Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831 
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 22, 2017 12:04:01 GMT
The USE will be a caricature of the USA and the end of european pluralism. The EC/EU has - contrary to the NATO - neverever done anything for peace. And if anyone doubts, that the EU is a collectivistic prison (its courts having played the worst part): Have a look at the continental media, which are agitating against Britain&Brexit as the DDR-media did against those, who left the Socialistic HeavenOnEarth ... That is complete and utter bollocks, Georg. NATO is a military alliance. The military does not bring peace, it brings victory in war and security in peacetime. But it cannot bring peace - ask an Afghan, where NATO tried. Or even, to a lesser extent, a Bosnian - who got the victory and the security, but not much of a peace. For that you need people to develop peace in their hearts toward former adversaries, and that is what the EU and its forerunners did and does. "Collectivist prison" is drivel. It's a lot nicer inside the EU than outside it and if you walk out you'll no longer be able to use the facilities, but you can walk out any time you like. That's the exact opposite of a prison. I'll point out yet again the fundamental difference between the EU and the socialist heaven - every country in the Warsaw Pact came into it as a result of military occupation and troops were sent in if they tried to leave. Every country in the EU joined of its own free will; several others have tried to join and been turned away. If the continental press think Brexit is a stupid idea then they are in line with half the British population (and growing.) There is absolutely no comparison between the media in a free Europe and that of a communist dictatorship. Who has done the most for peace? The AtomicBombs! The EU is liked by the Slaves because of its subventions. An intelligent DDR-citizen explained it in this way: In the DDR 15% belonged to the regime and were ridiculed by the other 85%. In present-day Germany 85% belong to the PoliticalCorrectness-dictatorship and the remaining 15% are close to being imprisoned or at least ruinated. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 22, 2017 14:44:43 GMT
Go the extra mile Adam and admit that in essence it is a Germano-French Protection Racket with a Benelux Protectorate add on. The main point being to protect and advance German industry and French Agriculture and originally to over-protect their coal and steel areas. Behind it was an enmity for Russia and the UK as power centres they feared and had historic dislike for and wished to harm. All else is ancillary and because of occasional euphoric vanity has caused major problems by admitting states with economies that do not and cannot be made to fit. We were only admitted as a potential milch cow to assist funding their schemes. I really don't see that, Carlton. Firstly, the original six were Benelux plus Germany, France and Italy - I don't see where Italy fits into your analysis (and de Gasperi was an important figure in the set-up, so they have to somewhere) nor why Benelux would volunteer to become a protectorate. Secondly, you can add to the last point the fact that countless other countries have voluntarily joined, which is a bit odd if it is essentially a Franco-Germna protection racket. Furthermore, the essence of a protection racket is that someone strong forces smaller and weaker people to pay in order to avoid punishment, but in the EU Germany has always been a net payer whereas the poorer and weaker countries that join have been net beneficiaries. That is an odd way for a protection racket to work. Thirdly and above all, while there was and is a (quite justified) concern about Russia/the USSR I do not believe that the UK was (post-war) a significant power centre of a size to be feared by France or Germany; De Gaulle famously objected to our joining for fear of les Anglo-Saxons but you have to be pretty bloody stupid to think that the English-speaking nation he feared was on this side of the Atlantic. Nor do I see that we were or are the target of malice from most European countries - certainly not Benelux, Italy or the Scandinavians. There are historic grudges between us and the Germans, French, Spanish and Irish but equally strong ties of friendship. We did after all fight two world wars on the same side as the French and it isn't hard to find evidence of genuine gratitude for that if you visit the battlefields and war graves (more so a generation or so ago when the Common Market was being formed, I think.) Ireland and Germany have very often been our allies in European negotiations and not so long ago it wasn't hard to find tributes to the quality of British staffers in the Commission and to British pragmatism. Much less so since the rise of euroscepticism, I think. What I will agree is that part of the original deal was preservation of French rural life, with Germany picking up the bill as a sort of war reparation, and a desire to protect the respective coal and steel industries. (And bloody sensible too, given the policy of the USA regarding its steel industry and the future rise of India and China in those industries.) I don't see the fact that France and Germany had a half-way sensible and mutually beneficial industrial strategy that consistently outperformed the efforts of our own government in that sphere is exactly a cause for criticism. (We could have used the EU to protect jobs in British steel against Chinese dumping just a couple of years ago but chose not to do so for ideological reasons; which