Poland vs. Germany

[dean_acheson]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401261-details/We'd+have+more+power+in+EU+if+Germans+hadn't+'redu ced+our+population'+in+World+War+II%2C+says+Polish +PM/article.do

whoa! Hows this for PC?

[bradclark1]

Germany is trying to get volunteers to go to Poland and be Polish so that they can give back.:shifty:

[AntEater]

What did you expect from the idiot twins?
One of the two still lives with his mother at 50 something, but I am not sure wether it is this one or the other.
They simply have a pathological hatred for everything german.
For my part, I think we should reconsider our policies towards Poland. It has no use to extend the hand in friendship and get spit in the face in return.
At least until the poles vote these morons out of office, that is.
Official Poland nowadays tries very hard to beat the muslim world in being insulted by just about everything.

[Skybird]

These two twins surely are human carricatures, and the ammount of nationalism they try to stir amongst Polish people should not be underestimated. However, during the last election only less than 30% participated, so one should not assume that they are too representative for their people. In no way they are representing a majority. Maybe not more than 20%. On a private, inter-human level, relations between Polish and Germans for the most are good, when ignoring that ultranationalistic parts of the Polish press did not hesitate to compare Merkel with Hitler, or Germany and Russia planning to crush Poland again, amongst other "jokes".

This argument about compensation for WWII is totally crap and nonsens, and makes me telling them they should not go to a summit, but seek therapy to learn how to come over the fate of their parents during WWII. Every sympathy for personal experiences has limits, and they are seriously stressing diplomatic relations to Germany. If two men's broken psyche is translated into a whole natiopn'S policy, than this is doing bad for that nation only, and for all others it is unacceptable, and a huge problem.

While I am no fan of the twins, they nevertheless could serve Europe a good service if bringing down this damn treaty paper altogether, same is true of Blair. I really hope this treaty get's prevented, there are so many issues in it that I do not accept at all and that are highly questionable, that I think no treaty is much better than this very bad and dangerous treaty.

And finally, although their arguments are silly and stupid, the twin's attempt to weaken the influence of nations with great populations and strengthen the smaller ones may come out to be of value if eventually Turkey should become an EU member, because then Turkey wouldn't have so very much influence (being the nation with the by far greatest population in the EU). Best would be if Turkey doesn't join at all, of course.

So I really hope this damn treaty fails. Not by conviction, but for pure pragmatism I support both Blair and the twins. Call it "Realpolitik" and pragmatism. The earlier this farce is ended, the better. The age of feudal lords and absolutism, where people only have the freedom to follow the leader's commands, are over. Even Merkel must accept that the constitution was rejected by two important nations. Trying to call it back to life with it's core proposals unchanged reveals a very criminal interpretation of "democracy" and "all power comes from the people". You can't repeat votings, or referendums, or decision processes as often as you need until you get the outcome you want to see, and call that "democratic". And if it is said that the grown Europe needs reforms to function on, then one must question why one even did allow it to grow to a club of 27 now. It was difficult enough with 6, it already was almost impossible with 15 members - 27 member means that it will not be functioning in a democartic manner anyway. such a choire can only sing in harmony if a superior conductor puts it under according pressure. There is a reason why all "functioning" multicultural societies in history - were no democracies, but tyrannies with strong centralised, absolutistic powers, from Rome over Austria to the Soviet Union to Yugoslawia. when the central powers failed and faded, the thing broke apart again and the ethnical and cultural diversities turned hostile again.

Multiculturalism does not work with freedom and democracy.

Merkel makes compromises. Many compromises, much of them. Far too many, if judging it by innerpolitical events. The great coalition is aiming at setting a new record concenring producing foul compromises. She did like that in Heiligendamm, and tried to sell that at home as great diplomatic successes. She will try endless compromises in the EU negotations, too. considerign that sometimes the price is simply too high, I am nervous about the outcome of this meeting. I hope that Blair and or the polish twins let it collapse.

[AntEater]

I am not a great fan of the new EU treaty either, but that issue transcends realpolitik

The twin morons are fanatics, and their prime agenda is not some EU politics, but rather weakening Germany.
You can't make realpolitik with mindless fanatics and those two have no further agenda than to hurt Germany wherever they can.
At least they're too weak to do any real damage.
There's no political agenda behind them burt simple raw hatred for Germany, that means in the long term, for you and me. We can do whatever we want, Skybird, in the long term, for those people we're just the enemy, and so they should be for us.
Israel wouldnt do short-term alliances with the Hamas either, whatever the long term benefit.

You see that on many levels. The current govermnent bans Goethe and even Grass (who's definitely pro polish) from schools and replaces them with nationalist literature. They stop german-polish youth exchanges.
Simply put, they want to breed hate for anything german in the younger generation.

