Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

Wanderer78

mick087 wrote: »

Times change Opinions change i would be intersted in the an Irish democratic leave the EU referendum.


If the EU dont change it will happen there will be a referendum not only in Ireland but many other counties. It has a chance now to change but will it take that chance?

advocating for this kind of referendum would be dangerous right now, brexit is a clear example of this, emotions are extremely high, and growing globally, people are angry and scared, we tend not to make very rational decisions when in this frame of mind

mick087

Wanderer78 wrote: »

as varoufakis has found, leaving the eu truly isnt possible, due to the complexity of its design, if we left it would probably cause a catastrophic economic collapse here, and potentially across europe

I dont think it is really possible to leave the EU. I think there are some stormy waters coming with the UK and the EU.

It would not be good for Ireland to leave the EU at the moment. But the option must always be there if in case ireland does want to leave.

Wanderer78

mick087 wrote: »

I dont think it is really possible to leave the EU. I think there are some stormy waters coming with the UK and the EU.

It would not be good for Ireland to leave the EU at the moment. But the option must always be there if in case ireland does want to leave.

id accept this, and agree, as varoufakis does, its not really possible to leave the eu in its current state, and it wouldnt be good to do so, we must try at least to change in though, from within

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

What changes would you suggest? Specific ones, not vague handwaving, please.

I'd like to see a complete U-Turn back to the original plan for the EEC, with the EU scrapping all the extra's that they've managed to throw in. A slimmed down organisation solely focused on economics, and trade.

We don't need a government in Brussels. We need the economic benefits of a unified Europe aimed towards economic prosperity, and that's about it.

Invidious

mick087 wrote: »

It would not be good for Ireland to leave the EU at the moment. But the option must always be there if in case ireland does want to leave.

Make up your mind. We can't hop in and out of the EU at will.

Frankly, anyone who witnessed the Brexit debacle would need to be off their rocker to want to emulate that mess here. And we're not even seeing the full implications yet.

CtevenSrowder

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive been aware of environmental issues since the 80's, as a child, maybe its an autistic thing, we can tend to be very sensitive to such issues, for whatever way our brains are wired. of course there was wide scale awareness, but it has taken gretas intense catastrophization to start focusing minds on the matter

Ok, well I disagree re Greta. But I see no point in taking this further.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like to see a complete U-Turn back to the original plan for the EEC, with the EU scrapping all the extra's that they've managed to throw in. A slimmed down organisation solely focused on economics, and trade.

We don't need a government in Brussels. We need the economic benefits of a unified Europe aimed towards economic prosperity, and that's about it.

You do realize that the "original plan" for the EEC was always to progress towards "ever closer integration", and ideally to achieve a fully federal institution?

It was one of the main objections made to joining by opponents in the UK, so it was never a secret or anything.

The EEC was only ever supposed to be a transitory point. It's nonsense to want to go back to an intermediate position that was never intended to be a stable end point.

2u2me

volchitsa wrote: »

You do realize that the "original plan" for the EEC was always to progress towards "ever closer integration", and ideally to achieve a fully federal institution?

It was one of the main objections made to joining by opponents in the UK, so it was never a secret or anything.

The EEC was only ever supposed to be a transitory point. It's nonsense to want to go back to an intermediate position that was never intended to be a stable end point.

You may have added your own context to that phrase there, at least according to fullfact.org.. Why do you call it a transitionary point? Why exactly would it not work long term?

“Ever closer union” isn’t specifically a call for political union
Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a European super-state.

Cameron in Feb 2016 “we do not want to have our country bound up in an ever closer political union in Europe”. Nobody does, except Brussels of course.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like to see a complete U-Turn back to the original plan for the EEC, with the EU scrapping all the extra's that they've managed to throw in. A slimmed down organisation solely focused on economics, and trade.

We don't need a government in Brussels. We need the economic benefits of a unified Europe aimed towards economic prosperity, and that's about it.

Surprisingly Brussels rejected that idea. Shock.
EEC + NATO is surely enough? Why do we need an ever closer political union of europe? We don't and it's destructive.


*Green NATO countries

Wanderer78

2u2me wrote: »

EEC + NATO is surely enough? Why do we need an ever closer political union of europe? We don't and it's destructive.

so what should we do?

2u2me

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so what should we do?

Demand change from our politicians? I guess that's what Britain did. It's going to be ugly either way imo.

Wanderer78

2u2me wrote: »

Demand change from our politicians? I guess that's what Britain did. It's going to be ugly either way imo.

i do agree, the eu requires dramatic change urgently, or it may face collapse, unfortunately i believe our neighbors chose poorly

mick087

Invidious wrote: »

Make up your mind. We can't hop in and out of the EU at will.

Frankly, anyone who witnessed the Brexit debacle would need to be off their rocker to want to emulate that mess here. And we're not even seeing the full implications yet.

Yes i agree Bexit was very messy and we have not seen the implications as of yet.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

You do realize that the "original plan" for the EEC was always to progress towards "ever closer integration", and ideally to achieve a fully federal institution?

It was one of the main objections made to joining by opponents in the UK, so it was never a secret or anything.

The EEC was only ever supposed to be a transitory point. It's nonsense to want to go back to an intermediate position that was never intended to be a stable end point.

There were multiple perspectives about how the EEC would develop, and that's reflected in a variety of discussions held throughout it's development. It's just that the plan towards a federal system was chosen. It wasn't as "decided" as you want to suggest. It could have gone different directions entirely. Which is why I refer to returning to a purely economic organisation, which was one of the perspectives of what the EEC/EU should have been.

TomTomTim

volchitsa wrote: »

You do realize that the "original plan" for the EEC was always to progress towards "ever closer integration", and ideally to achieve a fully federal institution?

It was one of the main objections made to joining by opponents in the UK, so it was never a secret or anything.

The EEC was only ever supposed to be a transitory point. It's nonsense to want to go back to an intermediate position that was never intended to be a stable end point.

Whose fault is said ignorance? Surely it's on the media to report on these things? I never once heard about it until I studied it at college. As you said, it was always the plan, as can be seen in speeches from the 50's from Schuman and the rest of the figure heads. It's something that the media and the elites chose not to focus on, as they know well that the people would revolt.

mick087

volchitsa wrote: »

What changes would you suggest? Specific ones, not vague handwaving, please.

What changes id like to make is turn it back to the common market i might cope with that.
But it seems clear to me it was not just a common market they wanted when forming it.
What they really want and did not tell us that they want a european superstate with out the permision of the people living in each country.
A supersate with no democracy.

Junkyard Tom

mick087 wrote: »

What changes id like to make is turn it back to the common market i might cope with that.

We're not integrated enough. We need a common defence policy that incorporates Europe's eastern flank countries to provide security with regards to Russia.

We need European produced defence equipment instead of spending hundreds of billions of Euro on US hardware. Europe needs to develop the capacity to push back against Washington. If Europe wants to buy Russian gas then the US needs to keep its nose out of it European affairs.

The Russian-led Nord Stream 2 project has also infuriated the US, which fears the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over the region's energy supply and reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.

bbc.com/news

volchitsa

mick087 wrote: »

What changes id like to make is turn it back to the common market i might cope with that.
But it seems clear to me it was not just a common market they wanted when forming it.
What they really want and did not tell us that they want a european superstate with out the permision of the people living in each country.
A supersate with no democracy.

Funny. "They" wrote what "they" wanted in 1950. It's called the Schuman Plan and it talks explicitly about progressing in steps towards closer European Union, for political reasons (to avoid war between France and Germany in particular). It was never intended to be just a common market. If you didn't know that, I'd say that's your problem for not informing yourself.

https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-204-en.pdf

Also, it's simply not true to say that it has been done without the permission of the people in each country. In those countries where the people are sovereign, like Ireland, we not only had the original referendum, with the Schuman Plan readily available to anyone who could be bothered reading it, but we've also had a referendum to see if we agreed to other major changes since then. Have you forgotten Maastricht?

In countries like the UK where parliament, and not the people, is sovereign, parliament accepted those changes. Without that, the European Union could not have been created.

Now I don't know if you really didn't know any of that, or if you do know but don't care about truth when it comes to one of your bogeymen.

mick087

volchitsa wrote: »

https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-204-en.pdf

Funny. "They" wrote what "they" wanted in

1950. It's called the Schuman Plan and it talks explicitly about progressing in steps towards closer European Union, for political reasons (to avoid war between France and Germany in particular). It was never intended to be just a common market. If you didn't know that, I'd say that's your problem for not informing yourself.[B
I do know The economic parts of his plans was in in the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 not sure about what it has become today.[/B]

Also, it's simply not true to say that it has been done without the permission of the people in each country. In those countries where the people are sovereign, like Ireland, we not only had the original referendum, with the Schuman Plan readily available to anyone who could be bothered reading it, but we've also had a referendum to see if we agreed to other major changes since then. Have you forgotten Maastricht?
Maastricht was that the one where we had to vote again? Very democratic.
My mistake that was Lisbon.

In countries like the UK where parliament, and not the people, is sovereign, parliament accepted those changes. Without that, the European Union could not have been created.
Well the people in the UK did speak and they was not listened to and what went on was a disgrace not only to the british people but democracy itself.

Now I don't know if you really didn't know any of that, or if you do know but don't care about truth when it comes to one of your bogeymen.
Bogemen-No comment.

volchitsa

mick087 wrote: »

Funny. "They" wrote what "they" wanted in

1950. It's called the Schuman Plan and it talks explicitly about progressing in steps towards closer European Union, for political reasons (to avoid war between France and Germany in particular). It was never intended to be just a common market. If you didn't know that, I'd say that's your problem for not informing yourself.[B
I do know The economic parts of his plans was in in the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 not sure about what it has become today.[/B]

Also, it's simply not true to say that it has been done without the permission of the people in each country. In those countries where the people are sovereign, like Ireland, we not only had the original referendum, with the Schuman Plan readily available to anyone who could be bothered reading it, but we've also had a referendum to see if we agreed to other major changes since then. Have you forgotten Maastricht?
Maastricht was that the one where we had to vote again? Very democratic.
My mistake that was Lisbon.

In countries like the UK where parliament, and not the people, is sovereign, parliament accepted those changes. Without that, the European Union could not have been created.
Well the people in the UK did speak and they was not listened to and what went on was a disgrace not only to the british people but democracy itself.

Now I don't know if you really didn't know any of that, or if you do know but don't care about truth when it comes to one of your bogeymen.
Bogemen-No comment.

I don't understand any of this. Could you try again please?

Tired Gardener

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We're not integrated enough. We need a common defence policy that incorporates Europe's eastern flank countries to provide security with regards to Russia.

We need European produced defence equipment instead of spending hundreds of billions of Euro on US hardware. Europe needs to develop the capacity to push back against Washington. If Europe wants to buy Russian gas then the US needs to keep its nose out of it European affairs.

The Russian-led Nord Stream 2 project has also infuriated the US, which fears the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over the region's energy supply and reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.

bbc.com/news

Very well reasoned changes, can't fault any of them.

CrankyHaus

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Very well reasoned changes, can't fault any of them.

The problem with a common defence policy is that Europe's military powers don't share common defence interests.
The French prioritise neo-colonial adventures in their old stomping ground in North Africa, which they see EU common defence as a handy way to get multilateral support for, and couldn't care less about Putin or Eastern Europe.
Germany is highly averse to militarism, for sound historical reasons, and would rather pursue its interests in Eastern Europe through diplomacy.
Most countries West of Poland want nothing to do with challenging the Russians.
Greece just wants support against its arch-rival Turkey, but has minimal faith in the EU actually providing it.
The Eastern Europeans are well aware of all this, so they cosy up to the US and NATO for protection instead.

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The problem with a common defence policy is that Europe's military powers don't share common defence interests.
The French prioritise neo-colonial adventures in their old stomping ground in North Africa, which they see EU common defence as a handy way to get multilateral support for, and couldn't care less about Putin or Eastern Europe.
Germany is highly averse to militarism, for sound historical reasons, and would rather pursue its interests in Eastern Europe through diplomacy.
Most countries West of Poland want nothing to do with challenging the Russians.
Greece just wants support against its arch-rival Turkey, but has minimal faith in the EU actually providing it.
The Eastern Europeans are well aware of all this, so they cosy up to the US and NATO for protection instead.

It's not just that. Governments are more interested in social spending than they are in investing and maintaining a strong military. They've been relying on the US for so long, and enjoying the minor defense budgets, they can't face moving those monies to defense (considering how badly they've managed, in many cases, there wouldn't be any actual money for defense).

Take Germany for example. They have consistently failed to maintain NATO stockpiles of equipment, so while, on paper, they could field large divisions of armor and mech infantry, the equipment isn't ready to be used. The last time I looked at this (a year or more ago, admittedly), the reports said that Germany wouldn't be able to respond in any defensive war that came without advance notice of months.

There isn't the will for a European force because nobody wants to shift money away from more politically important areas.

Chris_Heilong

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The problem with a common defence policy is that Europe's military powers don't share common defence interests.
The French prioritise neo-colonial adventures in their old stomping ground in North Africa, which they see EU common defence as a handy way to get multilateral support for, and couldn't care less about Putin or Eastern Europe.
Germany is highly averse to militarism, for sound historical reasons, and would rather pursue its interests in Eastern Europe through diplomacy.
Most countries West of Poland want nothing to do with challenging the Russians.
Greece just wants support against its arch-rival Turkey, but has minimal faith in the EU actually providing it.
The Eastern Europeans are well aware of all this, so they cosy up to the US and NATO for protection instead.

Agreed, We are all very different countries with different issue/wants, there is no European identity to unify decision making. Ireland is too entangled in the EU to consider any ideas of going independent and having no strong natural resources to fall back on we just remain so, with the idea of an EU army I have heard talk of in the past I am sure if the EU went to war with Russia or China Ireland would be an easy target to capture and use as a launching ground for enemy forces.

AbusesToilets

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We're not integrated enough. We need a common defence policy that incorporates Europe's eastern flank countries to provide security with regards to Russia.

We need European produced defence equipment instead of spending hundreds of billions of Euro on US hardware. Europe needs to develop the capacity to push back against Washington. If Europe wants to buy Russian gas then the US needs to keep its nose out of it European affairs.

The Russian-led Nord Stream 2 project has also infuriated the US, which fears the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over the region's energy supply and reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.

bbc.com/news

The US has funded the EU's development for decades, by allowing the Euro countries to largely ignore defense spending. The only countries who take their NATO responsibility seriously are the ones who have direct experience living under Russian occupation.

Without a unified military outlook, there will never be a fully federated Europe

Quantum Erasure

Washington Redskins just been cancelled.... they'll keep the name for now though



https://twitter.com/_JakeRussell/status/1282661676207218688

excludedbin

Are you really objecting to a team changing their name from 'redskins'? It's not exactly ambiguous in being racist and people have been talking about it for a long time.

Quantum Erasure

Sorry, wrong thread, this seems to be about the EU....

Silentcorner

They better get rid of The Fighting Irish...or else!!!

Junkyard Tom

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The problem with a common defence policy is that Europe's military powers don't share common defence interests.

Europe is geographically common to them all, they're all broadly democratic, they would all see Russia as a potential threat, they all need to source defence equipment that could be procured internally in Europe. How many hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent in Europe on US built F-35's in the next decade in European states?

CrankyHaus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Europe is geographically common to them all, they're all broadly democratic, they would all see Russia as a potential threat, they all need to source defence equipment that could be procured internally in Europe. How many hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent in Europe on US built F-35's in the next decade in European states?

Does France see Russia as a potential threat? They were happy to sell them Mistral Amphibius Assault Ships until 2015 when the Ukraine crisis queered the pitch.