Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

United States of Europe, or else disintegration of the Euro

13

Comments

  • #62
    pseudofax
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭pseudofax


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    The only people controlling our budget is our government. You also completely misunderstand the Aliens Act 1935

    Bullology. If Ireland really controlled the budget, we would not allow Germans to leak confidential Irish documents such as our budget, to the German Parliament.

    Not only did that happen once, but twice. That shows their level of respect towards the citizens of this country. These two acts could potentially be considered an act of harm to national security, no?

    It's seriously disrespectful, if not downright dangerous with respect to national security to be handing over secure information to foreign entities. Something like this would not happen in a properly run country, say Switzerland or the United Kingdom.

    http://www.politics.ie/news/leaked-documents-given-german-parliament-reveal-ireland-may-need-mini-budget-year-137.html


  • #63
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    pseudofax wrote: »
    Both. Unless there are Irish citizens pulling the strings, it is entirely factual to state that foreign nationals are running our own country. I doubt many EU citizens outside of Ireland or indeed the faceless Troika hold Irish passports.

    We've had Referenda to share sovereignty in some areas. As for the Troika, they do quarterly reviews to see if we meet targets. Most of the original FF plan was adopted when they granted the bailout package. They obviously don't have Irish passports because well, it's outside assistance!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #64
    pseudofax
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭pseudofax


    K-9 wrote: »
    We've had Referenda to share sovereignty in some areas. As for the Troika, they do quarterly reviews to see if we meet targets. Most of the original FF plan was adopted when they granted the bailout package. They obviously don't have Irish passports because well, it's outside assistance!

    Any country that needs "outside assistance" to the degree currently employed here is not a country, but a colony. Do you think answering to a bunch of faceless Germans is the hallmark of great country? I don't think so. There is an old British saying that the Irish are incapable of self governance. To be fair, we have yet to prove yet that we can actually run this country without "external assistance":rolleyes:

    Back on topic, there was a recent great analysis of the implications for Ireland should the Eurozone collapse. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0627/1224318806099.html


  • #65
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Isn't there a minimum standard of discourse in this forum? Some of the last posts should go here instead

    Incidentally Declan Ganley and Pat Cox were on Today FM today, and both agreed that, if not a USE, certainly significant integration is required, or else the Union will disintegrate.


  • #66
    pseudofax
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭pseudofax


    Dave! wrote: »
    Isn't there a minimum standard of discourse in this forum? Some of the last posts should go here instead

    Incidentally Declan Ganley and Pat Cox were on Today FM today, and both agreed that, if not a USE, certainly significant integration is required, or else the Union will disintegrate.

    You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided, just like myself. Just because my arguments aren't very "palatable" does not mean they are lacking in evidence. So far, you have not provided examples to counter the well publicised statements I have made, so the buck stops with you buddy. At least point out or try to address the claims you have problems with. It's what I would do.

    The eventual disintegration of the EuroZone is the consequence of these bailouts. People will only put up with so much before they refuse and demand Irish expulsion from the European Union. Greece is on the edge to complete anarchy, their citizens are burning german flags and comparing Merkel to Hitler! If this type of carry on spreads to other countries, this could not just be the disintegration of the eurozone, but the start of another World War.

    It's not a conspiracy to state that Germany has effectively Colonised Ireland as a direct consequence of the EU/IMF bailout program, this isn't too difficult to comprehend. It's been publicised daily in mass media here for over a year. Most conspiracy theories remain unfalsifiable, therefore they are easilly refuted. Point out any statement I have made that you believe is unfalsifiable and I will provide you with more evidence. Just saying they are "conspiracies" is complete and utter laziness on your behalf.

    You can debate this for page and pages and pages and pages, but the simple fact that remains is that until a debt write down is sought and these socialisation of private gambling losses are removed, anarchy is going to continue until eventual collapse. The Euro project was never destined for long term survival. World Famous economists like Milton Friedman and British Conservatives stated this back before the euro was put into practice.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0622/1224318456353.html
    If we are to avoid an endless series of referendums in the coming years, we will have to give the Government a degree of authority to agree to treaty changes that have not yet been agreed.
    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    What if we don't want them to be agreed? This quote assumed that we actually want to sign up to this stuff in the first place, which is precisely why I balk at the suggestion of letting the government sign what it wants without a referendum.

    I think a problem with the pro Europe crowd is failing to recognize that there are people out there who are not swayed by scaremongering from the no side, who aren't voting for bogus reasons, but who simply do not, on principle, want to transfer any more power from the hands of the Irish citizenry.

    That issue is obviously not going to be solved by giving the government carte blanche to any degree, all it's going to do is massively increase hostility.


  • #68
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    meglome wrote: »
    And you're also happy to bugger off and not take any responsibility for what we did here as a nation only recently. Double standards much.

    Will you please stop peddling this crap, first of all "We" obviously doesn't include people like myself who weren't old enough to vote in 2002 or 2007, and second of all as you well know, nobody actually voted for the policy of bailing out failed banks, as nobody knew this issue would come up pre-election, ergo it wasn't mentioned in ANY party's manifesto, ergo you cannot claim the people voted for it.

    Our economic problems extend far beyond the financial system as you're so fond of reminding everyone, but there's no doubt that without the f*ckup that was the bank guarantee and the banking scandals, we would be in a far lesser mess than we're in. We'd still be in a mess, but not as bad a mess. The main reason investors lost confidence in Ireland was because the bank bailout turned out to be so much more expensive than the government claimed, and if you don't believe that, perhaps cast your mind back to the day it was revealed that Anglo's debts exceeded something like 60bn, and note how much our bond rates subsequently soared.