The only good thing is that only a minority of the younger poles seem to share that agenda.
Personally I know a bunch of poles and I never had any problems with them.
I suppose this is a generation problem and will solve itself in time. But until that, Germany should adopt a harsh stance against Poland wherever possible.

[waste gate]

I see the EU as a great free trade zone. I'm not sure why all the trappings of gov't is needed.? Is there something broken?

[CCIP]

I see the EU as a great free trade zone. I'm not sure why all the trappings of gov't is needed.? Is there something broken?

And you think if you take away the government your favorite communists or my favorite ultra-nationalists will sit idly by? Europe's full of 'em :hmm:

[joea]

You know as I've said elsewhere, if the 2 world wars had not happened, ALL of Europe would have had a bigger population and been richer far sooner than what happened. The EU as we know it might not have existed.

[Letum]

http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/fawlty_towers_1.jpg

[waste gate]

I see the EU as a great free trade zone. I'm not sure why all the trappings of gov't is needed.? Is there something broken?

And you think if you take away the government your favorite communists or my favorite ultra-nationalists will sit idly by? Europe's full of 'em :hmm:

I guess I don't understand. I thought Europe was made up of many countries each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist? BTW wasn't this idea rejected by the electorates of two countries already? Why would someone try to circumvent the will of the people by changing the name from 'constitution' to 'treaty' unless some type of power grab was in progress?

[Skybird]

AntEater,

to compare the Polish-German relations with the Israelis' relations to Hamas is a bit too much, don't you think?

Let'S see if the twins will get elected again next time. If so - then it is early enough to confront the Polish and hold them responsible for their voting, because then it is a repitition of what in the first vote maybe was just an experiment for many. Until then, Germany should have the sovereignity to simply sit them out without provoking them and feeding their ressentiments. Last but not least, the twins cost the Polish many sympathies throughout Europe, and right now almost all states already shake their heads about them. In the main - they are damaging Poland, not Germany. If the Polish are happy with this - fine with me.

[Skybird]

You know as I've said elsewhere, if the 2 world wars had not happened, ALL of Europe would have had a bigger population and been richer far sooner than what happened. The EU as we know it might not have existed.
They also did not mention compensation from Russia for being occupied and economically ruined by the Soviet Union. :smug: The EU itself at least has seen three different phases so far, each giving it a very different face. And the idea behind the first one was - by far - the best and most realistic one.

[Hitman]

I guess I don't understand. I thought Europe was made up of many countries each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist?

Errr well I thought the United States was made up of many states each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist? :lol:

Probably the answer is more or less the same....at a certain point it was felt that being bigger and more powerful was better...and someone had to organize that. Yet of course with the USA it was way easier, due to many historical and cultural reasons (And even so a civil war happened :hmm: )


Back to the topic: Poland is certainly one the nations who has had it more difficult in history: Being between the germans and the russians was really no pleasing situation in the past. But what the linked article says is plain and simply ridiculous. Hopefully, as Skybird says, these guys are not really representative of the polish people :nope:

[AntEater]

If it is up to the twins and their coalition partners, relations would be similar than Israel and the Arabs.
I first realized that by looking at any polish-german related article in the english wikipedia.
There's a polish national myth that from the beginning of time, germans had nothing more in mind than to enslave and eliminate the poles.
Similarly as the Arabs tend to blame Israel and the Jews for every misfortune, the polish Ultranationalists blame the Germans
A bit like Agrijak in "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy", the being which is killed by Arthur Dent every time.

I still hope they do not represent the majority of the polish people, and poles I know tend to have the same views on their government than I have.
But for now it is a fact that our eastern neighbour is ruled by a government openly hostile to germany for racist reasons.

[waste gate]

I guess I don't understand. I thought Europe was made up of many countries each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist?

Errr well I thought the United States was made up of many states each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist? :lol:

Probably the answer is more or less the same....at a certain point it was felt that being bigger and more powerful was better...and someone had to organize that. Yet of course with the USA it was way easier, due to many historical and cultural reasons (And even so a civil war happened :hmm: )


Back to the topic: Poland is certainly one the nations who has had it more difficult in history: Being between the germans and the russians was really no pleasing situation in the past. But what the linked article says is plain and simply ridiculous. Hopefully, as Skybird says, these guys are not really representative of the polish people :nope:

Thanks Hitman. But don't European nations also have states/provinces/cantons/autonomous communities etc? Just seems like an extra umbrella gov't which is unnecessary and allows one set of countries to be in charge of another set. Seems to be an attempt to remove the governed from the process of government. Which ain't very democratic. I may have to side with the Poles and Brits on this one.

