Popularity of anti-unionist parties rise in the E.U. as the E.U. progresses its federal state plans.

The utmost goal of the E.U. is to become a federal state,like the U.S.A.
A single country,with a single parliament,single currency,common military,and the same laws,in all of its regions,with a single anthem and a single flag.
In its plans is the abolition of nation states,and the idea that there are different nations of people in it.As countries start to loose more and more of their sovereignty and the E.U. to decide more and more of the policies running,political parties that are against the European Union seem to rise in popularity.

Britain's UKIP gets 16% on polls.
France's Front National got 18% on latest elections.
Greece's Golden Dawn gets 16% on polls.
Hungary's JOBBIK got 17% on latest elections.
Finland's True Finns got 19% on latest elections.
Austria's Freedom Party got 17.5% on latest elections.

What all these parties have in common is that they oppose the E.U. at its current state, and the idea of their countries loosing their identity and transferring their local power and sovereignty to Brussels,where the capital city of the new federal state of Europe that the E.U. is to become will be.

Another thing that these parties share is that not only all of them get higher percentages in polls and elections than they usually did,but many of them managed to get in the parliaments of their countries for the very first time.

As a citizen of an E.U. country myself I feel skeptic and I'm somewhat terrified at how governments of countries can decide to stop exist and give away the authority and power that people granted them to others. Because there was never a referendum or at least some kind of debate on TV where political leaders would discuss this change. The popular media doesn't speak of it,and I had to search out the E.U.'s official site myself and read through lots of useless info to get the info I needed. So I feel kinda of dumb,and dare I say 'betrayed' that my government decided that it will quit itself and get replaced by some people in Brussels who doesn't even speak my language. My fear is that someone who have lived all of his life in the city streets of urban Brussels won't realize situations,problems and the way of thinking of let's say a granny who have lived all of her life in a 100 people village on a mountain of Romania. Some of the forced directives of the E.U. have already crippled parts of local industries in some countries or created social problems,because EU leadership is ignorant at micro-level politics that have to do with local regions.Is it that what other Europeans think and feel too,for voting such parties ?

And now a more general question,targeted to non-Europeans as well: Do you think that globalization, in the sense of abolition of nation states and the replacement of them with multicultural federal unions governed by a few people is something good ? Something that we should happy for ? Or is the concentration of power to a small elite something bad ? What are your general thoughts on the matter ? Is it a good idea for each continent to be its own federal state ?

I'm sorry, at what point did the EU try and become a federal government instead of a Union of different countries? I'm going to call [Citation Needed] on your premise here because what does any individual nation have to gain from giving up their atonomy?

This seriously sounds like the conspiracy theory bullshit that anything Obama does is an illumist plot to create a North American Union superstate, or that anything an Australian PM does that's not pushing a Republic agenda is to secretly make us a nation ruled by the crown again, etc. etc.

Shaoken:
I'm sorry, at what point did the EU try and become a federal government instead of a Union of different countries? I'm going to call [Citation Needed] on your premise here because what does any individual nation have to gain from giving up their atonomy?

This seriously sounds like the conspiracy theory bullshit that anything Obama does is an illumist plot to create a North American Union superstate, or that anything an Australian PM does that's not pushing a Republic agenda is to secretly make us a nation ruled by the crown again, etc. etc.

The source of the info you ask about is written on EU's publicized documents that you can find on EU's official site:
http://europa.eu/
It's not a theory,it's a fact. You can actually listen to parliamentarians of the European Parliament talk about it often if you frequently watch them or get linked to parts of their talks.
It's something they discuss in their offices. There is an agenda and the unification will become slowly,one aspect at a time, with full "political union" of the member-countries before 2020.

Before 2020? Never going to happen.

Eventually, I hope so. A United States of Europe, is actually something I support. More cooperation is a good thing, more integration is a good thing. And national identities don't just evaporate due to political union.

As an example take a look at the United Kingdom. Wales was incorporated into the English Kingdom nearly a thousand years ago, Scotland in 1702 and Ireland in 1801(? early 1800 anyway), and you can't really tell me they've completely lost their own character.

There will always be local governments, be it at the municipal, province or "state" level if the complete Union ever comes to pass.

But once again, short term (and 2020 is very short term) it's not going to happen.

Stavros Dimou:

Shaoken:
I'm sorry, at what point did the EU try and become a federal government instead of a Union of different countries? I'm going to call [Citation Needed] on your premise here because what does any individual nation have to gain from giving up their atonomy?

This seriously sounds like the conspiracy theory bullshit that anything Obama does is an illumist plot to create a North American Union superstate, or that anything an Australian PM does that's not pushing a Republic agenda is to secretly make us a nation ruled by the crown again, etc. etc.

The source of the info you ask about is written on EU's publicized documents that you can find on EU's official site:
http://europa.eu/
It's not a theory,it's a fact. You can actually listen to parliamentarians of the European Parliament talk about it often if you frequently watch them or get linked to parts of their talks.
It's something they discuss in their offices. There is an agenda and the unification will become slowly,one aspect at a time, with full "political union" of the member-countries before 2020.

Yeah...no. From their website:

The EU is a unique economic and political partnership between 27 European countries that together cover much of the continent.

The EU was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that countries who trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to avoid conflict. The result was the European Economic Community (EEC), created in 1958, and initially increasing economic cooperation between six countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Since then, a huge single market has been created and continues to develop towards its full potential.

From economic to political union

What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organisation spanning policy areas, from development aid to environment. A name change from the EEC to the European Union (EU) in 1993 reflected this.

