|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 5, 2009 7:08:19 GMT -5
its like the confederate model in the US back in the day. Soverign rights are retained by each individulal country for national interests defined by each member. Those cannot be overided by the EU. Other laws that do not conflict with national intrest will have to be followed. And for this I am all for it.
I wouldnt mine having bycycle pathways in athens because some Northern European would want it. I wouldnt mine having roads like in the autobahn or enviroment friendly homes and buildings. All this europe can provide and has been doing so. Anybody thats against europe is simply jealous...
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 5, 2009 7:10:23 GMT -5
and btw..after india, china, brazil...
It will be afghanistan, africa, and some other piss poor area that will be in the developing stage. Thats because they are developing, not because they are rich.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Oct 5, 2009 7:54:25 GMT -5
I somewhat agree with you. Individually, European states can no longer compete with rising economical super-powers like India or China, simply due to shere size. Conjoined, they become a union of power to reckon with; this is also the intention, hence the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (the union aims to be political as well) ... the main issue with EU as I see it is legitimacy. Can it really be called a democratic union? As a union it dictates alot of laws in individual countries ... the people of respective country might claim an indirect control of the individual state by delegating power to their governments through their votes, i.e. representative democracy ... but with EU the gap between ordinary citizens and EU institutions becomes far greater. If this matter is settled I don't see much negative with the union. If Europe is to compete on a global market, it must join forces, because rising states will eat them up otherwise as their economies grow. I am not all too fond of bureaucrats in Brussels dicating life in my homecountry ... but inside, we can atleast be part of the decision making... granted it is a small vote we'll eventually receive, but it's better than remaining outside and still be bossed around without any benefits ... The EU is an attempt to regulate the labor markets, tarriffs, and it is the institutional device that could be used to expand the overall negotiation power of individual European countries, particularly in terms of global affairs. For such purposes, the EU also needs an effective union army to stretch muscles globally whenever needed. Overall, perhaps such union is the only way to go for the European countries in order to prevent the negaitve effects of change in balance of world powers. I strongly doubt that their mutual efforts will yield some successful outcome.
|
|
|
Post by L0gjICK on Oct 5, 2009 8:24:01 GMT -5
I've heard theories that B.R.I.C (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are the future superpowers of the world, however, I don't buy into it. Sure they are developing at a faster rate, because as Chalekdon mentioned, the have nothing to do but to improve. Human rights issue are still a big issue in many of these countries and I can't envision a superpower when the citizens are mistreated. The other problem with these supposive superpowers are mass exoduses. Russia alone is losing 1 million per year.
America IMO needs to find an alternative fuel which would destroy Russia's short term economic gain. The nation that finds this alternative will be the future super power.
|
|
|
Post by adlun on Oct 5, 2009 9:48:44 GMT -5
Putin visited a pig farm and was photographed there. In a newspaper's office, a discussion is under way what should be the caption under the picture.
"Comrade Putin among pigs," "Comrade Putin and pigs," "Pigs around comrade Putin," -- all is rejected. Finally the editor makes the decision. The caption is "The third from left - comrade Putin."
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Oct 5, 2009 11:06:46 GMT -5
I somewhat agree with you. Individually, European states can no longer compete with rising economical super-powers like India or China, simply due to shere size. Conjoined, they become a union of power to reckon with; this is also the intention, hence the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (the union aims to be political as well) ... the main issue with EU as I see it is legitimacy. Can it really be called a democratic union? As a union it dictates alot of laws in individual countries ... the people of respective country might claim an indirect control of the individual state by delegating power to their governments through their votes, i.e. representative democracy ... but with EU the gap between ordinary citizens and EU institutions becomes far greater. If this matter is settled I don't see much negative with the union. If Europe is to compete on a global market, it must join forces, because rising states will eat them up otherwise as their economies grow. I am not all too fond of bureaucrats in Brussels dicating life in my homecountry ... but inside, we can atleast be part of the decision making... granted it is a small vote we'll eventually receive, but it's better than remaining outside and still be bossed around without any benefits ... The EU is an attempt to regulate the labor markets, tarriffs, and it is the institutional device that could be used to expand the overall negotiation power of individual European countries, particularly in terms of global affairs. For such purposes, the EU also needs an effective union army to stretch muscles globally whenever needed. Overall, perhaps such union is the only way to go for the European countries in order to prevent the negaitve effects of change in balance of world powers. I strongly doubt that their mutual efforts will yield some successful outcome. It is also, through economic interdependency, a prevention of repetitive conflicts in the continent. Such dependency on stable relations has been extended outside the union; I don't think any rising superpowers would want to destroy the union and its members since they rely on and desire to have it as a trading partner .. the very rise of eastern economic powers has depended on and depends on EU money and consumers to begin with. That (the absence of an imminent violent threat) is why EU is primarily an economic and political union, not a military one, and isn't in dire need (yet) to develop an effective union army for the purposes you listed ... it relies and will continue to rely for some time on soft power. Not to mention the fact that most of its members are also members of Nato, which ever since the end of WWII has guaranteed European (and thus EU security) ... this eventual stage of further federalization of the union belongs to the future. And yes, you're correct, the union is the last resort of individual countries and former super powers to maintain their position in world politics and economy ... and also, for the smaller countries, to participate in decision making on a higher and realisitc level, not as in the UN.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Oct 5, 2009 14:32:11 GMT -5
It is also, through economic interdependency, a prevention of repetitive conflicts in the continent. Such dependency on stable relations has been extended outside the union; Economic interdependency is the prime reason for any conflict that is about to evolve. In capitalist economies, there is no such thing like permanent stabilization. Exploitation of resources to maximize profit always prevails. That is the tendency. There is no superpower in the horizon as you also state. Trade gets international whilst the Western/European economies get more brittle over time. So, there is no direct threat to the EU members. However, there is evolving tendencies that will restrict the capabilities of the European Union. Yes, even China has obstacles, but so do the EU, US and Russia. Perhaps China will gain more power, but how long? After all, her economic growth relies on how much longer she could allow the brutal exploitation of Chinese labor. It should be also stressed that there are other emerging powers, and the world is not getting any safer since the world order set up after WWII is slowly decaying, and every party knows that very well. Eventually, the EU will need an effective army. Perhaps in the past, but not anymore. Constitution is all about centralizing the decision taking process to override the national obstacles that could jeopardize the overall interests of the European ruling elites. In that regard, NATO is still needed, and will be used until the EU army becomes fully operational. For sure, Russia, the US, and others have their opinions about that.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Oct 5, 2009 16:02:47 GMT -5
I don't see how economic interdependency is a prime reason for conflicts. In Europe's case we see a steady progress and development as a result of this economic interdependency which is the result of EU and its predecessors EEC and ECSC. Former enemies, France/Britain & Germany, are on the same side now which was unthinkable some sixty years ago ...
As for permanent economic stabilization, I agree, there is no such thing, and I didn't claim there was such a thing either. But that doesn't mean one must resort to war or that one cannot recover from economic setbacks and crises either.
Surely, there is no doubt of that. This is precisely why EU should exist, because although EU will face future issues due to more harsh competition, it can still handle it better than individual European states can.
I'm not quite following you here ... is EU or China/both exploiting cheap Chinese labour .. did you mean to type EU instead of China or what?
That's mere speculation. As for the moment, no such imminent physical threat exists. And even if such a threat emerges, there is Nato to handle business.
Maybe. In reality, some negotiations, initiatives even, towards military defense coordinations have been made, and EU has had an increased peace keeping role in the Balkans. But the full extent you're speaking of, a federal army, seems, if it will occur, reserved for the distant future. Critic voices of EU's continuous federalization would have far more support if such steps were to be taken presently. For now, Nato remains as a guarantor of European security and I disagree that it is no longer so ... if so, why not disband it and get over with it? It seems there's no urgent desire within EUs members to replace Nato with a unionist equivalent ...
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Oct 5, 2009 16:23:56 GMT -5
Chalkedon, not all countries of EU can be counted as they have ALREADY everything, but some have it. Greece, together with some of the former east block still have a long, long way to go! All these problems you were writting about.. infrastructure, human rights they apply in a high grade to Greece too... Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania... And by the way, Brazil can buy all these I mentionned to you - together!
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Oct 5, 2009 16:54:42 GMT -5
oh yeah...Brazil is great.. 38,000 murders a year.... GFY.... comparing a cesspool to my country.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Oct 5, 2009 18:20:07 GMT -5
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Oct 5, 2009 18:37:47 GMT -5
It's a cesspool.... period..you want to die go there or Mexico...Big glass buildings don't impress me... Getting killed by a 9 year old with a glock does.
These countries have lost touch with their people... they created this mess to benefit the rich.... There's millions that commute from the shanty towns to go to work for peanuts..so the fat man can can fatter.. 200 million people with a 2 trillion dollar economy... yeah real money....
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Oct 6, 2009 2:33:03 GMT -5
I don't see how economic interdependency is a prime reason for conflicts. In Europe's case we see a steady progress and development as a result of this economic interdependency which is the result of EU and its predecessors EEC and ECSC. Former enemies, France/Britain & Germany, are on the same side now which was unthinkable some sixty years ago ... In capitalist world, economic interdependency results in conflicts, in which one sides with another. The invasion of Iraq and annihilation of more than a million civilians is a solid example to the case. After all, most of those " soft power countries of Europe" supported the invasion, and never questioned the criminals involved. Why did the US-EU coalition invade Iraq in the first place? Could there be some economic reasons? As far as Iraqi oil is concerned, the invasion of Iraq was the outcome of " global economic interdependency". So, the conflict does not necessarily happen to be in Europe. However, note the fact that the conflicts are everywhere in the world. You might think that Kosova, Bosnia and Chechnya wars were ideologic, but those were not. After all, Europe is not a land of peace. In fact, quite contrary of that. So, there may be conflicts in the future since Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, Georgia still happen to exist outside of the borders of the EU. For example, Ukraine-Russia conflict is a historical one that could quickly pull Poland, and Baltic states in. Current world order does not convey the changes in the balance of world powers, and everyone agrees that war is not an easy solution anymore. That is the dilemma of the 21st Century. In theory yes, but wearing such federal outfit is not solution to the problems of the European states. Individually, they might benefit from negotiation power of the centeralized government, but they might also suffer from the very same reasons too. The USA/the EU exploit the Chinese labor while China regulates the exploitation process in order to maintain high development rates. However, it is unrealistic to claim that this equilibrium could last for many decades. During that missile crisis, didn't Russia threaten Poland and Czech Rep (as well as the EU) only last year? Didn't the European countries run out of gas in the cold winter nights when Russia pulled the plug off? Did NATO handle invasion of Georgia well? What I am saying is, world is not any safer than it was in 1945, and that is not some speculation. Some EU states were behind the ethnic conflicts in Balkans, now the EU states increase their peace keeping role? How convincing! The EU intends to use the NATO structure as a model for its own federal army. That is why, NATO is needed in until the EU army becomes operational. Until that day, as I said before, NATO will be around, and Europeans will keep relying on the NATO structure for their security.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Oct 6, 2009 5:12:06 GMT -5
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Oct 6, 2009 7:48:42 GMT -5
Of course I am right.... but those pics above are of America..not Brazil..... Rheeses insisted Brazil is king I don't understand why you put pics of America?
Do you have any of Canada?
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Oct 6, 2009 7:57:28 GMT -5
Those are very powerful images ! Sends the message out well "the hidden statistics" known as have not's...
.
|
|
|
Post by L0gjICK on Oct 6, 2009 8:13:25 GMT -5
Please, ever country has "bad" and "good" areas. Comparing the best of one country to the worst to another one is completely biased. I could posts pics of Skopje that could suprass places in Western Countries, but this doesn't show that Skopje is better.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Oct 6, 2009 8:47:10 GMT -5
I think we're speaking of two different definitions of interdependence.
Interdependence is when two countries establish a trading partnership and depend on each other's exports. A lucrative trade develops and both share an interest in its continuity. They are consequently interested in each other's political stability for the sake of self-preservation, as war would inevitably destabilize this trend and harm both parties. As stability prevails and economy develops, a strong(er) and big(ger) middle class emerges, a group of citizens who will have economical or/and other interests in the (other) partner country, intertwining the two countries and diminishing any reason for military conflict, as there wouldnt be any interest in such activity and because it would not find legitimacy and support among the citizens. Suppose we're also dealing with two democracies, and it will obliterate any chances for war.
