AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-12-11, 09:56   Link #18181
Sides
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
But the reaction of Brits show - in my opinion - a clear majority of "we're not Europeans, and we don't want to be any part of it". That's a fundamental difference to the other examples.
Thing is, even some people living in britain do not identify themselves as british. Don't know how the world views the UK, but it is not as united as you might think. Considering this, it is not a real surprise that people living on the Island don't see themselves as europeans.
Personal I cannot stand being called english or brit, I am scot, and I am pretty sure that applies for a lot of people living in wales and northern Ireland.
Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 10:28   Link #18182
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
Just because you don't sign up to a particular treaty doesn't mean "you don't think you're European". It shouldn't ever become "uneuropean" to not go along with everyone else. The UK government disagreed with the treaty, that's their right to. I disagree with their stand on it (I think it's a good treaty), but I don't think it's wrong of them to disagree and openly acknowledge their disagreement.
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:07   Link #18183
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Just because you don't sign up to a particular treaty doesn't mean "you don't think you're European". It shouldn't ever become "uneuropean" to not go along with everyone else. The UK government disagreed with the treaty, that's their right to. I disagree with their stand on it (I think it's a good treaty), but I don't think it's wrong of them to disagree and openly acknowledge their disagreement.
That's not what happened, DonQuigleone. THAT would have been the position of for example Sweden. They said "we don't want to be part of the Eurozone, but if you guys want to solve this on grounds of changing the Lisbon treaty, then that's cool with us, as long as it doesn't affect us".

No, the position of Cameron was fundamentally different: "The UK forbids any any attempt to resolve the Eurozone issues via changes to the Lisbon treaty, unless we receive veto rights to anything financial (and the other extras)". The UK isn't merely not "signing up to something", it actively _hinders_ the Eurozone countries to resolve their issues within the existing legal framework.

See the difference? This is exactly why he suddenly ended up isolated, because the remaining nations don't want to lock the Eurozone in. And if the Eurozone now makes a new treaty, they may very well enter later.
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 12:01   Link #18184
Darkbeat
'אין ייאוש בעולם כלל
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
That's not what happened, DonQuigleone. THAT would have been the position of for example Sweden. They said "we don't want to be part of the Eurozone, but if you guys want to solve this on grounds of changing the Lisbon treaty, then that's cool with us, as long as it doesn't affect us".

No, the position of Cameron was fundamentally different: "The UK forbids any any attempt to resolve the Eurozone issues via changes to the Lisbon treaty, unless we receive veto rights to anything financial (and the other extras)". The UK isn't merely not "signing up to something", it actively _hinders_ the Eurozone countries to resolve their issues within the existing legal framework.

See the difference? This is exactly why he suddenly ended up isolated, because the remaining nations don't want to lock the Eurozone in. And if the Eurozone now makes a new treaty, they may very well enter later.
It seems to me you are only really upset because the UK has a veto on European policy changes. Or rather, you're upset because they actually used it (for a change).

I don't see how you could expect the UK to take the same line as Sweden, given it is both a larger economy and does not need to just sign up to anything suggested by Germany/France.

Again, the treaty changes provide no positives for the UK at all, only negatives. It's unrealistic to suggest that David Cameron should be expected to sign up to his own countries' detriment when the whole concept of "The United States of Europe" is unpopular enough at home.
Darkbeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 12:35   Link #18185
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Several hundred years of being one of, if not the major player in what happens in Europe does that you know. For centuries it was England balancing the French vs. the Russians. Before that is was keeping a balance with the Spanish and French on the colonial field. Before that it was a seeming eternal war with France.

Only after Germany unified did British policy shift again since the balance had changed. So for nearly 100 years the balancing act changed. And while the UK held in the World Wars...it needed outside help in the last one for sure. With Europe effectively destroyed by 1945 and then rebuilt, the balance of power shifts often as it rebuilds.

Now with the the Russians not quite on their feet again and not exactly influencing things in Europe as much as they use to, the balance is between Germany and France again, with the UK as the third man out. With Germany and France working together, the UK position, historically, is in jeopordy. However they do not want to be part of a unified superstate of Europe. They still have their national pride. Not only for the old British Empire, but for holding out in the two World Wars. British pride says they will not fall. Joining the EU for trade and such is fine by them. Having veto powers means they can make sure they never fall. Joining a super state...to the UK, would mean the fall of the country. The Rule of Britannia would end, so to speak.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 12:36   Link #18186
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkbeat View Post
It seems to me you are only really upset because the UK has a veto on European policy changes. Or rather, you're upset because they actually used it (for a change).
I'm against vetoes anyway, like I wrote. For a union of 27 members, it's unsustainable. A qualified majority is required, and it was introduced in the Lisbon treaty.

Quote:
I don't see how you could expect the UK to take the same line as Sweden, given it is both a larger economy and does not need to just sign up to anything suggested by Germany/France.
This is a really petty and chauvinistic reason. The European project is about overcoming just that. At least it's going to be again, once the UK finally takes a hike.

Quote:
Again, the treaty changes provide no positives for the UK at all, only negatives. It's unrealistic to suggest that David Cameron should be expected to sign up to his own countries' detriment when the whole concept of "The United States of Europe" is unpopular enough at home.
*shrug* That's how you can look at it. I'm not interested in a member which is only trying to exploit Europe for its own gains, particularly in a difficult situation where cooperation is required. And I'm actively against a member that is trying to hold the rest of the Eurozone hostage. Ship off to your shores, pls.
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 12:59   Link #18187
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
I keep feeling like Britain voted against it mostly so their banks could continue to run reckless behaviors in the same vein as the US Banks (which careen off the cliff periodically). Meanwhile, countries like Canada and Germany with tight fiscal policies have solid finances, solid economies ... and yet their banks do quite well.
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:00   Link #18188
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
This is a really petty and chauvinistic reason. The European project is about overcoming just that. At least it's going to be again, once the UK finally takes a hike.
If they do. We couldn't jettison Greece, I don't know that we can jettison the UK. (I guess there's the solution of everyone leaving the EU and building something new that coincidentally uses the same buildings and employs the same people, but I don't know how viable that is.)
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:19   Link #18189
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
I keep feeling like Britain voted against it mostly so their banks could continue to run reckless behaviors in the same vein as the US Banks (which careen off the cliff periodically). Meanwhile, countries like Canada and Germany with tight fiscal policies have solid finances, solid economies ... and yet their banks do quite well.
Yes, our tight banking policies might had helped us against what happen elswere, and yet Harper talk about slacking thoses policies even thought we saw what it do on the other side of the border..
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:42   Link #18190
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Nick Clegg (Deputy PM) is unhappy at Cameron's no vote...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16129004
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 18:38   Link #18191
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
To confirm an earlier question, the oath that American military personel take when they enter service:

Oath of Enlistment
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Officers Oath
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

(As a notation):
Your Oath NEVER expires! It's time to keep it!


Also a list of Order that are not to be obeyed that is suppose to be based on these oaths: (as seen by the following website at least)
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/...will-not-obey/


1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!

Last edited by Ithekro; 2011-12-11 at 21:30. Reason: Added officer's oath and list
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 19:43   Link #18192
Xellos-_^
Valentine's Day with Wife
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
I keep feeling like Britain voted against it mostly so their banks could continue to run reckless behaviors in the same vein as the US Banks (which careen off the cliff periodically). Meanwhile, countries like Canada and Germany with tight fiscal policies have solid finances, solid economies ... and yet their banks do quite well.
There is also the fact that there was nothing in it for the British to sign on. The treaty require them to give up quite a bit sovereignty and they get nothing back in return.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 03:16   Link #18193
Frenchie
Shougi Génération
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to Frenchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
There is also the fact that there was nothing in it for the British to sign on. The treaty require them to give up quite a bit sovereignty and they get nothing back in return.
You mean the same as everybodyfriggin' else? France and Germany also have to give up 'sovereignty'.

And it pisses me off to no end how people talk about losing their economic 'sovereignty'. Like Europe can control what you put in the friggin budget. No, they can send it back for reviewal. The agreement just means you can't run amok deficits. I would think that's something everyone can get on board with, but obviously Britain likes debt.

What you spend your excesses on is, still, frankly, up to you, not Europe.
Frenchie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 04:57   Link #18194
Darkbeat
'אין ייאוש בעולם כלל
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchie View Post
You mean the same as everybodyfriggin' else? France and Germany also have to give up 'sovereignty'.
No.

