Questions for our European members

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by archer_007
Question i felt like this would be the best place to ask:


What is the point/function of the European Parliament?
When do you see, if you see it at all, Europe intergrated into one state?
What do you see being the primary language?
How widespread is the English language in European nations?
Would you prefer being ruled from Brussels (or any other site that could be chosen) or by your current government?
Do you see the US as a threat to European intergration?

1. I think it's been answered very well already
2. Not very soon, but it will happen and I want to happen it ASAP. For now I say 50 years.
3. English. But Germany, France, Italy and Spain won't accept it for 100% sure. Not yet.
4. Very widespread. Everyone has to learn it everywhere I think. The problem is that countries as Spain and France have a population that generally cannot speak the language on an acceptable level. Probably has to do with the fact that those are latinic languages, instead of germanic. Scandinavians are best at English I think, followed by Dutch. (I'm only talking about countries where English is not the native language of the masses)
5. I don't care. In the end I say yes, because it would mean the EU becoming a state. To me it's nothing different from being ruled by city, province or country.
6. Only in indirect sense: there are pro-american countries and countries that are not pro-american. America could turn out to be the reason for the EU to become one state though, somewhere in the future.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

1)Denmark is a monarchy.

So? What does that have to do with being socially advanced? It's a constitutional monarchy like England, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, where the monarch is nothing but the head of state. That's all.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

2)Still has colonies: Greenland and the Faroe countries, which by the way are treated very badly. One often used devise is to create artificial economic crisis in order that they send workers and fishermen to the 'mothercountry'.

Well that indeed sucks. Having colonies does not have anything to do with it either though. About every country still has some colonies.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

3)The government coalition rests on an openly racist party, which continually spews out bile and hatred at the muslims

Still has nothing to do with being social. They still have social laws right? I strongly dissaprove of such a government though. Just for the record. I'm not Danish though.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

4)The socio-economic structure is fascist since,
a)The maersk conglomerate, which controls the trade fleet, the north sea oil, controlling shares in the largest bank, controlling shares in the largest supermarket-chain have indiscriminate acces to the prime minister.

What's the Maersk Conglomerate? Private or Governmental?

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

b)the police is corrupt, too busy deleting eachothers parking tickets, they have handed over control of the criminal underground to neo-nazis and moter bike gangs, they in turn control and punish the weaker criminals or anyone who gets in their way

well, in every country there's some corruption like that. Do you have prove for this though?

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

c)Up to the war they allowed for establishment of countless hashis establishments, so as to weaken young peoples opposition to the war in typical psy ops fashion

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. They used drugs to weaken the people? What must you think of my beloved country then?

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

d)The newspapers are controlled by government agents

right....if a paper is pro-government, it does not mean they are controlled by the government.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

f)the cab drivers are secret police

uh huh

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

g)The educational and scientific system is penetrated by fascist sentiment. Just yesterday a professor started, what seems like a well prepared debate, to demand that people with lesser intelligence should have fewer children while financially rewaerding intelligent people to beget more children.

Well they're penetrated by communist, liberal, anarchist, socialist, neo-conservative, republican, monarchist, globalist and hell I know what kind of views too.

maybe you should sit down and have a glass of water

 

[Ville]

Originally posted by archer_007
Question i felt like this would be the best place to ask:


1. What is the point/function of the European Parliament?
2. When do you see, if you see it at all, Europe intergrated into one state?
3. What do you see being the primary language?
4. How widespread is the English language in European nations?
5. Would you prefer being ruled from Brussels (or any other site that could be chosen) or by your current government?
6. Do you see the US as a threat to European intergration?

1. It's useless, they only set some stupid laws or whatever they are called
2. Never, if it depends on me
3. English I suppose
4. I think people can speak English quite well in Northern Europe
5. By our current government
6. No

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by willemvanoranje


So? What does that have to do with being socially advanced? It's a constitutional monarchy like England, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, where the monarch is nothing but the head of state. That's all.

The monarch still meets with the cabinet once a week, and has the privilege of making an inquiry into all aspects of policy. Also the monarch has to underwrite all laws and can refuse to sign it for up to half a year. When a new government is to be put in place, each individual party has to go to the monarch, bow, and name the person who they think is the right man to negotiate the creation of a coalition goverment. Then there is the hidden influence of which I can not talk about here. It is occult.

Still has nothing to do with being social. They still have social laws right? I strongly dissaprove of such a government though. Just for the record. I'm not Danish though.

They have social laws. For instance you have to be over twenty five to marry a foreigner, if you are going to marry a foriegner you must prove that both spouses have a stronger connection to Denmark than the other country. You have to have a job, which can support the spouse. Naturally the Monarchy is immune to these laws, even though their salary is basicly a welfare expenditure. Also it can be argued that the crown prince and his soon to be wife has less than an attachmenet to Denmark than to Australia, since the crownprince does not spend very many days in Denmark.

What's the Maersk Conglomerate? Private or Governmental?

Maersk is a private company - or monopoly rather. The CEO spends a large part of the income to build huge monuments to the monarch - with whom he is a close friend.

well, in every country there's some corruption like that. Do you have prove for this though?

These criminals can barely write (I wonder if the police can), so it would be hard for me to guve you written proof. I keep my eyes and ears open.

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. They used drugs to weaken the people? What must you think of my beloved country then?

The Netherlands were for the war. Proves my point. However contrary to where you live, here they are closing all the hashis establishments down again. Instead there is an boom in illegal pills, to make people forget. One guy complained about it and had his danceclub firebombed by unkown assailants.

right....if a paper is pro-government, it does not mean they are controlled by the government.

Yes it does, and here it all comes together. Before the war, the papers who were against made the simplistic argument that it was all about oil, and basicly there was nothing one could do about it. The pro-war papers said it was about Saddam being an evil, opressive, despotic tyrant and he had WMDs. Naturally nobody would even dare to mention that the war was about Iraq having adopted the Euro as payment for oil, and that the Americans in order to prevent all Opec countries from going for Euro, would need to punish Saddam in order to send a message to all oil producing countries.
Now, the war is over and despite the opposition demanding an inquiry into the reasons behind the war -a demand that has been turned down by the ruling coalition (all of them supported by Mearsk, naturally, which just gave them an extra 2 billion in tax revenue as a thank you for shutting up) - the newspapers still refuse to print the real story.
Instead the big story is (big distraction I should say) is that, Lo and behold, the crown-prince is getting married. The media is ecstatic. This event has of course been planned to happen right after there was no the report coming out that there was no WMDs.
I would call what is happening a conspiracy. The problem as I see it is that it would be indirect treason for the government to support with troops and financially a war that went against the interests of the European Union, since in fact the Danish state has handed over a great deal of sovereignty to the EU.

Well they're penetrated by communist, liberal, anarchist, socialist, neo-conservative, republican, monarchist, globalist and hell I know what kind of views too.

Here in Denmark the education is only fascist and social-democratic.

maybe you should sit down and have a glass of water

I need something stronger I think.

 

[Tathlum]