The EU is based on the rule of law: everything that it does is founded on treaties, voluntarily and democratically agreed by all member countries. These binding agreements set out the EU's goals in its many areas of activity.

Mobility, growth, stability and a single currency

The EU has delivered half a century of peace, stability and prosperity, helped raise living standards, and launched a single European currency, the euro.

Thanks to the abolition of border controls between EU countries, people can travel freely throughout most of the continent. And it's become much easier to live and work abroad in Europe.

The single or 'internal' market is the EU's main economic engine, enabling most goods, services, money and people to move freely. Another key objective is to develop this huge resource to ensure that Europeans can draw the maximum benefit from it.

Human rights and equality

One of the EU's main goals is to promote human rights both internally and around the world. Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights: these are the core values of the EU. Since the 2009 signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights brings all these rights together in a single document. The EU's institutions are legally bound to uphold them, as are EU governments whenever they apply EU law.

Transparent and democratic institutions

As it continues to grow, the EU remains focused on making its governing institutions more transparent and democratic. More powers are being given to the directly elected European Parliament, while national parliaments are being given a greater role, working alongside the European institutions. In turn, European citizens have an ever-increasing number of channels for taking part in the political process.

A whole lot of "parnerships" and multiple nations instead of one superstate like you're fear-mongering about.

An expanding bloc

Enlargement is the process whereby countries join the EU. Since it was founded in 1957, the EU has grown from 6 member countries to 27 .

Read full text

Spreading prosperity and democracy

Welcoming new members was part of the plan from the beginning. The founding fathers were confident enough of their idea to leave the door open for other European countries to join.

Helping countries that have the potential to become members has been the EU's response to changes in the European political landscape over the past 50 years, promoting economic growth and strengthening democratic forces in countries emerging from dictatorship.

Romanians celebrate joining the EU on 1 January 2007.

Uniting East and West

The 6 founding members of the EU in 1957 were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

From 1973 on, most of the other Western European countries joined.

Then, following the collapse of their regimes in 1989, many former communist countries from central and eastern Europe became EU members in 2 waves, between 2004 and 2007.

Who can join?

The Treaty on European Union states that any European country may apply for membership if it respects the EU's democratic values and is committed to promoting them.

But specifically, a country can only join if it meets all the membership criteria:
political - it must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law and human rights
economic - it must have a functioning market economy and be able to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU
legal - it must accept established EU law and practice - especially the major goals of political, economic and monetary union.

Turkey is a candidate to join the European Union.

How does it work?

The process has 3 stages (all subject to approval by all existing EU countries):
1.a country is offered the prospect of membership. This means it should be granted official candidate status when it is ready.

2.the country becomes an official candidate for membership - but this still does not mean that formal negotiations have been opened.

3.the candidate moves on to formal membership negotiations, a process that usually involves reforms to adopt established EU law.

When the negotiations and accompanying reforms have been completed to the satisfaction of both sides, the country can join the EU - again, if all existing EU countries agree.

Who might join next?

Currently the EU has offered the prospect of membership to 9 countries: Albania, Turkey, Iceland and all the countries of the former Yugoslavia (except Slovenia, already an EU member).

5 of these have been granted official candidate status:
Turkey
Serbia
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Iceland
Montenegro

So a whole bunch of "any country can join" but no "we're going to turn you into a state."

So again, [citation needed]. Because again, there is no incentive for any nation to give up their autonamy, their own military, flags or athemns since there's really no advantage for them to do so. I'd advise you to lay off the nationalist propaganda and come up for some air because you're really just coming off the same as someone walking around the CBD waving a "The End is Nigh" sign.

Technically I don't see that as a bad thing, I fully support a united Europe.

As for the opposition groups, you know what else those parties have in common? Anti-immigrantcy groups, they tend to actually be the same people that oppose the union.

Something to think about.

I don't want to believe that the majority of people are ever going to be nationalists again, That is too scary a thought to even consider. But I have some comfort that with todays international communication and dependency on other countries to survive with liberal trade policies, the days of 18th century nationalism are all but over, with only the few groups like Front Nationale and it's kin struggling to breathe as the majority whistle them away like they deserve.

seriously though, look at that list.

NATIONALE (Doesn't even need explanation, just look at the name. IT says it right there, they are the front of nationalism in their country, and they are so proudly)
TRUE FINNS (14% and you call yourself true, are the other 86% false finns or something?)
AUSTRIA FREEDOM PARTY (Lemme guess, you think you're under European oppression or something? Ofcourse not, it's the non-white non-christians oppression you are talking about)
JOBBIK ("a true principled, real conservative and radically patriotic Christian party" in their own words)

UKIP is the odd one out there, it prides itself on being Eurosceptic without being racist. That is literally their only selling point, and it's their outright campaign slogan... And it's great Britain. A country that's been babbling about leaving the EU ever since it joined. So I honestly don't take the 15% it's getting too seriously, you know how many of them wanted to leave around the time they joined? 50%. I'd say overall the interest in staying in the EU is on the rise.

That being said, I respect UKIP. It's stances on transgender issues, marriage, religion, and nationalism. Shows that it's skeptical towards the EU as a concept, but not towards outsiders in general. That being said, I fear for their future. Nearly all of their monetary backing comes from ex-conservative doners in Britain that believe the conservatives were not conservative enough in their dealing with the EU. If this is true, there's a risk the party will be highjacked by conservatives in the future. From the way it's currently going with high-concentrated conservative communities voting UKIP in large (22% in the highest known) we could see populistic conservative policies initiated once the party starts taking an interest in anything but side-line politics.

Nikolaz72:
AUSTRALIAN FREEDOM PARTY (Lemme guess, you think you're under British oppression or something? Ofcourse not, it's the non-white non-christians oppression you are talking about)

That's Austrian Freedom Party, not Australian.

But yeah, the Anti-Euro parties and mostly just anti-foreigner parties.

What can you say, in times of economic and other upheaval, extremists and populist scapegoaters garner more of the votes. Let's hope this trend doesn't continue but reverts when the situation stabilizes and improves.

Eleuthera:

Nikolaz72:
AUSTRALIAN FREEDOM PARTY (Lemme guess, you think you're under British oppression or something? Ofcourse not, it's the non-white non-christians oppression you are talking about)

That's Austrian Freedom Party, not Australian.

But yeah, the Anti-Euro parties and mostly just anti-foreigner parties.

Ah, yea, That's what happends when you write while tired, fixed.

Assuming a theoretical united European state was highly federalised or even a confederation, which you'd have to be insane to not go with, I really don't see a problem with it. Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle[1]. Unfortunately a lot of people are one or both of those things, hence the rise in support for right wing anti unionist parties.

[1] There are practical arguments to be made, however

DJjaffacake:
Assuming a theoretical united European state was highly federalised or even a confederation, which you'd have to be insane to not go with, I really don't see a problem with it. Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle. Unfortunately a lot of people are one or both of those things, hence the rise in support for right wing anti unionist parties.

Well...you are linking your nation's destiny with various others, there's the risk of smaller nations being little more than appendages of big ones.

OTOH, that's going to happen anyway. Sometimes I wonder what things would be like if small nations got a say in who ran their bigger neighbours, allies or trading partners.

Eleuthera:

But yeah, the Anti-Euro parties and mostly just anti-foreigner parties.

DJjaffacake:
Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle.

"You don't agree with us so your racist hurr durr".

What a great and a flawless argument.

Hardcore_gamer:

Eleuthera:

Nikolaz72:

But yeah, the Anti-Euro parties and mostly just anti-foreigner parties.

[quote="DJjaffacake" post="528.404301.16743297"] Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle.

"You don't agree with us so your racist hurr durr".

What a great and a flawless argument.

I think you broke your quotes a bit there. Was that addressing me?

EDIT: OK, you fixed it.

I was stating a fact, not opinion. The parties the OP mentions are all populist 'right-wing' parties.

DJjaffacake:
Assuming a theoretical united European state was highly federalised or even a confederation, which you'd have to be insane to not go with, I really don't see a problem with it. Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle. Unfortunately a lot of people are one or both of those things, hence the rise in support for right wing anti unionist parties.

I happen to agree that the EU member states could do well to be a little more united both in actuality and in the minds of citizens. I think it is important for citizens to start thinking of the EU as a natural part of government rather than a foreign "thing" that just happens to do some things.

Still, you do nobody any favors by just assigning all of your opponents a bunch of negative values and then choosing to not listen based on those facts. It is in fact dangerously close to a straw man. It can also only lead to polarization.

The official stance of the EU isn't federalism, but there are many federalist advocates within the EU- Like Jose Barroso for instance. And a number of the EU's "founders"- Winston Churchill and Jean Monnet for instance supported a federal Europe.

I'm not opposed to a federal Europe, but i am cautious to argue that the EU should have a definitive "final point" and prefer to let the union evolve organically on a more pragmatic basis- which will probably lead to federalism anyway. Geopolitically, it makes a lot of sense for a more unified Europe. European states alone are no longer (or will no longer) be the big fish of world politics as the rest of the world catches up with us. As the economic power of countries like Brazil, India, China, Vietnam grow, so will their political power. We shouldn't leave America to be the sole advocate of Western interests and values in the world, and indeed collectively Europe is a lot more powerful than a divided continent, and we need that unity to remain relevant by the end of this century. Europeans just need to stop viewing eachother as foreigners and recognise an over-arching European identity which will greatly help this process of integration. When the EU is no longer distracted by the current eurozone crisis, it can look to ways to help develop this European identity.

Stavros Dimou:
...and dare I say 'betrayed' that my government decided that it will quit itself and get replaced by some people in Brussels who doesn't even speak my language.

You know that the member nations of the EU each send a representative to Brussels to represent their interests, right? Right?

Yeah, you might want to research a wee bit more on how the EU actually works.

Also, Anti-EU parties can always snag a few seats more by pandering to xenophobes and those scared stupid. Its a temporary reprieve for those exceptionally weak of mind and easily riled up.

I'm American so I definitely come from a different viewpoint but if I was European I would probably support a united EU; if done right. I can certainly see why many Europeans are skeptical and wary of the EU. They see it as people whom they did not choose, from other countries, making decisions for them. Even in the US where we were always(Go away Articles of Confederation; NO ONE LIKES YOU) a Federation people rather get things from State and Local government as they feel that they are more like themselves and come from similar backgrounds. Seeing as in the EU you have hundreds of years of history as independent and unique states(kind of) for many countries, I can see why people would be apprehensive.

That all being said, if I was European and I could be reasonable sure that my country's domestic matters would be relatively respected as our issue I'd be for it. It would improve the position of any country militarily, diplomatically, and if this current business is dealt with, economically as well.

Though I may be completely wrong.

Alright so, I've been kind of wondering this and poking around the internet but I was wondering if some of our Euro-friends/enemies would explain what exactly the purpose of the European Union is. Is it just to make diplomacy and border crossing easier over there? Is it meant to be a governing body that sets international policies? Is it meant to be a simple economic thing to create one currency, and help control the economies of the various nations?

And if so, any of those, why is that seen as good or bad by you?

