How do you stop a new EU treaty? - Page 4

Spiffor · October 21, 2003, 07:51

Heresson:
So, what will the Lichtenstein do? I didn't understand in your previous post what they intend to do...

PLATO · October 21, 2003, 08:07

Chirac to Europe: "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

As Europe begins to speak with one voice, the vast variety of opinion and people that made the western world great will begin to fade. Actually it is already. Europe has decided that it can't compete with the US so they have decided to be the US. Sad really, Europes diversity added so much to the world and now the EU begins its slow dissolution of this.

Spiffor · October 21, 2003, 08:59

I don't think a unified power structure will hurt our diversity, except that the political elites will have to speak English at work.

OTOH, I think a unified power structure will actually make us strong enough to defend our diversity against the international tide of homogenity. Or at least, it'll allow us to defend it (it is very possible our politicians won't bother to use this power)

Heresson · October 23, 2003, 03:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Heresson:
So, what will the Lichtenstein do? I didn't understand in your previous post what they intend to do...

Well, as long as I can remember, they can somehow stop financial help for new members of EU

HershOstropoler · October 23, 2003, 05:19

OMG, this thread....

Gangerolf · October 24, 2003, 14:13

the story about liechtenstein, czech rep and slovakia
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/031014173558.eq1bnhzy

Gangerolf · October 24, 2003, 14:13

"In a statement, the Liechtenstein delegation said it could not sign the accord expanding the EEA since they do not recognize the Czech Republic and Slovakia so long as Prague and Bratislava refuse to annul the Benes Decrees. "

Spiffor · October 24, 2003, 14:21

[The Stinger mode]
Liechtenstein is perfectly right to defend its interests by blocking the entry of the central European countries in the EEA. The articulation of national interests is the only way for Europe to work properly.
[/The Stinger mode]

Gangerolf · October 24, 2003, 14:27

it's quite funny actually that liecht doesn't recognise the czech rep and slovakia as countries.

but it seems liechtenstein deserves some kind of compensation

lord of the mark · October 24, 2003, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't think a unified power structure will hurt our diversity, except that the political elites will have to speak English at work.

OTOH, I think a unified power structure will actually make us strong enough to defend our diversity against the international tide of homogenity. Or at least, it'll allow us to defend it (it is very possible our politicians won't bother to use this power)

The pierre elliot trudeau strategy. Create a multilingual federal structure to keep out the cultural pull of the US. Hasnt worked out too well in Canada, where anglo-Canadians are none too thrilled about having the federal state used to preserve French culture, while Quebec discriminates against English. Can France, Germany, Italy use the EU the way Quebec has attempted to use canada, without either offending the british or the small states? Not clear.

Bereta_Eder · October 24, 2003, 15:11

EU baby.

HershOstropoler · October 24, 2003, 15:14

"the international tide of homogenity"

What is that supposed to be?

Drogue · October 24, 2003, 17:30

Everything being Americanised. Taking our culture. Things like kids going to MacDonalds instead of regional fast food. Or watching American films/programs, listening to American music. It seems the whole West is becoming far more alike culturally, and some smaller nations are losing their culture somewhat. If the EU was stronger, there may be more European culture kept going. That is the theory anyway.

Bereta_Eder · October 24, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

and some smaller nations are losing their culture somewhat.

Actually social studies have shown that the countries who are most in danger of "losing" their cultures to "american cultural imperialism (sic)" are those already culturally adjacent to it. Britain, Australia, Canada etc.

For more you can turn to the "bible": Cees Hamelink, Cultural Autonomy in Global Communication.

Drogue · October 24, 2003, 18:35

I agree. By smaller nations, I mean't smaller (or to be more exact, less influencial) than the US. Like US culture being more powerful, rather than actual nation size.

Bereta_Eder · October 24, 2003, 18:51

Definitely. On the subject of movies (where there is traditionally a plethora of american products and an underepresentation of other countries) I'm pleased to see a spectacular turn around from "Hollywood" these last years and I'm speaking commercially.

But I'm a bit sceptical at EU or state for that matter funding of films. While this is in fact being done in some cases I am against it for the most part.

If someone has something to say, he can say it. And the people will judge if it concerns them or not. I'm againgst funding of projects that only the director, his mom and his dog will see and that will concern noone else and that will be funded by my tax money. If he has something to say, the people will reward him. And if he wants state money, he better be prepared to be able to "talk" to a very large audiance.

