Does the EU take away your autonomy?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by TOUCHPUMP, Aug 28, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    The difference is that after the Civil War, the South was defeated and was not given a choice to rejoin. The North stated that the South's secession attempt had been fraudulent and that a state did not have the right to remove themselves from the union. The problem with your analogy is that the victorious party (the North) did not recognize the legality of the secession of the South, therefore, as far as they were concerned, it never happened.


    I am curious, do those nations that enter the EU have the right to remove themselves from the union?
  2. tenorjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2000
    star 5
    Darth_Omega

    First I said per capita. If you look at the sheer volume of CO2 produced then you haven't got a clue of who's actually doing the real polluting. IE Japan is one of the best industrialzed countries in the world in terms of pollution. Partially due to their cramped quarters, partially due to society and partially due to conservation efforts and their ability to use thermal heat for heat and power. By just looking at the total you'd think otherwise. The three biggest per capita on that list are the US Canada and Germany. Not surpisingly 3 nations with high industry. But emerging nations like Saudia Arabia have even higher per capita CO2 pollution despite not being on that list. Because of their oil production and their reliance upon fossil fuel for power. The point of the whole exercise is that you do not just accept what's handed to you by any media, no matter where they're located at.

    I bet your shocked now!
    Look who's being brainwashed now? Perhaps it's the American citizens not EU ones


    I didn't say the US didn't pollute in fact we're at the top of those countries per capita, but we're not as bad as one might think looking at the list. And US citizens are concerned and aren't ignoring the problem, however we need to look at all aspects of the equasion. Kyoto's biggest flaw was that it would have curbed the US Canada and Germany's production while Korea, China and other countries were not affected by it and would step up production with cheaper products and there by creating just as much if not more pollution.

    I did didn't I. I researched the facts!
    Yes to a point, however like I said you took the base value and didn't consider it further. You can take this further and compare per capita to industrial production to see who's production methods are the most efficent. That's an even better test. I'm curious how that would come out as well. (and just to point out, I am not sure what it will come out to be; perhaps together we can work out an equasion to find out the facts so we both know)

    If you want more figures pm me I'll send you a link of the site
    Always. I'm always up for more info as I crave to learn more.

    That means that other counries did sign the treaties. So on ICC other countries did sign the threaty.

    Yes and some with the exemptions the US wanted but was denied. That's the point.

    I was just pointing out to Tenorjedi that Europeans citizens are not being brainwashed. As he falsely accused

    I'm suggesting to you that maybe, just maybe your media isn't the bastion of correct information and that just possibly there's some lines thrown in there as well. I know we don't always get the whole story, but of course you do don't you?

    Look Tenorjedi the American citizens are the ones that are being brainwashed
    I'm glad you're so convinced. Because that's not what every progressive European is saying or anything. Nah we're the brainwashed ones.

    I've no idea to be honest. Somehow I dislike you guys with no apperent reasons...
    Perhaps it's the same reason why so many Americans dislike EU?


    The difference is we don't dislike the countries in the EU, just the EU itself. You and many others seem to have a distaste for all things american.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maveric:I am curious, do those nations that enter the EU have the right to remove themselves from the union?

    That's a good question. Never thought of that. I'm curious what the charter says.
  3. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    Tenorjedi I'm sorry I was a bit aggressive on the last post and I apologies for that... I should have cooled down a bit.

    go check here

    somewhere on that page is a CO2 (why can't we do subscript?, nevermind :p ) per capita graph. With US still on top.


    I'm suggesting to you that maybe, just maybe your media isn't the bastion of correct information and that just possibly there's some lines thrown in there as well. I know we don't always get the whole story, but of course you do don't you?

    I'm starting to believe it as well. That the media here is "brainwashing" it's citizens.

    The problem is, what can we trust, there is no news channel, no newspaper which has a neutral point of view. It's impossible.
    There's nothing we can do about it

    I did notice your nice touch of sarcasm in the last few points.

    You and many others seem to have a distaste for all things american.

    more the goverment and their way of thinking.

    I am curious, do those nations that enter the EU have the right to remove themselves from the union?

    That's a good question. Never thought of that. I'm curious what the charter says


    I'm curious as well :p, I've never though about it.
    I think it's the same with US. Not sure though...
  4. AL Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1998
    star 5

    The member countries of the European Union reserve the right to withdraw from the community following a decision taken in a national referendum.
  5. tenorjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2000
    star 5
    I like my sarcasm. ;)

    The question of "who do you trust" is best answered with the answer "no one". You find as many varied sources you can find and you draw your opinions. I know it's hard to look at an opposing news source and not mistrust their news more than yours. I look at Al Jazeir (again spelling) with a whole tub of salt, but I try and catch it when I can to get their perspective as well.

