EP elections 2019

Do you plan to vote on the EP elections?


  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .
Status
Closed
Oct 2013
14,422
Europix
That is soemthing he said a month ago, he hasn't been talking in those terms in the present context.
Thank You.

I used is only as an example on what I consider futile. Personally, I don't think it matters he said it one month ago: it would have had some sense before the referendum, but once Brexit started, not that much. Anyway, my opinion on that really doesn't matter.
 
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
Thank You.

I used is only as an example on what I consider futile. Personally, I don't think it matters he said it one month ago: it would have had some sense before the referendum, but once Brexit started, not that much. Anyway, my opinion on that really doesn't matter.
What he said is that European history has seen repeated attempts to rediscover "the golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans.
Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods,
but fundamentally what is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe.
There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void."

It looks a bit different when one sees it in context, but I would agree that it should be a golden rule for politicians never to talk about Hitler in any context! :)
 
Likes: Baldtastic
Oct 2013
14,422
Europix
...
It looks a bit different when one sees it in context, but I would agree that it should be a golden rule for politicians never to talk about Hitler in any context! :)
It looks a bit different, but it is wrong, but sooo wrong, on multiple levels, and none of those levels is about mentioning or not Hitler!

What he said is that European history has seen repeated attempts to rediscover "the golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans.
Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods,
but fundamentally what is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe.
There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void." ...
To begin with, I don't see how conquérants, like Romans, or Napoléon, or Hitler can be brought up together with EU, or with the idea of EU.

Doing it can be explained by only two things: political anti-EUropeanism (something I can accept) or ignoring (willingly or unwillingly) the history of EU (something I can't accept).

It looks like he had never heard about Robert Schuman, Paul-Henri Spaak, Jean Monet to name just a couple of the initiators.

EU wasn't born from some conqueror's ideals. It was born from a much humbler idea: how we rebuild this Europe so that people will not start butchering each other again.

I often think at Robert Schuman, whi was mobilized in the German army in the WWI as he was a German born in Elsass, became later French MEP as a French from Alsace, arested by the Gestapo in the WWII, acused of collaborationism and condemned to ineligibility and "national indignity" after the liberation of France...

I also think at what was in the heads of those guys, that even before the end of WWII (because yes, the idea started to germinate in the minds of some continentals in exile in Britain even before D-Day) proposing young French and Italians and Germans and Belgians to work together in rebuilding Europe for a better future? Only days after the same young were killing each other.

And they did it. And they were right in their idea that the previous solution at the conflicts -(the idea of "balancing the forces" Wien Conference 1815 like) is not the solution. The solution is reconciliating European peoples.

The very first problem with BoJo's speech, it's the same problem that most Europeans have, it's the same problem EU itself has: everyone forgets (if they ever knew or learned about) the history.

Where EU started, why it started and where it was supposed to go.

One should not forget were he comes from, nor were he's heading to.
 
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
It looks a bit different, but it is wrong, but sooo wrong, on multiple levels, and none of those levels is about mentioning or not Hitler!



To begin with, I don't see how conquérants, like Romans, or Napoléon, or Hitler can be brought up together with EU, or with the idea of EU.

Doing it can be explained by only two things: political anti-EUropeanism (something I can accept) or ignoring (willingly or unwillingly) the history of EU (something I can't accept).

It looks like he had never heard about Robert Schuman, Paul-Henri Spaak, Jean Monet to name just a couple of the initiators.

EU wasn't born from some conqueror's ideals. It was born from a much humbler idea: how we rebuild this Europe so that people will not start butchering each other again.

I often think at Robert Schuman, whi was mobilized in the German army in the WWI as he was a German born in Elsass, became later French MEP as a French from Alsace, arested by the Gestapo in the WWII, acused of collaborationism and condemned to ineligibility and "national indignity" after the liberation of France...

I also think at what was in the heads of those guys, that even before the end of WWII (because yes, the idea started to germinate in the minds of some continentals in exile in Britain even before D-Day) proposing young French and Italians and Germans and Belgians to work together in rebuilding Europe for a better future? Only days after the same young were killing each other.

And they did it. And they were right in their idea that the previous solution at the conflicts -(the idea of "balancing the forces" Wien Conference 1815 like) is not the solution. The solution is reconciliating European peoples.

The very first problem with BoJo's speech, it's the same problem that most Europeans have, it's the same problem EU itself has: everyone forgets (if they ever knew or learned about) the history.

Where EU started, why it started and where it was supposed to go.

One should not forget were he comes from, nor were he's heading to.
I wasn't actually trying to defend his ideas, merely pointing out that he wasn't saying that the EU was trying to achieve unification in the same way as Napoleon and Hitler, but is attempting to achieve the same end "by different methods". And I think you are rather overlooking that point in your rpely here. Whether unification is achieved by conquest or by peaceful means, he argues, it cannot work because there is no common idea of Europe, no sufficiently close European identity. We will see.
 
Oct 2013
14,422
Europix
I wasn't actually trying to defend his ideas,
I know that very well, Lindschoten!

.. merely pointing out that he wasn't saying that the EU was trying to achieve unification in the same way as Napoleon and Hitler, but is attempting to achieve the same end "by different methods". And I think you are rather overlooking that point in your rpely here.
Whether unification is achieved by conquest or by peaceful means, he argues, it cannot work because there is no common idea of Europe, no sufficiently close European identity. We will see.
I totally disagree.

My post was exactly about not being "different methods" but different motifs, different idea.

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler weren't driven by the idea of "unifying Europe". They were driven by the idea of enlarging their domein/country/empire.

If someone wants to find an historical example that comes somehow close with the motifs driving the EU's fathers/pro-EUs/pan-Europeans the closest are Switzerland, followed in a lesser extent by USA. Oddly (or maybe not that much?) both are "doing very well, thank You" democracies.

As for his (and other's) "European identity", "European loyalty", honestly, it's BS. An identity, loyalty, takes generations and generations to develop. The idea of an European Union has only 70 years.

I believe UK is a viable, well running project. It's an ideal that became reality. Because, very true, there's a profound, largely generalized British identity, and a strong loyalty to what UK is, what represents. (IMHO).

How long it took to achieve it?

If we would be talking in the period of troubles, how would we talk about identity and loyalty in Northern Ireland?

Two-three hundred years ago, how would we talk about identity and loyalty in Scotland?
 
Aug 2009
5,425
Londinium
Because of course Europe’s GDP is far larger than the UK’s. The whole point, as I’ve tried to explain, is that the suggestion that the UK’s contribution is very important to the EU doesn’t seem to be affecting their negotiating position.
If you put aside the 9 billion for a moment, consider a net contributor Vs net receiver, which one is preferable? Even if the UK's net contribution was 1 euro, it would still be financially far more beneficial as the EU would be receiving a positive income while retaining any and all benefits of having that country as a member.

Not sure why I need to run through the good side of having someone pay into the EU rather than taking out, but I struggled to navigate this threads POV from the start!
 
Aug 2009
5,425
Londinium
@deaf tuner @Grimald @Tulius @GogLais

I have presented the side I am arguing, and seem to be either be ignored or dismissed rather than try to provide an evidence based counter argument. At the best, when such is presented and I provide my response the debate is quickly diverted back to personal opinions and admission that the EU exists in a grey zone. I just can’t understand what’s holding people back from saying the EU is a nation – when all evidence and arguments show that it is.

Let’s take another route in this debate; Germany is not a country, never has been and can’t be considered one. Who agrees? If you disagree then please explain why I should consider Germany a country…

No doubt the pro-EU supporters, fearful of the admission that they live in a province of the EU (not the country they were told exists) will continue to hide and conflate the argument, continue to avoid any confrontation of this fact and will seek to use phrases or metaphors to provide a sense of safety and righteousness, much more comfortable than recognizing the real flag you live under.
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,395
Wirral
@deaf tuner @Grimald @Tulius @GogLais

I have presented the side I am arguing, and seem to be either be ignored or dismissed rather than try to provide an evidence based counter argument. At the best, when such is presented and I provide my response the debate is quickly diverted back to personal opinions and admission that the EU exists in a grey zone. I just can’t understand what’s holding people back from saying the EU is a nation – when all evidence and arguments show that it is.

Let’s take another route in this debate; Germany is not a country, never has been and can’t be considered one. Who agrees? If you disagree then please explain why I should consider Germany a country…

No doubt the pro-EU supporters, fearful of the admission that they live in a province of the EU (not the country they were told exists) will continue to hide and conflate the argument, continue to avoid any confrontation of this fact and will seek to use phrases or metaphors to provide a sense of safety and righteousness, much more comfortable than recognizing the real flag you live under.
Hang on, you can leave me out of this one. I’ve stayed out of the “Is the EU a state debate”.
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,395
Wirral
If you put aside the 9 billion for a moment, consider a net contributor Vs net receiver, which one is preferable? Even if the UK's net contribution was 1 euro, it would still be financially far more beneficial as the EU would be receiving a positive income while retaining any and all benefits of having that country as a member.

Not sure why I need to run through the good side of having someone pay into the EU rather than taking out, but I struggled to navigate this threads POV from the start!
To repeat myself, the case seems to be that the EU values its political unity more than our budget contribution. That’s all really.
 
Oct 2013
14,422
Europix
@deaf tuner @Grimald @Tulius @GogLais

I have presented the side I am arguing, and seem to be either be ignored or dismissed rather than try to provide an evidence based counter argument. At the best, when such is presented and I provide my response the debate is quickly diverted back to personal opinions and admission that the EU exists in a grey zone. I just can’t understand what’s holding people back from saying the EU is a nation – when all evidence and arguments show that it is.

Let’s take another route in this debate; Germany is not a country, never has been and can’t be considered one. Who agrees? If you disagree then please explain why I should consider Germany a country…

No doubt the pro-EU supporters, fearful of the admission that they live in a province of the EU (not the country they were told exists) will continue to hide and conflate the argument, continue to avoid any confrontation of this fact and will seek to use phrases or metaphors to provide a sense of safety and righteousness, much more comfortable than recognizing the real flag you live under.
I am sorry, You were presented more than one argument.

IMHO, the issue is that You believe that there is only one definition of state, nation, country and that that sole definition (definition that is far from being singular and unanimously accepted ... ) can be interpreted in only one way (Your interpretation).

Another issue (again, is just my opinion) is that it seems You believe someone contesting or doubting Your definition and interpretation of the notion of state, country, nation, is necessarily doing it because its position in EU, moreover, "blindly" supporting EU. It's simply not true. I am more than convinced that Lindschoten's position on the mater ("nor fowl nor fish", which happens to concord with mine) isn't based on his pro-EU or anti-EU, but on his view on the concept of nation, country, nation, a POV that it happens to be similar with mine (tho our stances on EU are mostly divergent), and not with Yours (tho Your stances on EU are mostly convergent).

As far as I saw in this discussion, none involved in this discussion had pronounced it's opinion based on his stance over EU, but on his POV on the concept of state, country, nation. Except You.

PS: it wasn't GogLais but Lindschoten involved in this discussion.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions