European Union

[Walsingham]

I'm going to focus on Darth Insidious's comments asd the most wide-ranging

 

1. Turkey:

I don't give a rat's rear what historical position Turkey has occupied. If we have to have a southeast frontier, and we do, then it should encompass a stable, dynamic, and forward moving country. As for their somewhat questionable behaviour, does this mean we should eject Germany? Or for that matter Great Britain?

 

Having said this, I'd be an obvious hypocrite to deny there are challenges in the political culture, which I already pointed as an accustion at Italy.

 

2. Switzerland

Switzerland is a massive freeloader in every respect. We can't all be freeloaders.

 

3. Not implementing EU laws

Our infuriatingly snooty neighbours often ignore EU legislation, France on food, Italy on airlines, for example. Being generally law-abiding we don't. Moreover ridiculous laws undermine the respect for all laws.

 

4. US relationship with Great Britain

Firstly I prefer a commonwealth association as the primary relationship. Because the commonwealth have proven time and again that they will sacrifice for us.

 

HOWEVER I find your denial of a link to the US jingoistic at best. The entire concept of the US owes as much to English political heritage as to the French revolution. And what of our common language? Do you seriously suggest Americans don't read/watch our films/listen to our songs? What about vice versa? Just because Republican administrations have a strange habit of treating us like a whipping boy does not diminish the genuine practical good feeling which exists.

 

ALSO...

 

5. [response to other posts as well] The importance of democracy

 

Freedom is only worthwhile in its exercise. Such exercise is either subscribed or proscribed by the law. If it is proscribed then one is an outlaw and one's freedom will shortly be curtailed. If one wishes to be within the law then the only reasonable basis for establishing that law is a consensus among the desired freedoms of the people - which is democracy. How else is freedom to be exercised?

 

This is important because it also underwrites our basic compatibility with other states. Non-democratic states despise democracies by definition, and are inherently hostile because we challenge their basic legitimacy and ginger up the proles.

 

6. What are democracies

- I only recently started learning properly about ancient Rome. I'm not certain it ever was a functioning democracy if only because the exercise of law was privatised.

- I believe the UK to be a democracy with its foundations in an ancient undemocratic elite. This latter point doesn't bother me because the only alternative would be to trade them inexorably for a different elite.

- The EU could be democratically elected, and I think it would please a lot of people, but as I said in my first post I think it would be foolhardy to expect this to make the EU a good thing

- I doubt freedom is a post-industrial invention. Why should it be?

[Aristes]

Consider yourself glove-slapped, good sir.

 

I don't concede the point but, as I mull over your post, I offer my other cheek.

[Darth InSidious]

1. Turkey:

I don't give a rat's rear what historical position Turkey has occupied. If we have to have a southeast frontier, and we do, then it should encompass a stable, dynamic, and forward moving country.

Only one of these terms is meaningful, and that is "stable". I'd remind you that stability is enforced by a very oppressive regime, which also pushes total social uniformity in order to keep that stability. Do I need to bring up the Armenians?

 

As for their somewhat questionable behaviour, does this mean we should eject Germany? Or for that matter Great Britain?

6/10 for rhetoric, nil points for a total lack of argument.

 

Having said this, I'd be an obvious hypocrite to deny there are challenges in the political culture, which I already pointed as an accustion at Italy.

You seem to be ignoring the point that (a) there is a very different culture full stop, and (b) this presents a much greater challenge. Italy does not present nearly the same challenge. I also find it disingenuous to complain about Italy's governmental corruption when you consider how enormous the problem is in the EU.

 

3. Not implementing EU laws

Our infuriatingly snooty neighbours often ignore EU legislation, France on food, Italy on airlines, for example. Being generally law-abiding we don't. Moreover ridiculous laws undermine the respect for all laws.

Erm, yes; that was rather my point. The EU slaps down universal and often in some regions unworkable laws, and demands they be followed; it wasn't so long ago Hungary was fined for not following sea-shipping laws.

 

4. US relationship with Great Britain

Firstly I prefer a commonwealth association as the primary relationship. Because the commonwealth have proven time and again that they will sacrifice for us.

Have they? When? From the few times the Commonwealth seems to have done anything, it mostly seems to have asked for handouts. And those countries that have stood on their own we've not exactly been

 

HOWEVER I find your denial of a link to the US jingoistic at best. The entire concept of the US owes as much to English political heritage as to the French revolution. And what of our common language? Do you seriously suggest Americans don't read/watch our films/listen to our songs? What about vice versa? Just because Republican administrations have a strange habit of treating us like a whipping boy does not diminish the genuine practical good feeling which exists.

Do you honestly believe that treating us as a client state is a Republican phenomenon? Remind me, which party did James F. Byrnes belong to?

 

America has no respect for any culture other than its own dubious imitation of one. Britain is a curio, that waxes and wanes in fashion, nothing more. Scratch beneath the surface and you'll find as much prejudice and half-truth as you could want mixed in with that amusement at our quaint, or "crazy" ways.