1. To represent the views and interests of European citizens to the central government in an appropriate forum. The more powerfull the central government the more powerfull this institution needs to be. As it is stands now it is not very powerfull but that does not mean it is unimportant. MEP elections are also used as a protest vote occasionaly. People will vote for prople in the European parilament for different reasons than in a general election (eg. to stop that muppet Dana getting involved in politics at home). This too will change as it becomes more powerfull.
2. If and when the people of the union wish it. So not for a long time. It certainly won't be forced upon those who don't want it. Probably never, not in the form we currently recognise. I see a powerfull federation, rather than a fully integrated state. Diversity is a strength. No one person or institution should control something as powerfull as a united Europe. I want to live in a Federation where each state is at least partially responsable for the protection of its neighbours citizens and with their neighbours consent, not a world superpower.
3. Officialy the diversity will be protected and there will be no official first language. Officialy Gaelic is the first language of Ireland. English will become the de-facto primary language (lingua-anglia?) between different citizens of the Union. When eastern european and Turkish schools choose to teach English over French, thats a clear indication. No-one should be concerned about this, English started as a trading language. It certainly doesn't make me feel less Irish.
4. More than 99% of people in Ireland speak English. Not 100% but pretty close. For most it is our first language.
5. My current government sucks. They bribed the Electorate seriously damaging a rampant economy. And they'll do it again. We BETTER win the next election. What I feel you mean though is would I prefere to be ruled by a government in Dublin elected by the Irish, or a Central government elected by the Electorate of the Entire Union? We should keep both. Laws affecting human rights, worker rights, standards of safety, health, personal freedoms etc. should be centrally controlled. Taxation, defence etc. should be decided by National Governments. Sovereignty should remain with the member states, but Central government should have a lot of influence. If for no other reason than to give States the freedom to leave if they wish. I don't want a civil war if someone wants out. The Union should be something special we work towards out of Idealism for a better future for all, not something forced on those who want no part of it. So national governments with a powerfull central institution to defend the citizens of all states from the abuses of any. Armies should be kept separate but within a formal alliance. With each country having the right to opt out of any operation bar defence. Having a European army attack somewhere using "European Interests" as a euphomism for greed would make me sick.
6. No. And the EU is not a threat to the US. We are going to disagree a lot, argue a lot but we are both Idealistic peoples who believe in the rights of man and in Democracy. I have a lot more in common with the US than the Sauudi Monarchy.

ps I The EU

 

[Tathlum]

EDIT: posted twice. sorry.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by archer_007
Question i felt like this would be the best place to ask:

Best place to incite some Euro-bashing, more like...

Originally posted by archer_007
What is the point/function of the European Parliament?

Same as any parliament, to represent the people, make rulings and laws, and to debate.

Rather spurious question...What's the point of the US Senate?

Originally posted by archer_007
When do you see, if you see it at all, Europe intergrated into one state?

With 20-30 years, is my bet.

Originally posted by archer_007
What do you see being the primary language?

English, French or German...Same as it is now, really.

Originally posted by archer_007
How widespread is the English language in European nations?

Usually as a second language.
English is rather important the world over.

Originally posted by archer_007
Would you prefer being ruled from Brussels (or any other site that could be chosen) or by your current government?

I reckon the Parliament would be based in the continent.
I think it matters not where it is placed, as long as representatives from all member states are there...

Does it matter where the US Capital is?

Originally posted by archer_007
Do you see the US as a threat to European intergration?

Ah! The magic question.

The US never has or will be a threat to Europe.
Despite all the posturing from dramatists like Rummy and Chirac, the US needs Europe, like Europe needs the USA. Americans are renamed Europeans, after all.
Our destinies are entwined. I see a united Europe as a boon to the US.
What is wrong with two large, stable power-blocs in the West?

It's going to happen one day, so best get used ot it.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Best place to incite some Euro-bashing, more like...

Rather spurious question...What's the point of the US Senate?

Does it matter where the US Capital is?

It's going to happen one day, so best get used ot it.

I see you think of me as the typical American. I actully have a great deal of respect for your experiement in intergration. Heck, I've even considered moving to Britain on a few occasions (I'll deside that issue during my study overseas during college). I didnt mean to be inflamoatory at all.

 

[Tathlum]

I didnt think you where being inflatory, and I welcome the interest. If you have anymore questions ask away. But don't move to the UK, Ireland is more fun

 

[Archer 007]

Ill consider it
I was refering to Curt. I seem to think that he thought I started this thread w/ bad intentions.

 

[Sims2789]

one reason the USA might interfere if we lost our military bases in Britain/Germany.

 

[Sims2789]

the united Europe may not want foreign troops on their soil.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Originally posted by sims2789
one reason the USA might interfere if we lost our military bases in Britain/Germany.

Those bases are pretty much a waste of money anyway; we are better off closing them and stationing our troops at home. The only use I can think of is for occasional joint exercises, and those (I think) really only happen with the British that often, the Continent much less so. I think that NATO holds a yearly exercise, but the U.S. really doesn't need bases all over Europe. It's not like anyone is going to invade there.

Seriously, I think that Europe is going to be the continent most untouched by war in the next century, in large part because they had such a bad time (to put it lightly) in the two world wars.

 

[Tathlum]

I don't think you'll lose them. They are too usefull for both Britain and Germany. The French wouldn't like it, but you don't have bases there anyway. If they go I think it will be by mutual consent. ie the US and EU will agree that EU armed forces have the strength and should have the responsiblity to take over. I recon they'll stay as a symbol of alliance.
As for us getting worried about foreign troops on our soil, I would hate to see the EU become that militant in its pride. I don't want an us or them mentality. I never want europeans to think of the US as a threat to our military power etc. I want to see a Europe that works together for Defence, Counter-terrorism (but not pre-emptive striking), peacekeeping and operations to support UN mandates as it does more to prevent Genocide etc as Secretary Annan wants. I don't want to see an agressive European military.
I also want my country to drop military neutrality. Yes I agree with pacifism but not supporting our friends and allies is cowardise not pacifism. I would feel more comfortable argueing against war if we proved that if it comes to it we will fight to protect our friends, we just believe that war should be avoided if there is a reasonable alternative.

 

[zippy]

Originally posted by sims2789
one reason the USA might interfere if we lost our military bases in Britain/Germany.

If I were you, I would be more worried about losing your naval bases at Diego Garcia and in the Caribbean, that you currently lease from the UK. I think you would miss those more.

Seriously though, I think a United Europe would cause some tension with the US as it would be more able to throw its weight around in the global trade market. Economic competition would be on a more equal basis, which the US historically does not tolerate very well.

 

[Tathlum]

We've already had tension over Steel, Kyoto, Agriculture (subsidies,GM,Banannas), Iraq.......
It's nothing either of us can't handle. We also provide huge markets for each other. It'll be Okay. EU states sometimes go for each others throats. Recently it was Italians going at Germans, a lot of the time its Britain and France. The EU is still an outstanding success. As long as neither starts agresively throwing its weight around, as long as we keep comunicating, competion will be healthy for both.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
The monarch still meets with the cabinet once a week, and has the privilege of making an inquiry into all aspects of policy. Also the monarch has to underwrite all laws and can refuse to sign it for up to half a year. When a new government is to be put in place, each individual party has to go to the monarch, bow, and name the person who they think is the right man to negotiate the creation of a coalition goverment. Then there is the hidden influence of which I can not talk about here. It is occult.

Sound like a nice tradition. It's exactly the same here. But you know what's the great part, if the king or queen does not want to sign the law, they just make a law that says they're not the head of state for one day. There's no real power. Still, has nothing to do with being social. It's about being republican or monarchist. And I'm a monarchist as long as it stays the way it is now (so no real power).

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

They have social laws. For instance you have to be over twenty five to marry a foreigner, if you are going to marry a foriegner you must prove that both spouses have a stronger connection to Denmark than the other country. You have to have a job, which can support the spouse. Naturally the Monarchy is immune to these laws, even though their salary is basicly a welfare expenditure. Also it can be argued that the crown prince and his soon to be wife has less than an attachmenet to Denmark than to Australia, since the crownprince does not spend very many days in Denmark.

Well, that indeed is a really stupid law. And about the crownprince...I think it's not so much about how many days you spend where, but what nationalities you have, your parents, your uncles and aunts, your grandparents, etc.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

Maersk is a private company - or monopoly rather. The CEO spends a large part of the income to build huge monuments to the monarch - with whom he is a close friend.