didn't stop the lying eurosceptic press from blaming the EU of course.) The UK government has been woefully incompetent at fighting for British interests in the EU - in our position the French would have simply vetoed Spain's application until the CFP was amended in such a way as to keep their boats out of our waters. But that is a sign of British incompetence and failure to really think about what Europe meant. I will also say that we never had quite the same issue regarding either Nazism and Communism nor as great a need to reconstruct post-war that the continentals had. IMO that led to a fatally blasé attitude when the thing was set up - all very well for the sad Europeans but not of any importance to the British Empire, even though we know full well the Empire was going. We should have revived the Entente Cordiale and have been in from the first, when our moral leadership was universally acknowledged and our military prestige was greater than all the rest put together (and de Gaulle was out of power!) Instead we put our trust in the Special Relationship with disastrous consequences. Nice piece Adam. Closely argued. We do see it so differently. We are not part of the Continent and thus have always seen matters in a different context. We don't have land borders and have not been invaded for a very long time. But we have an instinctive distrust of German expansionary aspirations and some us see their input to the EU as 'expansion by other means' through holding 'lesser states' in thrall to a latter day Holy Roman/German Empire by subjection to an economic cycle that does not suit them and a German-devized currency that has caused most of them actual economic damage. Yes, Germany doles out subvention payments but gains the increased markets to sell into against nations severely weakened economically by being members at all. France has other benefits from the EU and has always loathed Britain's guts. It has and continues to mean us harm. It is built into French psyche and exacerbated by the fact that English is dominating the world to the detriment of French. It has deep-seated hurts and wishes to see us suffer a bit and will take accept abit of economic damage to achieve it. I think they let Italy in against their better economic judgement because of pressure from the USA and Marshall bribes coupled with expectations that the economic miracle of the 50s might just cascade to their advantage. The expansion of the EU only really suited Germany economically and Britain (it thought) politically. We saw extra votes we might hoover up to balance against the big two, and a constant stream of new members stalling the federalism. But these were false and silly hopes. Most members had a clear focus on why they were members but we never did. The political agenda (and anti-agenda) often cut across our economic interests and caused muddled thinking. We lost out in farming and fisheries through ineptitude and not caring enough. We lost out industrially through carelessness and not having ministers with the right background or attitude. We were never good members and always at a disjunct on too many policies. We wanted opt-outs and re-funds and rule changes instead of putting in for Britain-shaped policies. We always reacted instead of pro-acting. We never built up a network of friends and vassals in the smaller nations by massaging, understanding and helping them against the centre. We were misfits and seen to be so. Most nations tolerated or disliked us but wanted the large subscription and put up with us for it whilst tweaking policy to damage us all the time. We should never have joined and Maggie should have taken us out, and the bastards should have knifed bloody Major and taken us out. But AT LAST we are now on the way out and of course cocking up the leaving just like we did the entry and our membership. This has been a festering national wound for decades and it has done us quite untold damage in every possibele manner. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 16:46:56 GMT
I really don't see that, Carlton. Firstly, the original six were Benelux plus Germany, France and Italy - I don't see where Italy fits into your analysis (and de Gasperi was an important figure in the set-up, so they have to somewhere) nor why Benelux would volunteer to become a protectorate. Secondly, you can add to the last point the fact that countless other countries have voluntarily joined, which is a bit odd if it is essentially a Franco-Germna protection racket. Furthermore, the essence of a protection racket is that someone strong forces smaller and weaker people to pay in order to avoid punishment, but in the EU Germany has always been a net payer whereas the poorer and weaker countries that join have been net beneficiaries. That is an odd way for a protection racket to work. Thirdly and above all, while there was and is a (quite justified) concern about Russia/the USSR I do not believe that the UK was (post-war) a significant power centre of a size to be feared by France or Germany; De Gaulle famously objected to our joining for fear of les Anglo-Saxons but you have to be pretty bloody stupid to think that the English-speaking nation he feared was on this side of the Atlantic. Nor do I see that we were or are the target of malice from most European countries - certainly not Benelux, Italy or the Scandinavians. There are historic grudges between us and the Germans, French, Spanish and Irish but equally strong ties of friendship. We did after all fight two world wars on the same side as the French and it isn't hard to find evidence of genuine gratitude for that if you visit the battlefields and war graves (more so a generation or so ago when the Common Market was being formed, I think.) Ireland and Germany have very often been our allies in European negotiations and not so long ago it wasn't hard to find tributes to the quality of British staffers in the Commission and to British pragmatism. Much less so since the rise of euroscepticism, I think. What I will agree is that part of the original deal was preservation of French rural life, with Germany picking up the bill as a sort of war reparation, and a desire to protect the respective coal and steel industries. (And bloody sensible too, given the policy of the USA regarding its steel industry and the future rise of India and China in those industries.) I don't see the fact that France and Germany had a half-way sensible and mutually beneficial industrial strategy that consistently outperformed the efforts of our own government in that sphere is exactly a cause for criticism. (We could have used the EU to protect jobs in British steel against Chinese dumping just a couple of years ago but chose not to do so for ideological reasons; which didn't stop the lying eurosceptic press from blaming the EU of course.) The UK government has been woefully incompetent at fighting for British interests in the EU - in our position the French would have simply vetoed Spain's application until the CFP was amended in such a way as to keep their boats out of our waters. But that is a sign of British incompetence and failure to really think about what Europe meant. I will also say that we never had quite the same issue regarding either Nazism and Communism nor as great a need to reconstruct post-war that the continentals had. IMO that led to a fatally blasé attitude when the thing was set up - all very well for the sad Europeans but not of any importance to the British Empire, even though we know full well the Empire was going. We should have revived the Entente Cordiale and have been in from the first, when our moral leadership was universally acknowledged and our military prestige was greater than all the rest put together (and de Gaulle was out of power!) Instead we put our trust in the Special Relationship with disastrous consequences. Nice piece Adam. Closely argued. We do see it so differently. We are not part of the Continent and thus have always seen matters in a different context. We don't have land borders and have not been invaded for a very long time. But we have an instinctive distrust of German expansionary aspirations and some us see their input to the EU as 'expansion by other means' through holding 'lesser states' in thrall to a latter day Holy Roman/German Empire by subjection to an economic cycle that does not suit them and a German-devized currency that has caused most of them actual economic damage. Yes, Germany doles out subvention payments but gains the increased markets to sell into against nations severely weakened economically by being members at all. France has other benefits from the EU and has always loathed Britain's guts. It has and continues to mean us harm. It is built into French psyche and exacerbated by the fact that English is dominating the world to the detriment of French. It has deep-seated hurts and wishes to see us suffer a bit and will take accept abit of economic damage to achieve it. I think they let Italy in against their better economic judgement because of pressure from the USA and Marshall bribes coupled with expectations that the economic miracle of the 50s might just cascade to their advantage. The expansion of the EU only really suited Germany economically and Britain (it thought) politically. We saw extra votes we might hoover up to balance against the big two, and a constant stream of new members stalling the federalism. But these were false and silly hopes. Most members had a clear focus on why they were members but we never did. The political agenda (and anti-agenda) often cut across our economic interests and caused muddled thinking. We lost out in farming and fisheries through ineptitude and not caring enough. We lost out industrially through carelessness and not having ministers with the right background or attitude. We were never good members and always at a disjunct on too many policies. We wanted opt-outs and re-funds and rule changes instead of putting in for Britain-shaped policies. We always reacted instead of pro-acting. We never built up a network of friends and vassals in the smaller nations by massaging, understanding and helping them against the centre. We were misfits and seen to be so. Most nations tolerated or disliked us but wanted the large subscription and put up with us for it whilst tweaking policy to damage us all the time. We should never have joined and Maggie should have taken us out, and the bastards should have knifed bloody Major and taken us out. But AT LAST we are now on the way out and of course cocking up the leaving just like we did the entry and our membership. This has been a festering national wound for decades and it has done us quite untold damage in every possibele manner. I'm afraid I'm broadly with carlton43 on this. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 22, 2017 17:33:48 GMT