 

And common language is irrelevant; we share a first language with India and Botswana, ffs. Are you going to argue for our proud shared heritage with them, too?

 

Again, you haven't presented an argument; I make a point about politics, you make a rejoinder about American culture, language and history? Which is funny given that you

don't give a rat's rear what historical position Turkey has occupied.

 

Trying to have it both ways, it seems.

 

6. What are democracies

- I only recently started learning properly about ancient Rome. I'm not certain it ever was a functioning democracy if only because the exercise of law was privatised.

You don't consider that the entire political class being, almost exclusively, aristocratic was a bar to the idea of democracy in the Roman Republic?

 

- I believe the UK to be a democracy with its foundations in an ancient undemocratic elite. This latter point doesn't bother me because the only alternative would be to trade them inexorably for a different elite.

Indeed, but looking at our political class, and yes, we do have one, is there really such a difference from Rome? Fewer games, it's true.

 

- I doubt freedom is a post-industrial invention. Why should it be?

If freedom depends on democracy (you claimed democracy was "essential"), then it must be a recent invention, or else one much deprecated between a (very) brief flourishing in Athens and the American and French revolutions. In Britain, democracy can't honestly be said to have existed before, at least 1832; 1867 would be a more realistic date to choose.

 

Oh, and this quote limit is infuriating.

[213374U]

Freedom(1) is only worthwhile in its exercise. Such exercise is either subscribed or proscribed by the law. If it is proscribed then one is an outlaw and one's freedom(2) will shortly be curtailed. If one wishes to be within the law then the only reasonable basis for establishing that law is a consensus among the desired freedoms(3) of the people - which is democracy. How else is freedom to be exercised?

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

 

"Consensus among the desired freedoms of the people" is a notion as easily abused as the unlimited powers of whatever tyrant you wish to appoint, though. And once in motion, it's much more difficult to stop because, well, they are more numerous than the opposition.

 

You use the word "freedom" to refer to different things, namely political power (1), unrestricted physical movement (2), and civil rights or prerogatives (3). And yet, by grouping them under the umbrella of "freedom", you create (consciously or not) an obfuscation. However those things do not guarantee (and are not in themselves) freedom.

 

At any rate, a causal relationship between a specific political configuration and freedom has yet to be formally established. And the link between the trivialisation of political privileges (that's what universal suffrage amounts to) and greater individual liberty is even weaker.

 

 

This is important because it also underwrites our basic compatibility with other states. Non-democratic states despise democracies by definition, and are inherently hostile because we challenge their basic legitimacy and ginger up the proles.

This is patently false. There's plenty of examples that show that compatibility between states depends on nothing but compatibility of interests. Dictatorships can get along with democracies just fine (Franco and the US, the Allies and USSR, etc), and democracies are not exempt from fighting other democracies, either. (*)

[Aristes]

So, Insidious, you are the embodiment of British culture? You are the gatekeeper of heritage? Funny.

 

America does have a shared heritage with Britain, and by that I mean the whole of Great Britain, until the time that we broke away from you politically and formed our own nation. At some point we were as British as any Britain. The British today did not invent a heritage that they inherited. After all, that's the basic meaning of heritage, right? We have a shared heritage, and most of us have some admiration for you, even when it is clear that some of you are undeserving of the sentiment. That's fine. Still, as someone who not only has family in England, Wiltshire County to be specific, at the very least I can claim some English heritage after all. I'll gladly hear your angry rejoinder.

 

Nevertheless, let me be clear. I don't need to hearken back to British Heritage. We share a history up to the point of our political departure and we very quickly planted the seeds of a government that would eventually over-shadow yours. You should be glad that some Americans hold your people and history in such high regard. The alternative is to forget about you. Yes, we sometimes treat you as the junior partner. I mean no hostility when I say, that's what you are. You have a grand and noble history even after our break, and I'll give you credit for that in much the same way I credit every nation for its due. However, that doesn't mean that much of your influence is not borrowed from the United States. If you bristle at the insult to your ego.... well.... there's not much I can do. Reality bruised your ego. Not the United States. ...And, although I would be sad to think that the special relationship (which both the United States and the United Kingdom have cited for years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship ) would end, I've also said that there are no permanent allies. If you really think you're better off without us than with us, go ahead and feel that way. Convince your government to feel that way also, because it seems they haven't wanted to cut off the cord just yet. *shrug*

 

I've been thinking of your post, my numbered friend. I'm just waiting to respond until I've thought about it more. Some posts require more thought than others, after all.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Seems pretty insane to me. Common market is a good idea though. Central governments should be smaller, less powerful, and more representative, not the other way around.

[Humodour]

So, Insidious, you are the embodiment of British culture? You are the gatekeeper of heritage? Funny.