Bentusi16:
Alright so, I've been kind of wondering this and poking around the internet but I was wondering if some of our Euro-friends/enemies would explain what exactly the purpose of the European Union is. Is it just to make diplomacy and border crossing easier over there? Is it meant to be a governing body that sets international policies? Is it meant to be a simple economic thing to create one currency, and help control the economies of the various nations?

And if so, any of those, why is that seen as good or bad by you?

To put it in the dramatic words of my sociology teacher "The European Union was created to prevent wars between European nations from occurring ever again" Ofcourse this Isn't the exact truth, as it was mainly created as sort of a coal-trading-deal-thingymcbob between France and Germany.

As for the practical uses, you said it well yourself. Open Borders, trade, balanced in theory by stable economies and somewhat equal foreign-policies.

To get back to the first point, One of the European Union's functions being in part to stop wars by discouraging nationalism kind of explains how the main opponents to it are nationalists. Just pointing out the obvious.

I see it as good because I hate wars and I hate nationalists. Having peace in my general area and watching the foreigner-hating scum-of-the-earth squirm on television is what gets my through my day-to-day activities.

I like it practically because the individual European countries arent the international powerhouses they used to be, however were we to be united. We'd be stronger and richer than the US. I like the idea of being the big-rich-powerful guys. Mainly because it makes me feel safer, having to live through every day knowing that we are kind of at the mercy of a guntotting hyper-conservative religious nation of warmongerers (Exaggerated for comedic purposes). Is disturbing to say the least... Although I still prefer the US to China.

But again, I'd take a United EU over both the US and China any day.

the problem with the EU is it's always been a two lane highway with two different speed limits in each lane and they have never been quite honest about that to everyone with a car.

the way to fix the EU is to make the existence of those two lanes crystal clear.

by all means let those who wish to go for something akin to light federalism and fiscal union take one lane.

i personally don't believe for a moment that such a thing diminishes "national identity".

i'm a Scot in Britain...and you can be damn sure Scots still have "a national identity" as do the peoples from each constituent part of this union.

"sovereignty" is a bit trickier (even to define) but again many Europeans don't understand even basic concepts related to "federalism" such as "states rights" (the Germans however do because they have had "federalism" for a very long time) and that, as long as these "states rights" are protected federalism is relatively unobtrusive except in the areas where it obviously makes a lot of sense.

the other lane ? the other lane should be a buffer zone of a customs union which countries can vote to move into, out of and into the other lane from.

enshine that in law and you remove most of the political objections to "the EU".

although it must be said the right wing UK press have been doing plenty damage just making up stories that are largely based around the regulations that are required to be even part of that for 30 years.

those stories won't stop if we leave the EU or somehow end up in customs union only membership state because ultimately you still have to follow EU regulations to trade with anyone in Europe just as you have to adhere to US trade regulations to trade with the US.

there is a lot of shit talked about "Europe" in the UK...

in terms of the EU regulations (that are what actually enables intercontinental "free" trade by creating a level playing feild) "fucking Europe" has basically replaced "fucking Health & Safety" as an everyday moan because, ofc, our own regulations now don't exist and have been harmonised with the rest of Europe.

there aren't inherently more regulations we just use ones with a different badge on the book...

a good (and relevant on this site) example of this kind of thing is the rating of video games which has just recently shifted from the BBFC to PEGI.

there would be more however if we left because we'd need our own (and separate institutions full of technocrats to come up with them etc) AND we'd still need to follow Europes in order to trade there.

note that trade regulations are basically non political.

it's not a politician you want to decide how orange juice should be stored or how long it can be stored for before it become unfit for human consumption for example.

to object to technocrats doing their fucking job is inane...but it doesn't stop the British press trying and presenting it as "undemocratic"...well y'know what i don't want "democracy" anywhere near "Health & Safety" regulations tyvm...but them i'm the kind of person who actually tries to understand things...i doubt the majority of people who pop up on internet newspaper comments with "vote UKIP!" have even read or understand the parties policies beyond "pull out of Europe" and even then they won't grasp the ramifications of that.

the US has recently committed to seriously seeking to join in a customs union with the EU (within 2 years no less) so that together they can square up against China during trade negotiations and be able to push for China to enact things they want (like IP protection) as neither has a large enough market to hold the necessary leverage to be an equal negotiating partner on their own otherwise (we had a topic about it here some time back http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.401077-The-Transatlantic-Free-Trade-Area-Transatlantic-Economic-Council ) but somehow Britain can "stand alone" ?...

i think not.

that's not how the world works.

part of me thinks the English are largely political illiterate...they supposedly want an English parliament...so we'd have one in each of the countries in the (UKs) union (and presumably a UK one above that) because that would be "fair" (and i agree) but mention "federalism" and the majority freak the fuck out...unless you sit and explain it to them, step by step, like you were talking to a 5 year old...

i have done that many, many times (mostly in newspaper comment sections) and at the end most ask "why does no one have that as a policy ?" the answer to that question is that Westminster is "The One Ring" of UK politics (and law. there is no separation of powers here *) and no UK political party wants to give away the absolute power that is holding office there.

we actually have a far bigger problem with the centralisation of all power at Westminster than we do with handing off some to "Europe".

* about a week ago Britain basically abandoned the rule of law to prevent social security benefits claimants receiving money the courts had ruled had been illegally withheld from them because the government lied about whether or not a job training scheme (and i use that term in the loosest possible sense) was mandatory or not. the Westminster parliament did this by passing emergency legislation that applied law retroactively effectively making something that was ruled illegal legal and back dating it. now if you are an American and reading this, and regardless of how you might view the example case politically, you may understand how wrong (and dangerous) that truly is (as i understand government structure and principal is fairly well taught in US schools via study of your written Constitution for example).