    I'm not sure if it's willfull needling of people on your part, but your constant insistence that every single person in Ireland is guilty and deserves the horror we are now facing is both incorrect and incendiary. I'm sure I speak at the very least for much of my generation (in early twenties now) when I say, I couldn't even vote in 2002 or 2007, so stop tarring us with the "we all deserve this" rubbish.

    This is probably the wrong thread for posting this in but you do this in every single debate about the Irish economy and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's utterly sick of it. You sound like that prisoner in the Life of Brian who's been conditioned by the Romans to believe that he deserves to have the sh!te kicked out of him day after day. Enough.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EI7p2p1QJI


  • #69
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    What if we don't want them to be agreed? This quote assumed that we actually want to sign up to this stuff in the first place, which is precisely why I balk at the suggestion of letting the government sign what it wants without a referendum.

    I think a problem with the pro Europe crowd is failing to recognize that there are people out there who are not swayed by scaremongering from the no side, who aren't voting for bogus reasons, but who simply do not, on principle, want to transfer any more power from the hands of the Irish citizenry.

    I don't think that's not recognised - it's just that both the opponents and supporters of European integration are smallish minorities. One could equally say that the opponents of European integration fail to recognise that there's a majority out there who don't have any problem in principle with transfers of power from the Irish government to the European level - something which perhaps results from the impression that we have relatively little control over our government in any case.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    That issue is obviously not going to be solved by giving the government carte blanche to any degree, all it's going to do is massively increase hostility.

    While it would undoubtedly infuriate opponents of integration, the majority would probably not find it particularly an issue. I think you might well find that most people feel they should vote in EU referendums, but find the job of doing so complex and bothersome, and are willing to let the government see to it as they do for far more immediately consequential matters. That is, after all, why we have governments.

    I appreciate it always looks to the No side as if the government just agrees to everything proposed in Europe, but that's a far from accurate impression, since things the government doesn't agree to don't actually make it here for a referendum or Dáil decision - so, in effect, a filter is applied which produces the impression that Irish governments are relentlessly pro-integrationist. They're not, though.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #70
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I'm sure I speak at the very least for much of my generation (in early twenties now) when I say, I couldn't even vote in 2002 or 2007,

    Out of curiosity, did the early twenties people object to the bill for their hospital care at birth and education over the last decade or so when "We" picked up the tab for it?

    "We" doing so seems to have been fine when you were a beneficiary of such expenditure...


  • #71
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    What if we don't want them to be agreed? This quote assumed that we actually want to sign up to this stuff in the first place,

    The electorate voted in referenda in favour of us signing up to do "this stuff", hence it is reasonable to assume that the electorate were in favour of "this stuff". Apart from people like yourself there doesn't appear to be any major public demand of a reversal of our previous decisions (even if the electorate sometimes have contradictory opinions on how "this stuff" should be done).


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Will you please stop peddling this crap, first of all "We" obviously doesn't include people like myself who weren't old enough to vote in 2002 or 2007, and second of all as you well know, nobody actually voted for the policy of bailing out failed banks, as nobody knew this issue would come up pre-election, ergo it wasn't mentioned in ANY party's manifesto, ergo you cannot claim the people voted for it.

    Our economic problems extend far beyond the financial system as you're so fond of reminding everyone, but there's no doubt that without the f*ckup that was the bank guarantee and the banking scandals, we would be in a far lesser mess than we're in. We'd still be in a mess, but not as bad a mess. The main reason investors lost confidence in Ireland was because the bank bailout turned out to be so much more expensive than the government claimed, and if you don't believe that, perhaps cast your mind back to the day it was revealed that Anglo's debts exceeded something like 60bn, and note how much our bond rates subsequently soared.

    I'm not sure if it's willfull needling of people on your part, but your constant insistence that every single person in Ireland is guilty and deserves the horror we are now facing is both incorrect and incendiary. I'm sure I speak at the very least for much of my generation (in early twenties now) when I say, I couldn't even vote in 2002 or 2007, so stop tarring us with the "we all deserve this" rubbish.

    This is probably the wrong thread for posting this in but you do this in every single debate about the Irish economy and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's utterly sick of it. You sound like that prisoner in the Life of Brian who's been conditioned by the Romans to believe that he deserves to have the sh!te kicked out of him day after day. Enough.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EI7p2p1QJI

    That no more exempts you from responsibility for Ireland's situation than not voting for Fianna Fáil throughout the boom years would - you're not to blame, certainly, but you're a citizen of Ireland, and you're still involved in what Ireland does even if you disagree with it.

    You cannot simply wash your hands of involvement in cleaning up the mess and leave the country, while still claiming to be patriotic, which is what meglome is pointing out pseudofax is doing. You can have one or the other, but not both.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #73
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    pseudofax wrote: »
    There is no identity known as European, European is a geographical term, not a cultural one, as the politicians in the EU would lead you to believe. You are not European. It does not exist. It's like the easter bunny. They made it up.

    1) If "They made it up", then it does exist now.

    2) All identies are "made up" - just look at how the attitudes of Ulster Unionists changed wrt to being "Irish" over the 19th Century where more than one Unionist family had ancestors who supported the 1798 rebellion, yet opposed "Home Rule" a hundred years later.

    3) The electorate voted in favour of treaties introducing (the concept of) citizenship of the European Union, hence the electorate accepted the identity.

    Since you have a problem with that, it points to you not accepting the decisions "in final appeal" of the electorate.


  • #74
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That no more exempts you from responsibility for Ireland's situation than not voting for Fianna Fáil throughout the boom years would - you're not to blame, certainly, but you're a citizen of Ireland, and you're still involved in what Ireland does even if you disagree with it.

    You cannot simply wash your hands of involvement in cleaning up the mess and leave the country, while still claiming to be patriotic, which is what meglome is pointing out pseudofax is doing. You can have one or the other, but not both.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    Sorry but

    What is his connection in real terms of causation and effect ????

    If referendum results are ignored??

    Citizens are not to be blamed for what their GOVT does if they have not voted them in or have been lied to.

    Infact it is like holding individual catholics responsible for church abuse and peadophilia because they go to mass.

    Or holding individuals responsible for what large numbers in their race or creed do simply because they take part in the public life of that community.

    You can be a muslim and take part in public muslim life and not be held responsible for what a group of powerful muslims do to hurt others...

    You can be an American and not be held responsible for the Iraq war.

    It depends on YOUR individual behavouir...

    How did you vote?

    Did you partake in corruption??


    If not then you cannot be held responsibility for those who did..

    Guilt sharing ..is like debt sharing....it lessens the burden for those who actually committed the misdeed.

    It is letting individual A off the hook by trying to convince others that they are responsible for what individual A did if individual lied and hid their deeds..

    I never voted Fianna Fáil...i have been vocally opposed to corruption

    I have the privelege of being totally debt free.

    I have the fortune being self employed and doing well..

    I know i am lucky....i am not smug

    But I bear no responsibilty to what has happened.

    I did not live my life that way.

    And i want those that were to pay.

    How exactly did that poster contribute to the current problems then???

    What your definition of being Irish is and being patriotic is simply your definition.

    We can choose to be uninvolved with what Ireland does if we object to it morally and see it as unwise and still be Irish.

    And i am not defending psuedofax at all here i think he is wrong..

    But this patriotism goes too ways ...if we are involved in the state..then the state should be involved with citizens ....caring for their health and education and helping the vulnerabe

    Supporting the poor financially

    My issue is this...my generation did not know the early eighties etc..
    But i know his....people were told to tighten their belts

    Contribute ..patriotism ..the Green Jersey ..GUFF GUFF GUFF


    Tax ..and cuts etc..emmigration....

    For the good of the country

    And our duty to each other .....as a tribe ..a nation

    But when the wealth came.....

    Were the hospitals invested in???

    Were the poor supported and aided??

    Did people in Bally mun experience the boom??

    NO


    It became an individualist society....spirialling property prices spurred by govt subsidies and corrupt banks


    And corrupt politicians lining their pockets...

    And i voted for parties asking for higher taxation

    But they could not even collect the tax they pledged too.....

    Offshore accounts...tax dodging

    Bribery fuelling poor developments

    What i am syaing is ...the patriotic arguement has been used before...


    Pull together ...

    But only when they need money and need us to shut up...

    When there is money there .....that is not repaid to those who need it in Ireland

    The patriotism and pull together goes out the window ....

    We worry we are asked to tighten our belts again in solidarity....but we know when it suits that soldidarity guff will fall...

    It is false...and we will still be left with unreformed banking sector...with the political scene not cleaned up

    The patriotism works two ways

    And it is different for everyone.

    And it is perfectly fine for citizens not to feel patriotic at all...merely secular


  • #75
    pseudofax
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭pseudofax


    View wrote: »
    1) If "They made it up", then it does exist now.

    2) All identies are "made up" - just look at how the attitudes of Ulster Unionists changed wrt to being "Irish" over the 19th Century where more than one Unionist family had ancestors who supported the 1798 rebellion, yet opposed "Home Rule" a hundred years later.

    3) The electorate voted in favour of treaties introducing (the concept of) citizenship of the European Union, hence the electorate accepted the identity. Aren't NI citizens entitled to both Irish and British passports? That isn't acceptable anywhere else.

    Since you have a problem with that, it points to you not accepting the decisions "in final appeal" of the electorate.

    Good point. The Ulster identity remains a strange beast. I can understand the people on the mainland, and also that it's essentially up to Ulster to decide at this point what country they wish to identify with, but you are correct, Northern Ireland barely qualifies as a distinct culture. It's not even a country, but a province. The two passport entitlement is the result of the Good Friday Agreement under Irish Law. British Law didn't creat that entitlement as far as I know. It's not a joint agreement.

    (2) I am aware all identities are the product of human planning, I am quite nihilistic at the best of times, so I know how most human endevours are arbitrary and false, so lets not depress each other any further:(

    It is worth noting that these "identities" are based in Law, so it does mean something, no matter how artificially constructed the Law remains. Unless you believe the laws came "from god" or similar.

    (3) I accept that this may be true as a future goal, but as of now, there is no European Union Citizenship equal in status to that of a Sovereign State. You cannot travel on an EU only passport for example, you represent your country first, EU second.


  • #76
    FullBeard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭FullBeard


    pseudofax wrote: »

    (2) I am aware all identities are the product of human planning, I am quite nihilistic at the best of times, so I know how most human endevours are arbitrary and false, so lets not depress each other any further:(

    It is worth noting that these "identities" are based in Law, so it does mean something, no matter how artificially constructed the Law remains. Unless you believe the laws came "from god" or similar.

    What? (I'm a European, btw).


  • #77
    pseudofax
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭pseudofax


    FullBeard wrote: »
    What? (I'm a European, btw).

    It's a supplementary citizenship of sorts, so this implies it's not really a proper or "True" citizenship, but an afterthought of the European Union. It it really is so special as they claim, why not abolish national passports altogether and fully integrate like the old USSR?

    When you say you are "European", you aren't referring to your nationality, but to your geographic location. Just like a US citizen is every bit as "American" as a Brazillian, Argentinian, Mexican, Paraguay citizen etc. All of these citizens are "American", but none of them share the same similar EU rights across the board here, as is with EEA law.


  • #78
    FullBeard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭FullBeard


    pseudofax wrote: »
    It's a supplementary citizenship of sorts, so this implies it's not really a proper or "True" citizenship, but an afterthought of the European Union. It it really is so special as they claim, why not abolish national passports altogether and fully integrate like the old USSR?

    When you say you are "European", you aren't referring to your nationality, but to your geographic location. Just like a US citizen is every bit as "American" as a Brazillian, Argentinian, Mexican, Paraguay citizen etc. All of these citizens are "American", but none of them share the same similar EU rights across the board here, as is with EEA law.

    When I say I am a European, I mean that I have an emotional and philosophical affinity with the goals of European unity.

    And one can equally state that "Irish" refers to a geographical location. You've already conceded that identities are the result of planning or are "arbitrary"; so, to be intellectually consistent, you must now concede that a European identity is just as legitimate as an Irish one for those who decide to buy into it. I prefer the European identity because it's broader and more inclusive than an Irish one (or a German one, or a Finnish one, etc.).


  • #79
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FullBeard wrote: »
    When I say I am a European, I mean that I have an emotional and philosophical affinity with the goals of European unity.

    And one can equally state that "Irish" refers to a geographical location. You've already conceded that identities are the result of planning, so to be intellectually consistent, you must now concede that a European identity is just as legitimate as an Irish one. I prefer the European identity because it's broader and more inclusive than an Irish one (or a German one, or a Finnish one, etc.).

    One can also have a European identity by virtue of association with the various strands of European culture - Italian art, Scandinavian social democracy, Celtic mysticism, Greek philosophy, Roman virtues, and so on - Shakespeare, Nietzche, Joyce, Kafka, the Nibelungenlied, the Sagas, etc etc. These are things that make us - and the US - European rather than Asian, and transcend national identity.

    They're the basis on which I would consider myself European, and would consider 'European' to be a genuinely meaningful identity. It's my heritage, and I wouldn't for a moment dream of wanting to restrict my heritage to only what's available in Ireland and the UK.

    On the political level, that means that a good outcome for Ireland is something I want ahead of a good outcome for the other European countries, but a good outcome for Europe is something I want ahead of a good outcome for the US or China. Those two preferences sometimes conflict, where a good outcome for Ireland within Europe is a worse outcome for Europe overall - for example, I think the UK leaving the EU would be a good outcome for Ireland, but a bad outcome for the EU.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #80
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    One can also have a European identity by virtue of association with the various strands of European culture - Italian art, Scandinavian social democracy, Celtic mysticism, Greek philosophy, Roman virtues, and so on - Shakespeare, Nietzche, Joyce, Kafka, the Nibelungenlied, the Sagas, etc etc. These are things that make us - and the US - European rather than Asian, and transcend national identity.

    They're the basis on which I would consider myself European, and would consider 'European' to be a genuinely meaningful identity. It's my heritage, and I wouldn't for a moment dream of wanting to restrict my heritage to only what's available in Ireland and the UK.

    On the political level, that means that a good outcome for Ireland is something I want ahead of a good outcome for the other European countries, but a good outcome for Europe is something I want ahead of a good outcome for the US or China. Those two preferences sometimes conflict, where a good outcome for Ireland within Europe is a worse outcome for Europe overall - for example, I think the UK leaving the EU would be a good outcome for Ireland, but a bad outcome for the EU.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Look genetically and historically we are all European.

    It's no big deal and it's nothing to get starry eyed about.

    It's always been that way.

    Culturally we are miles apart in behavouir language and to be hoest most Europeans look down on Ireland as a cultural backwater.

    There is a huge level of racism and zenophobia in Europe towards other europeans i find.

    The stereotyping and blaming of Greeks Germans blahblah...

    And we see how different culturally we are.

    Are we more similar than we are to Americans....yes ...and then no

    In beliefs and politics definitely..

    However in popular culture and communication...no

    I mean how many Irish people speak a second European language?

    It should have been one of the first things the EU thought of...

    EU politicans cannot speak directly to the whole of Europe without translation....that makes a difference..

    Europeans have you shared film culture no shared pop culture (a littlenot much)

    They are largely unaware of each others literatary traditions.

    European ??? Maybe i am wrong but i think many French Italians and Germans would dispute such an identity.

    I think the fact that some Irish feel they don't want to restrict their heritage to Ireland says a lot about Ireland and what it is lacking...namely well culture....we don't support it

    In Germany Italy and France the arts gets huge financial support from the Govt. There are many Opera Houses and theatres on every Street.

    They PRESERVE their historically important sites..we build roads through ours (maybe not literally but you get my meaning)

    They preserve their language (not that we should not celebrate our anglophone culture we should more than we do)

    But it is like Irish people want to have the cake and eat it too....they don't want to give into these things here ...so they attach themselves to them in Europe....they attach an importance to being European culturally because it makes up for what is often lacking here..soul ...and a value placed on artistic creativity...a value of history

    The care we give to galleries and museums is really poor here...

    Yet we want to enjoy them

    Shakespeare is universal....Greek philosophy is for the world....the arts belong universally to humans...

    It is not European...it's human.....

    We here in Ireland have less to do with Greek Philosphy than the Eygptions did you know ???

    They influenced the Greeks particularly the pythagorians...Asian metaphysics is said to have possibly influenced early Greek metaphysics..

    And when the library of Alexandria was burnt by either Julius Ceaser or destroyed by the Roman Emperor Aurelian it was Islamic scholars that saved some of the manuscripts and teahings and kept them during the dark ages of europe (or at least that is what some refered to them as there still was much culture) ..and in later years Islamic scholars where the ones to help distribute the teachings of plato and other greeks to christian scholars.

    The roman empire stretched right through Africa and Augustine Of Hippo was himself from Roman Africa...and he influenced the early Roman Catholic chucrh....His essay entitled 'The city of god' hugely influenced civil life and administration and the church ....In fact the reason you have the vatican state etc is largely because of the influence of his thinking..


    Christianity has influenced european culture and spreads throughout the world

    The orthodox church spreads throughout eastern europe and greece and Russia ...and i have heard many say they feel more akin with each other than 'europeans' and they feel this kinship through being orthodox not european.


    In serbia particularly they feel a strong bond with russia.

    Asia has had a huge influence on europe...from european art to beyond..read 'Asia In The Making Of Europe' by Donald Lach....

    Asia made huge contributions in culture and technology all throughout european history.

    Lach wrote a study called 'Contributions to by China To German Civilisation From 1648-1740'....

    And ancient Europe in turn greatly influenced the world.

    China greatly influenced porcelainpottery and ceramics...we even call a lot of it ..china

    Asian food is as popular (and as genuine ) if not more so than Italian or french...

    American pop culture is everywhere ...throughout Europe..

    We see way more American films than European films...

    Culture has become global...we are no more Europeans culturally than global cultural citizens.

    But global culture is so ubiquitous we don't see it.




    If you have a European heritage you have a global heritage...

    We experience this global heritage more i think think than a specific European one...particularly the American one ..

    And American culture is much more prominent in all European countries than other european cultures i would say.


  • #81
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    We see way more American films than European films...

    False dichotomy - American films come from the European tradition. Asian films, by contrast, are based on a different set of archetypes and cultural referents.

    And please, please, drop the extended line style. It produces huge walls of text that I don't even want to read. Use ellipses if you must...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    False dichotomy - American films come from the European tradition. Asian films, by contrast, are based on a different set of archetypes and cultural referents.

    And please, please, drop the extended line style. It produces huge walls of text that I don't even want to read. Use ellipses if you must...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    No they don't again it is more complicated than that Edison and the Lumiére brothers started to show moving pictures to audiences simultaneaously.Then Metuscope another American company became the largest company. Melies a french filmaker Méliés remade films by Edison and redistributed them. These were all shown in halls of temporary settings. The first permanent cinema was in 1905 in Pittsbourgh. And the term Nickleodeon was coined all cinemas were little Nickleodeons or the Odeon or something. American companies cranked up production and the American situation led to a boom worldwide. The concept of film continuity developed in America too in Edison's company and Pathé made contributions.
    All film companies in America decided to pool their patents to stop litigation they included Pathé, Edison, Biograph, Vitagraph, Lubin, Selig, Essanay, Kalem, and the Kleine Optical Company, a major importer of European films. They developed originally together as one media as there was no language barrier in the silent films. However in 1927 the 'Jazz Singer' changed that. American film traditions and narrative and style diverged from various European ones and became most prominent in the Anglophone world. One did not come from the other they developed together and then diverged. With Talkies a clear difference and separation occured. Language does that. American film is American and Anglophone.

    Even if i am wrong and even if you think that American film did originate from European film and therefore is a false dichotomy, does that not mean that all American culture comes from European culture? So is the European/American dichotomy itself not a false dichotomy? It becomes gobal culture then not European or American.

    Culture is human, Shakespeare and Beethoven belong to the whole world.

    ;-) It's only reading scofflaw ;-) But i do go on a bit yeah.:-)


  • #83
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    No they don't again it is more complicated than that Edison and the Lumiére brothers started to show moving pictures to audiences simultaneaously.Then Metuscope another American company became the largest company. Melies a french filmaker Méliés remade films by Edison and redistributed them. These were all shown in halls of temporary settings. The first permanent cinema was in 1905 in Pittsbourgh. And the term Nickleodeon was coined all cinemas were little Nickleodeons or the Odeon or something. American companies cranked up production and the American situation led to a boom worldwide. The concept of film continuity developed in America too in Edison's company and Pathé made contributions.
    All film companies in America decided to pool their patents to stop litigation they included Pathé, Edison, Biograph, Vitagraph, Lubin, Selig, Essanay, Kalem, and the Kleine Optical Company, a major importer of European films. They developed originally together as one media as there was no language barrier in the silent films. However in 1927 the 'Jazz Singer' changed that. American film traditions and narrative and style diverged from various European ones and became most prominent in the Anglophone world. One did not come from the other they developed together and then diverged. With Talkies a clear difference and separation occured. Language does that. American film is American and Anglophone.

    That's a history of the technology and technical/legal evolution of American film, though.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Even if i am wrong and even if you think that American film did originate from European film and therefore is a false dichotomy, does that not mean that all American culture comes from European culture?

    Yes...that's what I said!
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    So is the European/American dichotomy itself not a false dichotomy?

    Yes, that was the false dichotomy I was referring to.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    It becomes gobal culture then not European or American.

    No, that's a reflection of the success of that culture.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Culture is human, Shakespeare and Beethoven belong to the whole world.

    I hate to say it, but that's actually devoid of any real meaning, Shakespeare was English, and his characters are very recognisably not, say, Chinese or Micronesian - to say that "Shakespeare belongs to whole world" means nothing other than that anyone in any culture can learn to appreciate their genius. And that's either a statement of European cultural hegemony or an entirely meaningless remark.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    ;-) It's only reading scofflaw ;-) But i do go on a bit yeah.:-)

    I don't mind a lot of content (I write post essays myself pretty frequently), but spacing it as a set of one-liners makes it unreadably long and disjointed.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #84
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    I don't understand the fact that you might feel able to claim Greek philosophy (influenced by Africa and saved by muslim scholars) and Shakespeare as part of your heritage being Irish( i assume you are Irish:-) and yet feel Shakespeare does not belong to the world. Beethoven wrote his ode to joy for the world. And it is Traditionally part of New Years celebrations in Japan.If you can claim it as your heritage so can the world. Or else Shakespeare is just English.

    Asian and African culture has greatly influenced Europe for years and visa versa. The Roman empire reached far into different parts of Africa and the east and had a huge influence and was itself in turn greatly influenced.

    If we have a European heritage then we have a Global Heritage that belongs to all humans....I LIKE IT.

    But lets keep sovreignty;-)!


  • #85
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I don't understand the fact that you might feel able to claim Greek philosophy (influenced by Africa and saved by muslim scholars) and Shakespeare as part of your heritage being Irish( i assume you are Irish:-) and yet feel Shakespeare does not belong to the world. Beethoven wrote his ode to joy for the world. And it is Traditionally part of New Years celebrations in Japan.If you can claim it as your heritage so can the world. Or else Shakespeare is just English.

    I'm afraid that's a classic example of begging the question. Your argument that Shakespeare is 'global' can clearly be applied to Shakespeare being European, and it's pretty silly to deny he was writing about British and European events, not global ones. His characters don't conform to Asian or African cultural stereotypes, whereas they're virtually all instantly recognisable to a European audience (one of his advantages there is that he was writing in a period before the 18th century establishment of nationalism).

    Essentially, you're simply presenting another false dichotomy - a cultural item is either (a) specific to the country or (b) global - the latter by virtue of arguments that would apply perfectly well to a European identity, except that you're not prepared to even consider using them in that way, because you prefer not to. However, your personal preference for not applying those arguments to a European level of identity doesn't prevent the arguments being applicable.

    To put that another way, you don't recognise a European cultural identity because you don't want to, not because there aren't good arguments for one, some of which you're applying in a weaker form to a 'global' cultural identity.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Asian and African culture has greatly influenced Europe for years and visa versa. The Roman empire reached far into different parts of Africa and the east and had a huge influence and was itself in turn greatly influenced.

    Eh, well, North Africa, and the Middle East - and at the time North Africa was Phoenician/Greek in culture while the Middle East was Persian/Greek. I'm not sure what claims one can make that Rome was particularly influenced by African or Asian culture in the forms they exist today - the claim is deeply anachronistic.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    If we have a European heritage then we have a Global Heritage that belongs to all humans....I LIKE IT.

    I have no objection to you considering yourself a citizen of the world - again, I do myself, but it would be my tertiary identity. But, again, you're not even considering the European level as a possible level for such an identity, although I doubt you would apply such an argument to elements of Irish culture - and if you did, what's the point of Irish identity?
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    But lets keep sovreignty;-)!

    Again, you're rather begging a question there - what you mean is "let's keep sovereignty national".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #86
    FullBeard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭FullBeard


    The whole notion of identity - especially national identity - is entirely qualitative and subjective. Can anyone define what Irish national identity actually consists of?

    I think the hypothesis that concepts of nationhood and national solidarity are based on "imagined communities" is a very convincing one. As a rather extreme rationalist, I'm immune to national pride; I just don't feel it, and it makes no sense to me whatever. Pride in things European feels more real to me; yet I know that it really shouldn't, all things being equal. I think I'm drawn to it because I associate Europe with progress and post-nationalism; yet I also value the things listed by Scofflaw a few posts up.

    Notions of national identity and pride (or European pride, for those who feel a nationalist-like affinity for Europe) are inserted, gradually, onto the blank minds of babies. There's nothing innate about them. Could it be that they're really only a tradition? I'm not one to accept traditions unquestioningly.

    All nationalisms have their mythologies, narratives, and supposed national characteristics. In terms of how these narratives become imprinted in the mind to create feelings of solidarity between individuals - who will never meet - because of an imagined shared culture, I liken it to the process by which religion is imprinted on the minds of indoctrinated children or converted adults. Both religion and belief in a national fellowship (rather than a civic fellowship) seem to me to be entirely notional. Not everyone is susceptible to them, either; yet others feel fervently loyal to whatever nationalism they happen to have been born into. Nations and supposed national characteristics change over time, too. We'd all be better off without them, in my opinion.


  • #87
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm afraid that's a classic example of begging the question. Your argument that Shakespeare is 'global' can clearly be applied to Shakespeare being European, and it's pretty silly to deny he was writing about British and European events, not global ones. His characters don't conform to Asian or African cultural stereotypes, whereas they're virtually all instantly recognisable to a European audience (one of his advantages there is that he was writing in a period before the 18th century establishment of nationalism).

    Essentially, you're simply presenting another false dichotomy - a cultural item is either (a) specific to the country or (b) global - the latter by virtue of arguments that would apply perfectly well to a European identity, except that you're not prepared to even consider using them in that way, because you prefer not to. However, your personal preference for not applying those arguments to a European level of identity doesn't prevent the arguments being applicable.

    To put that another way, you don't recognise a European cultural identity because you don't want to, not because there aren't good arguments for one, some of which you're applying in a weaker form to a 'global' cultural identity.



    Eh, well, North Africa, and the Middle East - and at the time North Africa was Phoenician/Greek in culture while the Middle East was Persian/Greek. I'm not sure what claims one can make that Rome was particularly influenced by African or Asian culture in the forms they exist today - the claim is deeply anachronistic.



    I have no objection to you considering yourself a citizen of the world - again, I do myself, but it would be my tertiary identity. But, again, you're not even considering the European level as a possible level for such an identity, although I doubt you would apply such an argument to elements of Irish culture - and if you did, what's the point of Irish identity?



    Again, you're rather begging a question there - what you mean is "let's keep sovereignty national".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Identity of a group people is not about arguement it is about feeling. And it is often irrational. In fact indentifiying as an individual with a culture and ethicity is often very cultural. I am nt saying you don't feel it. I am saying the majority of people from Italy and France etc do not identify themselves as Europeans. They identify with their nation. The concept of having a another common identity really only has come about since masstricht. It is not how most people in Frace etc choose to culturally identify themselves. And if the majority don't, who are you identifying with? I don't know that Irish Identity or European identity is real at all. I don't know there is a point to it at all. It is probably something we make up.It is like the celtic myth identification in Ireland...we are not celts. We are genetically similar to the people of the Bristish isles.

    It is up to the people of the countries of the EU to decide if such an identity exists not have it forced upon them or decided for them or made up by acedemics fantasists or civil servants.I would put it to you that most do not see themselves as European or identify themselves culturally that way. One of the main problems with europe is that most people do not identify with it.

    The English may not want to pool patent Shakespeare with Europe and the French certainly don't like sharing Mouliére they like to keep it French and for themslves lest we butcher it.But in a complete contradiction they will put their culture on a world stage and are proud of that. It is not for 'Europeans' to share but theirs to give to the world. What would happen if you gave the label 'European' to French food for example they would be insulted and angry. 'But it IS 'European' you say 'French food is European' not to them , to them it's theirs. Sovreignty is not about culture to me or national identity it is about self governance and a democratic mandate. I am not similar to most Irish culturally but i would want the power base here as i feel on the periphery we would have less self determination. As we see now.


    Are we similar enough to other EU countries to form a USE??? Do they even want to? What could happen??

    Study the US civil war .....sectionalism and partition(economic and culturally) along with a sense of being American in the north with this lacking in the south fed a lot to it. And of course slavery. And infact it is a feeling that pervades America today a sense of separatness in the south.

    Whether or not you can technically call Europe one culture or identify Ireland as a culture is not important what is important is do most people identify with that? I could be wrong but i don't think they do.


  • #88
    stringed theory
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭stringed theory


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I am saying the majority of people from Italy and France etc do not identify themselves as Europeans. They identify with their nation.

    I have lived in France and would say that most people, whether Gaullist, National Front, Communist, pro EU, anti EU etc. - though excluding Asian and African minorities - would unreservedly identify themselves as European, and see absolutely no contradiction between that and their sense of Frenchness. Most people, everywhere, accept that identity come in multiple layers.
    Your argument, I think, is that there is nothing substantial, in terms of sense of identity, between the national and the global? I've never heard this one before! Usually, the eurosceptic argument is that we are part of the "anglosphere" and have some special common purpose with the US - a country where you have to be fingerprinted to get into - and we should therefore ignore Europe.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Are we similar enough to other EU countries to form a USE??? Do they even want to? What could happen??
    .

    Absolutely. We have broadly similar ideas about "culture," democracy, secularism, human rights etc. We almost have a common "living space." What more does it take? Well, it would take a pan European media, but that would develop around the new political structures. Not that it would be like the USA, of course. Whatever happens is likely to be a unique European solution - over the coming century.
    My reading of history is that sustainable political integration - as in the building of nation states - often follows the creation of a viable economic space. ( Two hundred years ago less than half the population of "France" spoke French. But "France" happened. )


  • #89
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    stringed theory wrote: »
    I have lived in France and would say that most people, whether Gaullist, National Front, Communist, pro EU, anti EU etc. - though excluding Asian and African minorities - would unreservedly identify themselves as European, and see absolutely no contradiction between that and their sense of Frenchness. Most people, everywhere, accept that identity come in multiple layers.
    Your argument, I think, is that there is nothing substantial, in terms of sense of identity, between the national and the global? I've never heard this one before! Usually, the eurosceptic argument is that we are part of the "anglosphere" and have some special common purpose with the US - a country where you have to be fingerprinted to get into - and we should therefore ignore Europe.



    Absolutely. We have broadly similar ideas about "culture," democracy, secularism, human rights etc. We almost have a common "living space." What more does it take? Well, it would take a pan European media, but that would develop around the new political structures. Not that it would be like the USA, of course. Whatever happens is likely to be a unique European solution - over the coming century.
    My reading of history is that sustainable political integration - as in the building of nation states - often follows the creation of a viable economic space. ( Two hundred years ago less than half the population of "France" spoke French. But "France" happened. )

    You see i can't claim i know that you are wrong or right....As we really need more democratic involvement in the Eu to really ascertain that.The French rejected an EU constitution.Firmly with a no.Now it seems obvious to me that there are strong economic cultural differences and cultural differences in stability and politics in the EU..particularly in the North and South..


    I am not Eurosceptic...more Eurocautious....
    I don't want to get into it because of some shame ideal.I want it to be based on REAL democracy and concrete shared values etc and if that is not forth coming the ideal means little.A firm commitment to transparency and democracyis meaningful. The eu is quite undemoratic in my view with countries fight for their own best interests.Merkel has a mandate to protect the German economy by saying no Eurobonds. And she is right to. Yet it may not be best for the rest of Europe. Countries are fighting to protect their own interests.Not the interests of 'Europe'.

    If people feel so European why do they vote no against lisbon and nice so many times...and why do they vote no against the EU constitution?

    Why do they reject the processes and acts that would lead to a USE and would be necessary for one.

    I don't know that we have a bond with anywhere to be honest (have been to America and i was not finger printed:-). And i don't think anywhere is feeling us much either i don't think we are on their agenda. We are not really thought of in Europe or anywhere ..we are too tiny.


    I am not sayng never but i would base it on how democratic and fair it would be to Ireland..

    However one example in Greece cuts are so severe and the economy so bad that there was a story that mothers could not get their children insulin. This shocked me i felt gosh if we are all Europeans how can they let this happen? Really it seemed so wrong and all the anti German and anti -Greek rhetoric?


  • #90
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FullBeard wrote: »
    The whole notion of identity - especially national identity - is entirely qualitative and subjective. Can anyone define what Irish national identity actually consists of?

    I think the hypothesis that concepts of nationhood and national solidarity are based on "imagined communities" is a very convincing one. As a rather extreme rationalist, I'm immune to national pride; I just don't feel it, and it makes no sense to me whatever. Pride in things European feels more real to me; yet I know that it really shouldn't, all things being equal. I think I'm drawn to it because I associate Europe with progress and post-nationalism; yet I also value the things listed by Scofflaw a few posts up.

    Notions of national identity and pride (or European pride, for those who feel a nationalist-like affinity for Europe) are inserted, gradually, onto the blank minds of babies. There's nothing innate about them. Could it be that they're really only a tradition? I'm not one to accept traditions unquestioningly.

    All nationalisms have their mythologies, narratives, and supposed national characteristics. In terms of how these narratives become imprinted in the mind to create feelings of solidarity between individuals - who will never meet - because of an imagined shared culture, I liken it to the process by which religion is imprinted on the minds of indoctrinated children or converted adults. Both religion and belief in a national fellowship (rather than a civic fellowship) seem to me to be entirely notional. Not everyone is susceptible to them, either; yet others feel fervently loyal to whatever nationalism they happen to have been born into. Nations and supposed national characteristics change over time, too. We'd all be better off without them, in my opinion.

    Nationalism is itself an artificial construct, largely created in the 18th century in order to provide the recruitment base for mass armies and to reduce resistance to the increasing centralisation of states and the 'rationalisation' of their legal and commercial frameworks. Prior to that, most people felt loyalty either to their particular region/city or, more distantly, to the various multi-ethnic empires of the time.

    There's an obvious parallel with one form of "Europeanism", which similarly aims to provide a relatively homogenous base for power projection - the only obvious exponent of it in this neck of the woods is Declan Ganley - although there's also obviously a parallel in terms of soft power with the entire EU project.

    'Nationalism', however, led to the conscious and deliberate repression of regional identities and loyalties (the banning or repression of regional dialects, minority languages, and often minority cultures) in favour of the constructed identity of the "nation", which was usually drawn from the dominant culture of the regions comprising the nation-state.

    Unsurprisingly, nationalists tend to see the EU in exactly the same terms, making the assumption that just as the nation-state attempted to usurp, displace, and repress regional identities and privileges in favour of its own centralisation of power, so does the EU in turn want to do the same to the member states. It would be more accurate, though, to see the EU as a successor to the multi-ethnic European empires - a relatively weak connective tissue implementing an agreed joint framework and set of standards.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    View wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, did the early twenties people object to the bill for their hospital care at birth and education over the last decade or so when "We" picked up the tab for it?

    "We" doing so seems to have been fine when you were a beneficiary of such expenditure...

    Not entirely sure what you mean by this? I wasn't attacking the previous generation in my post either, as I have stated many times I personally believe the real cause of Ireland's woes was our culture of cronyism which led to scandals being swept under the carpet if the people involved were "connected". I don't blame anyone for that other than the people who were directly involved. As I said in my post, bank bailouts etc were not an issue in the 2007 election, ergo nobody can be accused of voting for them.


Advertisement