 

America does have a shared heritage with Britain, and by that I mean the whole of Great Britain, until the time that we broke away from you politically and formed our own nation. At some point we were as British as any Britain. The British today did not invent a heritage that they inherited. After all, that's the basic meaning of heritage, right? We have a shared heritage, and most of us have some admiration for you, even when it is clear that some of you are undeserving of the sentiment. That's fine. Still, as someone who not only has family in England, Wiltshire County to be specific, at the very least I can claim some English heritage after all. I'll gladly hear your angry rejoinder.

 

Nevertheless, let me be clear. I don't need to hearken back to British Heritage. We share a history up to the point of our political departure and we very quickly planted the seeds of a government that would eventually over-shadow yours. You should be glad that some Americans hold your people and history in such high regard. The alternative is to forget about you. Yes, we sometimes treat you as the junior partner. I mean no hostility when I say, that's what you are. You have a grand and noble history even after our break, and I'll give you credit for that in much the same way I credit every nation for its due. However, that doesn't mean that much of your influence is not borrowed from the United States. If you bristle at the insult to your ego.... well.... there's not much I can do. Reality bruised your ego. Not the United States. ...And, although I would be sad to think that the special relationship (which both the United States and the United Kingdom have cited for years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship ) would end, I've also said that there are no permanent allies. If you really think you're better off without us than with us, go ahead and feel that way. Convince your government to feel that way also, because it seems they haven't wanted to cut off the cord just yet. *shrug*

 

I've been thinking of your post, my numbered friend. I'm just waiting to respond until I've thought about it more. Some posts require more thought than others, after all.

 

I don't think you realise how hilarious your posts are, Aristes.

[Aristes]

I'll consider the source and be happy to oblige.

[Walsingham]

Numbers: You are too educated a historian to suggest genuinely that the Allies got along with Stalin, even during the war. It was merely a conflict shelved. Franco and the US is more worthwhile as a point, and however I would ask openly if you don't regard the US-Franco cooperation as similarly Faustian? Bolshevism in the mid 30s was a more bloody-handed, far -reaching, and frightening threat than Falangism.

 

Darth Insidious:

(number your responses. It's easier to reply to)

 

1. Turkey's misbehaviour

By all means bring up the Armenians, but you cannot have it both ways. If past misdeeds count then we ought not to have allowed in the Germans. Nor, if your tastes run that way should Britain be allowed in, given our conquering and subjugating half the globe. If this is not an argument perhaps you would be kind enough to explain WHY it isn't.

 

2. Turkey is indeed a harsh country, but one which is improving over time. Cultural integration would help to address some of the strains peacefully and to the economic advantage of all.

 

3. You are asking what the Commonwealth has done for the UK during REMEMBRANCE WEEK? You must be joking.

 

4. I seem to recall your narrow views on our shared heritage with India coming up before. Suffice to say that I am content to refer OTHER members to the hundreds of years of shared history, and the strong interchange of ideas and people during those hundreds of years. This is simply evidenced by the fact that social intercourse is almost effortless between Indians, Britons, and Botswanans in my direct experience.

 

5. Your determined anti-Americanism is fashionable but discreditable. You assert our treatment at the hands of American governments is cynical and manipulative. I put it to you that our treatment has been no worse than that handed down to the people of the USA themselves. I further put it to you that a more meaningful measure would be the attitude of actual Americans in the street, which I have found largely supportive, while being a bit prickly as might be expected from a newly risen power. Consider the outpourings of common sympathy they evidence at times of national tragedy such as 7/7.

 

The fact that the US has its own culture, and moderate distinctions from us on issues such as healthcare and criminal responsibility is neither surprising, nor is it repellent.

 

6. Your assertion that our political class is Roman is a curmudgeonly flourish and nothing more. The Roman political class hired gangs of thugs, murdered, raped, and plotted coups and judicial theft. Ours may abstain from lack of skill rather than lack of ambition, but those are the facts.

[Aristes]

You know I don't understand DI's hostility to my statement anyhow. I mean, on the substance of representation, it appears as though we're not completely at odds. His offense seems to be that I complimented the United Kingdom. ...And I genuinely meant what I said to be a compliment. I've visited England and Scotland. I have both family and friends who live there. I'm not trying to steal your history, but I like to take a long view of these things. After all, one of my degrees is in history and I think most folks who enjoy history tend to like it across the board. I truly didn't mean offense. You know, I referred to Britain as "crazy" and "wacky" but I also called myself Chauvinistic (and if that's an insult on this board then a lot of folks should be pretty insulted) and I called my outlook as an American "evil" for crying out loud. Baffling.

 

As to the question of freedom? I hear alarm bells when I hear something akin to "the common folk are too ignorant and reactionary to govern themselves properly." That

[Nightshape]

You can leave any time you want.

 

I really, really wish we would.

 

I trust the US more than the EU, and that is saying something.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Nightshape