European Politics
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
They did get a UN resolution (for what those are worth) and it was almost 2 months from the invasion to the liberation and during that time quite a few islanders were arrested for no good reason and the Irish/Argentinian guy (forgot his name) that was made chief of police was resorting to some semi harsh methods. The number one task of any government, IMO, is to protect it's citizens from foreign forces and protect it's territory and that is what they did.
I know the Euro crisis is not taking place in this thread (as I said, this should rather be titled "Russian and UK politics", or better yet, "Non-Euro European politics"), but just in case ANYBODY cares, this is what German Euro-skeptics are jerking off to at the moment:
German anti-euro party makes its official debut
Berlin's political class watched this weekend as the Alternative for Germany party was officially established. The newcomer group is highly critical of euro zone rescue measures and seeks to abolish the joint currency.
Don't worry, in case this gets no attention either, it's my last attempt at putting some attention in this thread to what the real issue in Europe is at the moment. But bare-boobs Putin-demonstrators are a lot sexier, I'm aware of that. And it's always a shocking revelation that Russia isn't a democracy. Every single time.
German anti-euro party makes its official debut
Berlin's political class watched this weekend as the Alternative for Germany party was officially established. The newcomer group is highly critical of euro zone rescue measures and seeks to abolish the joint currency.
Don't worry, in case this gets no attention either, it's my last attempt at putting some attention in this thread to what the real issue in Europe is at the moment. But bare-boobs Putin-demonstrators are a lot sexier, I'm aware of that. And it's always a shocking revelation that Russia isn't a democracy. Every single time.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Yes, people did get tired of the Euro crisis I guess.
I have heard about them. What do you feel about this party? I heard its first convention was visited by many, but especially by older people.
edit: the interesting thing is that Merkel can't say anymore that there's no alternative.
I have heard about them. What do you feel about this party? I heard its first convention was visited by many, but especially by older people.
edit: the interesting thing is that Merkel can't say anymore that there's no alternative.
I've received conflicting reports on this. The media report that it was mostly middle-aged or older people, but reports from people who visited the convention state that there were a lot of young ones as well.
Forgive me, but I just can't give a straight answer right away. This is part of why I'm so frustrated with this thread: In Germany, I am almost exclusively exposed to anti-Euro sentiments. The political parties and mainstream media all support the Euro, but I've never really trusted either to shape my opinion. I've always evaluated critically what I read, and I've always listened to what other people think. Right now, it seems that there are two parallel dimensions here. One 'official' one, in which parliamentarians, news magazine editors and television experts go to great lengths to demonstrate why the Euro is necessary, and why we need to do virtually everything to save it. The other dimension starts with the user comments of newspaper websites, university discussion panels, even Facebook posts. It seems that everybody here is anti-Euro. I've heard so many people claiming the apocalypse is on us, the EU is murdering democracy, all our savings will be stolen and given to southern European banks and so forth. There is virtually no middle ground, it's only these extremes that I hear, and I hear them every day. I'm afraid of speaking out my opinion for fear that it's the wrong one, not supported by the vocal mob. I no longer say which political party I support, because I have been branded a traitor to democracy before for that. For the record, it's no nazi or Communist party, I've always voted for the Greens. Apparently, supporting them now means being part of a fascist world conspiracy. Which leads me to the next point: Euro-skepticism leads to conspiracy theories. Everybody has them, and it's almost as if reality is just a matter of perception. This is all just going crazy. With a thread like this, my hope used to be that I could discuss matters outside of the box I'm forced to live in, to hear opinions from people who are either on the receiving end of the crisis, or simply have a perspective that is not contaminated by what I'm dealing with. But it's not happening. This thread is basically saying, "Crisis? What crisis?"
So, to be frank, I don't know how I feel about this party. It seems like every opinion I have on this matter is wrong. I have a very bad feeling about all this, and I believe this party is part of an ongoing process of populist radicalisation, but I simply can't say this in public, because I'd otherwise be called out for being anti-democratic.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Hmm, I wish people were a bit more tolerant when it comes to discussing politics. I remember a funny (but serious!) comment from an old pre-crisis guide to Rhodos: "Don't discuss politics". Apparently the Greek can get very angry and serious about the subject, even if it is discussed with unknown people.
I already had an idea that it could be this party.
Lol, well indeed, I am not suffering from it, or at least not yet. It depends who you talk to I guess. And where and when. Someone without a job might be more disillusioned(?)
Was there no one, on TV, who made a convincing explanation? Sometimes, when people deny positive sides of Europe, I can "smell" there is more going on. I guess it also depends on what does one want to share with the other (country)? How nationalistic is a person? What other motives play a part?
Perhaps you had some overheated discussions with others about the subject?
Don't worry about what others say of you (not sure if that sounds good because this advice comes from someone who does worry about what others think of him too often!).
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Today, France became the 14th country to pass a law allowing gay marriage.
There were huge protests in the last weeks/months. It got violent as well. And more demonstrations are expected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22261494
There were huge protests in the last weeks/months. It got violent as well. And more demonstrations are expected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22261494
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
How do you look at next year's referendum? Scotland independent?But not so much of a problem if you live north of the wall...
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Forostar, did you just throw in a link about gay marriage, when Natalie just started a thread about... gay marriage? And then ask me a question about Scottish independence, in response to a comment I posted in another thread! --you're confusing the hell out of me!
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
It's a difficult one...
The reality is voting for independence is voting for change; and change makes most people nervous. Voting to stay in the Union is a vote for the status quo (it doesn't have to be, but it's being presented as such at present); it doesn't matter how bad things are, some people will always vote (or not vote at all) for no change, to avoid the former. So, it's a difficult "sell" for the Nationalists --they're (theoretically) the ones that have to do more of the convincing.
All this aside, there is the problem of the question (now decided) being so black & white; yes or no to independence. I personally think the reality is that while those who vote yes are definitely voting for independence, those voting no are not necessarily voting for non-independence. Many of them probably would like independence, but perhaps not right now. Some might want independence after further devolution of powers (i.e. being closer to independence & seeing what it would be like; or near to what it would be like). Problem is: that option isn't on the ballet & nobody's talking about further powers under devolution, should the vote be no. It's natural to ask why we would jump from where we are now to full independence, without passing through more devolution first. That makes people uneasy. Of course the reality is if it's a yes vote there's going to need to be years of untangling anyway. But all of this is incredibly unclear. There simply isn't a blueprint for how all this might happen. This all favours the no camp.
As for the debate just now: it's just picking up. There's a limit to how much debate/information the public is going to withstand, so all parties have left off with the heavy stuff until now. The Nationalists haven't really said enough yet to convince; just my personal opinion. However the no campaign is incredibly negative; all scaremongering. It may backfire on Unionists. The very fact that there is a Conservative Government (in Westminster) is working very much in the Nationalists favour. In fact quite a few things seem to be playing into their hands just at the right time. It's as if they specially picked the date...
The reality is voting for independence is voting for change; and change makes most people nervous. Voting to stay in the Union is a vote for the status quo (it doesn't have to be, but it's being presented as such at present); it doesn't matter how bad things are, some people will always vote (or not vote at all) for no change, to avoid the former. So, it's a difficult "sell" for the Nationalists --they're (theoretically) the ones that have to do more of the convincing.
All this aside, there is the problem of the question (now decided) being so black & white; yes or no to independence. I personally think the reality is that while those who vote yes are definitely voting for independence, those voting no are not necessarily voting for non-independence. Many of them probably would like independence, but perhaps not right now. Some might want independence after further devolution of powers (i.e. being closer to independence & seeing what it would be like; or near to what it would be like). Problem is: that option isn't on the ballet & nobody's talking about further powers under devolution, should the vote be no. It's natural to ask why we would jump from where we are now to full independence, without passing through more devolution first. That makes people uneasy. Of course the reality is if it's a yes vote there's going to need to be years of untangling anyway. But all of this is incredibly unclear. There simply isn't a blueprint for how all this might happen. This all favours the no camp.
As for the debate just now: it's just picking up. There's a limit to how much debate/information the public is going to withstand, so all parties have left off with the heavy stuff until now. The Nationalists haven't really said enough yet to convince; just my personal opinion. However the no campaign is incredibly negative; all scaremongering. It may backfire on Unionists. The very fact that there is a Conservative Government (in Westminster) is working very much in the Nationalists favour. In fact quite a few things seem to be playing into their hands just at the right time. It's as if they specially picked the date...
It's a big issue to follow, the political make up of England is going to be very much affected if Scotland becomes independent.
It is hard for me to imagine an independent Scotland. If you consider the history of Scotland as a country to go back to the union of Pict and Gael in the 700s, Scotland has been essentially unified with England for around 500 years (including the various times Scotland was conquered by England) during that 1300 year period, continuously since the ascension of James I/VI. It hasn't always been fun and caber tossing, but it has been a most peaceful union for the last 250 years, 250 years that have seen massive shared experiences that are still very powerful in the public conscious. The World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War. Splitting apart now seems very counter-intuitive. But then again...
It's the land of the free, the home of the brave
If ancestors could hear what is happening now
They would turn in their graves
They would all be ashamed
That the land of the free has been written in chains
And they know what they want
And the timing is right
They can take what is theirs
They are the Scottish Nationalists
It's the land of the free, the home of the brave
If ancestors could hear what is happening now
They would turn in their graves
They would all be ashamed
That the land of the free has been written in chains
And they know what they want
And the timing is right
They can take what is theirs
They are the Scottish Nationalists
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Scotland played major roles in British efforts. Enough to give me confidence that they can do things more independently. As happened in the past: Threatening Scotland that they are too poor to survive won't work anymore. It feels right that the Scottish will be independent again.
@Cried: how do you look at Europe? Do you see a difference between Scotland's role in Europe, being part of the UK and being independent? I thought this 2011 Norman Davies interview might be a thought provoking read (and do you agree there is less Euro skepticism in Scotland than in England?):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...man-Davies-Britain-has-lost-its-identity.html
Professor Davies, one of the keynote speakers at the Hay Festival Winter Weekend, said: "There is a real danger of the United Kingdom breaking up. There is a loss of common identity.
"At present, there is a worrying English nationalistic attitude towards our non-English people of 'Us and Them' and it is going to end up driving out the Scots and Welsh. The Euro Sceptics are the English National Party in disguise and they have poor old David Cameron over a barrel.
"They are not looking at what effect this could have on the United Kingdom. We could have a situation as early as 2014 where Scotland breaks away, followed by Northern Ireland and finally Wales in due course.
"Some of the old Labour Scots, people like John Smith, saw the danger years ago. Gordon Brown was aware of the problem but did not have a clue what to do about it, even if there is such a thing as a quick remedy. But we are in a situation where the divide is getting worse because London is becoming a monster in the southeast and dominating England, which itself is dominating the British countries."
Davies, a leading English historian of Welsh descent, added: "Devolution was supposed to be the answer but it has worked in the opposite way as intended and Scotland's First Minister Alex Sammond is the beneficiary.
"The Scottish National Party know this. They are very Europhile. They know that if the European Union survives there could be a reasonable future for smaller countries like Scotland. Every austerity measure that Cameron and George Osborne make is being presented in Scotland as the English starving us. And the Euro Sceptics, these dinosaurs, these ostriches with their heads in the sand, are nearly all English. You don't get any Euro Sceptics in Scotland."
He said that most Euro sceptics were boosted by the "illusion that we are still a great power and won the war. They simply have a multi-layered delusionary world view".
Davies said that a proper examination of the Second World War showed that it was Stalin's Red Army that smashed to pieces the Germans, with latest estimates suggesting that the British Army was responsible for only around five per cent of German losses in all.
Davies, whose new book Vanished Kingdoms: The History of Half-Forgotten Europe is already in its fourth re-print only five weeks into publication, said knowledge of Britishness and the evolution of the United Kingdom is as low as ever. He added: "It's unimaginable to meet a Pole or a German who does not know about the history of their country. But lots of English people don't know the difference between Britain and England. Take the recent row over wearing the Poppy symbol on football shirts.
"The poppy isn't the English national symbol of war. The Poppy is the symbol of the British Legion. Saying otherwise offends all the non-English people. It's why you get to a situation where teams don't even know what to sing - hence the English rugby fans taking up the song 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot' It is the same with the Queen who is routinely just referred to as the Queen of England.
"All other countries teach their children the origins of the state in which they live. There is no common history syllabus that teaches the history of the United Kingdom. That's one of the reasons the UK does not have a coherent sense of identity. Many of the pillars of Britishness have simply gone. Take the Royal Navy. That was once a great British institution. Now its disappeared and is decrepit. There are more admirals than ships now."
@Cried: how do you look at Europe? Do you see a difference between Scotland's role in Europe, being part of the UK and being independent? I thought this 2011 Norman Davies interview might be a thought provoking read (and do you agree there is less Euro skepticism in Scotland than in England?):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...man-Davies-Britain-has-lost-its-identity.html
Professor Davies, one of the keynote speakers at the Hay Festival Winter Weekend, said: "There is a real danger of the United Kingdom breaking up. There is a loss of common identity.
"At present, there is a worrying English nationalistic attitude towards our non-English people of 'Us and Them' and it is going to end up driving out the Scots and Welsh. The Euro Sceptics are the English National Party in disguise and they have poor old David Cameron over a barrel.
"They are not looking at what effect this could have on the United Kingdom. We could have a situation as early as 2014 where Scotland breaks away, followed by Northern Ireland and finally Wales in due course.
