8 ms·

Fairplay to them, the whole point of the EU project was to make us all "Europeans" and to prevent constant disastrous fighting between states and people of the

by yc1010 11y ago

Fairplay to them, the whole point of the EU project was to make us all "Europeans" and to prevent constant disastrous fighting between states and people of the continent. Sometime in the last 10 years many people and the media in the "core" countries got all smug and uppity towards those lazy "peripherals" and so on forgetting exactly why the project was started, overnight we stopped being "Europeans" and became "undustrious Germans", "smart and holier than thou Nordics", "lying Greeks", "lazy Spanish" and in case of my own little peripheral island country "reckless Irish". Yeh :(

jdimov9 11y ago
This might have been the cover story, but is VERY far from the actual reason the "EU project" exists. As with all similar noble initiatives, the EU has much less to do with fairness and much more with power concentration (as is becoming exceedingly obvious).
- nhaehnle 11y ago
  Calm the hyperbole :) GP is right that the EU is the result of a long process that started with the goal of preventing another big European war. You are also right in that a large part of what is happening is a result of power politics.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Calm the hyperbole :) Hyperbole? The E.U. is a project spearheaded by the same 3-4 nations that had the biggest colonies on earth, enslaving over 2 billion people in horrendous conditions (including mass executions when they misbehaved). And that was going on, not in the middle ages, but until the sixties (and in a different form today). Betweem them, the country that had the less colonies, started 2 world wars in order to expand. EU was created, among other things, to contain that country (and you can find that as an explicit goal from prominent French politicians advocating for its creation)... Powerful empire-building nations are not about fun and love...
    - nhaehnle 11y ago
      We actually seem to agree :) After all, you write: "EU was created, among other things, to contain that country", while my post was in reply to somebody who claimed that peace-keeping was totally irrelevant to why the EU (and its predecessors) were formed.
- nailer 11y ago
  It also makes it easier to sell things on a Europe wide level rather than a country-by-country level.
- quonn 11y ago
  That may be so, but the EU was still created by individuals. I'm sure many of the officials believed the story. I'm also still confident that the European citizens can have the EU as it should be, not as it currently is, if they can get over their short-sighted selfishness.
vmorgulis 11y ago
In France, the rift opened in 2005 with the rejection of the Constitution by the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_r... It looks like the Treaty of Versailles story. Very dark perspectives...
arrrg 11y ago
The point was rather to give the fighting appropriate and effective political venues for resolving conflicts and finding effective solutions. There will never be no fighting because that is not possible or at least quite unhealthy. After all, isn’t the point of politics to solve conflicts – which are quite normal and will always be everywhere – in a non-violent way? (Tools for solving conflicts between nations in a non-violent way have always been quite limited – with obvious disastrous consequences, especially as we got better at killing each other.) However, I do agree that it is sad that fighting is happening along national lines and that ugly stereotypes and propaganda play the role they do. Just recently I was watching serious and respectable German TV and some expert was – probably unintentionally, but hey that’s stereotypes and toxic thinking for you, it worms itself into your heads – talking about Greeks “hiding” money at home after withdrawing it that would be inaccessible and as such money the creditors would have to pay. This toxic way of framing the conversation is just so sad. Greek people who withdraw their very own money from banks because they are unable to trust those banks are not hiding anything or doing anything immoral or unethical or even slightly impolite. They are the victims in that situation – and we have to be very careful how we talk about people, especially if we generally talk about “Greeks” or “Germans” or whatever.
- gutnor 11y ago
  Do you remember Cyprus ? One day they are good hard working European, the next day all of them are gangster laundering russian crime money and taking money out of their bank account is fair justice ( but fear not brave citizen, your money is safe at the bank because your are not dishonest like they are ) Europe has treated its "citizen" like rubbish since the crisis. You can hardly blame the push of Eurosceptic parties across Europe - in time of crisis, Europe is really ugly.
- Paradigma11 11y ago
  Greek people withdrawing money (and mostly getting it out of the country) show a lack of support to their country. This excerbates the problems of their financial system. It also begs the question why the rest of europe should schow solidarity with a country if its own people dont. Voting against austerity and restructuring policies is not standing behind your goverment/nation. Trusting it with your money is.
bradleyjg 11y ago
That level of generality is too high. The whole point was to prevent Germany and France from going to war again as they had twice in the twentieth century and twice in the nineteenth century. Promiscuous expansion made ever closer integration harder and less likely and thus actually hurt the purposes for which the union was originally created. It's like when people complain about the Security Counsel and its permanent members. They are missing the point of the UN. It isn't supposed to be a fair body for global quasi-governance. It is supposed to prevent World War III.
