bingo.
I prefer the terms "North Euro" and "South Euro" though. ;)



"das volk braucht platz" <> oil or SE fi.
I wasnt about that anyway, in the west at least. Just about power.
The pacific war on the other hand has some parallels.



True, this is most likely what they will write in future history books.

WWIII?

this?

seriously?

Are ppl that desperate to have some epic history in their CVs that a financial crisis is now called a war? Banana divisions marching?

So, then the US with Lehmann Brothers fired the first shot and will be dragged to Nuremberg?

Wars start 10-15 years before the 1st bullet is fired. ;)


PS:
Maybe your picture of a future world war is wrong.
It wont be one huge battlefield but dozens of smaller ones.

The bananas thing is flat out untrue. See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm

EDIT: Also, if it were true, under the principle of direct effect, Britain would never have an opt out of that legislation. That's not how the EU works. All directives and regulations proposed by the EU have to be implemented in national law else the members states get taken to court and heavily fined. And anyway, any legislation made by the EU has to be ratified by both the Council and the Parliament in the EU. The Council is made up of representatives of each of the member states governments, the parliament is directly elected by the people. Nothing the EU passes is magically created out of the bureaucracy.

As for Winston blockading the Belgian ports, it might be worth remembering that Churchill was one of the major advocates for a United States of Europe, something much more extreme than we have now. A lot of anti-EU Conservative supporters seem to forget that, or at least willfully ignore it, but Churchill was extremely pro-europe and would have been pro-EU if he had been around long enough, if not even potentially criticising it for not going far enough.

Well, then we have been in constant world war since man learend how to use a stick.

Constantly at war yes, "world war" - maybe not.
Anyway - what is your outlook for next four decades to come?
Peace and unity?

Quoted for truth, though unlucky national governments have developed a tendency over the last 20 years to direct any illdoings of thermselves at the EU whenever it comes to elections.

People in here should know a bit about history and learned a thing or two, amongst them foremost the principles that if something goes wrong..blame somebody outside the country! Still, to this day that works like a charm, in Germany, in the UK, in France, in all of Europe and the US, in Russia (remember, it was foreigners at fault for mass protests against Putin....). Case in point this thread.

And then I get asked in PMs why I am often so hostile.
I have to ask back, how can you not if people don't ever manage to move above Bild, Daily Mail, Fox News and whatever else "news"papers levels.

I lost faith in my predictions a long time ago. Things can change so quickly and unpredictably that it makes not much sense in looking to the future or develop any kind of fatalism.

Actually, I can't stand predictions, because more often then not they become self fullfilling prophecies. People start to believe something will happen, and that alone often has the effect to actually make it happen.

What is worrysome in this regard is that in many places of the western world there developed a Lust for Armageddon, tear everything down and start anew. Just look at the TV series and movies coming out lately, there is more in there about world destruction then for the last 50 yerars combined. If that is any indication for peoples current mood, then I do not wonder a bit about the current state of the western world.

Ppl atm are not driven by facts or attempts to fix the problems we have, but mere emotion. That hardly ever solved anything. Though I do develop an understanding why, for example, ppl cheered all over Europe when WWI broke out. It appears at certain points in history men simply loses his ability to think things through out of pure frustration.

What's so bad about this vision?

It's bad because everybody has his/her own idea about starting anew. There is no thinking behind it, just a certain urge. It is like invading Afghanistan or Iraq without a Plan to rebuild it. Plain romanatics.

Greece is expiriencing something of that sort currently, and people do not appear to be too happy about it. And if I remember right, the ppl living in the aftermath of WW2 were not too happy, either.

Pardon my ignorance man,what exactly is romanatics? :confused:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dvBJF1D-x2...Sea+of+Fog.jpg

this

"Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started--a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals and entire economies .... It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam."
-- Brazilian President Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva (Lula), comment from 1989 when he was a labor leader and leading dissident in Brazil

Problem is - you cant plan a new start.
You have to try and see what happens, maybe we end up with the current status quo, maybe we dont.
As a side effect we lose a big part of the population which is a good thing, gives the rest of the living beings on this planet a few decades to breath through.
We cant really lose.

Problem is very complex. We have gotten used to a way of living that is in no way sustainable for either the environment nor for the economic growth everybody's trothing for. Next big conflict will be about energy resources because we are too stupid and too greedy to figure out how to co-exist and limit our extreme living habits that we have gotten used to and that now countries like India, China and Brazil are getting used to.

The means of our existent can't be based on exploiting and destroying (I'm no treehugger mind you). Some "experts" are saying we are on our way out of the economic crisis that followed after the 2008 crash but fact is we are now in a recession that will never end, there maybe smaller "up-spikes" but fact its we are done. Hey yanks, stop complaining about the gas prices, they will never go down again, only up, get used to it. At least we have room to regulate the gas prices a bit here "thanks" to our huge gas taxes but it's just a temporary fix to an enormous problem.

Laugh all you want but the future of humanity lies in smaller almost self-sustainable communities. If things will continue on as they are doing now people will learn the hard way about moderate living but since most people are used to overconsumption this will most certainly be the case. The future of our civilization can't rest on such fragile foundations as exploitation and greed, it will fall like many other before it and people will start a new and learn nothing from it, as usual.:)

P.S Ideals are dead, greed rules and politicians are all out of ideas! :D

That is so cynical I can't even start to ponder what brought you to that attitude.
So you are easily taking into account the loss of a big part of the population? I suppose you do not have a problem being part of that? And you expect a large part of the population sharing your sentiments?

I like my life, I'd like to keep it a bit longer, so no, I do not think that is worth consideration.

Why don't you instead of such talk just go into politics or local interest groups and try to convience some ppl to change that kind of behaviour, the one creating this circle of creation and destruction brought by war? This planet is quickly becoming too highly developed and too ressource depleted to start anew ad infinitum.

That pretty much sums up your post. And then everybody complains about things being so grim while happily playing along.

Yes, because that's what we've been taught and it is the only thing we know.

Presumably you see yourself very firmly in the group that survives then...:rolleyes:

...or are you going to selflessly volunteer yourself as part of the few million (billion?) who die?

Darwinism in action I'd say.

Not a criticism Bewolf but isn't this part of the problem? everybody feels that way and every day more and more of us are feeling that way because everyday there are more and more of us, all happily living our lives thinking everything is rosy....it's gonna be standing room only on this planet at some point......what do we do?

You are right there, but there is not much pride in our intellectual capabilities if holocaust is the only option, now is there?

Everybody "knows" we can't go on the way we currently do. Everybody "knows" we have to scale back. Despite everybody trying to find excuses and work arounds, that feeling persists. That, imho, is the reason for all that doosmday behaviour.

The solution would be to scale down. Not even "that" far, but a few inconviences were to indeed return to our daily lifes. But seriously, I'd rather like a bit less comfort, which we all will have settled in after a few months, then annhilation.

Of course, I certainly don't advocate mass culling etc.....but ultimately our fate is potentially far worse if the problem is not taken to hand, so what possible solution could there be to mass overcrowding of the planet?....I believe nature will make some of the choice for us but either way the whole mess is going to be of our own making so what difference does it make if we do something about it or Nature?

I do not think there is one big solution to it. And there currently are some scientific developments that make any predictions in this case entirely dubious. Genenics are making such jumps currently that our lives may look entirely different in a few decades. It's currently developing into a business for the upper classes in detecting genetic defects and deficits and attempts to counter them.

China has a huge stake in this as well, they have a rapidly aging population. Their only chance to maintain their growths is by trying to lenghen their population's productive life span. It's about aging in any case and the research on why we get older. That, btw, would be the second great dream of humankind, after flying, eventual immortality. Do not dismiss this as science fiction, despite this development not getting much coverage.

So we may not even have to deal with overpopulation, but ever longer life spans as well.
Humankind as a whole will have to grow up quite a bit to deal with this.

Just to put that into perspective. It is ever going harder today to get to ressources. You have to dig deeper, get more expensive high tech equipment to reach deposits. This is not pick axe material anymore. So if we let it rumble on a global level again, and that is I think what you are aiming at (would not make much sense in rebuilding if the chinese forge ahead meanwhile. In doubt, they will be the ones doing the rebuilding and nothing is solved), there is no coming back.