"Some of the old Labour Scots, people like John Smith, saw the danger years ago. Gordon Brown was aware of the problem but did not have a clue what to do about it, even if there is such a thing as a quick remedy. But we are in a situation where the divide is getting worse because London is becoming a monster in the southeast and dominating England, which itself is dominating the British countries."
Davies, a leading English historian of Welsh descent, added: "Devolution was supposed to be the answer but it has worked in the opposite way as intended and Scotland's First Minister Alex Sammond is the beneficiary.
"The Scottish National Party know this. They are very Europhile. They know that if the European Union survives there could be a reasonable future for smaller countries like Scotland. Every austerity measure that Cameron and George Osborne make is being presented in Scotland as the English starving us. And the Euro Sceptics, these dinosaurs, these ostriches with their heads in the sand, are nearly all English. You don't get any Euro Sceptics in Scotland."
He said that most Euro sceptics were boosted by the "illusion that we are still a great power and won the war. They simply have a multi-layered delusionary world view".
Davies said that a proper examination of the Second World War showed that it was Stalin's Red Army that smashed to pieces the Germans, with latest estimates suggesting that the British Army was responsible for only around five per cent of German losses in all.
Davies, whose new book Vanished Kingdoms: The History of Half-Forgotten Europe is already in its fourth re-print only five weeks into publication, said knowledge of Britishness and the evolution of the United Kingdom is as low as ever. He added: "It's unimaginable to meet a Pole or a German who does not know about the history of their country. But lots of English people don't know the difference between Britain and England. Take the recent row over wearing the Poppy symbol on football shirts.
"The poppy isn't the English national symbol of war. The Poppy is the symbol of the British Legion. Saying otherwise offends all the non-English people. It's why you get to a situation where teams don't even know what to sing - hence the English rugby fans taking up the song 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot' It is the same with the Queen who is routinely just referred to as the Queen of England.
"All other countries teach their children the origins of the state in which they live. There is no common history syllabus that teaches the history of the United Kingdom. That's one of the reasons the UK does not have a coherent sense of identity. Many of the pillars of Britishness have simply gone. Take the Royal Navy. That was once a great British institution. Now its disappeared and is decrepit. There are more admirals than ships now."
He doesn't seem to have much of an imagination.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Only a brief reply right this second...
There is some truth in some of what Davies says. Some people in Scotland have a huge chip on their shoulder over how "England" views & treats Scotland; historically & now. Some of this attitude is pretty unhealthy & really isn't based on anything substantial. However some of it is based on fact. Most of it is inevitable because England is literally about 90% (or whatever it is) of the UK population. Understandably the Scottish (or Welsh or Northern Irish) voice will be lost. This is why devolution has worked so well, in some respects.
Part of the problem has always been: "London is becoming a monster in the southeast and dominating England...". London is a monster & dominates everything. The anti-English attitude in Scotland is probably dwarved, in Northern England (& other places, like Cornwall, etc), by anti-London sentiments. It fuels the debate. Too much power, too much money, too much influence --resides there.
There is some truth in some of what Davies says. Some people in Scotland have a huge chip on their shoulder over how "England" views & treats Scotland; historically & now. Some of this attitude is pretty unhealthy & really isn't based on anything substantial. However some of it is based on fact. Most of it is inevitable because England is literally about 90% (or whatever it is) of the UK population. Understandably the Scottish (or Welsh or Northern Irish) voice will be lost. This is why devolution has worked so well, in some respects.
Part of the problem has always been: "London is becoming a monster in the southeast and dominating England...". London is a monster & dominates everything. The anti-English attitude in Scotland is probably dwarved, in Northern England (& other places, like Cornwall, etc), by anti-London sentiments. It fuels the debate. Too much power, too much money, too much influence --resides there.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Forostar: Scottish politics is far more provincial (in a good & bad way) & far less party political (--in comparison to UK politics generally.) And, touching upon what you ask (the answer is yes), in respect to Europe (just like with immigration & a whole bunch of other issues) the public/media view seems far less hysterical than in England; where these seemed to be viewed as massive, divisive issues. I think the Scottish public, politicians, & the media just don't care about half the crap that the English London-centric media seem to get so exorcised about. They're far more focused on domestic issues; far less ideologically focused. Frankly, the Scottish Parliament seems to get far more done; and it seems to reach a consensus (across party lines) far more, & with better results. It has genuinely delivered in this respect. The question for most Scots really is: why independence, when we could have (so called) "devo max" (i.e. full devolution)? The "safety" of the Union, if you like; but will almost full control of all the levers.