Az · October 24, 2003, 19:29

Good. Maybe THAT will give the West some help in the upcoming changes.

( Reading Clash of Civilizations, now )

VetLegion · October 24, 2003, 20:03

Azazel, the book is terribly flawed.

While I was reading it I thought it pretty convincing, but when it got to the chapter about war in Bosnia and the rest of Balkans it became totaly wrong. This wasn't a religious war here, 'twas plain old 19th century nationalism based imperialism practiced by small Balkan countries. A mess, but not related to civilizations or religion.

I'm sure you will find inacuracies and oversimplifications too, when it gets to the mid east part of his theory.

I would say it was a good book but now, three of so years after I read it, I don't recall a single good thing about it. So it is a crap book

Spiffor · October 24, 2003, 20:38

One should read the Clash of Civilizations with one thing in mind:
Although Huntington seems pretty sure of what he says when you read the book, he has actually no other pretention than to develop a framework to analyse upcoming conflicts. He does not predict any conflict, and he does not think the civilisational aspect will be the only aspect of war in the future. He talks only about the civilizational aspect because it's his theory of course

So, read the book because there are interesting things, but don't believe it is a Bible. Even Huntigton doesn't believe it.

Kuciwalker · October 24, 2003, 20:55

Why are those government so uptight over preserving "culture". Isn't, say, French culture by definition what French people do?

The US has no government culture-preserving initiatives. It's not the government's job. If people wanted to watch French movies, let them. Heck, we let people watch anime and stuff. We don't care that it's Japanese. If people like it, why not make it American too?

Spiffor · October 24, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Why are those government so uptight over preserving "culture". Isn't, say, French culture by definition what French people do?

Not only. French culture is also a heritage. It isn't necessary to reflect it in the everyday, but we can't allow the heritage to go down the drain nonetheless.
Besides, my main beef with the cultural "exchange" with the US is not the American culture per se: about every other pop culture I've seen sucks as much. My beef is with the pace of said "exchange", which doesn't allow us to integrate new elements properly.

IoT · October 25, 2003, 13:10

One of the problems with the EU as it is currently constituted is corruption:

http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Meijer2.htm

...

From Commission documents it appears that the fraud going on at Eurostat had been known about for some time. Over a number of years, Commission officials have sounded the alarm bell over irregularities. The response, however, has repeatedly been to state that nothing was wrong, while the officials involved suffered as a consequence harassment from their superiors. The irregularities at Eurostat turn out to be much more widespread than the Commission admits. Years ago Commission officials had already brought the institution’s attention, internally, to a number of problems: multiple conflicts of interest, falsification of documents, over-billing, unregistered labour, and the failure to follow up charges of fraud. These problems are, moreover, not confined to Eurostat. Officials within the Commission have reported comparable irregularities elsewhere, such as in the official European publications office, while it appears that internal reports concerning other Commission services have also pointed to serious errors committed by high officials, reports which were not followed up.

...

REMINDER: The whole Jacques Santer commission resigned on mass because of corruption.

What I find particularly disturbing are the posters who airily state that the EU power elite know better than the masses and that the masses should be grateful that they are sorting all the problems out for them and that the ordinary citizen is too stupid to understand whats going on. If the pols are unable to make thier case in a clear enough manner for the public to understand they are not doing thier job properly.

Az · October 25, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion
Azazel, the book is terribly flawed.

While I was reading it I thought it pretty convincing, but when it got to the chapter about war in Bosnia and the rest of Balkans it became totaly wrong. This wasn't a religious war here, 'twas plain old 19th century nationalism based imperialism practiced by small Balkan countries. A mess, but not related to civilizations or religion.

I'm sure you will find inacuracies and oversimplifications too, when it gets to the mid east part of his theory.

I would say it was a good book but now, three of so years after I read it, I don't recall a single good thing about it. So it is a crap book

He didn't say that it was a purely religious war, you should re-read.

So far, world events follow his logic, though his predictions about the future conflicts aren't correct.

Quote:

Although Huntington seems pretty sure of what he says when you read the book, he has actually no other pretention than to develop a framework to analyse upcoming conflicts. He does not predict any conflict, and he does not think the civilisational aspect will be the only aspect of war in the future. He talks only about the civilizational aspect because it's his theory of course

EXACTLY.
He does say though that it will be the crucial aspect in the near and medium future, and admits himself that though his predictions about the future aren't necessarily correct, the real events will follow the same logic. ( and they do ).