1st get rid if the elitist that manage the world with the only interest of profit. (bankers, politicians, top 1% wathever you call them)

2nd, get a new political class (after a "intelectual revolution") that adress the real problems of the world, more as the human race as a hole than individual countries with useless nationalism.

3 enact laws that are strictly persecuted so we can reduce world population peacfully in a few generations. enable abortion, no more than 1 son per family etc.

4 make the life controlled by laws si resources so we dont waste resources and human life is sustainable.

5 reach a stable population to mantain a faily good standart of living, if possible a lot more equally distributed

we have 50 years or we are all going to die horribly . we or our children :(

Yes. That's what I said, but not in so many words.

Europe is not America. There is very little commonality between countries in Europe. There are huge differences in culture, economies and aspirations. To be 'united' by the same money has not worked. It was a fanciful political utopia.

The reality of capitalism has emerged. Europe would have been better off without the Euro.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

What lack of communality? You are projecting the UK's special situation as an island onto the countries of the continent. Most areas and people have been under one rulership or another, starting with the roman empire. There is a commonly shared and ongoing history of direct interaction and exchange for millenia, unrivaled anywhere else in the world.

There even is a common religion which was equally practiced eveywhere and the philisophical and ethical code coming with that.

Populations living at the borders of two countries often are more like one each other then people living on the borders to other countries. The same applies to ethnitices, which only corrolate superficially with dominant cultures. Most "differences" are simply based on the faith of being different, not actual differences. You will find when you move to other european countries that they differ in customs, not in basic values.

Added to that, we are not living in the 19th century anymore. There are countries coming up whose basic values differ to a far greater degree and the pontential to surpass any european nation with economic power by several multitudes, China the most prominent one.
Compared to these, Europe is a highly integrated cultural area and is seen at that in other parts of the world. That includes the UK.

You do not think one country alone, even the UK or Germany, stands a chance to counter that development alone in the long run, do you?

Finally, about the Euro. That stuff you talk about is bollocks. And it has become a self runner without anybody looking at how thbings really are. Portugal, Spain, Ireland, parts of the eastern european countries and also Germany have benefited enourmously from the Euro.
Even today the southern european countries, despite all the declines, are still leagues above from where they started out initially. Portugal was a Morocco style country before joing the EU and eventually the Euro.

The problem does not lie in the currency itself, it lies in it's basic construction, exposed by the collaps of an anglo saxon financial system, a system that helped a country like Greece fudge it's numbers into the Euro.

P.S. A little observation. Never in my life have I seen so much news coverage over the interiour politcal developments of other european countries. It's the same in any given eeuropean country currently I think. We have long reached the stage of european interiour politics in a strained and nerve wrecking situation without anybody by now even having gotten the idea to mobilize. Tell me what you want, but given european history, that is an achievement all by itself. I also prefer peace over capitalism.

How do you think this will go guys?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47342551

That would be very inconsequent, don't you think?

I'm talking about a situation where you'd have to expect a draft rather than volunteer.
I also decided against having my own offspring.
It has always been a pita for the past 10 years to talk my gf out of it...

There's no need for swearing just because you disagree.

I have friends in Germany and France plus a few other states. They agree with me.

The only country that has 'benefited' from the Euro is Germany. Remember how many Mercs and BMWs were sold to Greece on loans when they joined the Euro?

That was fine then. But now, feelings towards Greece have changed somewhat in Germany.


Best Regards from a Non-Swearing:cool:,
MB_Avro.

Why? Argueably, despite the economic turmoil in Europe, there has never been a time in the entire european history were ppl were better of then now.

So why those mass suicidal tendencies?

Well "my friends said...." is an interesting argument. I see the depths and factual truth in there. Directly extends to the rest of your post. What friends did you tell those snippets, then?

Bewolf, don't bother, I can't imagine someone like Avro having friends in Germany or France ;)

You are avoiding my points. :rolleyes: Try harder.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Teamed up with Bewulf,have you? Safety in numbers? :grin:

And you are wrong about my not having friends in Europe. Do you want their photos, names and addresses and telephone numbers?

