European Empire?

  • News
  • Thread starter kerimek
  • Start date
  • #1
kerimek
5
0
and French President and German Chancellor as European Emperors. New European constitution (written by former French president d`Estaign) removes veto right from member countries. Every unpleasant government can be ignored and voted down (as Austria a few years ago). Every independent opinion (to world events) can be silenced by official foreign minister or President(named in fact by France and Germany). Europe will not be any democratic federation but real feudal Empire - no law for major countries (France and Germany ignore international treaty (Stability Pact) and reject to pay defined sanctions). New countries joined in fear from economical revenge for refuse. UK hoped that new countries help to break France-German hegemony in EU, but they are scared from them and never will vote against them. In Czech republic only 47% voted YES for EU and in other candidate countries is the number similar. Europe was united many times - Rome, Napoleon`s Empire, Hitler`s 3rd Reich. Millions of deads always followed the empires... Let see on Mr Chirac. Does he talking as elected representative of 50milions France citizens or talking as Lord of 500milions slaves in EU and adjacent countries (Ukraine, Turkey, Norway or Marocco)?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ya, there are a few sick people that don't care much for democracy and have some rather twisted ideals. unfortnaly they are often the ones in power; some of them even seem to want to make the eu into a new babylon.
 
  • #3
Andy
69
11
The thing i find most disturbing is that Tony is apparently considering to 'sign' the UK over to the french and germans, even though it will take away all of the governements power over all major decisions.
 
  • #4
FZ+
1,599
3
Sadly, the UK was very much in favour of the preservation of the vetos for the UK as a condition for greater entry into the EU.

The new constitution is pretty much an unhappy compromise - it displeases hardliners who want the EU to put centralised stability first, and it displeases the liberals who want a more loose europe.
 
  • #5
It’s hard to understand why The Brits would desire to be assimilated into the EU. Whereas the continentals trade primarily among themselves, England has global trading partners. England is oil self-sufficient, the rest import. England has a comparative robust economy while the rest flounder. England has a wonderful history while the rest have dismal histories. England exported democracy across the planet while the rest contributed little or suffered under tyranny. England remains a world power, the rest degenerating under the yoke of socialism.
 
  • #6
FZ+
1,599
3
England remains a world power, the rest degenerating under the yoke of socialism.
Er hmm... Let us just briefly note what the government of the UK is at this time... in comparison to say, the government of France.

This isn't a right/left wing issue.
 
  • #7
well it is to the people out on a wing. ;)
 
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
21,958
8,999
Just want to point out one thing: there is a big difference between unifying countries by force and doing so by VOTE.

I'm not up on the specifics of the current proposals but the general idea of European unification is (in general) a good thing for Europeans.
 
  • #9
This isn't a right/left wing issue.

It’s always a question of politics of the left or right. Smith I’m sure sees Britain’s participation in the EU much differently than does Blair. One sees it as a full integration, while the other sees it as an economic integration with limited political ties.

Er hmm... Let us just briefly note what the government of the UK is at this time... in comparison to say, the government of France.

Although the French president is a right-winger, France is really ruled by the vast bureaucracy of civil servants acting as un-elected policy makers. Frances remains a socialist state.

I agree that it is beneficial for the all of Europe to enjoy some type of economic union as well as a loosely knit political union. It will otherwise be impossible to compete with the USA now and greater Asia in the future. The Airbus is an example of successful venture, which would not have been possible without co-operative nations.

Europe seems to face a bleak future as the dark cloud of negative population growth looms. In about 20 years, there will be an insufficient labor force to support those on pensions as well as many other social programs. The only answer to this is a huge influx of immigrants. The acceptance of immigrants is not likely to be well received by the natives as racism will rear its ugly head
 
  • #10
Nothing wrong with socialism...:wink:
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
21,958
8,999
Originally posted by Zero
Nothing wrong with socialism...:wink:
Um... Ahh, nevermind, you already know.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by russ_watters
Um... Ahh, nevermind, you already know.
Yeah, I sure do...
 
  • #13
FZ+
1,599
3
un-elected policy makers

Isn't that a right-wing specialty? :wink:
 
  • #14
Guybrush Threepwood
520
1
Originally posted by GENIERE
England has a wonderful history while the rest have dismal histories. England exported democracy across the planet while the rest contributed little or suffered under tyranny.

yeah, after all who are those greek guys who invented democracy? did they paid copyright?
and what was "pax romana"? some kind of cheese maybe...

could you exemplify some more of that dismal histories?
 
  • #15
yeah, after all who are those greek guys who invented democracy? did they paid copyright?

Many civilizations have had their moments of glory including the Mongols, and Persians but you might call it ancient history. I was thinking more in terms of the last 3 or 4 centuries. I have an Italian not English heritage but the Roman Empire pales in comparison to the English Empire. The Romans merely ruled with an iron hand and looted those it conquered leaving behind roads, bridges, buildings and little else. The English ruled and looted but when the empire collapsed it left behind a treasure of efficient civil servants, a system of law, education and commerce. It provided us a worldwide language. I think only Spain came close to having such worldwide influence. I take some pleasure in the fact that many Brits also have an Italian heritage. The Legionnaires had a lot of free time while manning Hadrian’s Wall for several hundred years. Enjoying the natural advantage Itals have in matters of amore, many with an eye for the local wench had successful encounters.
 
  • #16
Guybrush Threepwood
520
1
Originally posted by GENIERE
I was thinking more in terms of the last 3 or 4 centuries. I have an Italian not English heritage but the Roman Empire pales in comparison to the English Empire.

you can't compare facts separated by 2000 years. maybe the English empire will be just a footnote in the history books 2000 years from now...
What I'm saying is that if England dont' want to ba a part of the European "Empire" I'm sure nobody will try to force it. There's no need of that "we are so much more civilised than you" arguments...
 
  • #17
Andy
69
11
If my history is accurate (and it probably isnt) the British never invaded/conquered Romania, and look at yourselfs now. But if you take a look at the vast majority of countries that where part of the commonwealth look at how well they are doing now.
 
  • #18
PsYcHo_FiSh
9
0
England exported democracy across the planet while the rest contributed little or suffered under tyranny. England remains a world power, the rest degenerating under the yoke of socialism.

Yeah, England but you forgot about the U.S. We played a big role. Bagehot did write that the only real Republics in his time were the U.S.A and England. But, patriotically he said England's was the best :)

Greater Europe has a dismal history. Socialism is hurting it right now though some would say there is no problem with it. France wants to crown Paris capital of Europe and perhaps even the world.

The new Union is of the U.S. and the European nations that did not side with France during the Iraq resolution fiasco.

And there will not likely be a shortage of labor in the U.S. any time soon. The whole nation was built on immigration and it is still seeing millions coming in over the years. Hell, I'm only second generation American. I have very shallow roots in the U.S. but I'm proud.
 
  • #19
Andy
69
11
Great Britain has always been the Strongest allie that the Americans have had and vice versa, but for some reason that isn't stopping his tonyness from trying to sign the country over to those damn Europeans. The British Public want none of it, yet it looks like it will happen and what was once the powerful nation on Earth will be playing second fiddle to the french and germans, how pathetic.
 
  • #20
No I didn't forget about the USA, but consider it the first and greatest example of a new democracy built on the ashes of a dying empire.

To be sure, I'm not saying the English accomplished what they did for an altruistic purpose. On the contrary, the motive was simple lust of wealth by the wealthy. One nation that fared poorly than and now is Ireland. For a thousand years the Irish were treated much as Stalin treated the Jews.
 
  • #21
Andy
69
11
On the contrary, the motive was simple lust of wealth by the wealthy

Yes, and your point is? Why do you think America is the Nation that it is today? Simple it is the lust for wealth by the wealthy.

One nation that fared poorly than and now is Ireland. For a thousand years the Irish were treated much as Stalin treated the Jews.

What? Where did you get this from?
 
  • #22
Ask any Irishman, especially from Londonderry or should I have said Derry? It was probably more like 500 years ago where one could draw a comparison to Hitler. Elizabeth started a program of extermination wherein there was a dedicated effort to eliminate the Irish by the slaughter of men, woman and children and then destroying the crops to starve the survivors. The effort had great success.

As far as the USA, I would say it was lust for wealth by the poor who then became wealthy, some very wealthy! JP Morgan had more cash on hand than the US Treasury and used it one time to bail out the NY Stock Exchange saving the country from a terrible recession. Just like the rest of us, the rich are good and bad. Andrew Carnegie left his massive fortune to Charities and Universities.

Should have said Stalin not Hitler but not much difference as far as the Jews are concerned. I sometimes confuse the great socialist leaders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Guybrush Threepwood
520
1
Originally posted by Andy
If my history is accurate (and it probably isnt) the British never invaded/conquered Romania, and look at yourselfs now. But if you take a look at the vast majority of countries that where part of the commonwealth look at how well they are doing now.

what is that suppose to prove?
 
  • #24
kerimek
5
0
UK is living in its glorious history now, I think. The fact that Germany (splitted and devastated by WWII) has now higher GNP and standard of life than victorious UK is big shame for afterwar british generations. German-France domination in Europe is very bad thing. I can`t understand why UK has gone to marginal war in Iraq instead of very substantial diplomatic battle for good european Constitution. I don`t know if England can survive isolated from rest of Europe, but it will sure very unpleasant for Britons. France absolutely is not socialistic country, it`s subsidized country. Rest of EU and really also the Third world gives to France (namely their farmers) tens of billions euros. So why work more than 35hours weekly? It`s crazy that relatively poor countries as Czech or Slovenia will donate money to rich France... Equally crazy is Third world`s sentiment, that they are milked primarily by US and UK imperialism
 
  • #25
Andy
69
11
Firstly if we wanted to Exterminate the Irish we would have down, simple as that, how are a bunch a farmers supposed to stand up against the might of the British Empire? Which at the time would have been one of the if not strongest Armies in the World.

As for Germany being in a better position than us, we funded the rebuilding of Germany after the second world war, so technically they are in a better position now because we put them there. There GNP mite be higher than ours but they do have a larger population.

We would be in a much better position econmically if we wherent part of the european Union, what good has it done britain? None. We put Billions of pounds into Europe and get much less in return. Since we have been importing the majority of a foods from europe our agricultural sector has almost vanished, do you know why? Because it is cheaper to produce food in europe than it is to produce food in Britain and that is because of stupid EU legislations. We have/had large enough farms all over the country to provide food for the population and now they have been forced out of business.

Whoa what a rant!
 
  • #26
Hey Andy, I'm in agreement with a lot of what you say, but your history is a little weak, or your schools only promote the good parts. Remember Britain had it's own Kamikaze, lest you might be speaking Spanish now.

For the lad from Prague, My recollection of recent politics in France is that until Chirac’s election in the mid 90’s France had a socialist government and even then their parliament or whatever they call it was overwhelmingly socialist. In the 2001 or 2002 election most of the socialist party voters voted for Chirac to prevent the election of some right wing extremist. The large margin of his victory was not seen as a mandate for change from the socialist direction but as a vote against the racist and extreme views of the right-winger. Chirac I believe is a Gaullist rather than a principled conservative. The views of DeGaul are well known i.e., screw the world especially the US and Britain.

As the self-appointed head of the EU, Chirac is pressuring all of Europe to fall under France’s vision of the future.

There’s an old story told in the US. A man goes to a bar and gets very drunk. He meets a beautiful girl and takes her to bed. In the morning, looking at this girl with sober eyes, he discovers that she not beautiful at all. He wants to leave and not wake her but he has his arm under her. Desperate, he chews his arm off and leaves. I think any country that gets in bed with France will want to chew its arm off in the morning.
 
  • #27
kerimek
5
0
Socialism is in fact reallocation of money to poor people. And the endowed rabble fanatically support the socialistic government. Poor people in France hate their government, because they don`t obtain any substantial money. Moneys are reallocated, but to government clients - primarily farmers and national companies as Air France. And particularly, source of the moneys is not in France. I agree that current France is problem for Europe and for world also. So I voted NOT for addition my country to EU.
 
  • #28
Andy
69
11
Remember Britain had it's own Kamikaze, lest you might be speaking Spanish now.

What do you mean? Which battle are you talking about here, us british have had so many wars with the french and spanish that i forget about them.
 
  • #29
Njorl
Science Advisor
285
17
He is probably referring to the "fireships" used by the English against the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Njorl
 
  • #30
FZ+
1,599
3
The views of DeGaul are well known i.e., screw the world especially the US and Britain.
Noting meanwhile that this is pretty much the dictionary definition of Nationalism.

Remember Britain had it's own Kamikaze, lest you might be speaking Spanish now.
Noting that these ships were more cruise missiles than kamikaze, having no crew.
 
  • #31
Kamikaze I'm told is Japanese for "divine wind". If I'm not mistaken, a huge (once a century) storm destroyed much of the Spanish fleet prior to any military action taking place, as did the storm that decimated the Kahn's fleet before it reached Japan. After that, the Spanish had what was left of their fleet regrouping in Holland (I think). The English then set afire many ships and sailed them into the unprepared Spanish. I think it's these fire ships you are referring to but I was referring to the storm.
 
  • #32
Andy
69
11
I don't think it was a storm, just strong winds which forced them to change directions.
 
  • #33
Shadow
19
0
I think that the EU isn't very well organized...the United States are simply states united (duh) we arent different countries with different languages with formerly different currencies and different forms of leadership. I do not know how this will work out but as was pointed out before, in the past when Europe was united it led to no good.
 
  • #34
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,217
66
Well, Shadow, it is logic that the EU isn't very organized yet. At least give it some time :)

As for the EU as a whole, I think some countries are more concerned with their own economies, rather with that of the system. Namely the big players Germany and France.

Each country has a monatary debt to the EU (I am not sure how to call it) and there are guidelines to how much this debt may be. It shouldn't fall below a certain percentage. The Dutch government as been very.. how to say.. compliant in these regulations, giving a lot of money to the EU. This ofcourse goes to the deterioration of the country's economy.

The situation is that Germany and France, which have a lot of money to spare, are not doing their part in coming up with the money and are actually in violation of the regulations.


It is my opinion that the Netherlands could have better stayed independent and tried to go back to the state it was in a few years ago, at which time it was highlighted by some big magazines (the Economist (USA) for example) to have one of the best polical systems, called the 'Polder model'.

Unfortunately we fell from our pedestal :( due to a multitude of factors: based on Dutchbat mistakes in Szebrenica, politicians who couldn't work together, and a party which was elected as the main ruling one.. when the leader was assassinated just a few days earlier. It's a shame.
 
  • #35
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,217
66
Btw, I am proud that the Minister of foreign-affairs in the Netherlands, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, will be Secretary-General of NATO.. but it means my country is again losing one of the top leaders..
 

Suggested for: European Empire?

Replies
1
Views
973
Replies
1
Views
943
Replies
12
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
65
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
19K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top