France and (West) Germany were and are excellent examples. Iraq is a completely different story and doesnt fulfill any of the criterias except one, namely an interest in the other's export/natural resources. This isnt interdependence, it's dependence. The US wants oil but Iraq is an unstable dictatorship and means risky business. Furthermore, its established role as an anti-American country and its record of violating human rights provides good legitimacy for waging war (there were also fabrications which exaggerated the threat) against it and securing its natural resources for own gain ... not to mention the absence of any great sentimental value among ordinary Americans for a distant middle eastern country that is Iraq.
Certainly, we have already established that nothing is permanent in this world. But China is a massive country, impoverished in many ways, and it seems cheap labour will be around for some time, perhaps a little longer than you expect. Until then, many things can happen, but if the current trend continues, I agree, this imbalance cannot be sustained forever.
The world isn't a perfectly secure place, the opposite is true, but I still don't think it is comparable to 1945 and the following decades. Risk of imminent war and clashes between civilizations as in 1945 or 1962 have not occured ... Russia is just flexing its muscles to self-promote. In reality, it is very dependent on the West as its main trading partner.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Oct 6, 2009 9:01:07 GMT -5
Of course I am right.... but those pics above are of America..not Brazil..... Rheeses insisted Brazil is king I don't understand why you put pics of America? Do you have any of Canada? You are right again, those photos were of America. ;D By the way, Rhezus did not say Brazil was the king. He only noted that Brazil is an important power compared to some of less developed economies of the EU, then you posted some photos on poverty in Brazil as if it was unique to Brazil. That is why, I posted photos of the USA in order to show how selective one could be. BTW, you want to know what Canada is? It is a country which can not even build these crappy houses for her homeless citizens. media.canada.com/b2fd399c-8611-4580-92ea-44f66ab1b1a2/sun1208n-homeless%201.jpg[/img]Looking for answer to Wittmeier’s question, the Straight called the Wellesley Institute in Toronto and spoke to Michael Shapcott, a leading housing-policy expert who’s the organization’s director of community engagement.
According to Shapcott, Byers isn’t exaggerating the size of the problem. Advocates began saying there are 300,000 homeless people in Canada about 10 years ago. That figure was extrapolated from a study of homelessness in Toronto.
The actual number of homeless people in the country is unknown, and any estimates we do have just represent the “tip of the iceberg”, Shapcott said. Although it’s easy to count those in homeless shelters, it’s difficult to find out how many “rough sleepers” are living on the streets and “couch surfers” are staying temporarily with friends and family, he explained. www.straight.com/article-191008/homeless#Twenty years ago, the problem of homelessness seemed minor and was thought to be about single men with alcohol problems living on the streets. Today, in almost every urban centre across Canada, the situation is changing, and conservative estimates are that there are some 200,000 Canadians -- men, women and children -- who are homeless. www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/01/homeless.html
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Oct 6, 2009 9:46:38 GMT -5
I think we're speaking of two different definitions of interdependence. Interdependence is when two countries establish a trading partnership and depend on each other's exports. . It does not have to involve two countries by definition. It could involve more parties. In theory, such relations exist between most of the neighboring countries as long as there is no political conflict. This is even true for Turkey and Iran which did not involve in military conflicts since 1639. The truth is, relations between two countries do not only depend upon their relation with each other. For war affected countries like Germany and France, seeking economic and political integration was a good choice after WWII. This still stands today as those two are far from bearing the strength they used to have in early 20th Century. Those two did develop the idea of building a regional block due to the fact that they had lost their chances to become like the US, Soviet Union or China. Those two still stick to each other whilst the UK sticks to the US. Nothing strange about it. This was not entiely an American initiative. " Soft Power EU countries" like Denmark, Spain, Italy, UK also sent troops to Iraq due to the economic interdependency that they shared with the US, and conversely, those did not hesitate to commit crimes far worse than the Iraqi regime they removed. Each country depends upon others in a way. This applies to Russia, China, Japan, the USA, France, Germany and so on. The truth is, there are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons existing in the world right now, which did not exist in 1945. Having noted this, I must stress that the current world order imposed after WWII, does not comply with the changes taking place anymore. It was initially the USA and USSR, then the UK, France, China, Israel (with the help of the West) took the same path, Later, India, Pakistan, N. Korea sought to have nuclear weapons. Now it is time for Iran due to the threats arising from the Western ambitions to prevent changes in balance of world power. If Iran goes nuclear, then there will be probably more to join the club, and those candidates include Turkey, S. Korea, Brazil and Japan.
|
|