fighter said:
kowenicki said:
fighter said:
kowenicki said:
fighter said:
kowenicki said:
Mummelmann said:
If it makes you feel any better, the vast majority of the Nowegian population strongly disagree with their choice. |
Of course they do. They dont want to be in the EU. I applaud them.
|
The Norwegians may not be integrally part of the EU but the cooperation level is as high as it gets (part of the single market and the Schengen area, norwegians are also allowed to vote locally when residents in the EU and so many other stuff i could list)
Greece is perhaps the single example of a EU defection. If you allow yourself to pull your face from your butt cheeks' pressure and look at, say, a 20 years scale, the number of ties between our regions, institutions and cultures is on an accelerating pace, more than doubling the number of members, increasing the weight of influence at national level to the point that most national laws are the declination of EU directives
It s as if the british euro-sceptics live in a lost valley riding diseased dinosaurs and wondering how to make fire to heat their tea (made of dirty filthy leafs and roots)
|
I favour the Norwegian model, what's wrong with that?
A common market and common thinking is fine, a federal europe is not.
Ireland remain because they have no choice, Spain remain because they have no choice, Portugal stay because they have no choice. Greece will leave.
This has become a Hobsons choice for many of the countries.
And if you think it is just the Brits that are Euro sceptic you have your head in e sand, it's a growing movement.
Dud you agree with the members of the EU turning a blind eye to countries that didn't meet the fiscal requirement for joining? Was that just? Was that honest? Was that responsible leadership? Was that cheating their populace?
|
The EU has been constantly reminding its' members to remain under the 3% deficit on national budgets, In fact, the mere proposition that the European members should be more careful on their internal policies was the initiative of the Commission.
It is the members that have refused to 1) enforce the agreement to remain below the 3% defined treshhold with sanctions as it would be perceived a loss of sovereignty mainly to the eurosceptics and 2) have been each, on national levels, with a few exceptions as Germany, transgressing the EU defined rule despite the systematic reminders from the EU Commission.
That the partnership you seem to prefer. We pro-europe favour more central power to better align national policies. A constitution would have been a good opportunity for that and we missed it back in 2004 due only to two countries out of the 25 members back then. The opportunity will come back and hopefully people will realize there is something more impotant at stake than the petty national debates. The Eurozone is the single most progressist entity in the world considering all the architectural lay-outs from supra-national legal systems (the international court of LaHaye allows to pursue crimes against humanity both in and out of the EU- the European Court is available to any EU citizen or Resident and can assign any EU state on the EU legal basis and the own legal basis of that state) , educational infrasctructure (erasmus/ Bologne Reforms/ research programmes such as the supra-conductor accelerator of particles), cultural programmes and partnerships between national institutions and collections), the most effective anticoprporate policies such as the anti-gmo "moratoire", the Microsoft trials of the 90's, the Commercial regulations0, norms in security and health, etc. etc.
And to topple it all, the level of corruption at EU level is below any of the national levels, and for two reasons :
- the system being relatively recent it is c;loser to the initial intention that at member level
- the party system is not as influent on the European system, considering that the coalitions in place at EU level have no fund-raising power nor collection power corruption cannot be as organized at EU level as it can be at national level.
|
But they didn't meet the criteria to join in the first place. That's corruption and that's lying to your people, essentially a massive fraud. Greece could neve have met, or been anywhere near meeting, the criteria, but they were allowed to join. This has bankrupted Greece for decades to come and sentenced the majority of its population to poverty conditions for the same timescale. This is undeniable.
You talk of the greater good and petty national debates, referring to the Uk no doubt. Spoken to any French farmers recently? The French government insisted on concession after concession for their farmers and when they didn't quite get sir way, we all know what happened. So cut the condescending garbage, there is no nation on earth and no politicians more self interested than France and French politicians. Then we have the corruption at local and national level that is common place and an open secret in countries like Portugal, Spain and especially Greece. We have different beliefs, different ways of going aout our business, we are too disparate.
|
You need to travel a bit more. Once abroad you might realize we have much more in common than you imagine.
Anyway, this is like discussing the half-empty or half-full glass, except that if you take a more historical approach the world has become smaller and instead of having the european-centric approach this past century our ideological differences tend to disappear.
Regarding the agricultural policies I don't know any farmer and have little or no insight. And in anyway, as bad as it can be, seems anecdotical to me.
"there is no nation on earth and no politicians more self interested than France and French politicians"
to be honest we never get how u came up with such caricatures, there is also the "french would surrender" style of portraying the french and, again, it really seems to us like your encyclopedias are made with crayolas and toilet paper
|
