Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bigegg]

all I now request is that we have peace at all costs, even at a price of individual nationalism. 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Benjamin Franklin

"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom."

Malcom X

[Lizzie_Zoom]

all I now request is that we have peace at all costs, even at a price of individual nationalism. 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Benjamin Franklin

"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom."

Malcom X

You wont lose anything if united with other nations determined to achieve a common goal.

I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.

Ask yourself what do you want.  A united, peaceful world, were differences can be discussed and compromises reached in one chamber, or a multitude of national parliaments dealing  exclusively with self and national interest, with the prevading threat of war always there on the whim of misunderstanding; that will lead to warre, warre; a war to kill millions, if not all mankind? :-/ :-/

[Banjax]

thanks Lizzie - I really do need to brush up on my mid 17th century essays 

but surely its not beyond the wit of (european) man to arrange a system of unified countries that is democratic? 

[Martin_1962]

OK, Banjax, but humour aside, answer me this one question:

Would democracy in the UK be better served if our government was able to take decisions on behalf of its electorate without recourse to the EU?

Simple question, requiring a simple answer.
 

The EU have protected us against the (last) government on a few occasions - when they tried to overstep the mark.

One instance was the lack of prosecution over the BT Phorm internet spying.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

thanks Lizzie - I really do need to brush up on my mid 17th century essays 

but surely its not beyond the wit of (european) man to arrange a system of unified countries that is democratic? 

Thanks BJ!

Yes I always feel that the 16th and 17th centuries are the most interesting in terms of English national development, that led to the Empire of the following era's.

Indeed, given time and the will of the people a fully democratic European Parliamentary chamber can be created.

As Jereboam rightly pointed out though it requires all European voters to exercise their right at the European ballot box, not sit at home shouting "I don't agree with anything!"

[bigegg]

I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.

I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.

Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and  turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.

I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.

Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and  turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.

Then you should understand the absolute determination to avoid that happening again by fully contributing to a European Parliamentary system, and thus reduce the threat of nationalism.

The facts are previous systems failed terribly to avoid war of a magnitude that was almost beyond imagination.

[Nickbat]

I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.

I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.

Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and  turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.

Then you should understand the absolute determination to avoid that happening again by fully contributing to a European Parliamentary system, and thus reduce the threat of nationalism.

The facts are previous systems failed terribly to avoid war of a magnitude that was almost beyond imagination.

All that the EU is doing is likely to lead to civil, rather than national, wars in the future. Different names, same suffering. I simply don't buy all this talk that the EU has prevented war. Maybe it is true in the case of Nato, but not the EU. The fact that no nation vs. nation war has occurred is down to other matters such as the relative prosperity of the West. To say that the EU has prevented wars is totally unprovable. History is littered with the carcasses of huge empires which have collapsed in a bloody fashion.

As for nationalism, it's one of the words that's always bandied about in a perjorative way to ensure that valued aspirations of pride in the freedoms, democracy and values of one's own country cannot be uttered, lest one is tarnished with an undeserved brush.   

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.

I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.

Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and  turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.

Then you should understand the absolute determination to avoid that happening again by fully contributing to a European Parliamentary system, and thus reduce the threat of nationalism.

The facts are previous systems failed terribly to avoid war of a magnitude that was almost beyond imagination.

All that the EU is doing is likely to lead to civil, rather than national, wars in the future. Different names, same suffering. I simply don't buy all this talk that the EU has prevented war. Maybe it is true in the case of Nato, but not the EU. The fact that no nation vs. nation war has occurred is down to other matters such as the relative prosperity of the West. To say that the EU has prevented wars is totally unprovable. History is littered with the carcasses of huge empires which have collapsed in a bloody fashion.

As for nationalism, it's one of the words that's always bandied about in a perjorative way to ensure that valued aspirations of pride in the freedoms, democracy and values of one's own country cannot be uttered, lest one is tarnished with an undeserved brush.   

You are right Nick in quoting the UN in the context of international peace, and its achievement (so far) of keeping the majority of nations away from each others throats.

However, the worth of the EU cannot be undervalued, as it has been a major factor of keeping the EU nations in line and away from the international 'gun' (and I am not ignoring the Afghan situation!) which has previously been triggered, even under the so called control of the toothless League of Nations.


The prosperity of the West before 1914 was in fact the cause of the Great War, with the ability of the British and French empires able to engage in war against the German nation.  All seemed to believe they could afford the human and monetary cost of international war, protecting their perceived imperial interests with no United Nations, League of Nations, or EU to enforce diplomacy.  That is the diffence Nick with the contemporary era and then; we have international diplomatic control factors of both the UN and EU.

The cause throughout history of so many domestic, national and international conflicts have been the actual and perceived emotion that the protesting, rioting, people have no representation in a parliament or legislature of any kind.  That is why the British people must pro-actively support the EU ensuring we have a say in the diplomatic process via our elected representatives.