brightball 11y ago
It's a similar issue that we see in the US. There are a number of people (and the entire Constitution) that pushes for state level decisions unless it's absolutely necessary at the Federal level. This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them. States are able to compete economically. People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views. States have to have balanced budgets while the Federal government...well...doesn't. There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though, which creates constant tension because effectively people are trying to push their views on each other rather than simply pushing them on their own states and bearing the consequences internally. At the same time, people become righteously offended at this concept. For every New Yorker I ask "Would you like Texas to govern New York?" I get another who is determined that New York should be able to dictate policy in Texas. The cognitive dissonance is maddening.
- Lavr_Kornilov 11y ago
  The issue with this comparison is in the US the states do not in reality have balanced budgets. Most of the states receive huge subsidies from the federal government in the form of money for highways and road construction etc. This shifts the debt from the state to the federal level, something the EU is not set up to do with its weaker federal system.
- jessedhillon 11y ago
  > For every New Yorker I ask "Would you like Texas to govern New York?" I get another who is determined that New York should be able to dictate policy in Texas. Is that really the same thing? For certain economies, the impacts of state-level decisions have federal ramifications. California can remain relatively autonomous when making decisions about how best to regulate an information economy, but I do think that Calfornians and New Yorkers have an interest in how resource-extraction economies, say in the South or in Appalachia, do business.
  - wyager 11y ago
    I honestly can't understand your argument; you're saying that for some reason, places with information economies should have legal power over places with resource economies?
colindean 11y ago
This is interesting. I wonder how many other large government bodies meant to unify multiple different cultures have hit this at some point, and what percentage has failed. The US seems to be a notable success, but at the time of its establishment, the colonies were not /that/ different. It kinda makes me think of a chart showing which states benefit more from federal tax dollars than they pay in (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/ which politifact says is "mostly true" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/...). I don't think there's much resentment from the blue states towards the red states for this specific difference, though.
- carrotleads 11y ago
  >> I wonder how many other large government bodies meant to unify multiple different cultures have hit this at some point, and what percentage has failed. Same happens in India, states with separate rules, completely different culture and still functions under one federal umberalla..
- tsunamifury 11y ago
  California, Illinois and New York pay for the majority of America. These blue states luckily have values which protect the poor, socialist requiring red states. It's ironic that those states vote against their own interests, but we blue states sigh and pay out... Because no matter our race, economic class or education we are all Americans and we all make this place what it is.
  - 001sky 11y ago
    This is too reductionist. Eliminate NYC from new york state and what happens? Same Chicago and LA in their respective states. Likewise, many western states have huge flows of government spending for reasons that don't make sense on the surface. Those states, tend to have military installations, and huge allocations of national parks and national forest land. In other words, that type of government spending is not social policy handouts. But rather is the US paying to keep up assets that it owns already (basically security and maintenance). Rural appalachia is an exception (eg, west va = highly democratic; TN home of senator gore, etc) as these states were the target of many early government projects (like TVA and Food Stamps). Lastly, huge amounts of governmnet spending are on healthcare (& social security, which again have nothing to do with modern red state/blue state issues).
Vaskerville 11y ago
Yep, nationalism is on the rise and it's a bit ugly. As a US citizen living in Europe for over 10 years now, I wish that people would just get along. There is a deep lack of faith and trust between people. And, furthermore, that the economies would get much closer together so ordering something from one EU country and having it delivered to another wasn't such a damn pain.
makeitsuckless 11y ago
> the whole point of the EU project was to make us all "Europeans" Constantly repeating the lie doesn't suddenly make it true. Also, trying to force people who prefer to remain sovereign and independent (and maybe most of all: democratic) is not a good recipe for a future without "disastrous fighting between states and people". Quite the opposite.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >the whole point of the EU project was to make us all "Europeans" Or rather that might have been the project of those in power designing the E.U., but it was never a stated goal or a desire of the people of the E.U. nations. It was mostly bureacrats and technocrats making the decisions for this -- and it has had very undemocratic infrastructure and rules in place from the start because of that. The prospect of a united Europe (which sounds rather nice when put this way, let's rephrase it, the prospect of an involuntary integration to a larger empire-like unit) was rejected several times by member nations in EU referendums (for the EU-constitution and such).