[Heibges]

I'm not saying the statement by the Polish Governent is a little out there, but Germans are naive if they think everyone is going to just forgive and forget.

Just look at the dehumanizing fashion they are portrayed in "Saving Private Ryan".

But the Poles collaborated vigorously, exterminating those folks in those Concentration Camps in southern Poland so part of that is their fault. Plus, didn't the Poles have a Pogrom against the remaining Jews in Poland in 1947?

Basically, I could care less what the Soviets did to any of those Nazi Collaborating countries in Eastern Europe. I say they got off easy.

[geetrue]

They should rename EU European Union to UE United Europe and be like the United States in it's behaviour to each other.

The south tolerates the north and the midwest puts up with the east and the southwest has it's own flavor with the west being the long haired hippies and the wacko's and the weed heads of Ameica.

Hey! We all get along it's ya'll's turn :yep:

edit: almost forgot ... you could put Tony Blair in charge of it lol

[tycho102]

We'd have more power in EU if Germans hadn't 'reduced our population' in World War II, says Polish PM

Yeah, and Stalin didn't do you any favors at Katyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre).

[Hitman]

Thanks Hitman. But don't European nations also have states/provinces/cantons/autonomous communities etc? Just seems like an extra umbrella gov't which is unnecessary and allows one set of countries to be in charge of another set. /QUOTE]

Well, yes, and so do the USA have counties below the states ... lower administrative divisions are also necessary:hmm: . But yes, europe carries to the Union the sudivisions of the states and that is too much:yep: You dientified very correctly on of the main problems: Excess bureaucracy. Unfortunately the enormous amount of ethnic/cultural groups favours this inmesely, specially in nations that have other nation-alikes inside (Even with different language), like us in Spain:

Currently we have these administrative divisions, from closer to farther away from the citizen (And all financed by our taxes:damn: ):

-The local administration (The "Major" house in english?)
-The Province
-The Autonomic Community (More or less like a State of the USA)
-The State (Spain)
-The EU

Almost to turn anyone mad....:doh:

[QUOTE]Seems to be an attempt to remove the governed from the process of government. Which ain't very democratic. I may have to side with the Poles and Brits on this one

Sure...anything that puts the centres of decissions and power at a higher distance from the citizen is bad :yep: I personally don't like the EU as it is currently focused. I would prefer just a economic union, but no attempt to have a common military politic or such. Because it tends tend up like the UN, as too many different interests collide and in the end nobody wants to clean the house.:down:

[waste gate]

Thanks Hitman. But don't European nations also have states/provinces/cantons/autonomous communities etc? Just seems like an extra umbrella gov't which is unnecessary and allows one set of countries to be in charge of another set. /QUOTE]

Well, yes, and so do the USA have counties below the states ... lower administrative divisions are also necessary:hmm: . But yes, europe carries to the Union the sudivisions of the states and that is too much:yep: You dientified very correctly on of the main problems: Excess bureaucracy. Unfortunately the enormous amount of ethnic/cultural groups favours this inmesely, specially in nations that have other nation-alikes inside (Even with different language), like us in Spain:

Currently we have these administrative divisions, from closer to farther away from the citizen (And all financed by our taxes:damn: ):

-The local administration (The "Major" house in english?)
-The Province
-The Autonomic Community (More or less like a State of the USA)
-The State (Spain)
-The EU

Almost to turn anyone mad....:doh:

[quote]Seems to be an attempt to remove the governed from the process of government. Which ain't very democratic. I may have to side with the Poles and Brits on this one

Sure...anything that puts the centres of decissions and power at a higher distance from the citizen is bad :yep: I personally don't like the EU as it is currently focused. I would prefer just a economic union, but no attempt to have a common military politic or such. Because it tends tend up like the UN, as too many different interests collide and in the end nobody wants to clean the house.:down:

Sonds like we are in agreement on the most basic issue Hitman. That is, if I interpret you correctly, the government eliminating the will of the governed is not democracy. Like I stated earlier as a free trade zone the EU is top notch. All the citizens enjoy its fruits.

Why doesn't the populace rise up and demand democratic responsibility from their elected officials? In the US we have this type of thing going on with an immigration bill. For the last two weeks I have called my elected representative and called for its defeat. I am very angry that they still plan to shove it down our throats.

[XabbaRus]

The Kaczynski twins at it again. From all the stuff I have read about them they are the most creepy leaders I have heard of. also it is very iffy how they both got into the numer 1 and 2 positions.

Which one is the potato? I sure do get fed up of them playing the victim for everything.

[Carotio]

Why would someone try to circumvent the will of the people by changing the name from 'constitution' to 'treaty' unless some type of power grab was in progress?

Clever question and the answer is pretty rhetoric!
Some people would like the power to be reserved for the people allready in power, that is those on top of society, those with the money.
Back in 1992, Denmark voted no for the Maastricht treaty. The politicians promised, in the believe it would never happen, that if it was a NO, the union would be dead. What happened? The European politicians met again, made some changes of words, made some exceptions for our country, made a new referendum and voilà: they got their preferred answer YES, and thus the train was back on track.
Then years later, France and the Netherlands voted NO for the constitution treaty. "Oups, they (= the people) can not do that! Let's make a thinking pause and discuss openly about what to do..." What happens? The history repeats itself! The politicians meet again, changes some words and puts the same treaty out for a new referendum to the people and call it a new treaty! In this thinking pause, at least in Denmark, there hasn't been much discussion between the people and the politicians and with the press about what to do. It's plain ridiculous....

[waste gate]

Why would someone try to circumvent the will of the people by changing the name from 'constitution' to 'treaty' unless some type of power grab was in progress?

Clever question and the answer is pretty rhetoric!
Some people would like the power to be reserved for the people allready in power, that is those on top of society, those with the money.
Back in 1992, Denmark voted no for the Maastricht treaty. The politicians promised, in the believe it would never happen, that if it was a NO, the union would be dead. What happened? The European politicians met again, made some changes of words, made some exceptions for our country, made a new referendum and voilà: they got their preferred answer YES, and thus the train was back on track.
Then years later, France and the Netherlands voted NO for the constitution treaty. "Oups, they (= the people) can not do that! Let's make a thinking pause and discuss openly about what to do..." What happens? The history repeats itself! The politicians meet again, changes some words and puts the same treaty out for a new referendum to the people and call it a new treaty! In this thinking pause, at least in Denmark, there hasn't been much discussion between the people and the politicians and with the press about what to do. It's plain ridiculous....

Sounds like the folks you have elected are pulling the rug out from under you. If it goes through, the 'treaty' that is, democracy is dead in Europe.

[Tchocky]

That's an exaggeration. Countries can always pull out.

[waste gate]

That's an exaggeration. Countries can always pull out.

Economically that would be a disaster to any nation that pulled out. Think of how those people would suffer.

I'l say it again; as a free trade zone the EU and its citizens benefit greatly. This gov't 'treaty' BS is a power grab.

[Letum]

That's an exaggeration. Countries can always pull out.
Economically that would be a disaster to any nation that pulled out. Think of how those people would suffer.

I'l say it again; as a free trade zone the EU and its citizens benefit greatly. This gov't 'treaty' BS is a power grab.


I think its Norway thats not in the EU.

They still have to follow EU trade rules or the EU won't trade with them, but they don't get a say in the makeing of those rules.

Not good to be out of the EU!

[Carotio]

Sounds like the folks you have elected are pulling the rug out from under you. If it goes through, the 'treaty' that is, democracy is dead in Europe.

Well, I didn't vote for our current government... :-?
Anyway, our prime minister is so arrogant that he wouldn't even confirm to the press that the current meetings with the other european politicians about this new treaty would result in a referendum about the new treaty. Which normally is the issue, according to the Danish constitution, when giving up suverainity (spelling)...

I think, sometimes the politicians forget, they are the representatives of the people = all the people, and as such should consult the people more often about what to do about major issues. Sometimes they act like the monarchs of past centuries... :nope:

Okay, back to topic: the Poles which I know here in Denmark, exchange students, would probably laugh in the faces of their current leaders. But sadly, those two twins are in power, because a majority of the Polish voters elected them... and this is sometimes the bad part of democracy! Oh well, a new election will come up again and we get a new opportunity to kick these types out of office again...

[Carotio]

I think its Norway thats not in the EU.

They still have to follow EU trade rules or the EU won't trade with them, but they don't get a say in the makeing of those rules.

Not good to be out of the EU!

Correct! Norway is not part of EU, but I think they survive well, because of the rich underground in their part of the North Sea = lots of oil!
I still think, though they may follow some EU rules, they are pretty independant still, and countries outside of EU would still trade with them. And if Norway is outside of the EU, it's because the Norwegians have voted NO for membership - even two times, I think!

[waste gate]

I think its Norway thats not in the EU.

They still have to follow EU trade rules or the EU won't trade with them, but they don't get a say in the makeing of those rules.

Not good to be out of the EU!

Correct! Norway is not part of EU, but I think they survive well, because of the rich underground in their part of the North Sea = lots of oil!
I still think, though they may follow some EU rules, they are pretty independant still, and countries outside of EU would still trade with them. And if Norway is outside of the EU, it's because the Norwegians have voted NO for membership - even two times, I think!

