Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nich... said:

Ah yes.  Not at all unlike the US, because all States love ceding their rights to the Federal Government.

 

They knew what they were getting into. A Federal Republic - ie loss of sovereignty on entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying the USA took something like 130 years from first state to last state (not including the non contiguous late comers). And it was hardly peaceful. And plenty of people didn't want to join. It's a bit rough to give the EU 26years and then deem it some Hodge podge that can't ever work compared to a country that took that many times as long and doesn't have the same language/culture/history barriers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

I'm just saying the USA took something like 130 years from first state to last state

 

And each one of them knew on entry that their sovereignty would be surrendered to a representative Federal Republic of the country named United States of America.

 

I think I repeated that point at least half a dozen times now and there’s no real but-but-butistan rebuttal to it.

 

The original EU was the EUC - the Europeans Communities. Entry to that never entailed a discussion about loss of sovereignty to a central government. What has happened since is the rough equivalent of signing an employment contract for fair exchange of labour only to find out that the contract was actually for slave labour and you would cease to exercise your rights as a citizen in favour of the gulag.

 

The EU is autocracy. It should be in the thesaurus. Right next to Iran, with less Mullahs and more dickheads.

Edited by Leonid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're all surrendering sovereignty, then I guess there is absolutely no issue about state vs federalist rights in play at all.  Just like there's no issue at all of a bunch of countries forming the EU and deciding it will be a guiding body on some kinds of legislation.  That sounds nothing like giving up sovereignty.

Anyway, pretty cool distraction from the issue that was at hand: if there's a problem with people coming in and taking jobs and resources, why it's only some people and not all people.  If we want to look at some case studies, I refer to the time the Australian Govt tried to force a bunch of unemployed Australians and people on working holiday visas to compete for the utter lack of accommodation in farming areas so that farms could get labour to havest and sell their produce, and then acted surprised when the utter lack of accommodation and virtual monopoly on the limited resources available meant people couldn't actually afford to get to work in the middle of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Um,

 

England did not, they even kept the pound Sterling, now they are crashing out.

 

It is going to be a rocky ride for the deflated Empire, but, I do hear what you are saying, , the EU has some serious issues generated by those that have taken the helm.

 

I do not think there is any vast conspiracy afoot  though, incompetence is far more likely.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, @~thehung said:

Australia’s relatively small population – despite its huge continental mass – raises little by way of public debate. A larger domestic population might provide markets for domestic industries, for local employment and for community wide infrastructure."

 

Re the underlined : I'd say that's a pretty questionable " might " ... more likely the global competition will smite that shit ( any burgeoning of domestic industries ) with an even heavier hand 😉

 

1 hour ago, scruffy1 said:

be good if they actually considered habitable mass versus total area

 

it's like suggesting morbidly obese people are all muscle

also, QFT ^^ .

 

1 hour ago, fliptopia said:

I'm just saying the USA took something like 130 years from first state to last state (not including the non contiguous late comers). And it was hardly peaceful. And plenty of people didn't want to join. It's a bit rough to give the EU 26years and then deem it some Hodge podge that can't ever work compared to a country that took that many times as long and doesn't have the same language/culture/history barriers. 

Given the the times, 130 years could be considered like a blink of an eye. I mean how long did it take for communications to reach their intended; how long did it take for ships to get to the UK ?

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scruffy1 said:

be good if they actually considered habitable mass versus total area

 

it's like suggesting morbidly obese people are all muscle

 

Exactly.  A population per sq km of arable land would probably see us rise from last to somewhere in the top 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Nich... said:

refer to the time the Australian Govt tried to force a bunch of unemployed Australians and people on working holiday visas to compete for the utter lack of accommodation in farming areas so that farms could get labour to havest and sell their produce, and then acted surprised when the utter lack of accommodation and virtual monopoly on the limited resources available meant people couldn't actually afford to get to work in the middle of nowhere.

I don't think much has improved and the govt. still require  o/s  work visas to do about two months ( I think ) in country employment. Some of the stories still heard today describe utter shite accommodations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Nich... said:

If they're all surrendering sovereignty, then I guess there is absolutely no issue about state vs federalist rights in play at all

 

Off course there are. But again, because apparently a 7th time is needed: the states knew they were surrendering sovereignty to a Federal Republic governing a country called the USA.

 

All arguments between states and federal are therefore in the context of the states knowing that they are subordinate to a Federal system that they want to participate in.

 

Most people in the EU want to remain in the EU, with the Czech Republic being least in favour but still in favour by a large margin. But a majority do not support surrendering sovereignty.

 

When the UK crashes out and roars back stronger, leaving the EU without its second-largest economy, and once the UK is able to conclude their own trade deals - Euroscepticism will hopefully win over and demolish the EU into pieces, never to be seen or heard from again.

 

Maybe a United States of Europe is possible and maybe even desirable, but not the EU way.

 

 

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is probably extremely premature.

 

The structure is there, it most definitely needs work but a United Sates  of Europe is pretty much essential in the longer term.

 

It's somewhat dumb really to even begin to compare the evolution of such an entity to the evolution of the U.S. there are completely different tensions at work.

 

The U.S has had one civil war, over slavery - the grumbles still linger even after well over a century and a half and I would not write off the possibility of another. Europ's entire history has been one of repeated wars culminating in the two largest ones the world has yet seen.

 

Partly, and I stress only partly, the EU has removed the possibility of any more wars between the member states, that alone is a massive achievement that it is rather easy to overlook.

 

You cannot force nations to harmoniously interact, it is only necessary to look at the Balkans to see that, so there has to be a willingness to cooperate for the greater good. Looking at how Germany and France interact now compared to a century ago is of itself enough to justify continuing the effort. I simply think they tried to, for want of another word, assimilate too many nations too quickly.

 

That's why I'm rather conflicted over Brexit. England was incredibly weakened by those two wars and saw joining the EU as a path to recovery, yes, it does remain a massive economy, but nothing like it once was and most of the benefits of that economy never make it to the streets. History may well record Brexit as an aggressive act against Europe, bringing back tension.

 

I do hope not, the future of Europe depends upon cooperation, an "us and them" mentality is helpful to no one.

 

Stepping back and looking with fresh eyes upon the evolution of the EU is definitely required - seeing it fall apart is not helpful to anyone.

 

Perhaps they should just take a break and look not very far north, the Scandinavian nations seem to have quietly done what they have been making a big noise about for roughly the same amount of time.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

And each one of them knew on entry that their sovereignty would be surrendered to a representative Federal Republic of the country named United States of America.

 

I think I repeated that point at least half a dozen times now and there’s no real but-but-butistan rebuttal to it.

 

The original EU was the EUC - the Europeans Communities. Entry to that never entailed a discussion about loss of sovereignty to a central government. What has happened since is the rough equivalent of signing an employment contract for fair exchange of labour only to find out that the contract was actually for slave labour and you would cease to exercise your rights as a citizen in favour of the gulag.

 

The EU is autocracy. It should be in the thesaurus. Right next to Iran, with less Mullahs and more dickheads.

 

There have to be rules in place for such an entity to exist. They wiuld have to impact, in some ways, how your country is run. It would be naive to think it would work otherwise.

 

Other than that though, it hasn't taken over any country in the way you are alluding to. You can see from Brexit that any country is free to leave if they don't like the terms of membership. You can also see from Brexit that most countries won't want to leave completely but like most cases you always want the positive aspects without the responsibilities and hang ups. 

 

It's biggest problem is it's complexity of differing individual countries and all having their own sovereignty/culture/history/economic challenges. If it were to run like a country with complete control like states it would be much smoother but to the detriment over all of the individual identity of each existing country. So it's a more difficult proposition given less time and a greater worldwide scrutiny than the USA ever got. 

 

So if any country thought it was just freedom to roam and a unified currency then a: stupid and b: free to leave if they don't like the terms and really don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, eveln said:

Re the underlined : I'd say that's a pretty questionable " might " ... more likely the global competition will smite that shit ( any burgeoning of domestic industries ) with an even heavier hand 😉

 

yeah, theres issues with that, but think infrastructure.  with the population density to justify and sustain it, even if we paid offshore contractors for FIFO coolies to build better roads and railways and broadband...we'd still end up with all of that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems superfluous to requirements to fifo coolies in to build. Surely at least a portion of the emigrating future population could be chosen with the skills required . That is of course it meets with the approval of our global overlords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was, even in that wildly exaggerated instance of "global competition" completely undercutting our own labour force, there are still enduring benefits to having more people. infinitely better, of course, is if we were to create jobs for australians building large scale projects, but however its paid for, the right infrastructure can simulate the economy and create jobs in its own right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe @thehung mmade a bit of a funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

 

I hadn't taken much notice of the EU for a while, so did a bit of revision.

 

It really is incredibly administratively top heavy, a lot of people seem to be filling very high paying jobs that could be effectively combined and the number of branches reduced.

 

However, it IS a complex endeavor to get all these disparate states into some form of agreement and it does keep the potential for war at a distance, for infrastructure alone it is possibly worth the pain but there is going to have to be some streamlining.

 

I'm finding one thing about Brexit somewhat bemusing, it concerns infrastructure.

 

The Chunnel is there, active, running many times a day, to allow it to continue to operate they are going to have to create what amount to being conditional zones at each end of the thoroughfare - that's going to make a bit of a mess...

 

I'm sure there is much more that Johnson has not seriously considered, not sure he seriously considers anything....

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about ease of mass money and people movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:.... and caused a run on Wall Street, just, well, because he can....

 

Meanwhile, to keep us amused Anthony Scaramucci  is calling for his dismissal :

 

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/hes-lost-his-mind-former-trump-staffer-urges-republican-party-to-replace-him-for-2020-election/news-story/fc8f30f17e6b55d4c873d21cefa2c8fc

 

When the crazy start calling the crazy crazy you really do know the asylum is in control....

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 6:23 AM, fliptopia said:

 

There have to be rules in place for such an entity to exist. They wiuld have to impact, in some ways, how your country is run. It would be naive to think it would work otherwise.

 

Other than that though, it hasn't taken over any country in the way you are alluding to. You can see from Brexit that any country is free to leave if they don't like the terms of membership. You can also see from Brexit that most countries won't want to leave completely but like most cases you always want the positive aspects without the responsibilities and hang ups. 

 

It's biggest problem is it's complexity of differing individual countries and all having their own sovereignty/culture/history/economic challenges. If it were to run like a country with complete control like states it would be much smoother but to the detriment over all of the individual identity of each existing country. So it's a more difficult proposition given less time and a greater worldwide scrutiny than the USA ever got. 

 

So if any country thought it was just freedom to roam and a unified currency then a: stupid and b: free to leave if they don't like the terms and really don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. 

 

There’s nothing in that reply that detracts from my comment.

 

The EU is an autocratic regime that wants the trappings of statehood, something no-one ever voted for upon entry

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite get why you are so vehemently opposed to be honest.

 

I doubt one person in a thousand would even know, or care, who the current president is or be aware that they are at the table at the UN, which if I recall you deem useless (I tend to agree these days. )

 

There is no doubt that it is top heavy but it is providing a stronger voice than many of the smaller members could ever muster, the larger members do what they want anyway.

 

It has prevented war in the greater part of Europe for over half a century, can't count the break-up of Yugoslavia, they were not a member. That in itself is quite an achievement if you look at the previous couple of centuries.

 

It is certainly a case of over government, but I'm not too sure most people take much notice. There's a lot of self-importance goes on but really in the day-to-day goings on of a country they are pretty transparent.

 

On the other hand if we returned to individual self-government, what are the bets that we would have border squabbles going on before too long ? That is what the prior history indicates.

 

Over time I'd suspect that there will be a progressively greater and greater melding of nations, it's sort of inevitable when border passage become so free-and-easy but I'm not really averse to that occurring. The fact is that people retain their identity regardless through more peaceful things, such as sport, food, dialect etc. Without needing to start shooting at each other.

 

For that benefit I'll put up with a bit of waste....

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, chrisg said:

 

It is certainly a case of over government, but I'm not too sure most people take much notice.

yeah sure dude.  Of course notice is taken. Someone earlier implied that leaving the EU was easy .... I wonnder about how easy they be  making it for Britian ... granted some of the Brits are not playing ball but still, it doesn't seem that easy from where I sit

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain had wanted to leave, with conditions, in other words they wanted their cake and to eat it as well.

 

Not acceptable, they have made it as difficult for them to leave as it was for them to join in the first place.

 

But if Johnson just crashes out, which he threatens to do, there will be consequences.

 

However what I meant was that very few people outside of Europe at the moment really care very much.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good lord, now the idiot is talking about buying Greenland !!!

 

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/trump-says-us-considering-possibly-buying-greenland-essentially-its-a-large-real-estate-deal/news-story/62acaa7bdb511cac64422442c3d7fca9

 

Greenland has , rather pointedly via its nominal owner, Denmark, simply said, "Greenland is not for sale"

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/18/greenland-belongs-to-greenland-denmark-says-selling-worlds-largest-island-to-us-is-absurd.html

 

Newsflash, Donny Boy, they are not interested, but they might ask more for your lease of Thule airbase if you pursue this insanity.

 

Any purchase would also blow out the already precipitous national debt of the U.S. even if it did come on the agenda - which it wont.

 

2nd newsflash, Greenland is being badly affected by the climate change you do not want to believe in, but that does has an upside, it is revealing possible mineral deposits that could become economic to exploit.

 

Every cloud etc....

 

You really are a moron Donny Boy, so are the idiots you have surrounded yourself with... " Just a real estate deal"... again, what a joke....

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Hah, the US wants to buy Greenland, why, you can't just buy large bits of land owned by foreign powers to expand US landmass, that's never happened before!'

'Hah, think of the debt! It's already crazy! Shame we can't spend any  money on environment stuff, it'd just increase our already bad debt'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×