In my country of the Netherlands the opposite seemed to have happened. We have only two parties that i would say are really against the EU the PVV(freedom party) of Geert Wilders and the SP (socialist party). Idiot Wilders brought down the last coalition and said the most recent elections would be ''a referendum about Europe''. It didn't go as well as he expected, The PVV lost BIG and the SP failed to gain any more seats then they already had. Seems like a pro EU victory to me.

I'm in favor of a united Europe but i can at least understand why other aren't. Most parties that are against it however i don't, you'l find many of them are populists just being against it because public opinion turns or extremist like the Golden dawn.

thaluikhain:

DJjaffacake:
Assuming a theoretical united European state was highly federalised or even a confederation, which you'd have to be insane to not go with, I really don't see a problem with it. Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle. Unfortunately a lot of people are one or both of those things, hence the rise in support for right wing anti unionist parties.

Well...you are linking your nation's destiny with various others, there's the risk of smaller nations being little more than appendages of big ones.

OTOH, that's going to happen anyway. Sometimes I wonder what things would be like if small nations got a say in who ran their bigger neighbours, allies or trading partners.

That's an practical argument though, not a principled one. I was talking about being opposed to the very concept of a unified EU.

Hardcore_gamer:

DJjaffacake:
Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle.

"You don't agree with us so your racist hurr durr".

What a great and a flawless argument.

What is your reason for being opposed to it then?

Atrocious Joystick:

DJjaffacake:
Assuming a theoretical united European state was highly federalised or even a confederation, which you'd have to be insane to not go with, I really don't see a problem with it. Xenophobia or nationalism is the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it in principle. Unfortunately a lot of people are one or both of those things, hence the rise in support for right wing anti unionist parties.

I happen to agree that the EU member states could do well to be a little more united both in actuality and in the minds of citizens. I think it is important for citizens to start thinking of the EU as a natural part of government rather than a foreign "thing" that just happens to do some things.

Still, you do nobody any favors by just assigning all of your opponents a bunch of negative values and then choosing to not listen based on those facts. It is in fact dangerously close to a straw man. It can also only lead to polarization.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my post (which I have now edited for clarity). I specified principle because I'm under no illusions that there would be no practical problems with a unification of Europe. It's just that I can't think of an argument on principle that could be used against unification that doesn't rely on xenophobia or nationalism.

Stavros Dimou:
My fear is that someone who have lived all of his life in the city streets of urban Brussels won't realize situations,problems and the way of thinking of let's say a granny who have lived all of her life in a 100 people village on a mountain of Romania. Some of the forced directives of the E.U. have already crippled parts of local industries in some countries or created social problems,because EU leadership is ignorant at micro-level politics that have to do with local regions.

I wouldn't actually be so sure that the situation is already that much different when it comes to national parliaments already. I always like to say that from where I'm at, Berlin is actually farther away than Brussels - national or regional parliaments can't ever completely take into account such micro-policies except for very broad guidelines on how to run things. The actual meat of implementation always needs to be in the hand of local actors. A possible critique that Brussels implements broader generalized policies than national parliaments is also kind of moot since any larger federalized union wouldn't necessarily take away the need for national or regional actors to provide overarching laws specific to the locality.

Is it that what other Europeans think and feel too,for voting such parties ?

I think it's important to realize that the success of such parties is not just because of the festering Euro-Crisis or even about the general setup of the EU (okay except UKIP perhaps) at this point - most of their success, I'd say is more related to a gradual change of society and the pressures of Globalization at large. Atomization of society, break-down of old class barriers, rising interconnectedness across borders and the overarching economic stress that enters due to the emergence of the developing economies as major global actors all lead to a profound feeling of uncertainty that makes people yearn for an "alternative". Something like this explains the current upheavels in various national parliaments that see the emergence of new parties (for instance the Pirate Party in Germany and Beppe Grillos Five Stars movement in Italy) or a surge in fringe parties (for instance Frances Front Nationale) and a steady decline of the established ones.

Naturally, a lot of those parties employ easy populist ways of argumentation, providing a clear cut friend-vs-foe identification scheme by either calculatedly scapegoating minorites like immigrants (e.g. the PVV in the Netherlands or Norways Fremskrittspartiet), fostering national sentiment (e.g. Jobbik in Hungary) and/or going all out on a crusade against the "system" that may or may not include the EU (e.g. UKIP or The Five Stars). It's an easy way to provide a kind of identification in a world that grows ever more uncertain and complex with every minute - that particular events like the Euro-Crisis will contribute to such feelings should also be clear.

As for my own thoughts on the matter of a federalized European state I'd like to refer to Nickolai's post who, as always, represents my own viewpoints on that matter rather accurately.

I don't expect to see one federal EU state in my lifetime. Even if a few leaders may hold that ambition, there's enough problems keeping every member in board already.
The thought of living in a federation doesn't scare me either.

So no, I won't ever vote for populists or ultra-nationalists.

a lot of people seem to have a red line with the word "federal"...until you start talking about the "common sense" nature of "what 'Europe' should probably look like".

it's eminently possible to have "light", "sensible" or "small f federal" governmental mechanisms and structures as part of a "union" and still retain "states rights".

to even have modern "free trade" between "states" it's de facto required that, at some juncture, they effectively share standards and laws "to create a level playing field".

i think a "federal" Europe will come.

i think the need for clear cut structural reform is clear for all to see now. i also think it may end up "two tier" (at least in the medium term). the UK PM has even come out in favour of such a thing and even UKIP doesn't actually want to leave "Europe" completely and still wants the UK to be part of "the free trade". there is a lot of flux ahead but "Europe" isn't going anywhere (ye, ye :P you know what i mean).

for all its current (and in the long term almost assuredly transient) economic ills the EU is still the richest trade bloc on the planet and at the forefront of the Human species "development". in terms of nominal GDP for example it's the EU>the US>China>the rest ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 )

Humanity is not going to allow that to "fail".

