Dominic,

> I am, yes, but not to the UK. Why is that? Why do you limit my freedom?
> Why are you anti-European?

Your freedom to travel is not curtailed, your identity is checked that
is all.

> I am ONLY interested in Europe as a principle. That's why I don't
> understand why the UK keeps backstabbing it and kissing up to American
> imperialism. That's pathetic.

You persist in equating the EU with France (unsurprisingly). Personally
I don't agree with US neo-imperialism but if you check the facts you'll
find that the UK is far from alone among EU countries in providing
assistance to the USA. Italy and Poland spring immediately to mind,
along with several smaller countries.

> Huh? Belgium wants to get rid of farming subsidies. If anyone is
> interested it certainly is Poland, but they'll be quite pissed off by
> 2013, when they are fully entitled to them, to notice that they're
> abolished.
>
> Enlightening to see that you're into undermining member states, however.

The policy of the UK for the last 30 years has been to break
Franco-German domination of the EU. That isn't 'enlightening', it is
patently obvious. That is why the UK drove forward the enlargement
agenda so hard and also why the UK will back Turkish and eventually even
Ukranian membership bids. The UK does not want to control the EU - it
simply wants to make sure that France and Germany are unable to do so.

> Wait, you hate Belgium, that has had a positive balance many years in a
> row and is fully in line with all treaties, but you love Germany, that
> has had a negative one and is breaking the rules?

You are talking about the Euro again. As I said before, first get the
basics sorted out (Treaty of Rome issues), then we can worry about later
innovations like the Euro and Schengen. Most of the EU isn't in the Euro
zone anyway.

> If there's one country that wants to push one Europe based on
> principles, it certainly is Belgium. Backstabbed by the UK. Over and
> over and over again. You can't even handle a strong president of the
> commission, one who would push ahead. You prefer half-baked
> yellow-bellies bowing to the whims of individual nations.

"Push ahead" with what?

> You weren't even there in the beginning. Scared and waiting behind a
> bush. Like you are today. Half-baked and staking out opportunities. I
> don't understand they even allow Britain to take presidency for six
> months. That's absurd and self-defeating.

That was mostly De Gaulle's doing as you well know.

> I know PLENTY of non-Belgians who live and work in Belgium. Not ONE of
> them asked anyone for permission. What on Earth are you on about? I
> doubt it's the case in France, too.

Then, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
France implemented a derogation from the the last accession treaty (the
10 new members) specifically allowing it to impose work permit
restrictions for 2 to 7 years. This applies only to the ten new members,
not to the pre-existing 15 - and consequently makes a mockery of any
claim to value principle over expediency.

> You've got to be joking. LOL! If it weren't for the UK we'd be 50 years
> ahead!

"Ahead" in what sense? The EU expansion agenda has been moving ahead as
fast as it has been possible to drag the protectionist and nationalist
members. Equally, efforts to quarantine destructive economic policies
like those prevalent in France are way ahead of where they would have
been without UK involvement. Economic stagnation has thus far mostly
been contained within the countries that created it - France and Germany.

> You seem to obsess about that issue. Never heard that was the case.

Free movement of Goods, Services and People is the foundation stone of
the EU so yes, I do "obsess" about it.

> To you it's conveniently a red herring. To me it's a clear indication
> the UK isn't interested in a "Europe based on principles", but in a lame
> Europe in service of US foreign policy.

The UK is interested in a Europe based on the principles upon which the
EU was founded. In case you have forgotten, the original driving force
was the need to stop France and Germany going to war every few decades.
However, more generally, the history of Europe since at least 1800
demonstrates that if either France or Germany start wielding too much
influence the result is a war which we in the UK end up sorting out.
This has been the case from Napoleon through to Hitler. Consequently the
guiding principle of UK European policy has always been to water down
and constrain Franco-Germany power and the best way to do that is to
keep driving forward the expansion agenda. This won't change until the
EU is large enough to ensure that any Franco-German initiative can be
outvoted and blocked, if necessary.

>>Were your assertion true it
>
> When did you last watch the news? Oh wait, I forgot you're in Belarus...

As I said, that is a different discussion about different issues. I did
not say you were wrong (and do not now concede that you are right) I
simply choose to stay on topic.

Eryk

Eryk Bottomley wrote:
> Your freedom to travel is not curtailed, your identity is checked that
> is all.

Well, no, that is not all. I get asked where I am going, and why. They
check the car. I don't call that freedom.

>> I am ONLY interested in Europe as a principle. That's why I don't
>> understand why the UK keeps backstabbing it and kissing up to
>> American imperialism. That's pathetic.
>
> You persist in equating the EU with France (unsurprisingly).

Huh? Where did I mention France here? Most Europeans, as individuals,
oppose the invasion by the US and UK. The UK chose not to respect the
democratic principle. The striving for unbridled European expansion is
indeed with only one purpose: water it all down, diminish the say of
France and Germany. I call that not only childish, it's destructive.
Wishing the expansion without any higher goal than sabotage is sad.

> Personally I don't agree with US neo-imperialism but if you check the
> facts you'll find that the UK is far from alone among EU countries in
> providing assistance to the USA. Italy and Poland spring immediately
> to mind, along with several smaller countries.

Indeed. Italy. Take a close look at its leadership. I hope you haven't
got used to Belarus standards, however. (And no, