meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
I think you are exagerating here northerngent, i really don't see how you could say that france switzerland or the netherlands have a history of totalitarism.
The Netherlands - you have a point. They have a history of Liberalism; culturally, they're as close to the English as there is in continental Europe.
France - they have a history. In the 17th C when France was the most powerful country on earth, the state syphoned off huge amounts of revenue gained from selling French perfumes, porcelain, textiles etc. Not so long ago, Jean Marie Le Pen won 20% of the French vote: an event which is unthinkable here. During the 20th C, Socialism has been a major player in French politics.
Britain in the Napoleonic era was very draconian. Many ordinary Brits were Bonaparte supporters because he promised liberation from the oppressive British establishment which became more draconian by seeing what was happening in France. The poet William Blake was such a Bonaparte supporter and many of his poems, including Jerusalem were anti-establishment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
We could go deeper into that and define the concept of totalitarism itself following the path and the principles of Hannah Arendt. According to those and according to a large storeography Mussolini or Franco are far from being totalitarians and mere authoritarians.
In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure it's relevant. We're talking about the propensity for state influence over the people; I think its fair to say some of the major players have a history: Germany, Spain, Italy, not to mention some of the Eastern European countries.
Britain is the most centralised government in the EU, that is a fact accepted by most British politicians. The British establishment has more control over ordinary citizens than any other western EU coiuntry has over theirs.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
but It is an experience that covers solely the Germany of Hitler
You'd have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to convince me Franco and Mussolini weren't totalitarians. With regard to Germany, prior to Hitler (prior to the First World War, even), they favoured state intervention in everyday life in one form or another: in the 1913 elections, 34% of the German electorate voted for a socialist party.
If you read German history it has a long tradition of small culturally rich and very very liberal and democratic (relative to the era) principalities. The change started after the 30 years war in which the German population (there was no Germany then of course) lost between 30-50% of its population. It had the effect on the German psyche and the thought that this catasstrophe should not be allowed to happen again that startted the drive towards unification. The German national anthen Deutchland Deutschland uber alles, does not mean Germany above any other country, it means Germany above the prncipalities ie. against internal division. Apart from the Hitler era, Britain's democratic credintials don't better that of the Germans. OK, maybe a little over simplified history but to say the British have a rich democratic tradition is a little like looking at history rthrough rose coloured glasses.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
But even Germany itself has expressed politically and culturally way more than just totalitarism.
Agreed, but the point is, they have a history of left or right - we have a history of middle ground/compromise.
Britain has a history of doing enough to keep social unrest at bay. As Churchill said of the dole, it is worth 12 shillings and sixpence a week to stop a revolution.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
Improving and widening the partecipation of the European people through the parliament should be one of the Political goals of the Union.
A "European people". I mean, I'm a Northerner first and foremost, an Englishman second; most of us are parochial and value our town/city/county above the nation. The three main parties over here (all liberal parties) are campaigning on devolved power, as opposed to centralisation. The Conservative Party is using the current Prime Minister's alleged centralising tendanices as a tool to beat him with, the Prime Minister himself belongs to a party that has administered referendums on devolution in recent years, and the Liberal Democrat Party hold devolved power close to their hearts (whilst being Euro-friendly, I'll concede).
We're different. Good relations and co-operation, by all means; a common will, unnecessary and liable to generate conflict.
British governments make agreements in the EU and then blames the EU for agreements IT makes. The British then blame Europe for decisions its own government makes. Britain won't leave the EU, it will remain a member and blame Europe for its own short comings but it doesn't have the balls to stand on its own or become the 51st state of the USA so it will remain semi detach and whinge while wanting all the benefits of the EU. A rather sad and pathetic position to be in.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
Another political goal for the future of the union is speaking with a single voice in foreign politics. (as it was contempleted in the constitution signed in rome and as it was decided in the last june in the agreement in germany)
I'd prefer the space to make our own decisions, rather than have to beg, borrow and steal, which will inevitably happen as deals are made here and there; you'll have to lose ground in some areas to gain ground in others, by virtue of their being behind-closed-doors alliances in the inevitable struggle for control.
If you prefer space to make your own decisions you would support increasing power to a directly elected European legislature. The belief that the British somehow get a better deal through its government making deals in smoke filled rooms is laughable. The British government opts out of just about every policy that would improve the lives of ordinary Brits. Having spent half my life living in various EU countries I can tell you, the British way of life for most of its middle income to poorer citizens is shite compared to most western EU countries, that is how much the British government looks after its own citizens.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
This would not be anything new. we already decide our foreign politics together.
Except some rare exceptions (war in iraq) , we cooperate and we speak with a single voice on a broad number of issues: bosnia, kosovo, afghanistan, darfur, we have always had similar views on the relationship between israel and palestine and most recently we say the same things about the iran crisis.
Why do we need a common will which dictates foreign policy and economic governance in order to co-operate in international affairs?
If you have a common market you can't have one member constantly undermining everyone else which is what happens now. You should work to benefit everyone.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dolceservo
This happens because we have common values.
I agree, we do have common values. Regardless of all else, the foundations of our countries are christian in nature. It's often said that the enlighenment has its roots in England, France and Germany; it's not an opinion I agree with, it was Europe wide - taking in the United Provinces, Italy, Spain etc. So, there's a certain amount of common ground.
Yet, we still have our differences, on which most of us on this side are unwilling to compromise.
The laugh about Britain wanting to keep their differences is that the differences tend to suit the British establishment at the expense of the ordinary Brit.
< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 12/31/2007 7:24:26 AM >
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
RE: European leaders hail expansion of passport-free Sc... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread