and have them track targets. Or have them stay hidden then lunge at high speed when someone gets too close.
Like a mine that will chase after you before it explodes. Considering how fast my cat can run, and how nimble it is, in future these things could be quite terrifying, especially if they are released in large batches. Probably the only weapon that may save you is a shotgun (short of some futuristic, directed, hand held, EMP cannon).
Makes me imagine of the head crabs in half life, or the replicators in stargate.
An angle I had not fully considered, so thank you for providing a new point of view.
You're very welcome, it is always nice to consider different points of vew. Far too many people are stuck in their narrow minded views, so it is nice to find people with open minds to discuss with
I think the problems you descibe have very little to do with the fact that people immigrated to your country. They we invited in and left to their own devices, that is a failure of integration not of "brown people" or any other kind of people.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. We tried very hard to integrate them, so much time, effort and money went into trying to integrate them that the rest of the country was complaining about the costs of it all (it was driving them to ruin), but they didn't want to integrate. Short of forcing them to integrate at gunpoint, or kicking them out, what were the alternatives? We are talking multiple generations living there, who it turns out had no interest in integrating.
You are working on the assumption that those that immigrate want to become citizens, integrate properly of said country and add to its culture, etc... I think this is a nice idea, but somewhat idealistic.
As I said, lots of other races came, settled and integrated very well in the country, a lot of them of far different skin colour than us natives, with little to no problems at all. So it isn't that we didn't try, it is just that for integration to work, both parties must be willing to work for it, like in any relationship really (from two people, onwards to societies).
My objection is the projection that anyone not like us must be breeding like rabbits
This is as easy to find out via birth records, in our case the select group was having 4x the birth rate of the rest of the country, which actually drove region into poverty, causing unrest and eventual war.
My point is that this is easily provable with facts, so nobody should be able to claim the above unless it is actually happening.
and are to be shunned/shot/denied entrance
Shunned/shot never, that is inhuman. However I don't see a problem with denying entrance. If we had denied entrance unless the immigrants agreed to integrate or assimilate (e.g. the US policy) then maybe we would not have had this mess later on.
- in order to avoid what you describe, we shun the world around us. That is us failing as human beings.
I will admit, I don't quite understand. By not allowing free migration unchecked, we are failing as human beings?
Religion is, as far as I can tell, the cause of pretty much all of the world's troubles. There might be other causes layered on top of it, but at the root we have a tendency to define "our culture" from our shared religion, and cultural differences underlie most of the conflicts on the globe. We can't get rid of religion, but we can push it to the side where it does not have an influence on lives other than those who opt-in. I think education plays a vital role in this.
True, but I would argue that religion is more a symptom than a cause. Ones allegence to a religion is nothing more than allegience to a tribe. Humans are descended from Animals who by their very nature are tribal. This is what has worked for us for tens of thousands of years, it is part of our evolutioniary development, and I don't think education could eradicate it. Simply put, I believe the average human tribal matrix looks like this (in order of strength/importance of loyalty):
* Blood Family + Mate (so your direct family, and partner, kids if you have any)
* Extended Famliy/Friends
* Your religion
* Your local region
* Your country
* Friendly countries/Alliances/shared cultures
* The rest.
I am simplifying this, and I will admit that in liberal western worlds, things like the family unit have broken down, and that what is where on that list will vary based on personal reasons/experience, but that doesn't change the fact that we are tribal.
Religion is just a tribal identity. If you remove it, people will form new tribes based on other identities, and so on and so on (people have fought and died over things like who supports what football team. That is tribal too).
By expanding the reach of the EU, we first of all set a stage where differences can be discussed without drawing weapons, we also set a stage where differences are not capital offenses. There are other fora for discussions, but the EU is the only one not spawned from a militaristic standpoint (UN and NATO would be of that category), a property I very much applaud.
I would not class the EU as a forum, it is an attempt at a centralised state. If it was to be like a forum, then they would never had gotten rid of veto powers that states had. Before everyone was equal, even the smallest state could negotiate on equal terms with the big ones. With that removed, the big countries can just steamroll the rest, which once again, breeds resentment from said populations.
To be like the UN, it would then suffer the same indecision and limited power of the UN, which would make the EU ungovernable as a federal nation.
I will admit that it is nice that the EU was not spawned from a militaristic standpoint, I would say that is has proven to be militaristic when its interests are not taken into account via "soft power".
For the benefits of unification, I am very willing to let go of my national pride, and accept the massive amounts of red tape it takes to govern a united Europe, because as you say, I fear where we are headed if we don't start working together, not just in Europe, but as a planet.
That is good for you, but not everyone shares the same opinion. The massive amount of red tape is a drag on an economy, and its development.
I don't fear where we are going, but then I don't particularly fear war. Having lived through 3 of them in my life, I just see them as part of human nature, a side effect of our evolution that made us so successful that we are still here today, while others were not. Of course I don't like wars, nor do I ever wish to go through another one, but I do accept that they are a part of us.
I fear far more the concept of a centralised police state, creeping authoritarianism, the loss of liberty, and crippling development due to red tape, than I do war. For me and my future children to be condemmed to an eternal Panopticon is a fate worse than death IMO.
I know where we have been, and by all accounts that wasn't pretty - so to me the solution is not in going back to something we have tried before, but moving forward with a new construction.
I wasn't saying we go back, I'm just saying that where we are headed is not a good place to be.
We can have all of that, without needing this huge quasi-state beauracracy above us.
The biggest preventer of war is three things IMO:
* Free exchange of information
* Free Trade
* Free movement of people
All this is towards the goal of quencing the fear of "other tribes" that are an innate part of us. While the free trade provides a lower path of resistance to gathering resources than conquering others by war.
All this can be done with three things:
* The internet, perfectly net-neutrual and uncensored
* Free trade agreements (already in place throughout Europe)
* Schengen (free movement of people, and jobs)
I don't see a need for the European parliament, nor its bloated and corrupt civil service. For military protection I'd imagine an alliance, somewhat modelled on NATO, but with the express development for defensive purposes only (like Japan). We should be able to negotiate with others, and defend if attacked, but not go on imperialist adventures.
That would be more something which I could support, not the centralisation of the entire power of Europe in the hands of the few (mostly unelected bureaucrats, and politicians with so many layers between me and them that I can't fathom a way they would be able to support and tend to my needs).
That is an overly bleak view. I don't believe governments in western Europe has come to that point, not even close. Other governments might be, and I see no solution to this yet. What I do see is that the guns we employ right now aren't really helping either, nor the mentality of isolation.
You've not been to the UK, have you?
Seeing the French, Greeks and others protest, I still have some hope
The French in particular seem to really believe in holding their politicians to account, and will make damn sure of it. Really makes moving to France tempting
Guns are a last resort, they are not made to help, they are there to force your will upon others. I don't see that ever going away (interesting question, what would happen if two EU members ended up in a state of war with each other? Would the rest intervene? In what way? Would they pick a side? What if support is split for the warring parties within the EU?)
The solution is two-fold: First of all, a voter must prove basic knowledge of the issues he/she is voting on, a voter's license if you will.
But that is anti-democratic by nature (you are denying the right to vote to a segment of a population), just that rather it being defined by something like race or colour of skin, you are defining it by "ability to understand knowledge", not to mention that this would be open to abuse (imagine being able to get all your opponents voters classed as unfit to vote due to not being "knowledgable" enough).
Second, remove individuals from politics and let ideas, solutions and plans stand on their own.
How would this work? Every idea, at some point in time, came from an individual (I can't think of any ideas that sprang into existance by committee). Even so, how would you vote for an idea in your local elections?
If voters knew what they were doing and were not getting their "views" from the TV or the latest figurehead of a popular party, I bet we'd see change.
I'm ok with figurehead of the party promoting and debating their views, that is the whole point of debates, and having politicians in the first palce. So that there is a figurehead that can represent the concept as a whole.
Trying to engage in debate with a mass of people at once is futile, from my experience, just due to the differing opinion and interpretation of goals within it (even within a single party).
I would however, not allow the media to endorse a candidate. They cannot use their position as information providers to the masses to sway said masses to a particular view. However I have no idea how to enforce this (how do you even prove "bias"? Unless you find some evidence of backroom agreements to that effect).
This sounds, and probably is a wee bit elitist, but that only applies until people start wanting influence on their daily lives and start paying attention to the stuff that is happening around them. And in stead of dumbing everything down to not let anyone fall behind, how about we un-dumb people in general instead.
Personally, I'd do what Australia did, force everyone to vote. That way we don't have these jokes where people don't care about politics, and then we get some nutjob voted in because only 20% of the population turned out to vote (that 20% being from said nutjobs party, it is always easy to rally the politically active to vote).
If we forced everyone to vote, then they would have to engage with the political process. Sure, many may well vote "none of the above", but it would start an engagement with the process that would eventually result in more informed opinions and choices.
Plus, if they all vote in a nutjob, then we can safetly say that they get the government they deserve.
All done with the blessing of the government. So we are still stuck with politicians not looking out for us, and serving their own interests.
I was referring more to those who actually worked hard and built businesses that allowed them a comfortable life. Not the ultra ultra rich who control the worlds money supply and otherwise got rich by screwing over others.
That's assuming you lot are sober enough to march in the right direction
Loved Belgium myself, the museums, waffles and beer (wow, especially the beer) were heavenly. I just can't see how anyone is ever sober enough to actually do what they have to, which might explain a lot about the nature of EU functioning
Up until I read that last part I was all set to argue against your post,
Oh come now, debates are good!
but we have our Civil War that serves as an example of the bloodletting that can occur when trying to forceably preserve a union of desperate states.
Trust me I know, my country of origin went through a rather bloody civil war, difference is in the US the unionists won, there the confederates did.
Still, it doesn't take much to get people at each others throats. All it takes is one nation that feels it needs more land, more resources, or simply more "living space" to start the shit hitting the fan.
The European solution to this was free trade and free movement of people. Allows the whole thing to grow (and shrink) organically. Based on your logic, a nation will go to war when its demand for resources cannot be met any other way (war itself is very resource intensive, and only a good idea if the winnings are greater than the costs).
The European solution is typically capitalist. You can have all the land/resources you need, but you'll have to pay for it.
Thanks to the EU crisis, so many French, Italians and Greeks have come here, that the quality of food round my local areas has improved dramatically.
And new cars and motorcycles don't leak oil, primarily because the British aren't allowed to make the engines anymore
Yeah, but they are minor actors. The major power is still with states. I meant a time when non-state actors are more powerful than governments.
The day you can buy off the shelf manufacturing technology that can produce weapons of mass destruction will probably be the tipping point. The ability of anyone in a garage to put together a nuke sure will herald an interesting time for humanity. We'll either quickly learn to be a very responsible and fair race, or we will probably vanish.
Rest assured we are getting there, but I think its a couple of decades off (barring a change in direction, or an acceleration of wealth transfer and/or manufacturing technology).
I guess I'm pretty sick and tired of listening to extremist agendas that has nothing to do with the actual issues at hand. I'm fed up with talk of the dangerous brown people invading, I'm sick of listening to idiots mouth off about things they deep down have no fucking clue about. I'm sick of people forming their opinions from two lines of text on a billboard, or a 5 second spot on whatever news channel reenforces your viewpoint. Generally, I'm sick of uninformed neanderthals setting the agenda. So yeah, I do agree that democracy is the only real way of government, I just wish my fellow voters would use more than 2 seconds making up their minds.
This is a tricky one. I originally hail from a communist country. Our communists had the same opinion, and opened the borders to massive immigration of people (brown or otherwise). Most integrated well (especially Chinese, East Europeans and Africans), however some didn't. Instead they kept to themselves, had multiple wives, and generally bred like crazy. ~50 years down the line they became a demographic majority, and when communism collapsed and the state was weak, they took advantage and kicked off a war of secession, which they won. 25% of my country was annexed, and countless of my people were forced out of land that they lived on for generations, not not mention the lives lost and economic destruction, just because we allowed immigration in the belief that they would integrate and we'd all be better off.
So there is some truth to the "Dangerous foreign people invading", much as I hate to say it. Just that the dangers may not be known for 50+ years. Some groups are happy to integrate and will do so. Others will not. Maybe if we managed to eliminate religion from the equation, even they would be able to, but religion has been with us for thousands of years, I can't think of a way of eliminating it (hell, even the communists couldn't stamp it out, and they were brutally athiest).
As for the rest you said, I agree with you completely. However short of banning television, I can't think of a way of stopping it. That invention has done more to damage critical thinking of an individual than anything else I can think of.
The only thing that could counter it is education, but what government would want to do that? An educated populace is one that they can't easily control nor pull the wool over.
Why indeed? I have no fucking clue why, generally it is to support a handful of egomaniacs' personal view of the world, sometimes it happens to kick start the economy. Hell, I bet wars have been started over a girl or a spilled beer. I'm not making any predictions of what will happen if we abandon the EU. I guess we could look at our history as a continent and draw some conclusions. Who knows?
So you have no proof that it would. You just fear that it would. I mean, most of the EU is in NATO, their armies are tiny, they co-operate on so many levels for so many years. If NATO disbanded tomorrow they would just form their own alliance to keep the peace.
Even if you had some nutbag with penis envy want a war, I don't see why the country would follow. We are past the days of kaisers, monarchs and dictators, where one person can go to war and the country will blindingly follow. Democracy by its nature is not a form of government that lends itself to warlike behaviour, as evidenced by the fact that those who can easily go to war have to either not be democracies, or have democracy corrupted to the point where the people don't have a say (e.g. the UK, millions protested against the iraq war, but the army was under direct government control).