Sounds like the Norwegians had a chance to vote. By making the consitution a treaty you have no vote. Rise up Europe! Yor elected representatives are throwing away your rights for their own personal power. Don't you see it?!!

[Skybird]

edit: almost forgot ... you could put Tony Blair in charge of it lol
No, word is that as europe's new special envoy he is getting the Middle East to enlighten it with his foreignpolitical brilliance and ingenious foresight. :smug:

Why do politicians whose terms are ending or who were voted out of office - so often seem to fall the stairs upwards? Doesn't a failed vote, for example, mean that the man in question is expected NOT to continue, instead of continuing? :dead:

[Skybird]

Norway is not part of EU, but I think they survive well, because of the rich underground in their part of the North Sea = lots of oil!

That is changing. Oil production from Northsea fields is declining. 2006 Norway produced 8% less than in the year before. An often mentioned number is 15 years: around the year 2020 the reserves will be so small in the northsea that it will not longer pay off to produce oil via the extremely cost-intensive methods that are to be used in the Northsea. British production in the same years (2005->2006) was also declining by 12%. Generally, oil production in the Northsea is declining since 1998 or 1999. the golden years are definitely over.

[CCIP]

Sounds like the Norwegians had a chance to vote. By making the consitution a treaty you have no vote. Rise up Europe! Yor elected representatives are throwing away your rights for their own personal power. Don't you see it?!!

I do find it a little amusing for you to suddenly support one of the most socialist governments in Europe with such enthusiasm :p

That said, keeping out of the EU has certainly worked for some people, and quite well.

[Tchocky]

Same thing goes in the other direction, CCIP :)

[waste gate]

Sounds like the Norwegians had a chance to vote. By making the consitution a treaty you have no vote. Rise up Europe! Yor elected representatives are throwing away your rights for their own personal power. Don't you see it?!!

I do find it a little amusing for you to suddenly support one of the most socialist governments in Europe with such enthusiasm :p

That said, keeping out of the EU has certainly worked for some people, and quite well.

I guess that shows how very little you know about me. Those people, the Norwegians, had a chance to vote. From the sounds of things many will not have that opportunity. How is that democracy?

For your edification, I believe in baseball, apple pie and democracy. That includes self determination, private property, free will, and the free market. Anything and I mean anything which removes what I see as fundamental human right I will always be against.

[Yahoshua]

Errr well I thought the United States was made up of many states each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist?

State sovereignty died duriing the civil war. And it's become more and more blatant in how our politicians are pandering to the masses that will vote them in and subsequently sqaunder our money in congress while whittling away at our rights.

Hell, the politicians are busily writing the Schumer-McCarthy bill that will practically strip us of any right to own firearms, and witht eh immigration bill that everyone is so busy trying to pass will give non-citizen, non-tax paying illegal aliens the same voting rights I have!!:damn:

[Dan D]

Why would someone try to circumvent the will of the people by changing the name from 'constitution' to 'treaty' unless some type of power grab was in progress?

What makes people sure, that is not just semantics?
Even if you call a treaty constitution this does not necessarily mean that you have a new statehood. It depends on what is constituted, I think.

Or, as Abraham Lincoln once put it:
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

“Trappings of statehood
It has likewise been argued that to call the document a "Constitution" rather than a "treaty" implies a change in the nature of the EU, from an association of cooperating countries to a single state or something approaching a state. In response, it has been pointed out that many international organisations, including the World Health Organisation, have constitutions, without implying that they are states. From a legal point of view the TECE will still be a treaty between independent states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe).", or so, the others say.

Speaking for myself, I favour a confederation of France and Germany together with Russia instead of a political system like the EU ;-).

[waste gate]

Why would someone try to circumvent the will of the people by changing the name from 'constitution' to 'treaty' unless some type of power grab was in progress?

What makes people sure, that is not just semantics?
Even if you call a treaty constitution this does not necessarily mean that you have a new statehood. It depends on what is constituted, I think.

Or, as Abraham Lincoln once put it:
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

“Trappings of statehood
It has likewise been argued that to call the document a "Constitution" rather than a "treaty" implies a change in the nature of the EU, from an association of cooperating countries to a single state or something approaching a state. In response, it has been pointed out that many international organisations, including the World Health Organisation, have constitutions, without implying that they are states. From a legal point of view the TECE will still be a treaty between independent states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe).", or so, the others say.

Speaking for myself, I favour a confederation of France and Germany together with Russia instead of a political system like the EU ;-).

OK, if you want to call it semantics it is alright with me but the underlying issue remains, the circumvention of the peoples will. Two independent votes with defeat for the measure. Change the name so that the people can't queer the deal.