Failure to do this will result in disenchantment: a feeling of disfranchisement from their destiny.  It is therefore extremely dangerous not to encourage the British people to become fully involved, fully engaged, and democratically supporting, developing and enforcing EU policy for the good of all nations. 

Civil War, as you talk of Nick, last took place in Britain due to a monach, Charles I, trying to ride roughshod over Parliament and the democratic rights of the people hard won from 1215 onwards.  It is only by collectively working together in the UK Parliament, the EU, and the UN, that we can obtain our rights, defend the rights of others, and secure a long term peace.

The only danger to that is the breaking away of separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda, that can cause conflict and distrust away from the central European arena. 

 

[Nickbat]

You are right Nick in quoting the UN in the context of international peace, and its achievement (so far) of keeping the majority of nations away from each others throats.

However, the worth of the EU cannot be undervalued, as it has been a major factor of keeping the EU nations in line and away from the international 'gun' (and I am not ignoring the Afghan situation!) which has previously been triggered, even under the so called control of the toothless League of Nations.


The prosperity of the West before 1914 was in fact the cause of the Great War, with the ability of the British and French empires able to engage in war against the German nation.  All seemed to believe they could afford the human and monetary cost of international war, protecting their perceived imperial interests with no United Nations, League of Nations, or EU to enforce diplomacy.  That is the diffence Nick with the contemporary era and then; we have international diplomatic control factors of both the UN and EU.

The cause throughout history of so many domestic, national and international conflicts have been the actual and perceived emotion that the protesting, rioting, people have no representation in a parliament or legislature of any kind.  That is why the British people must pro-actively support the EU ensuring we have a say in the diplomatic process via our elected representatives.

Failure to do this will result in disenchantment: a feeling of disfranchisement from their destiny.  It is therefore extremely dangerous not to encourage the British people to become fully involved, fully engaged, and democratically supporting, developing and enforcing EU policy for the good of all nations. 

Civil War, as you talk of Nick, last took place in Britain due to a monach, Charles I, trying to ride roughshod over Parliament and the democratic rights of the people hard won from 1215 onwards.  It is only by collectively working together in the UK Parliament, the EU, and the UN, that we can obtain our rights, defend the rights of others, and secure a long term peace.

The only danger to that is the breaking away of separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda, that can cause conflict and distrust away from the central European arena. 

 

Couldn't disagree more, Lizzie.

The EU is not democratic, in my opinion, and is unlikely to change its ways.

Inded, the EU is an antidote to democratic governments...

...argues President Barroso

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100056661/the-eu-is-an-antidote-to-democratic-governments-argues-president-barroso/

Once again, though, you choose the words "separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda" in a perjorative manner.

There is NOTHING wrong with local democracy looking after local people with regard to their needs, aspirations and traditions. 

Whilst you have a sound knowledge of history, I put it to you that we are in unchartered waters and the events of 1215 - whilst interesting - are of absolutely no relevance to the UK in 2010. 

[Dishevelled Den]

Of course the arguments so far still do not address the important question of just who - or what body - exactly, should have the right to generate and implement a nation's political/economic/security policy.

Should it be the duly elected government of the sovereign nation concerned or the inherently undemocratic machinery of the EU conglomerate?

[Sixstring]

Should any body of people stand up and pertain to govern or regulate national policy or make rules to keep anothers country "safe" and peaceful, they run the risk of setting themselves up as a "world police force" and will get critique from ALL sides concerned and therefore not be totally effective in achieving anything??

The EU has already found out this to its cost, surely??

[Lizzie_Zoom]

You are right Nick in quoting the UN in the context of international peace, and its achievement (so far) of keeping the majority of nations away from each others throats.

However, the worth of the EU cannot be undervalued, as it has been a major factor of keeping the EU nations in line and away from the international 'gun' (and I am not ignoring the Afghan situation!) which has previously been triggered, even under the so called control of the toothless League of Nations.


The prosperity of the West before 1914 was in fact the cause of the Great War, with the ability of the British and French empires able to engage in war against the German nation.  All seemed to believe they could afford the human and monetary cost of international war, protecting their perceived imperial interests with no United Nations, League of Nations, or EU to enforce diplomacy.  That is the diffence Nick with the contemporary era and then; we have international diplomatic control factors of both the UN and EU.

The cause throughout history of so many domestic, national and international conflicts have been the actual and perceived emotion that the protesting, rioting, people have no representation in a parliament or legislature of any kind.  That is why the British people must pro-actively support the EU ensuring we have a say in the diplomatic process via our elected representatives.

Failure to do this will result in disenchantment: a feeling of disfranchisement from their destiny.  It is therefore extremely dangerous not to encourage the British people to become fully involved, fully engaged, and democratically supporting, developing and enforcing EU policy for the good of all nations. 