by yc1010 11y ago

jdimov9 11y ago

This might have been the cover story, but is VERY far from the actual reason the "EU project" exists. As with all similar noble initiatives, the EU has much less to do with fairness and much more with power concentration (as is becoming exceedingly obvious).

nhaehnle 11y ago
Calm the hyperbole :) GP is right that the EU is the result of a long process that started with the goal of preventing another big European war. You are also right in that a large part of what is happening is a result of power politics.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Calm the hyperbole :) Hyperbole? The E.U. is a project spearheaded by the same 3-4 nations that had the biggest colonies on earth, enslaving over 2 billion people in horrendous conditions (including mass executions when they misbehaved). And that was going on, not in the middle ages, but until the sixties (and in a different form today). Betweem them, the country that had the less colonies, started 2 world wars in order to expand. EU was created, among other things, to contain that country (and you can find that as an explicit goal from prominent French politicians advocating for its creation)... Powerful empire-building nations are not about fun and love...
  - nhaehnle 11y ago
    We actually seem to agree :) After all, you write: "EU was created, among other things, to contain that country", while my post was in reply to somebody who claimed that peace-keeping was totally irrelevant to why the EU (and its predecessors) were formed.
nailer 11y ago
It also makes it easier to sell things on a Europe wide level rather than a country-by-country level.
quonn 11y ago
That may be so, but the EU was still created by individuals. I'm sure many of the officials believed the story. I'm also still confident that the European citizens can have the EU as it should be, not as it currently is, if they can get over their short-sighted selfishness.

vmorgulis 11y ago

In France, the rift opened in 2005 with the rejection of the Constitution by the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_r... It looks like the Treaty of Versailles story. Very dark perspectives...

arrrg 11y ago

The point was rather to give the fighting appropriate and effective political venues for resolving conflicts and finding effective solutions. There will never be no fighting because that is not possible or at least quite unhealthy. After all, isn’t the point of politics to solve conflicts – which are quite normal and will always be everywhere – in a non-violent way? (Tools for solving conflicts between nations in a non-violent way have always been quite limited – with obvious disastrous consequences, especially as we got better at killing each other.) However, I do agree that it is sad that fighting is happening along national lines and that ugly stereotypes and propaganda play the role they do. Just recently I was watching serious and respectable German TV and some expert was – probably unintentionally, but hey that’s stereotypes and toxic thinking for you, it worms itself into your heads – talking about Greeks “hiding” money at home after withdrawing it that would be inaccessible and as such money the creditors would have to pay. This toxic way of framing the conversation is just so sad. Greek people who withdraw their very own money from banks because they are unable to trust those banks are not hiding anything or doing anything immoral or unethical or even slightly impolite. They are the victims in that situation – and we have to be very careful how we talk about people, especially if we generally talk about “Greeks” or “Germans” or whatever.

gutnor 11y ago
Do you remember Cyprus ? One day they are good hard working European, the next day all of them are gangster laundering russian crime money and taking money out of their bank account is fair justice ( but fear not brave citizen, your money is safe at the bank because your are not dishonest like they are ) Europe has treated its "citizen" like rubbish since the crisis. You can hardly blame the push of Eurosceptic parties across Europe - in time of crisis, Europe is really ugly.
Paradigma11 11y ago
Greek people withdrawing money (and mostly getting it out of the country) show a lack of support to their country. This excerbates the problems of their financial system. It also begs the question why the rest of europe should schow solidarity with a country if its own people dont. Voting against austerity and restructuring policies is not standing behind your goverment/nation. Trusting it with your money is.

bradleyjg 11y ago

That level of generality is too high. The whole point was to prevent Germany and France from going to war again as they had twice in the twentieth century and twice in the nineteenth century. Promiscuous expansion made ever closer integration harder and less likely and thus actually hurt the purposes for which the union was originally created. It's like when people complain about the Security Counsel and its permanent members. They are missing the point of the UN. It isn't supposed to be a fair body for global quasi-governance. It is supposed to prevent World War III.