(and btw according to most of those figures it would still be top even without the UK in it...)

the pieces in play on the board are so large at this level that even their supposed "competitors" really don't want them to fall.
in reality the relationship between the big modern trade blocs is highly codependent.

"economic activity", "trade", "the engine of growth (or prosperity)", what ever you want to call it, in all its forms, and with all the benefit it brings, requires more than one party and with trade blocs the size that exist now that means they fundamentally need and want each other (preferably "in good health") to do business with and to be part of each others markets.

in the long run i believe increasingly multiple "customs unions" springing up are an inevitability. whether seemingly being historically driven by peaceful negotiation or war and conquest what underlies both is ...well what is it ? "the power of the market" ? something anyway :P but it whispers (simplistically) "join all these bits of together and you get better off..." and what's more it works too.

in a way i don't think "federalism" is a choice i just think its a question of how its going to be enabled by history.

the US and China are both in their own way amalgamations of "states". if you look at other counties many are, from a certain pov, also quite clearly the same (India and the UK for example). i'd suggest the more you looked the more you'd see that actually every country is the same... locals and regions become conjoined through conquest or agreement to become states or countries or a "supranation" of some form. and so on and so on and so on...

you only have to look around and you see the emergence of tentative organisations which, over the long term, could quite easily become the forebears of new or increasingly "federal" trade blocs in the world (the African Union and Arab League are obvious examples but there also the major intergovernmental trade agreement organisations in places like the Pacific and North and South America which could develop into something more substantial over the longer term) and the so called "BRICs nations" are economically up and coming countries who are quite capable of individually becoming trade blocs comparable to the ones that exist at the forefront today.

imo one way or another the inevitability is large regional "cultural area" or geographical area styled trade blocs of one manner or another (even if they are, as in the USs, Chinas and Indians case, one, very large "country" already).

"world government" ? imo some is an inevitability (and indeed some is already de facto exists) but again that can be viewed in "light federal" manner (there are some things it just makes sense to cooperate on) and it doesn't mean the pluralism of the large trade blocs (or indeed the "states" within them) somehow needs to disappear, that we are powerless to affect the form it takes or that somehow we'll become horribly globally culturally homogenised and disenfranchised.

i recognise all these statements are highly loaded but, the way i see it, one way or another, through peace or war, this is the flow of almost all history.

imo recognition and engagement with that is key to being able to shape it in a manner we find more agreeable rather than just having it happen "piecemeal" in a haphazard way (which is basically what's wrong with the EU).

the US, to it's eternal credit, stands out as one that notably achieved "it" at least at one rather notable point in its history by sitting down sensibly and talking about "it" in an enlightened way.

we should perhaps be seeking to raise the quality of our public debate to somewhere approaching the levels of those who did so.

tbth i find it kind of culturally embarrassing that we don't seem to be able to "cut through the bullshit" and "get down to brass tacks" in a similar manner.

I would jump at the change for a United Europe if they could just sort out transparency & accountability of finances & everything else. I see the chances of this happening at about 50/50...I really hope Britain doesn't leave, but something needs to change if Europe is going to go for the federalism option.

Wait? You think politicians understand the average person's lot in life? Granted, this is shaded by my experience in the U.S. A federation doesn't change the nature of politicians

It's up to the individual states in Europe to decide, but people really have to be careful of who they support and how batshit insane they might be. Rarely does this kind of nationalism come with no other insanity.

Since it looks like Cyrpus's bailout is going to be used in more than just Cyrpus, I would say that the EU will die.

The question is what will the war look like?

Nikolaz72:

TRUE FINNS (14% and you call yourself true, are the other 86% false finns or something?)

There is no such political party as True Finns in Finland.
There is a party called Perus Suomalaiset that would, roughly, translate to Basic Finns (basic training, back to basics, no additions, just the basic set, etc...).

They're currently one of the 4 biggest parties
Social Democrats (left wing "socialists", very centrists for the most part),
Our right wingish capitalist party Suomen Kokoomus (does not mean anything, somewhat sounds like a word for "whole" or "meeting" or "assemble" With "Finlands" tacked on front)
Our centrish party Suomen Keskusta (the name is actually directly translatable as "Finlands Center", "Finlands Core" or "Middle part of Finland"), mainly about traditional values and countryside
and
Perus Suomalaiset (the earlier mentioned Basic Finns, largely known for racism, opposing EU, being nationalists and claiming every other party is somehow corrupt or ineffective or just wrong, lot of people vote for them as a protest of sorts, but that's not the only reason people vote for them).

Other parties of note are:
the Green party,
Finlands Christiandemocrats (crazy people imo, ymmv, etc...)
The Leftist Union (seriously)
and the
Finnish Swedish Peoples Party (they have no other discernable political goal other than force the 95% of Finns who do not speak Swedish in their homes, to learn it in school, give them that, and they'll agree to practically anything)

There's also the Independence Party, On poors Business party, Change 2011 party (can only assume they didn't), Pirate Party, Finlands Communistic Party, Finlands Workers Party and Freedom Party - Finlands Future (yes, the "Finlands future" seems to be part of the name).

nyysjan:

Nikolaz72:

TRUE FINNS (14% and you call yourself true, are the other 86% false finns or something?)

