 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Swedish-Norwegian centennial and the future of the European Union. |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Colleen Administrator Level: 136 Posts: 8539/11302 EXP: 29369328 For next: 727587 Since: 03-15-04 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Um, ||bass... I don't think that one edited post warrants shutting down the entire thread as a result. Far from it. If you want to jot down the incident and report it to Emuz (...but why not the current admins?  ), then fine, but it's not like the thread entirely went downhill and into the dumpster.I'll re-open it because there *is* the potential for an interesting discussion here, but in the event that things don't get back on track as a result, then feel free to shut it down. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 4057/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| ||bass if you want, start a thread on healthcare. I did this to minimize the derailment of the thread. Not offend you. Just using the noggin'. |
|||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45  Posts: 792/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| If there's one thing euroskeptics and europositives alike can agree upon, it's that the EU through its current system has brought peace. Heck, the EU was designed to bring peace, because Europeans were tired of war. Through the redistribution of money, and specified trade between states, the EU secures that all its member-states become economically succesful, as well as economically dependent on each other. That way, it will be in everyone's best interest not to go to war against each other. Changing European states into the night-watch-states of the 19th century would hold disastrous consequences, it would eliminate worker's rights, widen the gap between rich and poor, and cause social instability, which is an important cause of war. | |||
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 159/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by The SomerZ What brought peace was the willingness of the countries of Europe to trade with each other and not fight each other, not the existence of a mega-bureaucracy at the top. (edited by beneficii on 06-22-05 12:21 PM) |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 320/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| The old "trade brings peace" argument, eh? You're aware that international trade among the European powers in 1914 was comparable to today's levels, right? And really, I don't think you can separate the "trading and not fighting" thing from the supranational administration. Going right back to the European Coal and Steel Community, one of the main ideas at work was of economic prosperity and harmonisation creating a stable foundation on which to build political unity. The demise of the EFTA (anyone remember that?) in favour of EU I think illustrates that there's a desire for a more complete cooperation beyond just removing trade barriers. And on the Yugoslavian disintegration, I don't think you can blame a reaction against centralisation for that. If anything, the problem with Yugoslavia was that it wasn't centralised enough... Tito held it together through force of personality, but he left in place separate replublics which could form the framework for disintegration, and more importantly, his policies actively encouraged identification as Serbian or Croatian - the parallel systems of education, administration and so forth didn't encourage people to identify as 'Yugoslavian' - it was a disadvatnage in day to day life, so even the significant proportion of the population that was of mixed ancestry mostly chose to identify as belonging to one group or another. Even so, on a census taken at some point, people were asked to identify their ethnicity, and over a million identified as "Yugoslavian" rather than Serbian or Croatian or such. There's a case to be made that the disintegration of Yugoslavia was due at least partly to incomplete centralisation. That said, the bitterness and animosity from the WW2 period ran fairly deep (I don't buy the "500 years of antagonism" line... I mean, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians mostly manage to live in the same countries without massacring each other... the bitterness from WW2 and the partisans and so forth however was fresh and the wounds deep), but it didn't have to be insurmountable. (edited by Arwon on 06-22-05 12:58 PM) |
|||
|
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 163/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| Yes, I'm aware that it was, but remember that it was the jockeying efforts of the powers themselves that led to the war. The governments in question were powerful enough to plunge the continent into war. Also, trade is not the only thing that guarantees it, but also disempowerment of the governments in question. That said, I don't buy the argument that to force everyone to live under a single, uniform regime leads to the best conditions either. Other considerations exist. Sure, the Roman Empire was able to keep the peace by restraining the different powers within its system, but its own power inevitably corrupting itself led to a general decline across the whole Empire. As the Imperial government became more bureaucratic and more destructive in its policies (such as enacting rampant monetary inflation across the whole Empire and then putting price caps on private businesses sub poena mortis), the entire Emprie suffered under it, instead of just one localized area. Also, modern examples exist with the U.S. government, the Soviet government, the Yugoslav government, etc., as they have/had tried to impose uniform conditions across their whole territories. Because of this, I'm not sure putting everyone under a uniform, all-affecting regime is the best idea. Also, what happened to people being able to establish their own identities and live in their own communities, rather than being forced into one big community? Originally posted by Arwon |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 323/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I'm not saying everyone should be placed under big uniform governments, I'm not advocating any universal principles here and seldom do. I'm just, specifically to the post-war Titoist Yugoslavian context, saying that Yugoslavia *was* a viable multiethnic society for decades, and it didn't disintegrate due to excessive centralisation alone, but a generally poor structure that divided everything by ethnicities that were not pure or easily divided. Really now, there's just as many examples of successful big multiethnic countries as there are dismal fKitten Yiffers. I do hope you're not going to try to take a universal position on "centralisation versus decentralisation" here. India used to be a patchwork of petty little entities and is now the largest democracy in the world. 200 years ago French was a minority language in France and now it's the very model of a centralised nationstate. Italy and Germany were a collection of tiny little entities dominated by other powers. Spain appears to be going to cope with its many regionalisms quite successfully. Russia is still a huge multiethnic nation under a very centralised and autocratic government as it has basically been for centuries. Canada, the US and Australia are all successful federations of smaller components that once had quite divisive squabbles that, in the beginning, endandered their very inception. I notice that you've sneakily inserted the word "uniform" there since your last post. It shouldn't be there, no-one's advocating complete assimilation into some big homogenising authoritarian European entity. Europe is not going to go all Francoist and there's a huge difference between enforcing cultural identity uniformity and merely establishing a supranational union. "Also, what happened to people being able to establish their own identities and live in their own communities, rather than being forced into one big community?" That's what federalism is (edited by Arwon on 06-22-05 02:14 PM) |