Have the European people, within each nation, no mechanism for the redress of grievences. Don't you see the danger?

[Hitman]

Why doesn't the populace rise up and demand democratic responsibility from their elected officials? In the US we have this type of thing going on with an immigration bill. For the last two weeks I have called my elected representative and called for its defeat. I am very angry that they still plan to shove it down our throats.

Every system and culture has its strengths and its weaknesses. The US were founded as a democracy, the states in europe not. And that can be seen in many details. For example its is not strange that in the US the senators of the same party as the president vote against his proposals if they really think they are not for the benefit of their electors. Representation of the voters is much better in the US, and I envy how your candidates and elected representants have always somehow a path open for the electors to talk to them. Here in Europe it is unfortunately mainly a matter of parties and the individual elected representants don't have much freedom of vote. This is therefore IMO not a democracy but a oligarchy of parties. On the other hand the US system also has its weaknesses (Above all the problem that winning elections is many times a matter of money, plain and simply, due to the costs of the campaign), but overall I would prefer a "Presidential" one like yours or the french one instead of what we have in Spain, for example:yep: .

[Yahoshua]

(Above all the problem that winning elections is many times a matter of money, plain and simply, due to the costs of the campaign)

It's only because we've been letting them get away with it. :nope: With the financial costs being what they are it has urned into much of a party oligarchy as well between Democrats and Republicans (not that party labels really mean anything anymore since the politicians have all become chronic liars).

[P_Funk]

(Above all the problem that winning elections is many times a matter of money, plain and simply, due to the costs of the campaign)
It's only because we've been letting them get away with it. :nope: With the financial costs being what they are it has urned into much of a party oligarchy as well between Democrats and Republicans (not that party labels really mean anything anymore since the politicians have all become chronic liars). Thats one of the weaknesses of the American political system I think. Since its a dyed in the blood two party system it means that there is no way for anyone to vote strategically or for there to be a reason for the Dems to actually be left of centre since theres a pinko-commie party that might get all the lefty votes.

I'm not trying to sound like a left wing nut here, but lately the Dems seem to be trying to be really ineffective Republicans, like they're trying to woo people by representing a similar platform to the Republicans while not being true to either side. And they aren't making any kind of stand in the Congress liked everyone hoped.

I'm not saying that a multi-party system is perfect but it can be better keeping parties competitive.

[Skybird]

I think one needs to see the difference between political system's paper form and the sad reality. Both in Europe and America I see that in the modern present the intended values of constitutions are being dangerously outweighed by the results of processes that maybe are inevitably linked to these systems and are expression of the inner dynamic of ever changing realities. In both spheres, internationalisation of the economies (that by that avoid being controlled and being hold accountable from national and governmental institutions), as well as a far-reaching entanglement of capital and politics have seriously distorted the ideas of the various interpretations of what democracy is about, at the same time defending and hiding behind references to what in dead words is written in constitutions, but already is hollowed out and only an instrument of cloaking plutocratic interests. Various places of the world still vary in the degrees of freedoms the individual has, in that the West still scores a bit better than for example China (state tyranny) or Africa (limitations of freedom due to corruption and material poverty). Nevertheless I must see there is not a single country in the West anymore that I would see as a democracy. Political parties since long have taken over, placing their power interests above the interests of the communities they were meant to serve. Even unions suffer from this cancer-like disease. In a democracy, to function properly, the people need to act reasonable, and politics need to remain independent from economy interest and business lobbies. Both conditions are not fulfilled. So, to slightly vary a famous quote by - I think - Churchill, and to add to his original quote, "the best reason that speaks against democracy are the political parties themselves".

On the topic, I heared on radio this morning that Blair and the twins still remain adamant. I hope it stays like that, so that the treaty is killed. Only two things I see in urgent need: a reform of the voting mode, and replacing the three major responsible representatives for EU foreign political contacts with just one official's post (as it was said on TV yesterday, Kissinger, when being in office, always asked himself whose telephone number to pick when needing to telephone the EU). The rest of the treaty can - and should - be thrown into the dustbin. Unfortunately, the reform of the voting mode that I want is what the Polish are blocking, so maybe we even do not get this. If this is the price for preventing the treaty as a whole, I accept to pay it. Better no treaty than a bad one. Because without doubt there will be a third attempt anytime soon, but after two failures there is hope that this time they will not try to save the unchanged core of the old constitution draft, but will really exclusively focus on what can be realistically achieved, and is pragmatic. This dreamdancing about federalist structures needs to come to a stop. I stick to deGaulle here, and would be satisfied with a "Europe of cooperating fatherlands". Since Brussels power for the main rests on a bureaucracy (that is small in size, nevertheless seeks more and more power for itself), and already today any demands by Brussels all too often get fulfilled by parliaments without checking for compatibility with national constitutions and parliamentary policies (which makes national elections somewhat useless, doesn't it, and that way effectively kills democracy), and since Brussels better part of power has no democratic legitimation expressed by the will and deed of the European peoples, I do not wish Brussels being given even more powers, and already a card blanche to overrule national parliaments by decrees being produced by a bureaucracy that - like every bureaucracy - tends to grow in size, and tends to produce decrees on and on for the simple reason to keep itself alive and giving the impression that life without it is no longer possible.