Try not to get personal you two. It undermines the forum.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

....complains the one ignoring mine? Funny attitude you have. Doesn't make much sense to go on this way, now does it?

what an intellectual riposte.

I dare to doubt that, furthermore I dont five a damn how ppl are off in eastern Europe, fact is we are off quite worse than 30 years ago.
There are several reason for that, agreed, but this is not the line I want to argue about.

What I do care about is the planet, which in my terms is neither humanity or the rock floating in space, but the whole flora and fauna living on it.
What gives us the right to destroy the habitat of all those beings?
You mentioned the progress in genetics - this could be indeed a way out, once you manage synchronize humans even socialism could work.
In the end however, we will be nothing more than one gigantic ant hive - is that what you want? Is that worth to live for?
Given the choice I'd prefer to die any day to make this future not come true.
Btw; have you ever seen " soylent green"?

come on fellas, have a laugh, let's not take ourselves too seriously for a change, you can appreciate that someone that boasts on his location: "London, England (Not European!)" might cause some raised eyebrows when saying he has friends over Europe ;)

Anyway, sorry fellas, go back to your argument.

Now this is becoming highly philosophical, you have your opinion fr that, I have mine.
Nature really does not matter about what is done to her. She has survived global ice ages, meteorid impacts and ruptures of tectonic plates with species dying off in spades. So I am really not worried about the planet. Especially given that global armageddon and nuclear winters and summers would probably be more harmful to the planet then another 1000 years of going on like we currently do, so that is a bit of a self defeating argument.

I can symphazise with the rest of your fears, but as I said before, I'd rather take my chances instead of jumping from the bridge. You won't solve anything by throwing up your arms while running around yelling "the future is bleak, we all will suffer, seek salvation!"

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

I've just realised!

You are right and I am wrong. I'm so sorry Bearwulf.

Am I the first on the internet to admit he is wrong?

Maybe you'll be next?

:rolleyes:

You'll have to come to terms with the fact that the German Euro....sorry...the European Euro is dying.

Thank goodness we Brits stayed out of the Euro.

In fact, the only time we got involved in Europe was when a European dictator decided to flex his muscles.

1. Napoleon (1805)
2. Kaiser William (1914)
3. Corporal Hitler (1939)

Is there a common factor in that list? :cool:

Best of luck Barewolf who is somewhere in Germany.;)

Prost!

Best Regards from a wet Britain,
MB_Avro.

LoL. Yeeah, that's me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McFj_vq3cwk

Please tell me, how can I judge if you are right or wrong if you haven't even argued but a few catchphrases?

I suspect that you have a sense of humour. I could be wrong, for the first time in my life.....

Prove me right or wrong.

The ball is in your court!


Best Regards,
MB_BierGarten und Weiss Bier.

Me? a sense of humor?

Nuts.

LOL!! Avro!!:grin::grin: Common factor? Yes, your dates are completely arbitary. That's their common factor. Britains policy towards mainland Europe has been consistent for a thousand years-since William the Conqueror-we don't like to see any single prince or state dominate the mainland; therefore we have fiddled in Europe for a millenia. It's a great, action-packed story! You should read it sometime.:cool:

ummh ... there is the minor point that from 1328 when Edward III inherited a claim to the crown of France, until 1801 when George III abandoned his formal claim to the French throne the English claimed to actually own France :D

It would have made an interesting twist to history if after Waterloo the British had pursued their claim to the French throne and reinstated the Monarchy.

LOL!
That was actually funny. :grin:

Then again that's not really me.

That's the rock I was speaking of, you missed the point.
If you had to decide between burning down a forest where a large population of animal XY lives[let's say they will be extinct afterwards], and a few hundred(or thousands) humans who rely on this future farmland to survive - how would you decide?

The nuclear winter effect btw is pure hypothetical, I think it's bogus.
Now, the funny thing about nukes is the fact, that if everyone has some, no one can use them. Plus, there's no need for them; we have proven to be very effective with conventional weapons in our past.

This was probably enough OT, you guys continue with your pro/contra EU debate, enjoy.;)

Well..what would the animal do?
Though people usually tend to think of themselves being above animals, most of us act just like that subconciously. That is the reason why we are in this place to begin with. That is how nature made us and how eveolution works, make sure you survive and produce lots of offsrping, f*ck the rest. Humanity just is the most successful animal in this regard due to brain power -> adaptability. Only Rats and Canides come close in their spreading around the world.

When I said ppl need to grow up, it is simply the ability to put intelligence above this instinct and gut feeling and look at the big picture. The same now applies to you in refards to finding solutions to our problems then simply kill half the human population.

Theoretical, to be precise. But notwithstanding how deterenace works, you said you looked for global war. And we all know that in a war, when one side becomes desperate, then desperate measures are more willingly taken into account then in peace time.

Regardless, I do not think war these days between the industrial countries is something to look forward to, we have have become even more destructive then compared to WW2, even without the nuclear option.

Everybody in Europe want to be a German . Even the people from London, but not only the London in Europe, but somewhere else.........
Be honest ,Avro, you want to be a German too ?
Deep in your heart............................................. ..
But hey, that OK ....................

"I think it would be much better for Greece and the entire euro area if Greece were kicked out. Spain kicked out. Italy out and even France should be out. At the end you just have Germany with the euro.

The bureaucrats in Brussels and the media are brainwashing everybody that if Greece exited the euro, it would be a disaster. My view is the best would be to dissolve the whole euro zone and that the countries would go back to their own currencies and still use the euro as an international currency the way you travel through Latin America and with a [US] dollar you can pay anywhere you wish. In my view, that would be the best. These countries that have financial difficulties, you will have to write off their debts and make it difficult for them to access the capital market in the future. Just to keep bailing them out will increase the problem. It will not solve the problem."

On whether there will be a race to the bottom among various countries to devalue their own currencies if the euro is dissolved:

"I do not have a high opinion of the U.S. government, but the bureaucrats in Brussels make the government in the U.S. look like an organization consisting of geniuses. The bureaucrats in Brussels are completely useless functionaries and they want to maintain their power.

Marc Faber from Switzerland on Bloomberg TV

http://bloom.bg/IW6hX3

I'd be interested to know who he is referring to as 'the bureaucrats'. All the top offices in Brussels are on cycles (usually four years, sometimes five), no one is clinging to power.

I'm going to repeat my earlier point though, that the 'bureaucrats in Brussels' in reality have very little power. They have as much power as the civil service does in a normal democracy. They propose legislation, that is all, they do not pass it, all of that is done by either the Council, the European Council or the Parliament, or a combination of the above depending on the topic. All of the above are either directly elected (in the case of the Parliament) or indirectly elected as they are the heads of state or ministers from the member states (in the case of the European Council and the Council) and are not the kind of 'bureaucracy' that he, or anyone else, is talking about whenever they talk about the EU.

As for the Euro being a disaster if Greece is kicked out, of course it would be an economic disaster. If Greece were kicked out, what little faith there was left in the Euro would likely collapse because who would want to invest in a currency that changes its market every time something goes wrong. At the same time, if Greece were kicked out the Euro all the other Euro members would lose faith in it and the project would likely fail. A single currency is a brilliant idea in theory and shouldn't be given up on so easily because this may be the only chance we ever have at trying it.

So, in the case of Greece leaving...how would they deal with a debt still held in Euros?
So they drive back the reforms done by now to break up monopolies, nepotism and rigid labour structures, basicly the whole overblown government apperatus. Who is going to lend them the money to finance that? Who is going to back the new Drachma?

What are they going to export to actually make use of a depressed currency?
How are they going to finance energy and ressources imports with a massivly depressed currency?

How are you going to catch up the millions already being in a dire situation when their money is worth even less?

I am certainly open to arguments, just curious how you are going to solve this, short and long term.

That's also the other key point, that if Greece leaves the Euro then their currency will be devalued (else what's the point of leaving?), meaning they pay the same amount they owe in Drachma, but everyone else gets less Euros, Pounds, Dollars or whatever. So essentially if Greece leaves Greece 'wins' (if you can call it winning) and the rest of the world to whom it owes money loses. That includes Britain. That's why I don't understand all this celebrating over the fact that the Euro is burning. We lose a hell of a lot of money if the Euro goes, along with everyone else. It is in our interests for it to stay afloat and, to some extent, to keep it afloat.