There is no such political party as True Finns in Finland.
There is a party called Perus Suomalaiset that would, roughly, translate to Basic Finns (basic training, back to basics, no additions, just the basic set, etc...).

They're currently one of the 4 biggest parties
Social Democrats (left wing "socialists", very centrists for the most part),
Our right wingish capitalist party Suomen Kokoomus (does not mean anything, somewhat sounds like a word for "whole" or "meeting" or "assemble" With "Finlands" tacked on front)
Our centrish party Suomen Keskusta (the name is actually directly translatable as "Finlands Center", "Finlands Core" or "Middle part of Finland"), mainly about traditional values and countryside
and
Perus Suomalaiset (the earlier mentioned Basic Finns, largely known for racism, opposing EU, being nationalists and claiming every other party is somehow corrupt or ineffective or just wrong, lot of people vote for them as a protest of sorts, but that's not the only reason people vote for them).

Other parties of note are:
the Green party,
Finlands Christiandemocrats (crazy people imo, ymmv, etc...)
The Leftist Union (seriously)
and the
Finnish Swedish Peoples Party (they have no other discernable political goal other than force the 95% of Finns who do not speak Swedish in their homes, to learn it in school, give them that, and they'll agree to practically anything)

There's also the Independence Party, On poors Business party, Change 2011 party (can only assume they didn't), Pirate Party, Finlands Communistic Party, Finlands Workers Party and Freedom Party - Finlands Future (yes, the "Finlands future" seems to be part of the name).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns

English translation of the Nationalist Populist party of Finland.

No need to reply to this post, but I dunnae need to admit mistake where I see none :P.

aelreth:
Since it looks like Cyrpus's bailout is going to be used in more than just Cyrpus, I would say that the EU will die.

The situation of Cyprus is kind of very specific, and analogies to other Eurozone countries are off the mark. For example, Slovenia has been talked about how we'll be "the next country to need a bailout" for about a year and a half now, guess what, we still don't need one (we could use one for sure, but we're doing our damnest to avoid that, at least, I hope, and with all the empty doomsaying so far I don't see why it should come to that).

The question is what will the war look like?

That's as much of a question as "Gee, I wonder what the upcoming civil war in USA is going to look like?" You know, what with the federal government being an alien council that must be shot, states' rights hurr, Texas leaving the union, and all.

Seriously, I know some people wish Europe was cast into a major war again for...some reason, I suppose so that they can go "Oh lol Europe, so pathetic, trololo, 'murica fuck yea!" or something, but you know, such people haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Who'd go to war with whom anyway? I wish this geopolitical armchair dickwaving was killed with fire. And lightning. And reanimated chipmunks. And racoons. On fire.

aelreth:
Since it looks like Cyrpus's bailout is going to be used in more than just Cyrpus, I would say that the EU will die.

The question is what will the war look like?

The Cyprus bailout was nothing.
10 out of 15 billion is the kind of limited solidarity that the north can afford. Nobody dies, but it still hurts and that's good. Don't reward failure, but keep the problem contained at the same time.

The current split is sensible. When a bank fails due to mismanagement or any other reason, anything above 100,000 that you may have had there, is lost to you anyway. Anything above that amount isn't guaranteed by anyone.
Splitting the bank in a good bank and a bad bank, where you concentrate only the guaranteed amount in the good bank that you want to save, amounts to the same thing, only the government can keep it's guarantee doesn't have to pay up immediately. It's better than any other alternative.

Even the Russians are taking "stealing what's already been stolen" pretty well and it's mostly their offshore savings that are going down the drain.

I say just let banks go bankrupt if they screw up, where splitting a bank is an unfortunate compromise needed because of the guarantee. That measure was a mistake in the first place, because it only helps banks becoming "too big to fail" and all the risk is now for the taxpayer alone.
In the long term we need to think of ways to put the risk back where it belongs. The guarantee wouldn't even have to disappear entirely, but heavy restrictions could be placed on it, resulting into smaller, risk averse savings banks alongside the giants that are running the show now.

The EU can still fail for a variety of reasons in the future, but Cyprus isn't one of them.

Nikolaz72:

nyysjan:

Nikolaz72:

TRUE FINNS (14% and you call yourself true, are the other 86% false finns or something?)

There is no such political party as True Finns in Finland.
There is a party called Perus Suomalaiset that would, roughly, translate to Basic Finns (basic training, back to basics, no additions, just the basic set, etc...).

They're currently one of the 4 biggest parties
Social Democrats (left wing "socialists", very centrists for the most part),
Our right wingish capitalist party Suomen Kokoomus (does not mean anything, somewhat sounds like a word for "whole" or "meeting" or "assemble" With "Finlands" tacked on front)
Our centrish party Suomen Keskusta (the name is actually directly translatable as "Finlands Center", "Finlands Core" or "Middle part of Finland"), mainly about traditional values and countryside
and
Perus Suomalaiset (the earlier mentioned Basic Finns, largely known for racism, opposing EU, being nationalists and claiming every other party is somehow corrupt or ineffective or just wrong, lot of people vote for them as a protest of sorts, but that's not the only reason people vote for them).

Other parties of note are:
the Green party,
Finlands Christiandemocrats (crazy people imo, ymmv, etc...)
The Leftist Union (seriously)
and the
Finnish Swedish Peoples Party (they have no other discernable political goal other than force the 95% of Finns who do not speak Swedish in their homes, to learn it in school, give them that, and they'll agree to practically anything)

There's also the Independence Party, On poors Business party, Change 2011 party (can only assume they didn't), Pirate Party, Finlands Communistic Party, Finlands Workers Party and Freedom Party - Finlands Future (yes, the "Finlands future" seems to be part of the name).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns

English translation of the Nationalist Populist party of Finland.