    I take CNN and BBC with a grain of salt as well. It's not equal, but I am biased, try as though I might not to be.
  6. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    The member countries of the European Union reserve the right to withdraw from the community following a decision taken in a national referendum.

    Wow I didn't know that...

    I like my sarcasm.


    I like sarcasm more, as jokes. Or as a response when someone ask something REALLY stupid...

    I agree on you on the trust no one. Screwed world we live in :p :)
  7. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    The member countries of the European Union reserve the right to withdraw from the community following a decision taken in a national referendum.


    Where have I heard that before??

    Sounds like a possible civil war folks...

    Is that national as in say Ireland wanted to leave, or EU as a whole?
  8. AL Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1998
    star 5

    It does not sound anything like a Civil War. If, for example, there was a great public dissatisfaction with the EU in Ireland and a referandum dictated that the country leave the community, then that would happen without any interference from the other EU member states.

    In 1976 there was a referandum in the UK on whether or not the country should stay in the EEC which produced a majority of "Yes" votes. If it had gone the other way, the UK would have left the community. Hence there is historical precedence.

    The EU member states have not succumbed their national sovereignty to the European Union; for all intents and purposes, it is a supra-national body in political and economic terms.
  9. TheGhost Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2002
    star 2
    ok, this has been one of the mpst civilized topics I have ever read about.

    I know nothing about the EU, i'm and American just learning about it now. All I really know is that the money is all the same.

    Whats wrong with a United Europe? imagine United Europe, and it's own ways and beliefes, and the United States, both as allies. Come one, thats half the free world right there.

    It sounds like the coming together of nations to me. Isnt that what world peace is? The coming together of nations?

    I'm sick of wars. I'm an American history major, so I gotta listen about wars all the time. Why not give peace a chance? People can still be united and call themselves what they are "I'm an Italian who happens to be a memeber of the European Union."
    Thats like me saying "I'm from Jersey, which is part of the United States."

    I'm sure there is a downside, and what I just said is probably wishful thinking, but I think it would be a good thing if Eu and the U.S. were major allies. The things we could accomplish, and the future we would see for our children. Imagine.
  10. Olivier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 2

    But in Union of 300 million people it is difficult for 3 or 5 million people to make any difference. I have no idea how this problem should be solved but I hope that somebody has.


    I think the answer is... time. As long as we think of this or that political group as representative of their country first, and their political program only second, then this veto will be needed.
    The alternative is IMO for each citizen to give more credit to European deputies, and see the European parliament as representative of European people as a whole, and for those deputies to really think in terms of European opinion and not their original national party first.

    But this requires time, and trying to push changes too quickly would I think create a lot of frustration and resent.

    (I hope what I wrote above will make sense: my English skills are lacking when describing such thoughts... :( )
  11. Lordban Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2000
    star 5
    That means that other counries did sign the treaties. So on ICC other countries did sign the threaty.

    Answer - Yes and some with the exemptions the US wanted but was denied. That's the point.

    -> Question : could you quote which countries and what precise exemptions they'd have obtained ? I'm curious to know what's exactly going on with this.

    But facts remains no other country in the world made the ICC a casus belli and on that, given the fact the ICC can be sheltered by 2 nuclear powers with full capacity (UK and France), and given the fact the USA obviously have nuclear capacity too, this reeks a lot like the Cold War did...
  12. TOUCHPUMP Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2002
    star 1
    Is this a case where the EU may step in and protect individual citizens? I certainly hope so. This Story reeks of totalitarianism.
  13. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    That is probably the most preposterous thing I have read in a very long while.
  14. Lordban Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2000
    star 5
    Would I be a Greek that I would be more than happy to let some of my country's autonomy taken away by the EU to stop this nonsense :p
  15. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    If, for example, there was a great public dissatisfaction with the EU in Ireland and a referandum dictated that the country leave the community, then that would happen without any interference from the other EU member states.

    Yes, that may be in theory, but as stated earlier:

    they won't survive economically if they stay out of the EU. Sooner or later even Switzerland will join.


    That amounts to economic blackmail. You don't like the EU's policies, fine. Leave. But get ready for an economic meltdown.
  16. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    That amounts to economic blackmail. You don't like the EU's policies, fine. Leave. But get ready for an economic meltdown.

    Again it's exactly the same with the states. Only a few states can survive on it's own. The rest will cripple.

