PDA

View Full Version : Get Out of Europe Before You Wreck It: A French Message to Britain



Coolboygcp
08-06-14, 12:17
Source~ (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/06/french-message-britain-get-out-european-union)






There is, between you and us continental Europeans, a disagreement which is turning ugly. Your immense history justifies a limitless admiration for you. You were the inventors of democracy and of human rights, you dominated the world for centuries, first ruling the oceans and after that the world of finance. And when apocalypse threatened, your courage and tenacity – you held on long, American and Russian help arriving late in the day – saved our honour and freedom.

We know this and we have never shied away from saying, including in this commemorative week, that we owe you an immense debt. This should not, however, allow you to treat us with contempt and double-dealing.

You do not like Europe – that is your right and it is understandable. You nevertheless joined 41 years ago, but on a misunderstanding. You never shared the true meaning of the project which Winston Churchill, speaking on your behalf, set out in Zurich in 1946 with his incredible words: "We must build a kind of United States of Europe … Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America – and, I trust, Soviet Russia … must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live."

Were you not listening? These were the thoughts of a giant, shared by another giant, Charles de Gaulle.

You wanted trade, and you thought about nothing else. With President de Gaulle gone, you were able to join. But from this point you never, ever allowed even the smallest step towards greater integration, or even the smallest expansion of genuinely joint decisions.

The European community did trade, which suited you, because it defined itself as an economic community, but for those things that should be at the very heart of an economy – taxation, dispute settlement law, social policy – you demanded and imposed the continuation of unanimous decision-making. You wanted paralysis. So many neighbouring countries applauded and envied our achievements and wanted to join. You supported each enlargement; we did too, even though we knew it would dilute the community. But you never allowed the slightest deepening of the union. Europe remained bogged down and badly run, an economic giant, a political dwarf.

Eventually the size and success of the European community meant that it made little sense for it to be involved only in the economic aspects of our shared lives. Diplomacy, defence, justice were all raised. You succeeded in limiting joint political actions to a few narrowly defined circumstances and instances.

Thanks to you, the Maastricht treaty was a failure and only narrowly voted through. You did not have to do much to ensure that the Amsterdam and Nice treaties and the constitutional convention would also be flops because they changed little. Paralysis was guaranteed, because you had already got what you wanted. But you had to make things worse. When you didn't like the agreed rules, you tore them up by seeking derogations, "I want my money back" agreements such as the British budget rebate, and eventually the right to opt out of policies altogether when they did not suit you.

But your demands became even more outrageous. Amid the paralysis and growing anger the continental desire grew for stronger and more powerful leaders.

The nationalities of the Belgian Jean-Luc Dehaene and the Luxembourger Jean-Claude Juncker could not have bothered you, it was enough that they were federalist in outlook, had strong voices and would not be easily pushed around. Two vetoes in 10 years, that takes some nerve. You dared to do it.

Europe is dying from it. The most recent elections have confirmed this. Even the euro, the only policy that you could not block, yet whose rules you were involved in writing, and which therefore bear your influence, remains weak and suffers from the lack of oversight that you were able to make sure would prevail across the EU.

I know, you are not completely alone in this. The refusal to recognise a common European interest, always putting the national interest first – you reintroduced these ideas and made them contagious. Nobody is perfect. Acknowledge at least that you deserve the prize.

Out of this disaster and ahead of the European elections, the tenacious among us managed to inject more democracy into the rules. So it was agreed that the majority in the European parliament would choose the European commission presidency. It hardly changes the essence, but it is a start, a way to begin restoring public interest and engagement. Personally, I voted for Martin Schulz as it would trouble me to see somebody with a monetarist outlook at the head of the commission. But the people have spoken. It may be relative, but there is a majority and its leader is Jean-Claude Juncker, a bold and courageous federalist. Democracy demands that he become the president of the European commission. But you want to prevent this. You want to break the process by which a more democratic Europe could emerge. You are stopping Europe finding the democratic force and legitimacy that it needs. A leader picked in these circumstances will be weakened. But this is what you want. Without internal democracy Europe is unworthy, and is in the process of dying. And you are sending us back to that Europe, you despise us so much. What right do you have? And beware, this contempt will backfire on you. You will eventually be right.

Now you pretend to want to exit; the majority of your people are in no doubt about it. But you have a banking interest in remaining to capitalise on the disorder that you have helped to create.

So go before you wreck everything.

There was a time when being British was synonymous with elegance. Let us rebuild Europe. Regain your elegance and you will regain our esteem.

This article was published in Le Monde on 5 June 2014

So what do you think, Eupedians? Do you agree? Or do you disagree?

matbir
08-06-14, 12:40
Where in this pool is answer: UK should stay to help in changing EU back to European Community?

Aberdeen
08-06-14, 17:05
Where in this pool is answer: UK should stay to help in changing EU back to European Community?

You're assuming that the French would want to change the EU back to a less integrated form, but they might in fact wish to have the EU shed some countries and increase the level of integration, even though the author of this paper seems to be suggesting that a more co-operative Britain could save the EU as a large scale European union.

LeBrok
08-06-14, 17:13
Not to defend GB much here, actually France can wreck it faster with its broken and stagnant economy.

ΠΑΝΑΞ
08-06-14, 20:35
...the marbles should stay in europe, at least.

Coolboygcp
08-06-14, 22:39
Where in this pool is answer: UK should stay to help in changing EU back to European Community?

Why would you want that? I believe the EU should only further integrate, as this would be beneficial to all Europeans.

Coolboygcp
08-06-14, 22:58
You're assuming that the French would want to change the EU back to a less integrated form, but they might in fact wish to have the EU shed some countries and increase the level of integration, even though the author of this paper seems to be suggesting that a more co-operative Britain could save the EU as a large scale European union.

I would think that the French, as well as the Germans; would want to further integrate Europe. This would be good. A further integrated EU would be more powerful, more competent, and would be a superpower (if the current EU isn't already one.)

But, I think a more integrated Europe can, and should expand. This will be beneficial for Europe overall, as it will add more land, taxpayers, power, etc. I think that in due time, countries such as Turkey, Ukraine, Israel, Serbia, Iceland, Morocco, Bosnia, etc. can, and will join the EU. But I also think that current EFTA nations such as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, etc. should join the EU. Also, why doesn't the EU consider countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, an independent Québec, and other Commonwealth countries. These Commonwealth countries have similar cultures, the same languages as some European nations, a majority European population, etc. And if Britain stays in the EU, the admit ion of these nations will help to bolster it's position in the EU, as it would have some of it's closest brethren in the same "community" as itself.

Coolboygcp
08-06-14, 23:03
Not to defend GB much here, actually France can wreck it faster with its broken and stagnant economy.

This is true. France's economy is getting better, though very slowly.

Echetlaeus
09-06-14, 08:42
I do not want to hear foolish things of countries like Canada or USA joining the EU.

If these countries were still part of the main European lands (aka colonies) it is fine. But since they are not (they made that choice long ago), they have ABSOLUTELY no right to be in the EU.

With respect,
-E-

P.S. I expect "nogoods" for this statement.

Aberdeen
09-06-14, 16:35
I do not want to hear foolish things of countries like Canada or USA joining the EU.

If these countries were still part of the main European lands (aka colonies) it is fine. But since they are not (they made that choice long ago), they have ABSOLUTELY no right to be in the EU.

With respect,
-E-

P.S. I expect "nogoods" for this statement.

Actually, I agree with you. As an outsider, whose view may therefore not count, I do think that the EU can only be meaningful as a political and economic unit if it limits its borders to its Western European core, countries whose people share common values and economic interests. Expansion into the Balkans and Eastern Europe probably does more harm than good to both the goals of the EU and, in the short run, the economies of Balkan and Eastern European countries. Certainly those Balkan and eastern European countries will eventually become more democratic and more politically stable as a result of EU membership, but economic integration may take a long time even if the EU survives the experiment, and I suspect it may not. I think the EU would succeed better in its aims if its membership was limited to the Latin and Germanic countries of Europe, plus Poland and the Czech republic. Britain isn't ready to become part of a political and economic superpower, so leave it behind.

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 02:38
I do not want to hear foolish things of countries like Canada or USA joining the EU.

If these countries were still part of the main European lands (aka colonies) it is fine. But since they are not (they made that choice long ago), they have ABSOLUTELY no right to be in the EU.

With respect,
-E-

P.S. I expect "nogoods" for this statement.

I didn't say anything about the USA joining the EU. Why is it foolish for countries like Canada, Australia, and Zealand; which have a shared culture and history with Europe. The vast majority of Canandians, Australians, and New Zealanders are of European descent.

These countries are not "officially" colonies, but they share a monarch with the UK, speak the same language as it, are part of many groups with the UK (Five Eyes, AUSCANNZUKUS, ABCA Armies, etc.) The UK and Canada now share many embassies. All of these countries share the Westminster system, they all use the metric system, they all (except for Canada) drive on the left side of the road. They all have very similar cultures, similar values, etc. Additionally, there are already three Commonwealth nations in in the EU. (The UK, Cyprus, and Malta.) why not add a few more? Also, Ireland has a similar culture to the UK, and to the Commonwealth nations; and the entry of Commonwealth nations into the EU would benefit the UK, would benefit Ireland, would benefit the Commonwealth nations, and would benefit the EU.

Think about it, would you rather the EU accept countries such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, FYROM, etc. Or would you rather the EU accept fellow "Western" and "European" countries that share the same values as Western Europeans, that share the same language as some Western Europeans, and share a similar culture to that of Western Europeans. I would much rather the EU accept Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, keep the UK, further integrate, and enlarge, and become an effective United States of Europe.

I am not the only one who dares this vision. Look on Google, and you can finds hundreds of articles, websites, threads, forums, and posts that discuss this, and many Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would like their countries to join the EU, and many Europeans would like the same.

If these countries joined the EU, it would get much, much richer than it currently is. It would be the world's foremost economic power, political power, and superpower. With this extra money from these countries, amazing infrastructure projects could be completed, poor, Eastern European nations could become rich, and the EU, as well as Europeans would only benefit.

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 02:49
Actually, I agree with you. As an outsider, whose view may therefore not count, I do think that the EU can only be meaningful as a political and economic unit if it limits its borders to its Western European core, countries whose people share common values and economic interests. Expansion into the Balkans and Eastern Europe probably does more harm than good to both the goals of the EU and, in the short run, the economies of Balkan and Eastern European countries. Certainly those Balkan and eastern European countries will eventually become more democratic and more politically stable as a result of EU membership, but economic integration may take a long time even if the EU survives the experiment, and I suspect it may not. I think the EU would succeed better in its aims if its membership was limited to the Latin and Germanic countries of Europe, plus Poland and the Czech republic. Britain isn't ready to become part of a political and economic superpower, so leave it behind.

Why limit the Borders? The EU has already expanded, so it cannot just shed members at this point. If it did, it would only be idiotic; as the EU has already put a lot of money into these countries.

It doesn't do more harm than good to Eastern European/Balkan economies. I don't know where you got that information, but it is incorrect. If you could provide a reference for that statement, it would be appreciated. I could provide dozens of references for the contrary.

It doesn't do more harm than good to the EU. Sure, is it good for the EU economy in the very short run? Maybe not. But within a couple of years, it is good for the European economy. When these new EU member's economies grow, as does the EU's economy.

And also, why in the world would you not want your own country to join the EU? I know of many Canadians who would love to join the EU. Would you rather your country continue on this path of being the US's sidekick? Or would you rather it become part of the EU? Your country would be an equal partner, it is not an equal partner at present. If Canada stays on this path, what if 30, 40, 50 years from now it becomes part of America? Would you want that?

Why should Canada not be united with it's motherland? Why should Canada not be united with a group of nations that share the same values as it? The answer is; it should be. I truly believe that one day, it will be.

Aberdeen
10-06-14, 02:52
I didn't say anything about the USA joining the EU. Why is it foolish for countries like Canada, Australia, and Zealand; which have a shared culture and history with Europe. The vast majority of Canandians, Australians, and New Zealanders are of European descent.

These countries are not "officially" colonies, but they share a monarch with the UK, speak the same language as it, are part of many groups with the UK (Five Eyes, AUSCANNZUKUS, ABCA Armies, etc.) The UK and Canada now share many embassies. All of these countries share the Westminster system, they all use the metric system, they all (except for Canada) drive on the left side of the road. They all have very similar cultures, similar values, etc. Additionally, there are already three Commonwealth nations in in the EU. (The UK, Cyprus, and Malta.) why not add a few more? Also, Ireland has a similar culture to the UK, and to the Commonwealth nations; and the entry of Commonwealth nations into the EU would benefit the UK, would benefit Ireland, would benefit the Commonwealth nations, and would benefit the EU.

Think about it, would you rather the EU accept countries such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, FYROM, etc. Or would you rather the EU accept fellow "Western" and "European" countries that share the same values as Western Europeans, that share the same language as some Western Europeans, and share a similar culture to that of Western Europeans. I would much rather the EU accept Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, keep the UK, further integrate, and enlarge, and become an effective United States of Europe.

I am not the only one who dares this vision. Look on Google, and you can finds hundreds of articles, websites, threads, forums, and posts that discuss this, and many Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would like their countries to join the EU, and many Europeans would like the same.

If these countries joined the EU, it would get much, much richer than it currently is. It would be the world's foremost economic power, political power, and superpower. With this extra money from these countries, amazing infrastructure projects could be completed, poor, Eastern European nations could become rich, and the EU, as well as Europeans would only benefit.

Nonsense. Canada does not share any embassies with the U.K. They're two separate countries that increasingly share less and less in common, although both countries do have significant and rapidly growing non-Caucasian populations.

I've never met anyone here in Canada who thinks we should join the EU. Canada has been trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU, but that's something else entirely. As for the Irish, they don't much like the English. Read a bit of history and you'll understand why.

If the EU tried to expand beyond the borders of Europe, that would negate the whole point of the EU as a source of European unity.

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 02:52
Also, it seems that most people on this forum, so far, seem to agree with me. According to the poll, at least.

FrankN
10-06-14, 03:20
Actually, Canada joining the EU would be an interesting experiment. There is quite a lot of experience in Canada when it comes to dealing with linguistic differences, allowing for cultural autonomy while maintaining socio-political integration, and some people inside the UK might be more prepared to learn from Canada about "federalism" than from, say, Mr. Juncker. The British, but also the European discussion would change substantially if the enlargement perspective is not anymore solely towards Turkey and Ukraine (to name the elephants in the room; accessions of Serbia and other pats of former Yugoslavia are technically well manageable). If Canada should really be interested, this would also send powerful signals to countries like Norway and Switzerland, which could help the EU, not only by opening their wallets, but also by increasing pressure for grass-roots, community-oriented approaches.

Half of the Caribbean (Martinique, Guadeloupe, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, St. Martin, etc.) is already in the EU, further enlargement there will anyway come sooner or later onto the agenda. That would be a golden opportunity to do away with the "one Commissioner per member state" principle, which is an important driving force behind the ever-growing bureaucracy in Brussels (though I fear we won't see any respective reform under a Juncker presidency).

Australia is a different case- it has become quite "Asian" over the last decades. A closer integration into the SE Asian economic sphere is probably not only in Australia's self-interest, but would also provide Europe with an additional communication channel to that region.

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 04:39
Nonsense. Canada does not share any embassies with the U.K. They're two separate countries that increasingly share less and less in common, although both countries do have significant and rapidly growing non-Caucasian populations.

I've never met anyone here in Canada who thinks we should join the EU. Canada has been trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU, but that's something else entirely. As for the Irish, they don't much like the English. Read a bit of history and you'll understand why.

If the EU tried to expand beyond the borders of Europe, that would negate the whole point of the EU as a source of European unity.
First off, do some damn research. I am not even Canadian, but yet, I know that the UK and Canada share embassies. They have for a few years now. Reference. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/24/britain-canada-share-embassies)

Here is a quote from William Hague:

"As the prime minister said when addressing the Canadian parliament last year: 'We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values.' We have stood shoulder to shoulder from the great wars of the last century to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and supporting Arab spring nations like Libya and Syria. We are first cousins.

"So it is natural that we look to link up our embassies with Canada's in places where that suits both countries. It will give us a bigger reach abroad for our businesses and people for less cost."

So, you are incorrect again. Also, it seems that William Hague agrees with me. :laughing:
Also, the EU and Canada are signing an "Association Agreement". Yes, this is like a free trade agreement; but it is much more than that. This is bigger than NAFTA. With this agreement, Canada and the EU will only become closer. Many nations have signed Association Agreements with the EU prior to joining it.

The UK and Canada are very close, they aren't growing apart much. Much of your television is from the UK, as is your Queen, and your Royal Family. Your ancestry is from the UK. Your language is from the UK. (Assuming you are not a Francophone.) Until the Canada Act, your country was still, effectively; British. It still is close to Britain, culturally, linguistically, politically, etc.

References in support of EU membership for Canada:

http://angularangularities.blogspot.com/2010/10/canada-applies-to-join-eu.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/29/comment.eu
http://rabble.ca/news/why-doesnt-canada-join-european-union
http://www.spiegel.de/international/german-papers-it-s-time-for-canada-to-join-the-eu-a-344556.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Potential_ EU_Membership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Canada

Also, relations between the UK and Ireland are at an all time high. Things are going quite well between the bot if them. In fact, your Queen went there a few years ago; and many thousands of people came to see her. There are many all-islands institutions and organisations. Irish citizens can vote in the UK. The two nations share a passport agreement. The list goes on, and on. Ireland will likely rejoin the Commonwealth in the coming years, as relations with the UK are going well.

LeBrok
10-06-14, 04:44
Actually, Canada joining the EU would be an interesting experiment. There is quite a lot of experience in Canada when it comes to dealing with linguistic differences, allowing for cultural autonomy while maintaining socio-political integration, and some people inside the UK might be more prepared to learn from Canada about "federalism" than from, say, Mr. Juncker. The British, but also the European discussion would change substantially if the enlargement perspective is not anymore solely towards Turkey and Ukraine (to name the elephants in the room; accessions of Serbia and other pats of former Yugoslavia are technically well manageable). If Canada should really be interested, this would also send powerful signals to countries like Norway and Switzerland, which could help the EU, not only by opening their wallets, but also by increasing pressure for grass-roots, community-oriented approaches.

Half of the Caribbean (Martinique, Guadeloupe, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, St. Martin, etc.) is already in the EU, further enlargement there will anyway come sooner or later onto the agenda. That would be a golden opportunity to do away with the "one Commissioner per member state" principle, which is an important driving force behind the ever-growing bureaucracy in Brussels (though I fear we won't see any respective reform under a Juncker presidency).

Australia is a different case- it has become quite "Asian" over the last decades. A closer integration into the SE Asian economic sphere is probably not only in Australia's self-interest, but would also provide Europe with an additional communication channel to that region.
Queen of GB is also a monarch of Canada and Australia, so technical we have a back door open to EU, lol, if we really wanted to.

LeBrok
10-06-14, 04:51
Nonsense. Canada does not share any embassies with the U.K. I'm not 100% sure but I think we do share few embassies with GB, especially in third world where Canadian citizens movement is minimal and not match trade going on either. This arraignment saves us good few million dollars a year. To be precise we don't share embassy, but we share a building with GB, built and own by GB.

Aberdeen
10-06-14, 05:15
I'm not 100% sure but I think we do share few embassies with GB, especially in third world where Canadian citizens movement is minimal and not match trade going on either. This arraignment saves us good few million dollars a year. To be precise we don't share embassy, but we share a building with GB, built and own by GB.

There certainly hasn't been much publicity about this, and I doubt many Canadians would be pleased by this latest act of idiocy by Harper if they knew about it.

The trade agreement could be useful or not, depending on the terms, but there seems to be a lot of secrecy about it.

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 05:44
Queen of GB is also a monarch of Canada and Australia, so technical we have a back door open to EU, lol, if we really wanted to.
True, true. Would you like Canada to join the EU?

LeBrok
10-06-14, 06:02
True, true. Would you like Canada to join the EU?
Not at the moment. EU has lots work to do to make sure it is run properly and all members are economically solid. It might take some time to do proper integration.
There is already a very close relationship with EU with free trade being worked out and Canadians don't need visas to travel to EU countries.

LeBrok
10-06-14, 06:05
There certainly hasn't been much publicity about this, and I doubt many Canadians would be pleased by this latest act of idiocy by Harper if they knew about it.

The trade agreement could be useful or not, depending on the terms, but there seems to be a lot of secrecy about it.
I have a feeling you are in a bad mood today. Let's start fixing Canada by getting rid of royals first. We need full independence.

It seams that sharing diplomatic premises is practiced by many.


Diplomatic co-location is not unprecedented: a British diplomat already uses space in the Canadian embassy in Mali, while in Burma a Canadian diplomat is temporarily housed in the British embassy as Ottawa establishes a more permanent presence. The UK also shares several premises with France and Germany.
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2012/sep/24/diplomacy-embassy-buildings-uk-canada

FrankN
10-06-14, 06:47
It seams that sharing diplomatic premises is practiced by many.
Austria is using quite a number of German embassies. And- no - that doesn't mean that an "Anschluss" will be coming any time soon...

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 07:09
Actually, Canada joining the EU would be an interesting experiment. There is quite a lot of experience in Canada when it comes to dealing with linguistic differences, allowing for cultural autonomy while maintaining socio-political integration, and some people inside the UK might be more prepared to learn from Canada about "federalism" than from, say, Mr. Juncker. The British, but also the European discussion would change substantially if the enlargement perspective is not anymore solely towards Turkey and Ukraine (to name the elephants in the room; accessions of Serbia and other pats of former Yugoslavia are technically well manageable). If Canada should really be interested, this would also send powerful signals to countries like Norway and Switzerland, which could help the EU, not only by opening their wallets, but also by increasing pressure for grass-roots, community-oriented approaches.Half of the Caribbean (Martinique, Guadeloupe, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, St. Martin, etc.) is already in the EU, further enlargement there will anyway come sooner or later onto the agenda. That would be a golden opportunity to do away with the "one Commissioner per member state" principle, which is an important driving force behind the ever-growing bureaucracy in Brussels (though I fear we won't see any respective reform under a Juncker presidency). Australia is a different case- it has become quite "Asian" over the last decades. A closer integration into the SE Asian economic sphere is probably not only in Australia's self-interest, but would also provide Europe with an additional communication channel to that region.
I agree with you about Canada joining the EU, it would be an interesting experiment. Canada could help the UK with cultural autonomy, as they have a lot of experience with it. I think if Canada joined the EU, it would increase relations with the UK, and with France. Perhaps with Canada in the EU, there could be a Franco-German-British-Canadian alliance? The EU is already Canada's second-largest trading partner. But if/when it joins the EU, the EU would most likely become Canada's largest trading partner. Hopefully if Canada is interested, other Western nations like Norway and Switzerland will join the EU. I also hope that Iceland will eventually join the EU, and that Greenland rejoins the EU.

I also agree with you on the Caribbean. Sooner or later, the nations in the Caribbean will want to join as much of the Caribbean is already in the EU. Plus, if this happened there wouldn't be anymore CARICOM, or Caribbean Community; there really isn't a need for this organisations anyway.

I do believe that Australia's future is with Europe. Yes, it has a lot of trade with Asian countries. Yes, they are in it's general area. But culturally, socially, and economically, it doesn't have much in common with them. The only nation that it has much in common with in the region is New Zealand. I believe that Australia and New Zealand should both join the EU. These two nations are very similar culturally, politically, and socially to the UK. I think they would be quite good matches for the EU. Additionally, if Australia and New Zealand enter the EU, then the EU will ave an influence in that region of the world; and the EU will have even more economic reason to sign a Free-Trade/Association Agreement with China. If Australia and New Zealand join the EU, then they will stop their transition towards being Asian countries. I think that would be good.

Also, what do you think about various nations in Oceania, like Vanuatu, Fiji, etc, joining the EU? Also, what about nations that are of mostly European descent, such as Argentina? And what do you think about Cape Verde joining the EU?

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 07:20
I have a feeling you are in a bad mood today. Let's start fixing Canada by getting rid of royals first. We need full independence.

It seams that sharing diplomatic premises is practiced by many.


http://www.theguardian.com/global/2012/sep/24/diplomacy-embassy-buildings-uk-canada

Oh, Aberdeen's always in a bad mood. :grin:

But, don't get rid of the royals! Please no! God Save The Queen? If Canada gets rid of the royals, then the wheels shall turn towards it becoming the 51st state. And I don't think that Canadians would want that to happen.

Besides, most polls suggest that the majority of Canadians want to keep the monarchy. I like the monarchy, it brings a sense of continuity to a nation. In the US, we have Presidents who stay in office for 4-8 years. in the Commonwealth Realms, you have Prime Ministers, and you have Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith/ Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi. She has been in power for over 62 years! She is a symbol of continuity, and of the people of the Commonwealth.

LeBrok
10-06-14, 08:29
Oh, Aberdeen's always in a bad mood. :grin:

But, don't get rid of the royals! Please no! God Save The Queen? If Canada gets rid of the royals, then the wheels shall turn towards it becoming the 51st state. And I don't think that Canadians would want that to happen.

Besides, most polls suggest that the majority of Canadians want to keep the monarchy. I like the monarchy, it brings a sense of continuity to a nation. In the US, we have Presidents who stay in office for 4-8 years. in the Commonwealth Realms, you have Prime Ministers, and you have Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith/ Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi. She has been in power for over 62 years! She is a symbol of continuity, and of the people of the Commonwealth.
Oh please, she is needed like a fifth wheel for the car (and I don't mean spare one), and nothing more than a reality show for old people. I don't need a symbol of continuity of monarchy, imperialism, feudalism and old useless traditions to remind me that Canada is not fully independent country yet.

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 08:34
Not at the moment. EU has lots work to do to make sure it is run properly and all members are economically solid. It might take some time to do proper integration.
There is already a very close relationship with EU with free trade being worked out and Canadians don't need visas to travel to EU countries.

Well what about in 5-10 years, or longer? Would you want Canada to join then?

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 08:53
Oh please, she is needed like a fifth wheel for the car (and I don't mean spare one), and nothing more than a reality show for old people. I don't need a symbol of continuity of monarchy, imperialism, feudalism and old useless traditions to remind me that Canada is not fully independent country yet.
:laughing:

The reality show bit was funny, I admit. But why is monarchy so bad? I don't understand why you act like it's so bad. It's not as if Canada was an absolute monarchy, it's a constitutional one. The Queen doesn't have much power, so why get rid of her? Do you think if you get rid of the Queen that Canada will change, and be better? Canada will at first, be the same, and it may later move towards being the 51st state without Canada having a Queen. Canada's future is with Europe. But, I think the monarchy has a place in Canada. Look how well Commonwealth countries that got rid of the monarchy turned out; South Africa, Papua New Guinea, Honduras, Kenya, most of Africa, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, the list goes on and on. Do you want your country to turn out like those?

I'm not saying the monarchy is without it's problems and quirks, but it has a purpose. It unites the Commonwelath Realms, and the Anglosphere.

I agree with you on the vast majority of things, but I don't agree with you on the monarchy in Canada.

Echetlaeus
10-06-14, 09:19
I didn't say anything about the USA joining the EU. Why is it foolish for countries like Canada, Australia, and Zealand; which have a shared culture and history with Europe. The vast majority of Canandians, Australians, and New Zealanders are of European descent.

These countries are not "officially" colonies, but they share a monarch with the UK, speak the same language as it, are part of many groups with the UK (Five Eyes, AUSCANNZUKUS, ABCA Armies, etc.) The UK and Canada now share many embassies. All of these countries share the Westminster system, they all use the metric system, they all (except for Canada) drive on the left side of the road. They all have very similar cultures, similar values, etc. Additionally, there are already three Commonwealth nations in in the EU. (The UK, Cyprus, and Malta.) why not add a few more? Also, Ireland has a similar culture to the UK, and to the Commonwealth nations; and the entry of Commonwealth nations into the EU would benefit the UK, would benefit Ireland, would benefit the Commonwealth nations, and would benefit the EU.

Think about it, would you rather the EU accept countries such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, FYROM, etc. Or would you rather the EU accept fellow "Western" and "European" countries that share the same values as Western Europeans, that share the same language as some Western Europeans, and share a similar culture to that of Western Europeans. I would much rather the EU accept Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, keep the UK, further integrate, and enlarge, and become an effective United States of Europe.

I am not the only one who dares this vision. Look on Google, and you can finds hundreds of articles, websites, threads, forums, and posts that discuss this, and many Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would like their countries to join the EU, and many Europeans would like the same.

If these countries joined the EU, it would get much, much richer than it currently is. It would be the world's foremost economic power, political power, and superpower. With this extra money from these countries, amazing infrastructure projects could be completed, poor, Eastern European nations could become rich, and the EU, as well as Europeans would only benefit.


All of this 'exo' countries have different interests from Europe. I will agree only if they share the same values and the same targets.

If you ask me personally, I want an entity like the United States, i.e. United States of Europe.

Of course there are different type of countries and convergence is what we want to achieve, but I strongly believe that this union should be mostly related to European borders.

We can have, as we actually have, financial cooperation with the rest of the world.

Plus if you join the EU, tons of people will leave the sacred European land, for a better future in the New World. But we want to keep the people, and help the 'Old Lady' eventually.

Echetlaeus
10-06-14, 09:22
Well what about in 5-10 years, or longer? Would you want Canada to join then?


Impossible for Canada to join the EU, imho. Not even in 50 years.

Coolboygcp
10-06-14, 10:04
All of this 'exo' countries have different interests from Europe. I will agree only if they share the same values and the same targets.

If you ask me personally, I want an entity like the United States, i.e. United States of Europe.

Of course there are different type of countries and convergence is what we want to achieve, but I strongly believe that this union should be mostly related to European borders.

We can have, as we actually have, financial cooperation with the rest of the world.

Plus if you join the EU, tons of people will leave the sacred European land, for a better future in the New World. But we want to keep the people, and help the 'Old Lady' eventually.
They don't have different interests from Europe. They share the same values, the same targets, some of the same languages, the same monarch as the UK, etc.

I agree, I would like an United States of Europe. Would you rather the EU accept Eastern European nations like Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Turkey, etc? Or would you rather the EU accept flurries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which share the same value, targets, languages, monarch, and culture with Europe and the UK.

Look at France, the country of France is in Europe, South America, Africa, Oceania, and North America. The UK is also in all of those continents mentioned. Spain is in Europe and in Africa. (Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands.) Portugal is in Europe and Africa. Cyprus is in entirely in Asia. Some consider Malta to be in Africa. 96% of Turkey is in Asia. Italy has some islands that can be considered to be in Africa.

The precedent has been set. If the EU was to only be in Europe, they shouldn't have accepted France, The UK, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Malta, Italy in the EU. And they shouldn't consider Turkey as a candidate for ascension. But they have, because like me; they believe that the EU should not only be in "geographic" Europe, but that it should be in countries with a European culture. Excerpt from the Copenhagen Criteria:

"Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Well, there you have it, the EU doesn't say that you have to be in geographic Europe to join. If they had said that, they wouldn't have many members.

Echetlaeus
10-06-14, 10:50
They don't have different interests from Europe. They share the same values, the same targets, some of the same languages, the same monarch as the UK, etc.

I agree, I would like an United States of Europe. Would you rather the EU accept Eastern European nations like Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Turkey, etc? Or would you rather the EU accept flurries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which share the same value, targets, languages, monarch, and culture with Europe and the UK.

Look at France, the country of France is in Europe, South America, Africa, Oceania, and North America. The UK is also in all of those continents mentioned. Spain is in Europe and in Africa. (Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands.) Portugal is in Europe and Africa. Cyprus is in entirely in Asia. Some consider Malta to be in Africa. 96% of Turkey is in Asia. Italy has some islands that can be considered to be in Africa.

The precedent has been set. If the EU was to only be in Europe, they shouldn't have accepted France, The UK, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Malta, Italy in the EU. And they shouldn't consider Turkey as a candidate for ascension. But they have, because like me; they believe that the EU should not only be in "geographic" Europe, but that it should be in countries with a European culture. Excerpt from the Copenhagen Criteria:

"Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Well, there you have it, the EU doesn't say that you have to be in geographic Europe to join. If they had said that, they wouldn't have many members.

Balkans are Europe, of course they should be in EU. I have my doubts about Turkey (I do not say a clear no).

If they do not mind geography, they should not call it European Union, for European citizens are all those people who live in Europe, but something else. I have no problem if they change the name (the word Europe must not be used in this case).

e.g. Economic and Social Union of the Northern Hemisphere (ESUNH) would be an OK name.

Aberdeen
10-06-14, 16:31
I have a feeling you are in a bad mood today. Let's start fixing Canada by getting rid of royals first. We need full independence.

It seams that sharing diplomatic premises is practiced by many.


http://www.theguardian.com/global/2012/sep/24/diplomacy-embassy-buildings-uk-canada

I'm sure you've been in this country long enough to know why it's difficult to get rid of the monarchy. First of all, it would be very difficult to get enough provinces to agree on anything in order to make such a major change to the constitution. It's a long and difficult process. More importantly, if we got rid of the monarchy, what would we replace it with? Many people, including myself, dislike the idea of making Canada a republic unless we can be sure that the president would always remain a figurehead with no political power. But once a complex constitutional process starts, there's no telling where it will end up. We might get a system where we have a president constantly fighting with Parliament, and even less useful work would get done than at present. Also, there is a small but vocal minority of people who actually like the monarchy and they're apt to become one issue voters if Parliament tries to get rid of that anachronism. And politicians fear one issue voters.

I agree we need to fix Canada's constitution - we need to get rid of the monarchy and either abolish the Senate or replace it by one elected proportionally, to act as a check on the House of Commons. The danger of that idea is that it could produce deadlock, so perhaps just getting rid of the Senate is best. But this country isn't united enough in its sense of direction at the moment to be able to make the necessary changes. Maybe you could run for Parliament and become the inspirational leader we need to unite Canadians so we could fix things. I wouldn't vote for you though - your economic views are too Albertan (or maybe just too warped from growing up under communism).

Echetlaeus
10-06-14, 16:49
^ Do you also pay the queen like the Brits do Canadian bros?

Engel
10-06-14, 18:32
Countries should stay independent and not join any union. EU was a mistake just as the euro is.
Now is there is an american continent union aka AU.No. If AU forms, then it will implode like the EU

oriental
10-06-14, 20:34
Ontario is the most populous province in Canada and in the American War of Independence in 1776, all the British monarchists left the US for Ontario. You have big fight if you want to get rid of the monarchy. I waved to Queen (I like her) and her clown Prince Philip in India when I was in India. Ha, ha, he always acted like a clown. I have ambivalent feelings about the monarchy.

Engel
10-06-14, 23:29
Ontario is the most populous province in Canada and in the American War of Independence in 1776, all the British monarchists left the US for Ontario. You have big fight if you want to get rid of the monarchy. I waved to Queen (I like her) and her clown Prince Philip in India when I was in India. Ha, ha, he always acted like a clown. I have ambivalent feelings about the monarchy.Easy there boy!! Show some respect for the prince

Maleth
11-06-14, 00:31
Look at France, the country of France is in Europe, South America, Africa, Oceania, and North America. The UK is also in all of those continents mentioned. Spain is in Europe and in Africa. (Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands.) Portugal is in Europe and Africa. Cyprus is in entirely in Asia. Some consider Malta to be in Africa. 96% of Turkey is in Asia. Italy has some islands that can be considered to be in Africa.

The precedent has been set. If the EU was to only be in Europe, they shouldn't have accepted France, The UK, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Malta, Italy in the EU. And they shouldn't consider Turkey as a candidate for ascension. But they have, because like me; they believe that the EU should not only be in "geographic" Europe, but that it should be in countries with a European culture. Excerpt from the Copenhagen Criteria:



You forgot to mention that Greece has many Islands close to so called Asia. With the same measuring stick then you can consider the whole of Europe as part of Asia as its attached to it. Borders as we know them are relatively a recent thing. Azerbaijan have an ad on CNN claiming they are the European charm of the orient! We like to think of a world either black or white (for statistical purposes) but in reality there is lots of different shades of gray in between.

Coolboygcp
11-06-14, 01:32
Countries should stay independent and not join any union. EU was a mistake just as the euro is.
Now is there is an american continent union aka AU.No. If AU forms, then it will implode like the EU
:laughing:

That is utter bullshit. The EU was not a mistake! The EU was a very wise thing to do. Without the EU, Europe could be at war once again. Without the EU; people would not have the essential human right of freedom of movement. Without the EU, Europe would become as deregulated as the US, and they would have widespread lobbying. That would be very bad. In the US, over 90% of corn, soy, rapeseed/canola, and cotton is GMO. The EU only has one GMO approved for human consumption, and GMOs have to be labeled. Many EU countries such as France, Ireland, Austria, Luxembourg, and others have banned GMOs. Could you imagine if that happened in the US? Corporations have a lot of power in the US.

The European Project has succeeded so far, and it shall not "implode". Yes, Europe has been having economic problems as of late, but so has much of the world. The economy in Europe is getting much better. Integration is increasing, and more nations are joining the EU.

Do you honestly think, that small nations like Luxembourg and Malta could survive on their one without the EU? They are too small to have lots of embassies, consulates, ambassadors, etc. It would just be idiotic for these countries to release their own currency; thus they have the Euro.

More nations will join the Euro in the coming years, like Denmark, Poland, etc. You say that the Euro was a mistake, and that it has imploded. How so? Why? Because, it hasn't. The € is still worth more than the $.

And as for an "American Union", it will never happen. North American nations don't have much in common, but geography. Mexico iscalligned with the Latin American sphere. Canada is aligned with the UK, The Commonwealth, and Europe. It has much more in common with them, than the US and Mexico. The US would ever join such a union as, most Americans are reluctant to change. The entirety of the world except the US and Liberia (Burma is converting to the Metric System.) uses the metric system. It makes so much more sense, is much easier to use and remember; yet Americans favour the US system of measurements. I am American and a European, but I use the metric system, as it makes immensely more sense.

Coolboygcp
11-06-14, 01:39
Ontario is the most populous province in Canada and in the American War of Independence in 1776, all the British monarchists left the US for Ontario. You have big fight if you want to get rid of the monarchy. I waved to Queen (I like her) and her clown Prince Philip in India when I was in India. Ha, ha, he always acted like a clown. I have ambivalent feelings about the monarchy.

You are correct. The United Empire Loyalists did go to Canada. Canada will not get rid of the monarchy, in my opinion. All polls show that the monarchy's popularity has only increased. If they were to get rid of them, they should have done it in the '90's, as that was when their popularity was lowest due to Diana's death, etc. But now, especially thanks to William, Kate, and Prince George; their popularity has soared. Without the monarchy, what would Canada become? The 51st state? I think Canada should keep the monarchy and join the EU. Also, I like the monarchy.

Coolboygcp
11-06-14, 01:55
You forgot to mention that Greece has many Islands close to so called Asia. With the same measuring stick then you can consider the whole of Europe as part of Asia as its attached to it. Borders as we know them are relatively a recent thing. Azerbaijan have an ad on CNN claiming they are the European charm of the orient! We like to think of a world either black or white (for statistical purposes) but in reality there is lots of different shades of gray in between.

Thank you!

I was going to mention that about the Greek islands so close to Asia, but I forgot to.

I agree with you, Europe is really just part of Eurasia. Where does Europe end? Caucasoids originated in the Caucasus amontains in Central Asia. If we originated there, then why is it considered to be Asia? Where is the geographic boundary between Europe and Asia?

I think the EU should consider "all nations with a European culture.", as the EU says in the Copenhagen Agreement. Canada has a European majority, speaks two European languages (English and French), shares a head of state with other European countries (the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), shares European values, and has a European system of government (the Westminster System). It is also a member of the Commonwealth, as are three other EU nations. (the UK, your nation Malta, and Cyprus.)

It seems that the gray in between makes up much of actual Europe. If we consider nations which as far wast, if no even farther east than Turkey to be in Europe (40% of Russia, Ukraine, etc.), then why isn't Turkey in Europe? What about Georgia? Or Armenia? Are they in Europe? I would say yes, yes they are. But, I would also say that nations such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; are European countries. Europe is more than what it is on a map. Europe is a collection of nations with different national cultures, but a shared European culture. These nations speak European languages. And I believe that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are European nations as they have a European culture, speak European languages, are mostly of European descent, and all share a head of state with European countries.

motzart
11-06-14, 02:22
Never in a million years would Canadians ever have any desire to be part of the EU, I see joining with America as a possibility but Europe never. Canada is a wealthy country that is being run very well, why would we ever want to join with a bunch of have not European countries? We would rather join with Norway. I like the idea of free trade with Europe but nothing beyond that. I think Britain should solve its immigrant problem and then form an Anglo union with Canada/New Zealand/Australia, actually that union is a lot better without Britain lol. I feel sorry for Germany having to prop up the rest of Europe, if I was a German I would vote to leave.

LeBrok
11-06-14, 04:37
^ Do you also pay the queen like the Brits do Canadian bros?


Finch says that the climbing costs reflect the fact that the Queen’s reps are taking on more active roles, with heightened responsibility and more travel time. While that might be costing Canadians a few extra pennies, he stresses that the monarchy “is not a very expensive operation.” But Tom Freda, national director of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, is not so sure. “Ah, the Monarchists. They love to break it down to per capita and make it sound all nice and rosy,” he says. “But $40 million or $50 million [a year] sure sounds like a lot to me.” The Monarchist League supports that figure, estimating that about $50,147,000 was spent during the 2006-07 year.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay/


Wouldn't be wiser to pay this 50 million to Prime Minister and Ministers, so we can get better quality government, made of smartest of us all?

I'm not sure how much queen gets directly but most of the money are spent entertaining royals coming to Canada for a visit every year. Just because they were born in the right family. Sick.

LeBrok
11-06-14, 05:00
I'm sure you've been in this country long enough to know why it's difficult to get rid of the monarchy. Yes, difficult but noble and necessary. It is like we need a closure.


Many people, including myself, dislike the idea of making Canada a republic unless we can be sure that the president would always remain a figurehead with no political power. What about a new form of Republic without El Presidente? I love experimenting.


But once a complex constitutional process starts, there's no telling where it will end up. We might get a system where we have a president constantly fighting with Parliament, and even less useful work would get done than at present. Also, there is a small but vocal minority of people who actually like the monarchy and they're apt to become one issue voters if Parliament tries to get rid of that anachronism. And politicians fear one issue voters.


I agree we need to fix Canada's constitution - we need to get rid of the monarchy and either abolish the Senate or replace it by one elected proportionally, to act as a check on the House of Commons. You get my vote on this platform.


Maybe you could run for Parliament and become the inspirational leader we need to unite Canadians so we could fix things. With my heavy polish accent I'll be playing a la Chretien all the time, lol.


I wouldn't vote for you though - your economic views are too Albertan (or maybe just too warped from growing up under communism). oh, com'n, I'm Marxist at heart, but my logic won't let me go there all the way. Some things work best in theory and romantic soles, but not in a real world.

Coolboygcp
11-06-14, 05:42
Wouldn't be wiser to pay this 50 million to Prime Minister and Ministers, so we can get better quality government, made of smartest of us all?I'm not sure how much queen gets directly but most of the money are spent entertaining royals coming to Canada for a visit every year. Just because they were born in the right family. Sick.
No, it wouldn't be wiser to give the Prime Minister and Ministers $50 Million. Governments spend tons of money on stupid stuff. Especially the US. I am sure the Canadian government does the same. To the Canadian government, it is a pittance. The US spends $1.4 Billion on the Obamas every year, the UK spends $58 Million on the royals a year. Look at the stupid things the US government wastes money on:


#1 The National Science Foundation has given $384,949 to Yale University to do a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”. Try not to laugh, but much of this research involves examining and measuring the reproductive organs of male ducks.

#2 The IRS spent $60,000 on a film parody of “Star Trek” and a film parody of “Gilligan’s Island”. Internal Revenue Service employees were the actors in the two parodies, so as you can imagine the acting was really bad.

#3 The National Institutes of Health has given $1.5 million to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts to study why “three-quarters” of lesbians in the United States are overweight and why most gay males are not.

#4 The National Institutes of Health has also spent $2.7 million to study why lesbians have more “vulnerability to hazardous drinking”.

#5 The U.S. government is giving sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even though the new president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi (a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), constantly makes statements such as the following…

“Dear brothers, we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them”
#6 During 2012, the salaries of Barack Obama’s three climate change advisers combined came to a grand total of more than $370,000.

#7 Overall, 139 different White House staffers were making at least $100,000during 2012, and there were 20 staffers that made the maximum of $172,200.

#8 Amazingly, U.S. taxpayers spend more than 1.4 billion dollars a year on the Obamas. Meanwhile, British taxpayers only spend about 58 million dollars on the entire royal family.

#9 During 2012, $25,000 of federal money was spent on a promotional tour for the Alabama Watermelon Queen.

#10 The U.S. government spent $505,000 “to promote specialty hair and beauty products for cats and dogs” in 2012.

#11 NASA spends close to a million dollars a year developing a menu of food for a manned mission to Mars even though it is being projected that a manned mission to Mars is still decades away.

#12 During 2012, the federal government spent 15 million dollars to help Russian weapons institutes recruit nuclear scientists.

#13 Over the past 15 years, a total of approximately $5.25 million has been spent on hair care services for the U.S. Senate.

#14 The U.S. government spent 27 million dollars to teach Moroccans how to design and make pottery in 2012.

#15 At a time when we have an epidemic of unemployment in the United States, the U.S. Department of Education is spending $1.3 million to “reduce linguistic, academic, and employment barriers for skilled and low-skilled immigrants and refugees, and to integrate them into the U.S. workforce and professions.”

#16 The federal government still sends about 20 million dollars a year to the surviving family members of veterans of World War I, even though World War I ended 94 years ago.

#17 The U.S. government is spending approximately 3.6 million dollars a year to support the lavish lifestyles of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

#18 During fiscal 2012, the National Science Foundation gave researchers at Purdue University $350,000. They used part of that money to help fund a study that discovered that if golfers imagine that a hole is bigger it will help them with their putting.

#19 The U.S. government is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority every year.

#20 Federal agencies have purchased a total of approximately 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the past 10 months. It is claimed that all of this ammunition is needed for “training purposes”.

#21 During 2012, the National Science Foundation spent $516,000 on the creation of a video game called “Prom Week” which apparently simulates “all the social interactions of the event.”

#22 If you can believe it, $10,000 of U.S. taxpayer money was actually used to purchase talking urinal cakes up in Michigan.

#23 When Joe Biden and his staff took a trip to London back in February, the hotel bill cost U.S. taxpayers $459,388.65.

#24 Joe Biden and his staff also stopped in Paris for one night back in February. The hotel bill for that one night came to $585,000.50.

#25 If you can believe it, close to 15,000 retired federal employees are currently collecting federal pensions for life worth at least $100,000 annually. That list includes such names as Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Dick Gephardt and Dick Cheney.

#26 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $300,000 to encourage Americans to eat caviar.

#27 The National Institutes of Health recently gave $666,905 to a group of researchers that is conducting a study on the benefits of watching reruns on television.

#28 The National Science Foundation has given 1.2 million dollars to a team of “scientists” that is spending part of that money on a study that is seeking to determine whether elderly Americans would benefit from playing World of Warcraft or not.

#29 The National Institutes of Health recently gave $548,731 to a team of researchers that concluded that those that drink heavily in their thirties also tend to feel more immature.

#30 The National Science Foundation recently spent $30,000 on a study to determine if “gaydar” actually exists. This is the conclusion that the researchers reached at the end of the study….

“Gaydar is indeed real and… its accuracy is driven by sensitivity to individual facial features”
Here are 30 more examples of outrageous government waste from one of my previous articles entitled “Chimps Throwing Poop And 29 Other Mind Blowing Ways That The Government Is Wasting Your Money“…

#1 In 2011, the National Institutes of Health spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.

#2 The National Institutes of Health has spent more than 5 million dollars on a website called Sexpulse that is targeted at “men who use the Internet to seek sex with men”. According to Fox News, the website “includes pornographic images of homosexual sex as well as naked and scantily clad men” and features “a Space Invaders-style interactive game that uses a penis-shaped blaster to shoot down gay epithets.”

#3 The General Services Administration spent $822,751 on a “training conference” for 300 west coast employees at the M Resort and Casino in Las Vegas.

The following is how the Washington Post described some of the wasteful expenses that happened during this “conference”…

Among the “excessive, wasteful and in some cases impermissable” spending the inspector general documented: $5,600 for three semi-private catered in-room parties and $44 per person daily breakfasts; $75,000 for a “team-building” exercise — the goal was to build a bicycle; $146,000 on catered food and drinks; and $6,325 on commemorative coins in velvet boxes to reward all participants for their work on stimulus projects. The $31,208 “networking” reception featured a $19-per-person artisanal cheese display and $7,000 of sushi. At the conference’s closing-night dinner, employees received “yearbooks” with their pictures, at a cost of $8,130.
You can see some stunning pictures of GSA employees living the high life in Las Vegas right here.

#4 Do you remember when credit rating agency Egan Jones downgraded U.S. government debt from AA+ to AA? Well, someone in the federal government apparently did not like that at all. According to Zero Hedge, the SEC plans to file charges against Egan Jones for “misstatements” on a regulatory application with the SEC.

Normally, the SEC does not go after anyone. After all, when is the last time a major banker went to prison?

No, the truth is that the SEC is usually just a huge waste of taxpayer money. According to ABC News, one investigation found that 17 senior SEC officials had been regularly viewing pornography while at work. While the American people were paying their salaries, this is what senior SEC officials were busy doing…

One senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington spent up to eight hours a day accessing Internet porn, according to the report, which has yet to be released. When he filled all the space on his government computer with pornographic images, he downloaded more to CDs and DVDs that accumulated in boxes in his offices.

An SEC accountant attempted to access porn websites 1,800 times in a two-week period and had 600 pornographic images on her computer hard drive.

Another SEC accountant used his SEC-issued computer to upload his own sexually explicit videos onto porn websites he joined.

And another SEC accountant attempted to access porn sites 16,000 times in a single month.
#5 According to InformationWeek, the federal government is spending “millions of dollars” to train Asian call center workers.

#6 If you can believe it, the federal government has actually spent $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

#7 The U.S. Agency for International Development spent 10 million dollars to create a version of “Sesame Street” for Pakistani television.

#8 The Obama administration has plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars to help students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.

#9 The National Science Foundation spent $198,000 on a University of California-Riverside study that explored “motivations, expectations and goal pursuit in social media.” One of the questions the study sought an answer to was the following: “Do unhappy people spend more time on Twitter or Facebook?”

#10 The federal government actually has spent $175,587 “to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior”.

#11 In 2011, $147,138 was given to the American Museum of Magic in Marshall, Michigan. Their best magic trick is making U.S. taxpayer dollars disappear.

#12 The federal government recently spent $74,000 to help Michigan “increase awareness about the role Michigan plays in the production of trees and poinsettias.”

#13 In 2011, the federal government gave $550,000 toward the making of a documentary about how rock and roll contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.

#14 The National Institutes of Health has contributed $55,382 toward a study of “hookah smoking habits” in the country of Jordan.

#15 The federal government gave $606,000 to researchers at Columbia University to study how heterosexuals use the Internet to find love.

#16 A total of $133,277 was recently given to the International Center for the History of Electronic Games for video game preservation. The International Center for the History of Electronic Games says that it “collects, studies, and interprets video games, other electronic games, and related materials and the ways in which electronic games are changing how people play, learn, and connect with each other, including across boundaries of culture and geography.”

#17 The federal government has given approximately $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research into video games such as World of Warcraft.

#18 In 2011, the National Science Foundation gave one team of researchers$149,990 to create a video game called “RapidGuppy” for cell phones and other mobile devices.

#19 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once handed researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

#20 In 2011, $936,818 was spent developing an online soap opera entitled “Diary of a Single Mom”. The show “chronicles the lives and challenges of three single mothers and their families trying to get ahead despite obstacles that all single mothers face, such as childcare, healthcare, education, and finances.”

#21 The federal government once shelled out $2.6 million to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.

#22 Last year, the federal government spent $96,000 to buy iPads for kindergarten students in Maine.

#23 The U.S. Postal Service once spent $13,500 for a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.

#24 In 2011, the Air Force Academy completed work on an outdoor worship area for pagans and Wiccans. The worship area consists of “a small Stonehenge-like circle of boulders with [a] propane fire pit” and it cost $51,474to build. The worship area is “for the handful of current or future cadets whose religions fall under the broad category of ‘Earth-based’, which includes Wiccans, druids and pagans.” At this point, that only includes 3 current students at the Air Force Academy.

#25 The National Institutes of Health once gave researchers $400,000 to study why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.

#26 The National Institutes of Health once gave researchers $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.

#27 The National Institutes of Health once spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.

#28 The National Science Foundation recently spent $200,000 on a study that examined how voters react when politicians change their stances on climate change.

#29 The federal government recently spent $484,000 to help build a Mellow Mushroom pizzeria in Arlington, Texas.

#30 At this point, China is holding over a trillion dollars of U.S. government debt. But that didn’t stop the United States from sending 17.8 million dollars in foreign aid to China in 2011.

Engel
11-06-14, 06:21
:laughing:

That is utter bullshit. The EU was not a mistake! The EU was a very wise thing to do. Without the EU, Europe could be at war once again. Without the EU; people would not have the essential human right of freedom of movement. Without the EU, Europe would become as deregulated as the US, and they would have widespread lobbying. That would be very bad. In the US, over 90% of corn, soy, rapeseed/canola, and cotton is GMO. The EU only has one GMO approved for human consumption, and GMOs have to be labeled. Many EU countries such as France, Ireland, Austria, Luxembourg, and others have banned GMOs. Could you imagine if that happened in the US? Corporations have a lot of power in the US.

The European Project has succeeded so far, and it shall not "implode". Yes, Europe has been having economic problems as of late, but so has much of the world. The economy in Europe is getting much better. Integration is increasing, and more nations are joining the EU.

Do you honestly think, that small nations like Luxembourg and Malta could survive on their one without the EU? They are too small to have lots of embassies, consulates, ambassadors, etc. It would just be idiotic for these countries to release their own currency; thus they have the Euro.

More nations will join the Euro in the coming years, like Denmark, Poland, etc. You say that the Euro was a mistake, and that it has imploded. How so? Why? Because, it hasn't. The € is still worth more than the $.

And as for an "American Union", it will never happen. North American nations don't have much in common, but geography. Mexico iscalligned with the Latin American sphere. Canada is aligned with the UK, The Commonwealth, and Europe. It has much more in common with them, than the US and Mexico. The US would ever join such a union as, most Americans are reluctant to change. The entirety of the world except the US and Liberia (Burma is converting to the Metric System.) uses the metric system. It makes so much more sense, is much easier to use and remember; yet Americans favour the US system of measurements. I am American and a European, but I use the metric system, as it makes immensely more sense.
Lol and likewise your rant is utter Bullshit.
Nun weg von meinem ansicht.

Coolboygcp
11-06-14, 07:31
Lol and likewise your rant is utter Bullshit.
Nun weg von meinem ansicht.

I can speak German too.

Nun, das ist Ihre Ansicht shit, zu diesem Thema, mindestens. Ich habe nicht auf einer rant gehen, ich die Wahrheit sprach. Sie hatte noch nicht einmal einen guten Gegenbeweis. Kannst du nicht eine Widerlegung zumindest tun? Auch Sie sind indische? Als die Arier waren ein Stamm aus Indien. Arier sind keine Deutschen, noch sind sie Europäer. Sie müssen besser informiert werden. Die Europäische Union hat den Krieg in Europa seit seiner Gründung verhindert. Die meisten europäischen Staaten nicht auf ihr eigenes überleben, ohne die EU. Europa muss vorwärts gehen. und der einzige Weg, das zu tun, ist für Europa weiter zu vereinen und zu integrieren. Europa muss nicht rückwärts gehen, noch wird es nach hinten zu gehen, wenn Sie würde es mögen. Die EU hat nicht implodiert, und keiner hat der Euro. Auch, warum haben Sie ein Europa-und EU-Forum Sie beitreten, noch sind Anti-Europa-und Anti-EU? Das ist ein vollkommener Widerspruch, und macht keinen Sinn zu machen.

Also, noch einmal, was du gesagt hast ist Bullshit, ohne sachliche Unterstützung auch immer. Sie müssen lesen rechts Propaganda zu stoppen, und lesen unvoreingenommene Nachrichten wie BBC, Euronews, Al Jazeera, Der Spiegel, usw.

Engel
11-06-14, 17:13
I can speak German too.

Nun, das ist Ihre Ansicht shit, zu diesem Thema, mindestens. Ich habe nicht auf einer rant gehen, ich die Wahrheit sprach. Sie hatte noch nicht einmal einen guten Gegenbeweis. Kannst du nicht eine Widerlegung zumindest tun? Auch Sie sind indische? Als die Arier waren ein Stamm aus Indien. Arier sind keine Deutschen, noch sind sie Europäer. Sie müssen besser informiert werden. Die Europäische Union hat den Krieg in Europa seit seiner Gründung verhindert. Die meisten europäischen Staaten nicht auf ihr eigenes überleben, ohne die EU. Europa muss vorwärts gehen. und der einzige Weg, das zu tun, ist für Europa weiter zu vereinen und zu integrieren. Europa muss nicht rückwärts gehen, noch wird es nach hinten zu gehen, wenn Sie würde es mögen. Die EU hat nicht implodiert, und keiner hat der Euro. Auch, warum haben Sie ein Europa-und EU-Forum Sie beitreten, noch sind Anti-Europa-und Anti-EU? Das ist ein vollkommener Widerspruch, und macht keinen Sinn zu machen.

Also, noch einmal, was du gesagt hast ist Bullshit, ohne sachliche Unterstützung auch immer. Sie müssen lesen rechts Propaganda zu stoppen, und lesen unvoreingenommene Nachrichten wie BBC, Euronews, Al Jazeera, Der Spiegel, usw.
Ein Schlechtes translator. Nochmal weg, habe keine zeit fuer dich

Coolboygcp
12-06-14, 01:45
Ein Schlechtes translator. Nochmal weg, habe keine zeit fuer dich

Ich habe nicht eine verdammte Übersetzer. Ihre Deutschkenntnisse sind schlecht, sollten Sie gesagt haben, gehen wieder weg, ich habe keine Zeit für Sie. Aber weil du in grammatikalischen Fähigkeiten fehlen in Deutsch, konnte man nicht sagen. Selbst das Wort für "translator" ist nicht es ist ein Übersetzer. Dass nur zeigte ferner, Ihre mangelnden Deutschkenntnissen. Ich bin nicht deutscher Abstammung, aber ich spreche besser Deutsch? Sie sollten Rosetta Stone zu kaufen, dann haben Sie vielleicht wäre fließend in Deutsch. Sie noch nie zu meinem ursprünglichen Punkt reagiert. Könnten Sie zumindest das getan haben?

Engel
12-06-14, 03:04
Lol ja ja ueberzetzer. Sie sollten richtig sagen, ich spreche besser deutsch als Sie, oder? Aber mach nichts, habe jetz viel zu tun. Guten glueck