|||
|
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 165/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| What you don't realize is that federalism will eventually lead to a centralized structure. Give power to a central government of any sort, and it'll eventually accumulate more and more power over its member states, simply because it is simpler to do that. This is what is meant by "uniformity." The states of the U.S. initially joined the Union with the understanding that they'd be able to leave it. When some states tried leaving the Union 70 years later, the federal government wouldn't have it. (Also, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteed that powers not specifically enumerated for the federal government would be in the domain of the states or the people. Sad to say, the Tenth Amendment is the most violated Bill of Right.) The same happened in the Soviet Union; in fact, in the USSR, its member republics were given the explicit right of secession enshrined in the Soviet constitution. When the Baltic States seceded in 1990, the Soviet government attempted to crush the secessionist movement, despite the rights of its republics to secede. Luckily, this particular government failed in its endeavor. Sure, you may promise now that the European government would not be affected by such a thing, but you (and all others today) really have little control over its path in the next decades. (Also, with the Quebecois secession question, the Canadian government has since moved to try to restrain the rights of its provinces to secede.) Originally posted by Arwon |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 324/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Not always... Switzerland and Canada are two examples of federal structures where the central government is relatively weak. Spain's another example of a state that has actually gone from a more centralist structure to a more regional one. Indonesia's post-Sueharto constitution, likewise, devolved more power to its many provinces. What you describe is not a rule in any useful way. And really, "in a few decades European troops might force you to stay!" is an incredibly weak argument against European Union. |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 4252/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| beneficii, as a Canadian, and a studier of the Quebecois, I should make note that all Canadian provinces have the right to succede from Confederation, under the assumption that the population votes in a simple majority for all confederated provinces. Territories have to have a two third majority, as they are unique entities in their setup in the Parliamentary system. | |||
|
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 169/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| Arwon, Thank you for that. I concede that particular point, with regards to Switzerland (and possibly Indonesia), but I'm not sure I buy it regarding Canada and Spain. Spain has been crushing the Basque independnence movement within its country and Canada, in response to Ziff's point, has moved to make it harder for one of its provinces to secede. If I recall, seceding has moved from a simple majority vote to a two-thirds majority vote, among other rules changes. Let me try to find an article on that. EDIT: Well, I found Wikipedia, a pretty good source. And it says that only a simple majority is needed. Here is regarding the clarity act: In 1999, the Parliament of Canada, inspired by Prime Minister Jean Chr (edited by beneficii on 06-23-05 12:09 AM) |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 4256/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| That act can be overpowered by the courts, as it contravenes the charter. In addition Section. 33 of the Canadian Charter, the Notwithstanding Clause, would allow that to be restricted. It's simply procedural showboating. At the time there was a majority parliament, and it was the Liberals under Chretien trying tos ay to the Bloc Quebecois "Look, we're in charge here. Be quiet". It failed...of course. Like I said, Quebec can leave whenever it wants. Assuming the population votes in favour. edit:: The Basque's have ALWAYS been oppressed. Not just because of "centralization" And with that I declare this thread drift over and back to European issues. (edited by Ziff on 06-23-05 12:26 AM) (edited by Ziff on 06-23-05 12:50 AM) |
|||
|
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 172/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff Okay. Hey, have you heard of U.S. Congress passing a bill to force the UN to "reform"? One of the provisions I heard that was in it was that the UN was going to have to make it illegal for anyone to rebel against their government for any reason. If this were implemented, Quebec moved to secede, and Canada moved to crush it, how do you think the UN would react? |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 4258/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Okay. Learn about Parliamentary proceedings before you make blanket statements and useless analogies. |
|||
|
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 173/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff Who knows how a government would react to a secessionist movement, even with provisions explicitly allowing it? History has shown that secessionist attempts are typically in peril. |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 4259/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff Read up on the FLQ crisis too! And then read up on the Red River Rebellion. And then read up on ALL THE OTHER REBELLIONS IN HISTORY  We know how it ends. Unfortunately, those were open and bloody conflicts with more than just a government. I'd like to make mention though that if this does occur, if the parties in Parliament refuse to accept this and somehow put it down, Quebec has reached seccessionary rights. It can make a case utilizing the Supreme Court of Canada, which would rule in favour...Thus striking down your touted Clarity Act. Thus, it would seperate. Failing a Supreme Court ruling in its favour, it can declare itself seperate and withold its obligations that are set forward by the BNA of 1867, and its subsequent revisions. Plus, it can argue in favour using the Windsor Amendment and appeal to the British Crown and the Governor General to see for its case. If such a thing happens, and is denied it can use S. 33 of the Canadian Charter. It would therefore be a permanently succeeded state under Canadian law, and could build its own law that would make it permanent under international law due to self-recognition. (edited by Ziff on 06-23-05 01:08 AM) |
|||
|
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 178/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by ZiffOriginally posted by Ziff Well, you know more about this than I do. That means I have homework to do.  |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 327/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Spain's constitution calls itself a "Nation made up of nations and regions" or something to that effect. It gives a wide variety of autonomy to its regions. The Basques run their own education system in Euskadi, as do the Galicians and Catalans/Valencians in their languages. Some regions have their own legislative body, some have their own fiscal policies... the Basques and Catalans have their own police forces, the Catalans use their own civil law system. The ETA is a dying force, Franco is dead, Spain is a very decentralised nation... the separatists have been marginalised and the moderates co-opted and the realistic frame of debate now revolves around what level of autonomy is appropriate. And Real Madrid and FC Barcelona's ongoing rivalry. (edited by Arwon on 06-23-05 01:42 AM) |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Swedish-Norwegian centennial and the future of the European Union. |
| | |