It would be a win of principle over reality

Hey, Broandlgramer! Where have you been?

Yes, there is some Saxon blood in my body. And I have been to Germany many times. Your beer is a magnet... Almost as good as British beer...:grin:

Our countries were the same until 1914. Germany is the only country in Europe that I am at home in. Yes, it sounds crazy.

Ok. This is where I have drunk beer in Germany:

Munich.( The one way traffic system forced me to drink bier).
Coburg. (A very heavy two days!)
Celle. (hmmmm...heavy again).
Kiel. (Nice sailing with biers).
Hamburg (Crazy Ladies and Hell's Angels)
Berlin (I was 15 years old and no bier).

Mfg
MB_Avro.

Arbitary? Who cares about arbitary?

Please send me the link to the action packed story! :cool:

And History Lite has a place at times...get my drift?

:confused:Why was the Euro created?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Well, think of people looking back at european history, looking at the new descruction magnitudes each project brought and projecting that into the future, then looking for ways to make this never happen again, that may be a good starting point.

And I can't respect a person who has not tried Alt yet.

[QUOTE=Bewolf;423435]Well, think of people looking back at european history, looking at the new descruction magnitudes each project brought and projecting that into the future, then looking for ways to make this never happen again, that may be a good starting point.

The perspective from Britain is that the Euro was a shallow and political attempt to unite Europe under German leadership. Angela Merkel has dictated to Greece who should be their leader.

Thank the Lord that we British have NOT joined the Euro.

The Euro is a sinking ship. We British are experts as regards sinking ships. Titanic anyone:rolleyes:

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

The union was born from all the ashes of the wars in Europe that have happened forever and ever.

Mutual assured economic destruction.

Allow tiny states within a huge continent to rule themselves with no natural border other than some imaginary line. Have completely different cultures, languages, races, history, currency, leaders and a splash of animosity for past history and a dash of nationalism and you have a tinderbox.

But try to bond them economically, have a common currency, remove borders and allow restricted movement of people in hope the experiment leads to the loss of all these deep seated identities over several generations.

Finally have one union with leaders for all the people and it might me manageable.

Only time will tell.

And you actually believe that?

If you drink plenty of History Lite with a few Current Affairs Lite chasers and squint a bit then anything is believable.

yeah, we have those

like the euro surviving in its present form;)

If I follow the logic here ...

Not only is the UK right to avoid the Euro ...

But Britain also should split off the North, especially Sunderland/Sheffield/Newcastle etc , and give them their own currency which can then be devalued ??

Lose identity?
That's something adorable?

*pukes*

As if. I am a Düsseldorfer. Can't say Cologne ever bothered to culture up and share that identity. Oddly enough, being in one country did not change much of that.

That threat of loss of identity is pure fear mongering.

But it works.

Apparently.

Ironically it seems to come from us Brits quite a lot as well. I would like to pose any British person the question, that under the United Kingdom, with our common currency, the Pound, have the Scottish, Welsh and English lost their identity?

Given that Scottish nationalist parties rule in Scotland and Welsh nationalist parties are very popular in Wales, I'd say not. Whilst adopting a British nationality, we haven't abandoned our English, Welsh or Scottish ones. Why can't it be the same for Europe?

(NOTE: I intentionally left out Northern Ireland since 'Northern Irish' identity is somewhat of a sensitive issue.)

It must not, that is the point.
Germany once was the Holy Roman Empire of german nation, then a bunch of indepdendant mini states, then part of empires and nations, these days the EU. Still, a guy from Hamburg and a guy from Munich are as distinguihsable in fashion, language and customs as they ever were.
Lately, however, some ppl have started to define tools as identity.

Currencies are a tool, so are financial systems in general. They were built for a purpose.
If they are marked as "identity", then you start having a problem, because tools are instruments geared to fullfill a task within a then present reality.
Realities, however, change over time and if your focus is to let things stay the way there are simply to let them stay the way they are, then you lose the ability to adapt to new sitations. That is the moment you lose out.

That is the reason why the US is losing out currently, that also is the reason why the UK and much of western Europe is losing out, because they do not adapt to the realities of a rising China and a developing third world in general, but want to stay in the cozy 80ies.

Evolution at its finest.

But yeah, suprisingly enough, it is the british foremost stating this fear of loss of identity. Yet have to hear it from any other European. I suppose when you live here and see things at work, you are much more at ease with realities compared to that rather theoretical british approach.

Populism and herd instinct. Switch off your brain and let others do the thinking (deciding) for you. Working like a charm since Adam and Eve(TM).

Daniel Hannan...

You can't ignore Hannan. He gets to the point, and doesn't confuse with big words... and long speeches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObI5m5CXVQ&feature=fvst

Very to the point, perhaps a bit unecessarily over-dramatic though.

That aside, he's not doing his job. As a member of the European Parliament he's supposed to represent the EU, not the UK. That's the job of the people in the Council and the European Council. It's complicated, but members of the European Parliament don't have constituencies like in Westminster, instead they're supposed to represent people based on ideology (so a UK MEP could be repsenting people in France, Greece, Romania or whatever). Anyway, the point is, him standing up and making that speech (along with a lot of other speeches he's made) would be rather like an MP in Westminster standing up and saying 'Hey, this whole government thing isn't working, we should give it up.' That's not how it's supposed to work and people like him are just hindering things unecessarily.

EDIT: Just to be clear, it's perfectly fine if that's his opnion, but he should voice it in the Council, not the Parliament, because that is what the Council is for. It always concerns me that EU citizens don't really know what MEPs are supposed to do (i.e. represent the Union, not their member states), although that's probably largely the fault of the Union for not explaining it to anyone, but it's even more concerning if even he doesn't know what his own job is supposed to be.

This video is at European Parliament..

same meeting as thread starter posting.

That's the point I was making. It's kind of complicated to explain without going into too much depth, but the example of the United States is always a good one.

The Council and European Council are somwhat like the Senate, in which the people in them represent their member state (or state in the case of the US)

The Parliament is somewhat like the House of Representatives, in that they are not supposed to represent their specific member state or state, but the Union as a whole.

Therefore, it makes no sense for him to be discussing matters that relate to something that the United Kingdom has done because even though he is British in the European Parliament he does not represent the UK, but the European Union.

If he were in the Council or the European Council these kind of comments would make sense, but he isn't, and therefore they don't. It is sort of like having anarchists elected in parlaiment, it doesn't really serve a purpose. They are not elected to the parliament to choose how or what to govern, but to simply govern over what is given to them in the treaties. In his capacity as an MEP (same applies to Farage) there is no point in him expressing these opnions (although of course he is more than free to do so) and, at the same time, his opinions therefore don't matter to anyone important in the Union because it's not his job and he has no real effect on these things. Again, as I said, it just hinders the process by wasting everyone's time.

Anyway, I've spent quite a lot of time studying EU Law and the treaties of the EU and it's the fact that the EU doesn't make any effort to educate people about what it does and how that most annoys me about it. But at the same time, I still haven't found a way to explain it in a way that's very easily understandable either. I just wish that peoples reasoning for not supporting the EU was based on fact and not heresay perpetuated by the press, members of government and people like Farage or Hannan.

One world, one race, one nation.
My a...:evil:

The Euro is dying.

It will soon be dead.

As soon as the British Pound is worth Two Euros, i will leave my Island Home and live in Germany.

Best Regards,
MB_Euro.

You're not kidding! Everything you have just posted about the rights and responsibilities of the EU parliament and it's members and it's relationship to other EU bodies and the council of ministers is totally incorrect.

What specifically about it was wrong?

EDIT: Ok, I've had a look at the treaties.

As to what I said about the Council (used to be the Council of Ministers, but they changed the name), article 16, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union (from the consolidated version post-Lisbon):

"The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at a ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote." - Therefore, members of the Council represent the interests of the member states, as I said.

As to what I said about the Parliament, article 14 paragraph 2, same treaty, though I've seriously cut it down because most of it is irrelevant:

"The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens." - Meaning, like I said, they represent the Union (or the citizens of the Union), not their Member States.

I can go deeper into the treaties to show what I said about the relationship between the two, the decision making process etc., but it's boring and written in very long-handed legal speak so I'm not going to post it here.

Knowing these treaties is my job. If you can find any other articles in the treaties, or anything elsewhere, that proves me wrong, seriously please let me know, since I am interested to read these sorts of things and although it is my job, that doesn't mean I know everything so would like to learn more. But, as it is, that's how it's written in the treaties and so that's how it is as far as I know, unless you can show me otherwise :P

Daniel Hannan is the elected member for the European parliamentary constituency of South-East England. He represents about 850,000 people! He is a member of the British Conservative party and stood for election under the Conservative party banner. His job to to represent them and speak for them in the EU parliament. Just as if he were an elected member of the British House of Commons the functions are the same. He was not elected to represnt the "EU" he is there to represent his constituents. Within the EU parliament he can say whatever he likes, that IS his job.

Plenty of people across Europe but perhaps not within the UK understand the function of the EU parliament. That is why Congo-Otto called it a "blatherer shop" earlier in this thread. The EU parliament is still a rather toothless Tiger. Although it has been gaining more powers recently it has no powers to introduce legislation on it's own. These powers are still reserved for the EU Commission and the Council of Ministers where the real power still lies.

Daniel Hannan cannot speak in the council of ministers as he is not a member. The council of ministers, when it meets, is made up from one representative from the cabinet of the government of the individual member states. Since 2009 you cannot be a member of the EU parliament and a member of a national parliament simultaneously. Therefore he cannot speak in the Council.
Nor can he speak in the Commission either as the Commissioners are appointed by the Council of Ministers although the EU parliament does have a veto over the appointment of the Commissioners these days.

I'm not sure what you mean by him "representing people in Fance, Greece, Romania or whatever". Are you confusing the function of the "blocks" within the EU parliament? Under the leadership of David Cameron our Conservative Party left the European Peoples Party - the main centre right block and joined the "GranPa was a war criminal" party of the rather further right movement. Daniel Hannan was instrumental in this rather bizarre move.

He isn't an elected member of the Conservative party in the EP though. The fact that he stood for election under the Conservative party banner is effectively a misrepresentation of the truth, as it's not the Conservative Party he is representing in the EP. He may be a member of the Conservative party in the UK, but as soon as he enters the European Parliament he is a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists political group. The UK Conservative party is not represented in the EP, only political groups (or 'blocks' as you said) are represented, since the blocks act like parties would in Westminster for example.

Secondly, the EP is based on proportional representation, which is a different system to what we have in the UK. Under the European Parliament system, members don't represent people based on location, but based on ideology. Therefore, Hannan does not represent everyone in the constituency of the South-East of England, but rather represents anyone in the whole of the European Union who's ideology falls within the same ideology as the ECR political group. That's what I mean by he could represent any of the EU citizens regardless of their location, because the representation is not based on location, but ideology. Again, I'll repeat, he does not represent the UK, or the South-East of England. It is a very complicated system of PR, but that's how it is, but if effectively means that any of the MEP's can be 'your' MEP, it doesn't have to be the one from your constituency as the constituencies are regional divisions for electoral purposes only.

With regards to him not being a member of the Council, of course he isn't. That was my point, which I realise now was badly written in that edit but was clearly expressed in the non-edit part of the post. If he was a member, the comments he was making would make sense, but since he isn't, he is simply wasting time and annoying everyone else.

The Parliament also isn't as weak as it used to be. Things changed quite drastically under Lisbon due to the increase of the Co-Decision procedure (now Ordinary Legislative Procedure). The Parliament is now almost as powerful as the Council, except on matters such as Common Foreign and Security Policy which haven't been fully conferred to the Union. On almost all issues though the Parliament and the Council share equal influence on whether legislation is passed or not, so on a day to day basis they are fairly level as far as power is concerned.

I suppose that with the point he's trying to make, he would likely do better as an MP in Westminster where the decisions on treaties etc. can actually be influenced, not in the EP where his opnions on the treaties and the Union as a whole don't matter, his job is simply to pass legislation, not to have opinions on the treaties, although like I said he's perfectly welcome to have them, but it is not his job.