brightball 11y ago

It's a similar issue that we see in the US. There are a number of people (and the entire Constitution) that pushes for state level decisions unless it's absolutely necessary at the Federal level. This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them. States are able to compete economically. People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views. States have to have balanced budgets while the Federal government...well...doesn't. There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though, which creates constant tension because effectively people are trying to push their views on each other rather than simply pushing them on their own states and bearing the consequences internally. At the same time, people become righteously offended at this concept. For every New Yorker I ask "Would you like Texas to govern New York?" I get another who is determined that New York should be able to dictate policy in Texas. The cognitive dissonance is maddening.

Lavr_Kornilov 11y ago
The issue with this comparison is in the US the states do not in reality have balanced budgets. Most of the states receive huge subsidies from the federal government in the form of money for highways and road construction etc. This shifts the debt from the state to the federal level, something the EU is not set up to do with its weaker federal system.
jessedhillon 11y ago
> For every New Yorker I ask "Would you like Texas to govern New York?" I get another who is determined that New York should be able to dictate policy in Texas. Is that really the same thing? For certain economies, the impacts of state-level decisions have federal ramifications. California can remain relatively autonomous when making decisions about how best to regulate an information economy, but I do think that Calfornians and New Yorkers have an interest in how resource-extraction economies, say in the South or in Appalachia, do business.
- wyager 11y ago
  I honestly can't understand your argument; you're saying that for some reason, places with information economies should have legal power over places with resource economies?

colindean 11y ago

This is interesting. I wonder how many other large government bodies meant to unify multiple different cultures have hit this at some point, and what percentage has failed. The US seems to be a notable success, but at the time of its establishment, the colonies were not /that/ different. It kinda makes me think of a chart showing which states benefit more from federal tax dollars than they pay in (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/ which politifact says is "mostly true" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/...). I don't think there's much resentment from the blue states towards the red states for this specific difference, though.

carrotleads 11y ago
>> I wonder how many other large government bodies meant to unify multiple different cultures have hit this at some point, and what percentage has failed. Same happens in India, states with separate rules, completely different culture and still functions under one federal umberalla..
tsunamifury 11y ago
California, Illinois and New York pay for the majority of America. These blue states luckily have values which protect the poor, socialist requiring red states. It's ironic that those states vote against their own interests, but we blue states sigh and pay out... Because no matter our race, economic class or education we are all Americans and we all make this place what it is.
- 001sky 11y ago
  This is too reductionist. Eliminate NYC from new york state and what happens? Same Chicago and LA in their respective states. Likewise, many western states have huge flows of government spending for reasons that don't make sense on the surface. Those states, tend to have military installations, and huge allocations of national parks and national forest land. In other words, that type of government spending is not social policy handouts. But rather is the US paying to keep up assets that it owns already (basically security and maintenance). Rural appalachia is an exception (eg, west va = highly democratic; TN home of senator gore, etc) as these states were the target of many early government projects (like TVA and Food Stamps). Lastly, huge amounts of governmnet spending are on healthcare (& social security, which again have nothing to do with modern red state/blue state issues).

Vaskerville 11y ago

Yep, nationalism is on the rise and it's a bit ugly. As a US citizen living in Europe for over 10 years now, I wish that people would just get along. There is a deep lack of faith and trust between people. And, furthermore, that the economies would get much closer together so ordering something from one EU country and having it delivered to another wasn't such a damn pain.

makeitsuckless 11y ago

> the whole point of the EU project was to make us all "Europeans" Constantly repeating the lie doesn't suddenly make it true. Also, trying to force people who prefer to remain sovereign and independent (and maybe most of all: democratic) is not a good recipe for a future without "disastrous fighting between states and people". Quite the opposite.

coldtea 11y ago
>the whole point of the EU project was to make us all "Europeans" Or rather that might have been the project of those in power designing the E.U., but it was never a stated goal or a desire of the people of the E.U. nations. It was mostly bureacrats and technocrats making the decisions for this -- and it has had very undemocratic infrastructure and rules in place from the start because of that. The prospect of a united Europe (which sounds rather nice when put this way, let's rephrase it, the prospect of an involuntary integration to a larger empire-like unit) was rejected several times by member nations in EU referendums (for the EU-constitution and such).