[bradclark1]

I'm not trying to sound like a left wing nut here, but lately the Dems seem to be trying to be really ineffective Republicans, like they're trying to woo people by representing a similar platform to the Republicans while not being true to either side. And they aren't making any kind of stand in the Congress liked everyone hoped.
What the Democrats are trying to do is just revenge politics against the Republicans and try to bribe with pork barrel to swing votes their way.
Both parties disgust me.

[Tchocky]

Jeez, it's almost like having only two is a bad idea

[Dan D]

OK, if you want to call it semantics it is alright with me but the underlying issue remains, the circumvention of the peoples will. Two independent votes with defeat for the measure. Change the name so that the people can't queer the deal.

Have the European people, within each nation, no mechanism for the redress of grievences. Don't you see the danger?

Here, the very lively bloke “Nosemonkey” from England gives a more detailed explanation why a more substantial argument is needed to criticise the new EU-treaty.
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2007/06/25/on-the-new-eu-treaty-the-importance-of-terminology-and-the-case-for-a-referendum/#more-1593

"..Just because I choose to call my nose a glooblesplunker doesn’t stop it from being a nose..."

[The Avon Lady]

"..Just because I choose to call my nose a glooblesplunker doesn’t stop it from being a nose..."
I would think what's important is to diagnose whether the glooblesplunker is broken or not. :hmm:

[dean_acheson]

That's an exaggeration. Countries can always pull out.

That's what South Carolina said.....

[bradclark1]

That's an exaggeration. Countries can always pull out.

That's what South Carolina said.....
Texas has that option.

[geetrue]

Texas has that option.

Just an interesting side note: Did you know that when Texas joined the union they reserved the right to split into four states if they wanted to?

I was taught this in Texas history in Waco, Texas when I was in the 7th grade.

As far as I know we still have that right. Which means 8 senators instead of two.

Texas could be a power broker in the US Senate if they could ever get their act together that is. :yep:

[August]

Texas has that option.
Just an interesting side note: Did you know that when Texas joined the union they reserved the right to split into four states if they wanted to?

I was taught this in Texas history in Waco, Texas when I was in the 7th grade.

As far as I know we still have that right. Which means 8 senators instead of two.

Texas could be a power broker in the US Senate if they could ever get their act together that is. :yep:

You're assuming the 8 senators would vote the same way...

[XabbaRus]

No one answered my previous question. Which one is the potato.

[Carotio]

That's an exaggeration. Countries can always pull out.

That's what South Carolina said.....

If a country pulls out of EU, it will not lead to a civil war or something!

When Denmark joined the EU (can't recall the English term just now for the name of the organization back then) in 1973, Greenland was automatically being a member too as a part of the kingdom of Denmark. Years later, somewhere between 1984-1986, the autonomynous home rule of Greenland decided to pull out of the organization, though Denmark remained. Don't remember about the Feroes Island either, if they stayed or not. But it is possible to pull out!

[Hakahura]

It used to be called the EEC, European Economic Community.

Wish it would return to that in both name and actuality.

[Heibges]

Texas has that option.
Just an interesting side note: Did you know that when Texas joined the union they reserved the right to split into four states if they wanted to?

I was taught this in Texas history in Waco, Texas when I was in the 7th grade.

As far as I know we still have that right. Which means 8 senators instead of two.

Texas could be a power broker in the US Senate if they could ever get their act together that is. :yep:

You're assuming the 8 senators would vote the same way...

I can see it now.

"Will the Honorable Senator from Houston please remove his hands from the Honorable Senator from Dallas' neck?" :lol:

[Chock]

Way back when before it was the EEC, it was the 'Common Market'

:D Chock

[geetrue]

Texas has that option.
Just an interesting side note: Did you know that when Texas joined the union they reserved the right to split into four states if they wanted to?

I was taught this in Texas history in Waco, Texas when I was in the 7th grade.

As far as I know we still have that right. Which means 8 senators instead of two.

Texas could be a power broker in the US Senate if they could ever get their act together that is. :yep:

You're assuming the 8 senators would vote the same way...

I can see it now.

"Will the Honorable Senator from Houston please remove his hands from the Honorable Senator from Dallas' neck?" :lol:

Just during football season :lol:
(which is only two more months from now) :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

Texas has that option.

Just an interesting side note: Did you know that when Texas joined the union they reserved the right to split into four states if they wanted to?

I was taught this in Texas history in Waco, Texas when I was in the 7th grade.

As far as I know we still have that right. Which means 8 senators instead of two.

Texas could be a power broker in the US Senate if they could ever get their act together that is. :yep:

Yeah, well, I think that is a little Texas mythology (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp), actually ;) Even though it is mentioned, I doubt anyone took that seriously.

If we did split into 5 states, we might not be the biggest state in the Union, depending on the split, of course.

[dean_acheson]

The plot thickens!


http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,490795,00.html

[dean_acheson]

I originally posted the cover of that, but thought that Neal might consider it a bit racy, which it is.

[Skybird]

Racy?


http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MjI1NDcmbnI9Mw_3_3,00.html

[The Avon Lady]

Racy?


http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MjI1NDcmbnI9Mw_3_3,00.html
:o The Girls from Brazil - a cloning experiment gone wrong! :o

[geetrue]

I hovered my mouse over your signature Avon Lady and left clicked ...

It said, "Buy Hebrew National Franks" :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

I hovered my mouse over your signature Avon Lady and left clicked ...

It said, "Buy Hebrew National Franks" :lol:
Wurst joke of the day.

Oops.

[Carotio]

If we did split into 5 states, we might not be the biggest state in the Union, depending on the split, of course.

I thought Alaska was the biggest state!? :hmm:

[Heibges]

If we did split into 5 states, we might not be the biggest state in the Union, depending on the split, of course.

I thought Alaska was the biggest state!? :hmm:

What is the state with the most miles of coastline?

[Onkel Neal]

If we did split into 5 states, we might not be the biggest state in the Union, depending on the split, of course.

I thought Alaska was the biggest state!? :hmm:

Are you kidding? if you melted all the ice, Alaska would be roughly the size of Marin County :smug:


There once was a blind fellow who decided to visit Texas. When he arrived on the plane, he felt the seats and said, "Wow, these seats are big!" The person next to him answered, "Everything is big in Texas."

When he finally arrived in Texas, he decided to visit a bar. Upon arriving in the bar, he ordered a beer and got a mug placed between his hands. He exclaimed, "Wow these mugs are huge!" The bartender replied, " Yup! Everything is big down here in Texas."

After a couple of beers, the blind man asked the bartender where the restroom was located. The bartender replied, "Second door to the right." The blind man headed for the bathroom, but accidentally missed the second door. Instead, he entered the third door, which lead to the swimming pool and fell into the pool by accident. Scared to death, the blind man surfaced and started shouting, "Don't flush, don't flush!"

***

A Texan was bragging to an Englishman about how big Texas is. "Why you could get on a train in east Texas on Monday morning, head due west all day Monday, continue overnight, and still be in Texas at sunset Tuesday," she said. The Englishman replied that you could do the same in England. British trains were just as slow.

[Heibges]

If we did split into 5 states, we might not be the biggest state in the Union, depending on the split, of course.

I thought Alaska was the biggest state!? :hmm:

Are you kidding? if you melted all the ice, Alaska would be roughly the size of Marin County :smug:



Would that be Marin with or without hot tubs?:lol:

[Yahoshua]

Actually, not many people know that most of Alaska is swampland......for about 2 /12 months of the year. Then it's frozen for the rest of the year.

[Fish]

I guess I don't understand. I thought Europe was made up of many countries each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist?

Errr well I thought the United States was made up of many states each with its own democratically elected governments. Why is it necessary to impose an umbrella gov't over those that already exist? :lol:

Probably the answer is more or less the same....at a certain point it was felt that being bigger and more powerful was better...and someone had to organize that. Yet of course with the USA it was way easier, due to many historical and cultural reasons (And even so a civil war happened :hmm: )


Back to the topic: Poland is certainly one the nations who has had it more difficult in history: Being between the germans and the russians was really no pleasing situation in the past. But what the linked article says is plain and simply ridiculous. Hopefully, as Skybird says, these guys are not really representative of the polish people :nope:

Thanks Hitman. But don't European nations also have states/provinces/cantons/autonomous communities etc? Just seems like an extra umbrella gov't which is unnecessary and allows one set of countries to be in charge of another set. Seems to be an attempt to remove the governed from the process of government. Which ain't very democratic. I may have to side with the Poles and Brits on this one.

That 'umbrella' could be usefull coping with coming economic giants (China, India, perhaps Brazil ), or even the US? :-?