    So stop being a hypocritic Maveric.
  17. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    1) I would venture to guess that the economies of the individual US States are more similar to each other than Portugal's economy is to Germany's, for example. 'One-siz-fits-all' economic and fiscal policies with divergent economies can be very benefiscial, but also can lead to localised problems. If a country wishes to avoid those problems by remaining within the trade spher, but not joining the currency, that is fine. Being excluded from the Free Trade zone will certainly have negative economic consequences.

    2) The states have been integrated for a long time. It is unreasonable to expect that the EU will not have growing pains as it tries to align the divergent economies.



    I think focusing on the economic viability of the Rome Treaty is a mistake. I thought the 'autonomy' issue is more related to questions of representation, Local vs. National vs. EU rights (which are codefied and protected in the US Constitution, and should be codefied and protected in an EU Constitution soon), and the intrusion of the Euro into fiscal decisions, such as tax rates and interest rates. There are valid concerns and benefits on all of these points; I think it is clear that the EU is economically viable, but will also experience problems over the enxt few years in comparison to States within the US.
  18. Olivier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 2
    1) I would venture to guess that the economies of the individual US States are more similar to each other than Portugal's economy is to Germany's, for example.

    I'm not sure about this. Let's see: are the economies of, say, Montana or New Mexico similar to that of California or Florida or Michigan? I doubt it.
    But I agree with the rest of your post: things are not expected to be easy.

  19. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    Again it's exactly the same with the states. Only a few states can survive on it's own. The rest will cripple.

    So stop being a hypocritic Maveric.


    How is pointing out that membership with the EU will force a nation to become subservient to the whims of said union and that the removal from the union would end in economic destruction hypocritical?


    The individual states in the US cannot leave the union. That is the difference there. I agree with you that only a few of the US states would survive if they became independent, but that is not an option as proved during our Civil War. I do not see the hypocracy in this ideology, and wish to see how you interpret it to be.
  20. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    "are the economies of, say, Montana or New Mexico similar to that of California or Florida or Michigan?"

    In terms of standard of living, real wages, language, Yes. There are large corporations and some manufacturing even in the least populous of our states. There are undoubtedl differences, as you correctly perceive, but the cost of labour and the overall skill/education of labour in the US is more evenly ditributed than I would expect it to be within the EU, given that a few of the members (Spain, Portugal, Greece) are relatively poor compared to Germany, the Netherlands, etc.
  21. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    In reality, Meveric, this is already the case for the smaller nations anyway. Ireland had been very dependent on UK economy for decades. Austria depends heavily on German economy, Portugal depends heavily on Spain's etc. Smaller nations have never been able to survive on their own so to speak. They were never self-reliant. Switzerland has no real industry and would practically die if other countries would stop doing business with them. Countries like Germany or France on the other hand are much more self-reliant.
    And the economic dependence on other nations has caused a very subtle cultural and political dependence for the smaller nations in the past. So what exactly does change if you're a member of the EU?
  22. Olivier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 2
    I see your point better, Red-Seven.
    As far as those aspects are concerned (living standards, real wages), there are indeed more differences than in the US.
  23. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    the US cannot leave the union

    maybe you explained it somewhere, but why not?

    If the state has a valid reason, why can't they leave?

    the EU, given that a few of the members (Spain, Portugal, Greece) are relatively poor compared to Germany, the Netherlands, etc.

    an excellent point red-seven. That's why EU is giving them money to build up there economy and ifrastructure...
    Besides the situation in Portugal, Spain & Greece for the last 50 - 75 years were a lot different then in any other EU country. Facist leader (e.g Franco, Salazar), economically isolated, politically isolated.
  24. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    the US cannot leave the union

    maybe you explained it somewhere, but why not?

    If the state has a valid reason, why can't they leave?



    It is just not an option. During the War of 1812 with England, the Northern states, which were heavily mercantilistic, did not like the prospect of declaring war on their largest trading partner. They threatened to secede in the Hartford convention. They were persuaded not to.

    In 1861, the South, at odds with the soon to be inaugurated Lincoln administration seceded from the Union. Lincoln, on the premise that the Union predated the Constitution, waged a war to force the states back into line. Granted, the South did indeed fire the first shot at Fort Sumner, but a military altercation would have taken place had it not occurred there.

    Once the South was militarily defeated, the victorious Union forced each state to craft new constitutions. Texas, the only state which had entered the union on an equal footing, was the only state that legally had the option to secede from the Union as stipulated in the Annexation Act of 1844, was forced to write into their constitution that they no longer had that right.

    Prior to the war, it was argued that since the state's had chosen to enter the union, they could chose to leave. There is a school of thought amongst historians that this right was not included in the constitution as it was a given of the time period. Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation included the right to leave, but the Constitution did not. The Civil War was fought over the issue and the outcome was a union which cannot be severed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.