Re-read what he said; "The treaty require them to give up quite a bit sovereignty and they get nothing back in return."

France and Germany are in the Eurozone and directly benefit from this. Britain gets nothing in exchange for transfer of sovereignty and other negatives.
Darkbeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 05:03   Link #18195
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkbeat View Post
France and Germany are in the Eurozone and directly benefit from this. Britain gets nothing in exchange for transfer of sovereignty and other negatives.
Please explain how France and Germany "directly benefit", while Britain "gets nothing".
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 05:04   Link #18196
Frenchie
Shougi Génération
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to Frenchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkbeat View Post
No.

Re-read what he said; "The treaty require them to give up quite a bit sovereignty and they get nothing back in return."

France and Germany are in the Eurozone and directly benefit from this. Britain gets nothing in exchange for transfer of sovereignty and other negatives.
Oh please, Mr. Semantics, the point still stands. Nothing is asked of Britain that is not already being asked of every other European Union member, of which the UK is a part of, if not a EUR currency member.

Not to mention that if Britain does not, in fact, benefit from Europe, then the only reason that they have left to stay is to be a bunch of pricks.
Frenchie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 05:15   Link #18197
Darkbeat
'אין ייאוש בעולם כלל
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
Please explain how France and Germany "directly benefit", while Britain "gets nothing".
Perhaps "gets nothing" is a touch extreme, as I've said earlier in this thread, it is to Britain's benefit that Europe recovers. That said, you know only too well why France and Germany, countries in the Eurozone, would be so eager to plug the holes in the Eurozone.


Quote:
Oh please, Mr. Semantics, the point still stands. Nothing is asked of Britain that is not already being asked of every other European Union member, of which the UK is a part of, if not a EUR currency member.

Not to mention that if Britain does not, in fact, benefit from Europe, then the only reason that they have left to stay is to be a bunch of pricks.
Got a bit of a chip on our shoulder, do we? No need to be so confrontational.

You're quite right that nothing is being asked of the UK that isn't being asked of any other EU member. That doesn't mean it's right and/or the UK has to just accept it.

You seem to believe that there's a "my way or the highway" sort of rule when it comes to what France/Germany have decided.
Darkbeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 05:15   Link #18198
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchie View Post
You mean the same as everybodyfriggin' else? France and Germany also have to give up 'sovereignty'.

And it pisses me off to no end how people talk about losing their economic 'sovereignty'.
Well, I do understand it for psychological reasons to a certain degree. Britain is a country deeply rooted in the past, and still looking back to the past. You will not find another country which is trying to keep WW2 alive, be it at any sports event, political summit or even on trade issues. They take national pride in their past glory, their former empire, and the independence from Krauts, Frogs and whatever lives on the continent. They are "them", compared to the "us" in Britain.

They don't really WANT to integrate with Europe, they merely want access to a market. Where most of the continental nations see further European integration to overcome the shadows of the past with endless wars and national squabbles, most Brits see this as "surrendering" their identity.

This difference in perspective needs to be resolved. I'd be for a "core" Europe, using the Euro as currency, and going for increasing integration, on one hand, and a loose trade zone for those who don't want to participate. And preferably properly ratified by public referendums.
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 05:20   Link #18199
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkbeat View Post
Perhaps "gets nothing" is a touch extreme, as I've said earlier in this thread, it is to Britain's benefit that Europe recovers. That said, you know only too well why France and Germany, countries in the Eurozone, would be so eager to plug the holes in the Eurozone.
France and Germany will be the ones who are going to field most of the bill. This will undoubtedly result in a transfer union. This whole "THEY" benefit while WE don't is a pile of bull. If my neighbor's house is on fire and he's trying to put it down, the idea of not actively helping and merely asking "what's in for me?" when he wants to use your garden hose is pretty reprehensible for me to begin with. And saying "no, you won't cross my lawn for that, unless you give me something" is the Cameron way.

Well, whatever. It clears the fronts.
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 05:28   Link #18200
MrTerrorist
Takao Tsundere Cruiser
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Classified
Great news for old time Doctor Who fans.

Missing Doctor Who episodes discovered
__________________
MrTerrorist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.