No need to reply to this post, but I dunnae need to admit mistake where I see none :P.

dunnae?
Your inability to a mistake (or wikipedia having one) is not an issue.
There is no political party called True Finns in Finland.
Here's a list of current registered political parties in Finland http://www.vaalit.fi/15366.htm
there is a party called Perussuomalaiset, also known as Sannfinlšndarna
I don't know who's the nutcase who decided to translate that as True Finns (google translate does state that for some reason, and even the party itself had used True Finns at some point in their webpage), but that's not what the name is, also, the party itself has decided to call themselves The Finns in English (still horrible translation, but i guess basic language skill are too much to ask).

Yes, not too long ago, you might have gotten away with calling them True Finns (not your error, but theirs :p), but as of 2011, it's The Finns (horrible translation, i shall keep calling them the Basic Finns as their name states in Finnish).

nyysjan:

Nikolaz72:

nyysjan:

There is no such political party as True Finns in Finland.
There is a party called Perus Suomalaiset that would, roughly, translate to Basic Finns (basic training, back to basics, no additions, just the basic set, etc...).

They're currently one of the 4 biggest parties
Social Democrats (left wing "socialists", very centrists for the most part),
Our right wingish capitalist party Suomen Kokoomus (does not mean anything, somewhat sounds like a word for "whole" or "meeting" or "assemble" With "Finlands" tacked on front)
Our centrish party Suomen Keskusta (the name is actually directly translatable as "Finlands Center", "Finlands Core" or "Middle part of Finland"), mainly about traditional values and countryside
and
Perus Suomalaiset (the earlier mentioned Basic Finns, largely known for racism, opposing EU, being nationalists and claiming every other party is somehow corrupt or ineffective or just wrong, lot of people vote for them as a protest of sorts, but that's not the only reason people vote for them).

Other parties of note are:
the Green party,
Finlands Christiandemocrats (crazy people imo, ymmv, etc...)
The Leftist Union (seriously)
and the
Finnish Swedish Peoples Party (they have no other discernable political goal other than force the 95% of Finns who do not speak Swedish in their homes, to learn it in school, give them that, and they'll agree to practically anything)

There's also the Independence Party, On poors Business party, Change 2011 party (can only assume they didn't), Pirate Party, Finlands Communistic Party, Finlands Workers Party and Freedom Party - Finlands Future (yes, the "Finlands future" seems to be part of the name).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns

English translation of the Nationalist Populist party of Finland.

No need to reply to this post, but I dunnae need to admit mistake where I see none :P.

dunnae?
Your inability to a mistake (or wikipedia having one) is not an issue.
There is no political party called True Finns in Finland.
Here's a list of current registered political parties in Finland http://www.vaalit.fi/15366.htm
there is a party called Perussuomalaiset, also known as Sannfinlšndarna
I don't know who's the nutcase who decided to translate that as True Finns (google translate does state that for some reason, and even the party itself had used True Finns at some point in their webpage), but that's not what the name is, also, the party itself has decided to call themselves The Finns in English (still horrible translation, but i guess basic language skill are too much to ask).

Yes, not too long ago, you might have gotten away with calling them True Finns (not your error, but theirs :p), but as of 2011, it's The Finns (horrible translation, i shall keep calling them the Basic Finns as their name states in Finnish).

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4214725c-0263-11e2-b41f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PDcjXwjM

ah screw it...

http://tiny.cc/dx6uuw (This here is the google link)

I don't think its just wikipedia that's made the mistake. It seems to be a mistake shared by the entire international community. Maybe it just 'is' their official international name?

Mind you it does say on the 7th or so website that they are also called 'The Finns' but otherwise True Finns is smeared everywhere. On both 2012 and 2013 articles.

Nikolaz72:

nyysjan:

Nikolaz72:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns

English translation of the Nationalist Populist party of Finland.

No need to reply to this post, but I dunnae need to admit mistake where I see none :P.

dunnae?
Your inability to a mistake (or wikipedia having one) is not an issue.
There is no political party called True Finns in Finland.
Here's a list of current registered political parties in Finland http://www.vaalit.fi/15366.htm
there is a party called Perussuomalaiset, also known as Sannfinlšndarna
I don't know who's the nutcase who decided to translate that as True Finns (google translate does state that for some reason, and even the party itself had used True Finns at some point in their webpage), but that's not what the name is, also, the party itself has decided to call themselves The Finns in English (still horrible translation, but i guess basic language skill are too much to ask).

Yes, not too long ago, you might have gotten away with calling them True Finns (not your error, but theirs :p), but as of 2011, it's The Finns (horrible translation, i shall keep calling them the Basic Finns as their name states in Finnish).

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4214725c-0263-11e2-b41f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PDcjXwjM

ah screw it...

http://tiny.cc/dx6uuw (This here is the google link)

I don't think its just wikipedia that's made the mistake. It seems to be a mistake shared by the entire international community. Maybe it just 'is' their official international name?

Mind you it does say on the 7th or so website that they are also called 'The Finns' but otherwise True Finns is smeared everywhere. On both 2012 and 2013 articles.

Their official name for use in English is "The Finns", as decided by the party themselves in 2011.
Just for a joke, translate the word perus and Suomalaiset and see what you get out of them separately.
Answer: you get basic and Finnish (which can be shortened to Finns)

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked