Uh... no actually; these are Crown Dependancies (like Gibralter) and not part of the UK.
Triton: It is very possible that political integration will continue; the new EU constitution (which we won't be getting a referendum on) extends EU powers significantly. Many within the EU structure are pro integration, especially Giscard d'Estaign the disgraced former French President who was in charge of drafting the Constitution. I am not opposed to common economic policies that benefit all the members; strong economic links between the European countries would help reduce the liklihood of conflict, which is the basic point of the whole thing anyway. Equally a common pot of economic development money is good; just look at Ireland and Portugal. However, the political union seen as desirable by some is not something I agree with. The countries of the EU are just too different culturally for a common legislature and executive to function to the satisfaction of all. In addition the present political structures of the EU are corrupt and inefficient. I have lost count of the number of scandels concerning the commision and the financial doings of various sections of the EU bureaucracy. I have no problem with a common European centre for debate or co-ordinated responses to some problems- asylem for example. But I do not believe other countries laws should be valid in my country or vice versa. There are different cultural imperatives and social problems- Germany's xenophobia laws, for instance. As to whether it will happen; well, the EU often seems like an unstoppable steamroller, extending it's jurisdiction by bureaucratic directives, a process called Eurocreep. Many of these are superflous and pretty pointless; the ban on Imperial weights and measures for example. There is little democratic input in the process. Finally it has been seen as a desirable end by many politicians, especially in New Labour, and anyone who disagrees is portreyed as a xenophobic 'little Englander'. Extension of EU powers is difficult to stop but I realy don't think there's that much popular support for the idea among ordinary people in any country. At least, I haven't met anyone who is in favour.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"The countries of the EU are just too different culturally for a common legislature and executive to function to the satisfaction of all."
Additionally, the constitution (not worth capitalizing just yet) that has been drafted is suspiciously propitious to Germany, France, and Italy, whereas the smaller EU members get fucked UP TEH BUTT!! AGAIN.
Add to that the PIC facts that 1) many East-European countries aren't ready to join the EU (like Poland, which has about fifty years of social and economic reforms to catch up on and rode the wave to membership on its pro-US stance re: Iraq) and that 2) European politics are a mess of intertwined interests and influenced by mindsets from hundreds of diverse cultural backgrounds, and you have the polar opposite of what the bureaucratic Europhiles in Brussels are aiming for.
Besides, the referendum held in Poland was rigged and contemptible. If it had been declared invalid, the Polish parliament would have cast the outcome aside and voted for admittance anyway. IOW: the opinion of 39 million people meant precisely jack shit. Democracy doesn't work like that, Miller.
Europe has nothing to gain by copying the United States, much as the dimwits in Brussels might like to project radiant images of a GARND UNTIED CONTNIENT WIHT A SINGLUAR ECOMONY AND OEN GOVARMNENT AND A COMEON MILTIARY ALL BREAHTING TEH SAEM OXAGEN MONOCUELS!!
It's an illusion to think there will ever be a central administrative body making supra-national decisions for all of Europe, not while the British are isolationalists, the French are chauvinists, the Italians are mafiosi, and the Germans are pacifists. Most European nations have fought too hard to preserve their cultural identity to give it up for downplayed sovereignty & a fairytale of exaggerated benefits. THERE IS NO European Citizen, let alone a European Electorate.
[ July 17, 2003, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: We should build an enormous military base there and use it to scare Spain.
We already did that...
quote: Tony will be out by the end of the Summer and Gordon will give us a referendum.
Yeah, right. Unfortuneately the only way we can be rid of the Dear and Beloved Leader is if he resigns (not terribly likely, as I'm sure you'll agree) or if he loses a vote of no confidence in the House. Which is possible, but given the size of the Labour majority and the number of Blairites in New Labour is also unlikely. And even then there would have to be a general election with no guarantee of a Labour victory.
Cartmaniac: I agree with you completely. Let's not forget the Irish, who didn't ratify the Treaty of Nice (I think). So what did their government do? Have another referendum a few months later. After plugging the 'yes' campaign endlessly.
The (massive) differences in Europe have been particularly evident in recent months over Iraq and the row between the Italians and Germans.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Yeah, if there is ONE telltale sign that hell has to freeze over TWICE before Europe can be unified, it's the comments made by that corrupt, portentous, fascistic piece of filth Berlusconi and his cronies like Stefani.
Oh, and that tailor-made law granting him immunity for as long as he is in office. I mean: the "FUCK"?!
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
"You said the sixth country of the UK, nothing to do with the Commonwealth or the Queen. The United Kingdom is comprised of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."
I don't think you got my point. I was mocking the aforementioned countries because they were given their independence, and they couldn't even be independent enough to come up w/ their own flags or leaders to put on money.
Though, honestly, I don't understand how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Tuvalu (and others?) can claim the British monarch as their head of state, yet claim not to be part of that monarch's kingdom.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: I don't think you got my point. I was mocking the aforementioned countries because they were given their independence, and they couldn't even be independent enough to come up w/ their own flags or leaders to put on money.
Though, honestly, I don't understand how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Tuvalu (and others?) can claim the British monarch as their head of state, yet claim not to be part of that monarch's kingdom.
Well none of those country's legislatures or executives have to comply with what is passed by HM Government or to any Royal Proclamations. They are free to elect their own political representatives and their own policies in all areas. That is independance. They all have their own flags, yes many of them incorporate the Union Flag but that's because being part of the Empire is part of their history as well. And the various countries you mentioned do have pictures of their leaders and famous historical figures on their money. They also have the Queen, who is also their leader and head of state. It might be difficult for foreigners, especially Americans, to understand but she is their Queen as much as she is ours. And while Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. are independant now the retention of links like the head of state does help to foster a certain amount of friendship/unity among these countries. Yes, these ties are not as strong as they once were, mainly due to the actions of various British governments, but they are still there. Most people I know don't regard those countries with the Quen as head of state as being foreign at all; not British but not foreign either.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Though, honestly, I don't understand how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Tuvalu (and others?) can claim the British monarch as their head of state, yet claim not to be part of that monarch's kingdom.
Most of us don't claim that although now it is refered to as a commonwealth. And there still are some parts of our government that is still tied to the Queen, mostly simbolic though. No law may be passed in Canada unless signed by the Governor General, or in the case of provinces by the Lieutenant Governor. Both considered Vice-Regents in our country. Also the Queen still retains the say in how many Senators we can have, up to a maximum. She has no say in who they are though. Also our country pays about $2,000,000 in fealty to the queen each year.
Since we repartiated our consitution the powers of the Monach were greatly reduced. They used to be able to call us to war, confiscate ships for war and all kinds of neat things.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
"Yeah, we have a queen, and she's our leader, but we don't actually listen to her. But we send her a bunch of money for no real reason."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