Well, if it's a private company, there's not much you can do right? It hasn't got governing power, so I don't see why it adds to Denmark being a-social.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

These criminals can barely write (I wonder if the police can), so it would be hard for me to guve you written proof. I keep my eyes and ears open.

Sounds like the government needs to invest in literacy and schooling.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

The Netherlands were for the war. Proves my point. However contrary to where you live, here they are closing all the hashis establishments down again. Instead there is an boom in illegal pills, to make people forget. One guy complained about it and had his danceclub firebombed by unkown assailants.

The Dutch government, which is one of the stupidest in the past 50 years, was for the war. The people were against. Believe me. And eventhough we have a reputation, it's still illegal to smoke weed or use any type of other drugs in public. Besides that, not many people use our advantage that much. Still think it's a ridiculous point you're trying to make. You read Big Brother too many times.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

Yes it does, and here it all comes together. Before the war, the papers who were against made the simplistic argument that it was all about oil, and basicly there was nothing one could do about it. The pro-war papers said it was about Saddam being an evil, opressive, despotic tyrant and he had WMDs. Naturally nobody would even dare to mention that the war was about Iraq having adopted the Euro as payment for oil, and that the Americans in order to prevent all Opec countries from going for Euro, would need to punish Saddam in order to send a message to all oil producing countries.
Now, the war is over and despite the opposition demanding an inquiry into the reasons behind the war -a demand that has been turned down by the ruling coalition (all of them supported by Mearsk, naturally, which just gave them an extra 2 billion in tax revenue as a thank you for shutting up) - the newspapers still refuse to print the real story.
Instead the big story is (big distraction I should say) is that, Lo and behold, the crown-prince is getting married. The media is ecstatic. This event has of course been planned to happen right after there was no the report coming out that there was no WMDs.
I would call what is happening a conspiracy. The problem as I see it is that it would be indirect treason for the government to support with troops and financially a war that went against the interests of the European Union, since in fact the Danish state has handed over a great deal of sovereignty to the EU..

Ok. Let me see. The USA goes to war with Iraq for paying in euros (other countries do too! Not only EU!), the Danish government is ruled by that company, papers are controlled by the government that is controled by a company....a war against interest of the EU....conspiracy....I don't want to flame or anything...but it seems a bit paranoya too me.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

Here in Denmark the education is only fascist and social-democratic.

Now I seriously doubt that.


This is fun really, it's like we're making really serious posts here. Oh wait...I am....pretty soon you're gonna tell me where the hidden camera is ey? no offence meant

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by archer_007
What is the point/function of the European Parliament?

Someone already detailed that one.

Originally posted by archer_007
When do you see, if you see it at all, Europe intergrated into one state?

I don't see Europe as progressing towards statehood, at least, statehood in the traditional sense of the word.

The Union should only only concern itself with those areas that can be handled best at a supranational level. There should be no power invested towards the centre merely for the sake of it.

Originally posted by archer_007
What do you see being the primary language?

There would be no official first langauge, but English would be the de facto language of diplomacy, etc, like it is now.

Originally posted by archer_007
How widespread is the English language in European nations?

Somebody should be able to find some stats on this.

Originally posted by archer_007
Would you prefer being ruled from Brussels (or any other site that could be chosen) or by your current government?

I don't believe it's a case of either/or. The question is simply what competences The EU will have, and what national governments should have.

Again, everything should be done on the lowest effective level. The Union is already commited to this, actually, in the shape of the principle of subsidiarity.

Originally posted by archer_007
Do you see the US as a threat to European intergration?

No. I don't want Europe to compete with The US, and neither, I'm sure, does The US.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by sims2789
one reason the USA might interfere if we lost our military bases in Britain/Germany.

Those bases are already being largely scalled down by The US anyway; Europe is no longer an internatinal hotspot such as it was during The Cold War. They might not even exist in any real sense twenty years from now.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

When do you see, if you see it at all, Europe intergrated into one state?

If I see it at all, its a Franco-German Union. If the rest of Europe was smart, they would be united against those two.