The actual problem is that people aren't for or against EU, but are for or against completely unrelated issues, that via spin gets projected onto the debate of whether or not EU is a good idea. And that is what pisses me off.
Now, that is true, but that is very much due to a lack of critical thinking on part of the population. However, it is in the interests of politicians across the spectrum (and the rich) that they stay that way. Let me know when you work out a way of countering that, for I've not found one yet (that didn't involve a bloody revolution).
In 200 years I won't be here (barring some major technological advance in the next 60 years), so I guess that will be something that has to be dealt with by my kids or grandkids.
That is unless we go through the whole civil war like the US, where one side (either the unionists or confederates) basically get removed from the equation completely, leaving the other free to do what they want.
It would be interesting to see, but I can imagine a world when governments lose power with the loss of sovereignity and disappearance of borders, to be replaced with power blocks that hold no real allegiance to geography. Most likely a return to things like city-states, fiefdoms, corporations big enough to have armies and enough population to qualify as states in their own right.
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the information. I was under the impression that EFTA was the precursor to the EEC.
Still, AFAIK the UK only ever had a referendum on joining EFTA, so my point still stands w.r.t. on not having a democratic choice in the matter.
The reason you don't get much say in it is because most of your voters are too fucking dumb/lazy to actually produce an informed opinion on the subject. All they see is oh no, we lost some of our sovereignty, we're less British now. You just know that whenever the subject of EU comes up, right wing fanatics are going to jump on it and declare it a war on eggs & bacon, pubs and football, because national pride buys votes. So moderate politicians keep everything they can out of the referendums, because they know a bunch of hacks are going to screw it all up, for no other reason than personal gain - hey look at me, I oppose this, vote for me so I can continue my fat cat lifestyle.
Wow, what a bitter tirade! In one fell swoop you've shown exactly the problem with the EU and its supporters. You don't want democracy, you don't want people to choose, you want to decide what is good for them, and if they resist, or don't like it, then they are stupid/lazy/far-right-nuts. Democracy means giving people the right to choose, and includes letting them choose the "wrong" option.
You'll be winning hearts and minds with that attitude, I'll tell you.
And if you want to see a fat-cat lifestyle, try and peer into the live of an European Commissioner. At least the non-governmental fat cats got hold of the money themselves, rather than using my tax money to fund their lifestyles.
There is no rational discussion of "will this be good for us and the people around us", it's all just "what do I get?". If you started asking questions like "how can we make this work, so that in 50 years the bombs don't start flying again"
Why on earth would bombs start flying again? Even if the EU was dissolved tomorrow, I don't see why suddenly war would break out. I mean, people have been living together for a while now in peace, intermarriages, etc... Shengen and free trade did more to build peace than any other part of the EU.
I'd argue that war is more likely if the EU is being kept together by force. Forcing things together will work for a while, but increases the chance that when it does collapse, it will do so in a very bloody way.
They're doing pretty much the same thing in Denmark, arguing tooth and nail that this or that issue does not warrant asking the people, for the very reasons I stated above. They're not going to come out and say it, but you don't need many brain cells to figure it out. Especially not if you've been around for the last couple of referendums on EU, and seen the sheer idiocy of propaganda shoveled onto voters.
Again, politicians showing complete disregard for democracy. "The masses aren't voting for my ideas, they must be stupid/brainwashed/fascists, therefore I must not ask them". That will do nothing but breed resentment, regardless of whether what the politicians are doing is better for them in the long term.
No, we didn't know. Originally we signed up to EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement), which morphed into the EEC (European Economic Community), then into the EC (European Community) in 1993, and in 2009 into the EU (as a political entity) officially (with the Lisbon Treaty).
That is the main beef in the UK. The original referendum only asked if they wanted to join EFTA, and free trade with Europe was a good idea. Since then everything else was essentially scope creep, until we ended up with the monstrosity that is the EU.
Nobody in my generation (or indeed my parents generation) actually had a say in any of this. Nobody gave us a referendum on any of the new treaties, or for whether we wanted further integration.
I guess that is why a lot of people in the EU (not just the UK) see the EU as undemocratic. Even the EU leaders are aware of this, as they keep mentioning the issue of "EU legitimacy" or "democratic deficit".
So they are aware of the shortcomings. Of course, their solution is more EU, with the goal of total political union, and I presume representative democracy via voting in your chosen MEP.
Of course, we'll have no say in any of this until it is presented to us as a done deal, at which point we can vote for MEPs (the UK may not have this fate, as its population has been clamoring for a referendum for ages, and all this assumes the EU doesn't collapse).
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
