MAP development

[Genghis_Kai]

I was reading a bit about the current EU status to find justification for the way we separating UK out of the EU. Then I found this from wiki (Opt-outs in the European Union):

"In general, the law of the European Union is valid in all of the twenty-seven European Union member states. However, occasionally member states negotiate certain opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union, meaning they do not participate in the common structure in these fields.

Currently, four states have opt-outs from parts of the European Union: Denmark (four opt-outs), Ireland (one opt-out plus one more under the proposed Treaty of Lisbon), Sweden (one opt-out, but only de facto) and the United Kingdom (two opt-outs plus two more under the proposed Treaty of Lisbon)."

It then seems taking out these four states from EU would no longer be arbitrary at all! Coincidentally, Ireland and Sweden are both permanent Neutral states, while Denmark can be combined into Norway or just Minor States. So, may I suggest to make this minor change as it would help us to justify much better why we make UK out of EU alone. But note that there is NO CHANGE IN THE CIV LIST. I am just suggesting to move some members from one civ to another, much like what we did when reviewing the Bolivarian Americas in a few post ago.

I am sure anyone who are living in the EU would know better than I do in this area. Feel free to comment on this as I wish to learn from you too. But I need to emphasize that, there should be NO CHANGE IN THE CIV LIST now as it would affect many good works achieved by many members of our team. Any suggestions that would affect the civ list we all agreed in here will be ignored (including my own, if I started to sounds like I am!).

 

[Genghis_Kai]

How come no one make any comments on my previous suggestion? I hope I didn't sound like I was dictating the solution or unhappy to hear other's comments Those bold texts were just me trying to emphasize that I won't override the consensus we've got in the Europe issue. So please feel free to comment, unless the suggestion was really not that interesting at all

 

[ianinsane]

OK

I can understand that you're looking for a "hard facts"-justification of our splitting of EU. But the problem here is that the reason why we excluded the UK will always be the same. In the first place we did it so the UK was able to militarily act independent from the EU, e.g. alongside the USA. Just the way it happened in Iraq. I think we should stand by that decision and not try to justify it by other means. The opt-outs to me seem like a pretextual reason.
Furthermore I'd not be happy with excluding such core states as Ireland, Denmark and Sweden from the EU. Especially Ireland has had more benefits from its EU membership than any other country.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I can understand that you're looking for a "hard facts"-justification of our splitting of EU.

That's exactly what I am thinking. While changing the civ list is definitely not favorable at this stage, I am trying to think of minor changes to make better justification

Talk about core states, I suppose UK is even more core to EU than Denmark or Sweden! It really is something bugger me quite a bit. So I am trying to suggest solutions to make our split more justifiable.

I don't understand why you said the opt-outs are only textural. These are exemptions from adopting the EU laws! I think this is quite a good argument for us to split them out because they can act independently from EU's foreign policy based on the opt-outs, which was the reason you mentioned to separate UK out.

 

[NikNaks]

So we're arguing over reasoning for the exclusion of the UK? Why!? The opt-outs is a perfectly reasonable explanation, as is the war in Iraq, so let's leave it at that.

I'm happy with a quick Norway-Denmark merge into "Scandinavia" or some such entity.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

So we're arguing over reasoning for the exclusion of the UK? Why!? The opt-outs is a perfectly reasonable explanation, as is the war in Iraq, so let's leave it at that.

That's what I am thinking too. Basically, I am trying to find a better reason to exclude UK. In my opinion, the military affair in Iraq is just one example, or one instance for UK being different than EU. But then other people can suggest many counter examples to proof why UK shouldn't be; on the other hand, the opt-outs, is a legal proof for why UK, and a few other nations, should be separated out from the entire EU. Looking at the opt-out list now, I even think it is better than the Eurozone I previously suggested, because the exclusion from Eurozone was just one of the opt-outs. The opt-outs is a list all the examptions from various area in the general EU concept including Economics, foreign policy, human rights and etc.

I'm happy with a quick Norway-Denmark merge into "Scandinavia" or some such entity.

I don't have a preference as to whether we should merge them or just leave Denmark as minor states. But to keep every civ name untouched, I think is better to just keep Norway as is and make Denmark minor.

 

[NikNaks]

I'm not all that bothered either way, really.

 

[Adhesive86]

Adhesive86, the USA can always make a vassal out of Iraq, by using BTS' colony feature on the city info screen! But if they do it too soon and remove too many of their troops, before ridding the region of barbarians, it will get overrun. I think this is perfectly realistic.

Also, since we have merged in the revolutions mod, there is a chance a new, hostile civ will form in Iraq, if the USA doesn't manage it properly.


"Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not?"

I haven't seen any evidence of this, other than talk on TV (which is usually the opposite of the truth). Anyway, that's another discussion, we are just going to try an represent what is happening RIGHT NOW, since predicting the future even slightly is very generally difficulty. So far the US has not reduced troops at all, they have only escalated the war.


"The latest Africa solution looks fantastic."

Yes it sure does, let's all thank Genghis for that!


P.S. Your sig makes me laugh. I almost got kicked off my hockey team as a child for pointing that out.

Ok great, the revolutions mod merge sounds like it would portray the reality pretty well. So good job. Thanks for the explanation.

Regarding my signature, yeah i did point it out whilst on the rugby team. Decided to concertrate on track instead!

 

[NikNaks]

Also regarding said signature, I prefer the comeback "Well there's no U either!".

 

[Adhesive86]

That's what I am thinking too. Basically, I am trying to find a better reason to exclude UK. In my opinion, the military affair in Iraq is just one example, or one instance for UK being different than EU. But then other people can suggest many counter examples to proof why UK shouldn't be; on the other hand, the opt-outs, is a legal proof for why UK, and a few other nations, should be separated out from the entire EU. Looking at the opt-out list now, I even think it is better than the Eurozone I previously suggested, because the exclusion from Eurozone was just one of the opt-outs. The opt-outs is a list all the examptions from various area in the general EU concept including Economics, foreign policy, human rights and etc.



I don't have a preference as to whether we should merge them or just leave Denmark as minor states. But to keep every civ name untouched, I think is better to just keep Norway as is and make Denmark minor.

Kai, it kind of depends what you want to know, but i'd say you've got it pretty spot on with the civs as they are. From my european integration final year batchelor degree unit, (which i'm doing right now) I can tell you the following:

I would make a case for the UK being a special case.

The UK has never considered itself a part of the European project so much as the states which Donald Rumseld disparagingly referred to as 'Old Europe' (ie Germany, France, Italy, Benelux). For the original six, political and economic union were seen almost as the only option to prevent more war which had done no-one any good. All these nations had previous ideologies destroyed and in some cases hated. HOWEVER, the UK not only maintained it's existing convictions, but in fact its case for independence and ignorance of European affairs strengthened by the 'winning' of a war and the conviction that Europe= trouble.

This has of course evolved, but only as the EU has become a massive economic success and the UK has had to join in or miss out. Ideologically the UK is miles apart. Typically the UK tends to find itself at the opposite side of perspectives as France and there are literally too many cases to list, but it is fair to say that the UK is often at odds with the Franco-German controlling axis, with an ideology more aligned with anglo saxon North America.

The UK has typically found itself in an isolated position on many issues leading to opt outs on a whole raft of policies, not just diplomatic (e.g. Iraq) but also regarding social issues (e.g. the working time directive, where the UK tried to block more socially acceptable working hour limits vs the whole of the EU but was defeated as the issue fell under Health and Safety which did not require unanimity). The French idea of a 'social dimension' -1986- to overcome the downsides of the free market (so prevalent in the US for example) was rejected by the UK whilst everyone else agreed. I believe only Denmark has since had an issue such as the UK.

The UK is not in the Euro, so no monetary union. But has retained an 'opt in' possibility.

Sovereignty- building on from the previous, The UK has a far different opinion on soverereignty to the majority of the EU. Whereby the EU is a threat to national sovereigny. Meanwhile, the likes of France and Germany have a dominant tactic of seeking to use the EU to pool and increase the leverage of their influence. The idea of giving up national sovereignty is not as much of an issue for them, especially with regards to military- Germany has only recently awoken from 'chequebook diplomacy' and retain a more pacificist outlook whilst the French seek to leverage power through the EU- see the french ideal of a 'l'Europe puissance'. This is a broad point and there is detail and counter detail within which can be argued (e.g. the UK-French declaration at St Malo 1998), but it is a very important explanation of why the UK is a very different case.

Ireland did vote the ToLisbon down, but has been a massive EU beneficiary. So in the EU.

Broadly, the UK is now convinced of the case for European economic collaboration e.g. the single market, but ideologically is a world apart, with sovereigny- and all the implications of that- remaining about as important as it was for the rest of Europe pre WW2 to put it simply.

There a 3 European 'pillars' - Economic, Security/Defence, and Justice and Home Affairs.

1. Economic- the UK is broadly in line interms of the single market, but the social-economic tradeoff is more aligned with the US e.g. regulation, business focus, workers rights etc (this is largely 'social' but has economic implications). Also no Euro.

2. Defence- the UK, whislt part of the ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy), has shown where it sits when the chips are down- with the US- and indeed Europe lacks teeth here anyway. This is a fledgling policy, only coming in at 2000 in Nice.

3, Justice and Home Affairs- lots of UK opt outs.

I hope this helps. If anyone wants to know anything else then ask- I have a first class, relatively short essay on the notion of a 'European Defence Identity', heavily rooted in literature and espert opinions, which I am happy to forward- but i don't want to bore you. Similarly I'm sure there's plenty of guys on here that may well know alot more than me!

Ps I don't see how having Denmark as minor nations would be a good idea? Either represent them in the EU or individually- although i think this is a very poor case for an extra civ slot given their limited influence and position within the EU anyway. What's to be gained by having them as minor? Surely just put them in the EU.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Adhesive, surely, you know more than I do about why UK is special.

But if Denmark is opt-out for:

1) replace the Danish krone with the euro.
2) EU's foreign policy where defense is concerned. Hence it does not take part in decisions, does not act in that area and does not contribute troops to missions conducted under the auspices of the European Union.
3) from certain areas of home affairs.


would it be fair to say Denmark is at least as special, if not even more, as UK in the EU issue?

May be Ireland and Sweden may not be as special, since they only got one opt-outs. And if Ireland is particularly benefiting from EU, then Ireland can stay in EU. Sweden is the only country other than UK and Denmark deliberately not joining the Eurozone, and because of it's neutrality policy, it seems to be quite suitable to be grouped into the neutral states with Switzerland.

So basically, just further taking Denmark and Sweden out, Denmark be combined to Norway or Minor States, Sweden be combined to Neutral States?

 

[Adhesive86]

Adhesive, surely, you know more than I do about why UK is special.

But if Denmark is opt-out for:

1) replace the Danish krone with the euro.
2) EU's foreign policy where defense is concerned. Hence it does not take part in decisions, does not act in that area and does not contribute troops to missions conducted under the auspices of the European Union.
3) from certain areas of home affairs.
4) that European citizenship did not replace national citizenship.

would it be fair to say Denmark is at least as special, if not even more, as UK in the EU issue?

May be Ireland and Sweden may not be as special, since they only got one opt-outs. And if Ireland is particularly benefiting from EU, then Ireland can stay in EU. Sweden is the only country other than UK and Denmark deliberately not joining the Eurozone, and because of it's neutrality policy, it seems to be quite suitable to be grouped into the neutral states with Switzerland.

So basically, just further taking Denmark and Sweden out, Denmark be combined to Norway or Minor States, Sweden be combined to Neutral States?

I can see your logic regarding Sweden, in that they are indeed strictly neutral. I would note a couple of important points, however.

1) They are a big net contributor to the EU.

2) The EU's second pillar (defence) is over exaggerated in its importance. The real stuff is all done by NATO.

In reality, the EU is still heavily defined as an economic union. If this is your aim in the mod then I would say Sweden in. However, as world 2009 is likely to entail more combat than might be expected in our current situation, the choice of putting Sweden as a neutral state is more than valid.

Denmark at least as special as UK?

My initial consideration was that they're not as important so don't merit their own civ full stop, especially if they can just be put in the EU.

If Norway are having a civ, then considering historical ties Denmark could be merged (but I'm not an expert and you could make the same argument for Ireland and UK for example).

I wouldn't put them with minor nations though as they're a full EU member.

In reality all of the 4 opt outs that you have noted apply to other member states in practice whether official or not.

1) Euro membership- Only 12 states out of 27 have the Euro, so not that special.

2) Defence non commital- I would argue that the EU is not a big defence player as an institution and that most of this is left to NATO, so this point, whilst true is over stated in importance, particularly as in practice due to the intergovernmental nature of defence decision making, nothiing much gets agreed or done anyway. (Italian Premier Berlusconi described the possibility of a united EU position on Iraq as 'perfectly impossible' for instance.

3/4) We are seeing and have seen massive resistance to these issues from Ireland, France and the Netherlands in referendums 2004-2008, and also other publics who haven't been consulted. (amongst them UK)

So, with Denmark, it is correct to acknowledge that Denmark has insulated itself through official opt outs more than most, indeed any other state, from some further integrative measures. However, Denmark's participation in European affairs is otherwise pretty full and they certainly don't normally find themselves as regularly alienated as the UK. Also consider that whilst Denmark has 'opted out' of certain measures, the UK often doesn't have to opt out as she has more ability to stop something being passed in the first place, and it is more than possible that newer EU members, despite many polls showing high popularity for the EU, will choose to do the same when the time comes to comply (entry to the Euro, for instance). There is a precedant for this with Greece for instance who sought to renegotiate after being accepted.

The EU is an absolute hotpot. The key reason i think that the UK is 'special' is because it has such a different diplomatic/ military position compared to the other large nations- Germany, France, Italy, Spain and a more different ideology and that frankly they are more important to the game. I don't think that the same applies to Denmark and to me it doesn't make sense to segregate them due to some opt outs alone. I would put them in the EU.


To sum up, my recommendation:

UK- Independent
Sweden- Neutral (or EU if economic representation rather than diplomatic is primary consideration)
Denmark- EU (but it would be OK to merge them with Norway, minor nations wouldn't make sense)
Ireland- EU

Whatever you do I'm sure it'll be fine.

 

[sheep21]

adhesive, thankyou from bringing your knowledge to this issue. I would be happy to go along with UK Indie, Sweden neut & denmaek & ireland EU.

 

[ianinsane]

Cool. BTW, adhesive, I'd be interested in that essay you mentioned...

 

[Lord Wolf]

I completely agree with Adhesive86.

In fact nearly every member state has some sort of de-facto "opt-out". It's ok for me to make Sweden neutral but I want to point out, that also Austria is neutral and has the same position as Sweden, Ireland and I think also Denmark at this issue. There is also another reason why excluding the UK while including the other states is quiet realistic - the UK-rebate. Back in the 80s the british economy was in a quiet bad state and it was Maggie Thatcher who said the famous quote: I want my money back. Since then the UK paid 25 % less than other member states, still today the rebate exists. I also acknowledge that the UK also gets less and that the whole EU-budget is a quiet complicated system. But the bottom line is in this like in many other political fields, that the UK enjoys again a very special and unique treatment. Naturally it's likewise in the foreign policies or the general state ideology, which is more similiar to the USA than to France or Germany. Meanwhile Sweden is a fine speciman for the "social market economy" which is more or less the leitmotif of many EU policies. To exclude Sweden would at least in economical and social perspective be a little bit strange, but if you really want it like that I can go along with it.

In every case I'm sure you'll do fine!

greetings Ben

 

[DVS]

I've leave the discussion to those with a greater knowledge of the region, seeing as most of our team members reside inside the disputed lands. lol

I'm fine with Sweden as neutral, Denmark as minor, that sounds good to me. But whatever result you guys come to will be the best I'm sure. Please though, do your best not to add any more civs. ;-)

 

[Genghis_Kai]

But whatever result you guys come to will be the best I'm sure. Please though, do your best not to add any more civs. ;-)

And that's of course why I've been emphasizing in bold that while some of us perfectionists would like to continue to debate on minor issues, those of you who are hard working on the mod and don't really care about the details should not be affected. So DVS, don't worry, I will stick to my promise

To sum up, my recommendation:

UK- Independent
Sweden- Neutral (or EU if economic representation rather than diplomatic is primary consideration)
Denmark- EU (but it would be OK to merge them with Norway, minor nations wouldn't make sense)
Ireland- EU

Thanks for those of you living in Europe to share your points on the issue. I will do this:

UK - Independent
Sweden - Neutral
Denmark - merge it with Norway and Iceland and call them "Nordic States". No change should be applied to the Leaderhead and the civilization of the mod (i.e. keep it the same as Norway as was).
Ireland - EU

One reason why I want to pull out these nations is for game balancing really. Even after removing Sweden and Denmark, EU still has the most cities - even more than China, USA or Russia. I wanted to weaken EU a little bit so EU, China and USA should be roughly equal in terms of number of cities, population and territory size.

 

[Adhesive86]

Cool. Sounds fine to me Genghis Kai.

Can I ask how you're prepresenting the island of Ireland? I guess with two cities- Belfast (UK) and Dublin (EU)? Certainly when it comes to setting culture be aware that one of the 2 major political parties in Northern Ireland (UK) is seeking unity with Ireland. There is 0 chance on the other hand of the Republic of Ireland joining the UK and the two cities are rather close together if you use their actual positions. I would therefore recommend setting Dublin at a higher culture level than Belfast to represent both the actual political boundaries and the possibility of 'flipping'.

Small point I know.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I am only representing Ireland with Dublin, just like 1940 scenario.

Reason being the location of Dublin is sort of in the middle of that 10 tiles island already, and where Belfast can be placed is too close to Glasgow. So I don't think it is worth putting another extra city there.

 

[ianinsane]

Who is in control of the Panama Canal, actually? Is it a minor state?