War in Europe was ended by tying the major powers together through trade & therefore creating interdependence. I don't see how advocating that the EU should be a trading organisation and nothing more jepodises this? The problem here is that you are looking at this backwards. Trade and interdependence now makes war between European powers extremely unlikely but in the post WW2 era there was a disinclination to put trust in such a hypothetical scenario as interdependence. There was widespread agreement that Germany needed to be able to re-industrialise, both for its own benefit and that of its neighbours, but after two devastating wars there was understandably a reluctance to allow Germany to once again reach a position where it could pose a military threat. This conundrum was exploited brilliantly by Monnet and his allies who provided the solution; supranational control of coal and steel. This allowed Germany to re-industrialise without being a military threat because a higher authority would control the resources it needed to make war. Thus the precursor to the EEC was born on a supranational basis rather than an intergovernmental one. Those two terms give me horrid flashblacks to essays and endless old 'grand theory' literature from my MA course three years ago. From what I recall you are correct up until that last sentence. The EEC always had both supranational and intergovernmental elements which carried on when it became first the EC and then the EU, but as you say the most important part – the 'higher authority' that was literally called the Haute Autorité until 1967 – has always belonged to the former category. I don't think it's quite right to say that it's a supranational organisation rather than an intergovernmental one, though. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 22, 2017 17:51:23 GMT
The problem here is that you are looking at this backwards. Trade and interdependence now makes war between European powers extremely unlikely but in the post WW2 era there was a disinclination to put trust in such a hypothetical scenario as interdependence. There was widespread agreement that Germany needed to be able to re-industrialise, both for its own benefit and that of its neighbours, but after two devastating wars there was understandably a reluctance to allow Germany to once again reach a position where it could pose a military threat. This conundrum was exploited brilliantly by Monnet and his allies who provided the solution; supranational control of coal and steel. This allowed Germany to re-industrialise without being a military threat because a higher authority would control the resources it needed to make war. Thus the precursor to the EEC was born on a supranational basis rather than an intergovernmental one. Those two terms give me horrid flashblacks to essays and endless old 'grand theory' literature from my MA course three years ago. From what I recall you are correct up until that last sentence. The EEC always had both supranational and intergovernmental elements which carried on when it became first the EC and then the EU, but as you say the most important part – the 'higher authority' that was literally called the Haute Autorité until 1967 – has always belonged to the former category. I don't think it's quite right to say that it's a supranational organisation rather than an intergovernmental one, though. It is intergovermental and will be supranational. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 22, 2017 19:18:40 GMT
You argue your case well carlton43 (I'm not quoting you to avoid clogging up the page.) Obviously I don't share your attitude to Germany or France but I see where you are coming from and I agree with a hell of a lot of your penultimate paragraph. (And I happen to think that if we'd manage to shape some European polices to suit us better, and built up a bloc of allies to do it, the EU would be a better organisation for it and we would have been entitled to some gratitude - maybe even got it! I still think that as a country we do a lot of things better than a lot of the continental countries and they could learn from us.) To some extent I can see the value of the EU progressing on its course for the benefit of continental Europe, allowing us the benefit of quiet and order neighbours, while we sit it out as a friendly neighbour rather than a sulky teenager or crotchety granny in the spare room. Unfortunately I agree that we are cocking up the leaving. Fundamentally every way I look at it it seems like cock-up yesterday, cock-up now, and probably cock-up tomorrow, and that is part of the reason I get so frustrated about the whole damn thing. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,716
|
Post by mboy on Oct 22, 2017 21:44:47 GMT
The UK government has been woefully incompetent at fighting for British interests in the EU - in our position the French would have simply vetoed Spain's application until the CFP was amended in such a way as to keep their boats out of our waters. But that is a sign of British incompetence and failure to really think about what Europe meant. There's a huge counterfactual here of how things would have been different if that has happened. For one thing, a sane CFP may well have seen Norway and Iceland join the EU as well as the UK not leaving. It's not just the UK who cocked that one up - the EU never realising the extent of the damage is their own cock up as well. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,716
|
Post by mboy on Oct 22, 2017 21:52:24 GMT
But we have an instinctive distrust of German expansionary aspirations and some us see their input to the EU as 'expansion by other means' through holding 'lesser states' in thrall to a latter day Holy Roman/German Empire by subjection to an economic cycle that does not suit them and a German-devized currency that has caused most of them actual economic damage. Yes, Germany doles out subvention payments but gains the increased markets to sell into against nations severely weakened economically by being members at all. Never ascribe to conspiracy that which is explained by incompetence. I think the processes that led to damage being wrought by the single currency in the last decade, simply weren't understood by the people driving the super-tanker. The "economic" advisers who drive it assumed that the economists who criticised it were just the "Anglo-Saxons" referred to above, who feared a currency to challenge the dollar and wanted to kill it. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 23, 2017 7:42:27 GMT
The UK government has been woefully incompetent at fighting for British interests in the EU - in our position the French would have simply vetoed Spain's application until the CFP was amended in such a way as to keep their boats out of our waters. But that is a sign of British incompetence and failure to really think about what Europe meant. There's a huge counterfactual here of how things would have been different if that has happened. For one thing, a sane CFP may well have seen Norway and Iceland join the EU as well as the UK not leaving. It's not just the UK who cocked that one up - the EU never realising the extent of the damage is their own cock up as well. Yes, at the time of the accession negotiations by the EFTA states the proposed fishery policy was not being driven by the states with big fisheries and who might therefore be expected to understand it. And then of course when Spain joined the whole thing was unfit for purpose. I suspect there are a lot of areas where a more vigorous British policy would have led to better European policy. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 23, 2017 7:54:57 GMT
But we have an instinctive distrust of German expansionary aspirations and some us see their input to the EU as 'expansion by other means' through holding 'lesser states' in thrall to a latter day Holy Roman/German Empire by subjection to an economic cycle that does not suit them and a German-devized currency that has caused most of them actual economic damage. Yes, Germany doles out subvention payments but gains the increased markets to sell into against nations severely weakened economically by being members at all. Never ascribe to conspiracy that which is explained by incompetence. I think the processes that led to damage being wrought by the single currency in the last decade, simply weren't understood by the people driving the super-tanker. The "economic" advisers who drive it assumed that the economists who criticised it were just the "Anglo-Saxons" referred to above, who feared a currency to challenge the dollar and wanted to kill it. I do not suggest this to have been a deliberate conspiracy so much as a general outline of intentionality with consequential benefits and damage that was at least half expected and planned for as opportunity arose and because the systems were devized to absolutely suit one nation. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 23, 2017 11:30:51 GMT
Maps with changes 2013-2017: Participation:  ÖVP:  SPÖ:  FPÖ:  NEOS:  PILZ:  GREENS:  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 23, 2017 16:22:46 GMT
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 23, 2017 16:25:48 GMT
Rural (above) vs. urban (bottom):  Municipalities classified by inhabitants:  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 23, 2017 16:32:46 GMT
Majorities for... ÖVP&FPÖ 2013:  ÖVP&FPÖ 2017:  ÖVP&SPÖ:  SPÖ&FPÖ:  ÖVP&NEOS&GREENS ("Jamaica"):  SPÖ&NEOS&PILZ:  |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,716
|
Post by mboy on Oct 23, 2017 20:20:30 GMT
Majorities for... ÖVP&FPÖ 2013: ÖVP&FPÖ 2017: ÖVP&SPÖ: SPÖ&FPÖ: ÖVP&NEOS&GREENS ("Jamaica"): SPÖ&NEOS&PILZ: I think you'll find this is the Austrian map for Waterworld, with Kevin Costner...  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 24, 2017 8:07:18 GMT
Majorities for... ÖVP&FPÖ 2013: ÖVP&FPÖ 2017: ÖVP&SPÖ: SPÖ&FPÖ: ÖVP&NEOS&GREENS ("Jamaica"): SPÖ&NEOS&PILZ: I think you'll find this is the Austrian map for Waterworld, with Kevin Costner... This kind of maps was admittingly copied from the NYT. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 25, 2017 12:24:29 GMT
Deviations of the 9 regions:  Participation:  ÖVP:  SPÖ:  FPÖ:  NEOS (formerly LiF):  GREENS:  Pilz (and other PersonalLists):  KPÖ+:  FLÖ (+BZÖ; FPÖ-dissidents):  EUAUS (+ former - mostly left - EU-enemies):  CPÖ (+ former Christian parties):  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 30, 2017 11:03:45 GMT
once again SORA (StructuralAnalysis + telephonical ExitPoll): 
Prof. E.Neuwirth (only Structural Analysis): 
Fessel&GfK (only Structural Analysis): 
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 31, 2017 17:29:24 GMT
Addendum: SORA's PreDiction of the FinalResult on ElectionEvening was the most accurate one.
Apropos FinalResult: The numbers were fixed today (Compared to the provisionalFinalResult only 2 invalid votes in Vorarlberg were added, so the counting had been conducted very properly).
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,831
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 9, 2017 18:27:28 GMT
"Tender Branson", a user from another forum, had the good idea to make maps, comparing 2017 with 1999, especially FPÖ (1999: 26.91%, 2017: 26.15% [+FLÖ]) and the TurnOut (1999: 80.42%, 2017: 80.00%). Please take notice, that... - FPÖ 2017 includes a very small splinter, FLÖ - Participation 1999 excludes PostalVotes and 1999 plus 2017 (few) SpecialVotes - few municipalities in Styria were in different district Participation:  FPÖ (+FLÖ):  Data:   |
|