Civil War, as you talk of Nick, last took place in Britain due to a monach, Charles I, trying to ride roughshod over Parliament and the democratic rights of the people hard won from 1215 onwards.  It is only by collectively working together in the UK Parliament, the EU, and the UN, that we can obtain our rights, defend the rights of others, and secure a long term peace.

The only danger to that is the breaking away of separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda, that can cause conflict and distrust away from the central European arena. 

 

Couldn't disagree more, Lizzie.

The EU is not democratic, in my opinion, and is unlikely to change its ways.

Inded, the EU is an antidote to democratic governments...

...argues President Barroso

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100056661/the-eu-is-an-antidote-to-democratic-governments-argues-president-barroso/

Once again, though, you choose the words "separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda" in a perjorative manner.

There is NOTHING wrong with local democracy looking after local people with regard to their needs, aspirations and traditions. 

Whilst you have a sound knowledge of history, I put it to you that we are in unchartered waters and the events of 1215 - whilst interesting - are of absolutely no relevance to the UK in 2010. 

You mentioned the dangers of Civil War, and I answered with a simple picture of what happened last time round, and the strength of the people and their laws, following very much on the Magna Carta of 1215, with it brought fully into the English laws in 1217 and 1225.  This was the basis of the future British Constitution, albeit in the form of tens of thousands of legal documents that are the bases of our  contemporary legal system set by precedent.

It is all very relevant as it represents our democracy, hard won by the British people over centuries.  However, if we fully engage in the democratic process of Europe (it is down to us how effective that is!!) we can bring our legal perspective to not only the British Parliament, but also to the one of the EU.   If we sit back and not support the EU we will simply have no say, and become disenchanted with civil unrest a possibility, not only in the UK but Europe generally!  All our hard won achievements, legal and physical back to 1215, will be lost in Armageddon.  Is that what you want Nick?

As I have stated before, we need a strong and respected central government controlling the actions of Europe.   To not have such powers will lead to the Hobbes procephy.  We cannot afford that to happen ever.


Simply, United we stand, Divided we fall!!

[Nickbat]

You mentioned the dangers of Civil War, and I answered with a simple picture of what happened last time round, and the strength of the people and their laws, following very much on the Magna Carta of 1215, with it brought fully into the English laws in 1217 and 1225.  This was the basis of the future British Constitution, albeit in the form of tens of thousands of legal documents that are the bases of our  contemporary legal system set by precedent.

It is all very relevant as it represents our democracy, hard won by the British people over centuries.  However, if we fully engage in the democratic process of Europe (it is down to us how effective that is!!) we can bring our legal perspective to not only the British Parliament, but also to the one of the EU.   If we sit back and not support the EU we will simply have no say, and become disenchanted with civil unrest a possibility, not only in the UK but Europe generally!  All our hard won achievements, legal and physical back to 1215, will be lost in Armageddon.  Is that what you want Nick?

As I have stated before, we need a strong and respected central government controlling the actions of Europe.   To not have such powers will lead to the Hobbes procephy.  We cannot afford that to happen ever.

No, it ISN'T down to us! That's the whole point! We have a number of MEPs who would dearly like us to retain our sovereignty, but their voices are drowned out. We have just 72 out of 732 MEPs. Can we make a difference? Absolutely not. 

And no, we do NOT need a "central government controlling the actions of Europe". Europe is not a state and will never work as one. That's where the federalists get it so wrong.

I presume you are a federalist, then, Lizzie?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

You mentioned the dangers of Civil War, and I answered with a simple picture of what happened last time round, and the strength of the people and their laws, following very much on the Magna Carta of 1215, with it brought fully into the English laws in 1217 and 1225.  This was the basis of the future British Constitution, albeit in the form of tens of thousands of legal documents that are the bases of our  contemporary legal system set by precedent.

It is all very relevant as it represents our democracy, hard won by the British people over centuries.  However, if we fully engage in the democratic process of Europe (it is down to us how effective that is!!) we can bring our legal perspective to not only the British Parliament, but also to the one of the EU.   If we sit back and not support the EU we will simply have no say, and become disenchanted with civil unrest a possibility, not only in the UK but Europe generally!  All our hard won achievements, legal and physical back to 1215, will be lost in Armageddon.  Is that what you want Nick?

As I have stated before, we need a strong and respected central government controlling the actions of Europe.   To not have such powers will lead to the Hobbes procephy.  We cannot afford that to happen ever.

No, it ISN'T down to us! That's the whole point! We have a number of MEPs who would dearly like us to retain our sovereignty, but their voices are drowned out. We have just 72 out of 732 MEPs. Can we make a difference? Absolutely not. 

And no, we do NOT need a "central government controlling the actions of Europe". Europe is not a state and will never work as one. That's where the federalists get it so wrong.

I presume you are a federalist, then, Lizzie?

Then Nick let us ALL together change that!  When did us British ever turn away from a political challenge (or any other) like that.  Stay within the EU and we can change it.  Do what you and others are suggesting and you will never have the chance to change the process!

The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone.  It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.

However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!!   The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.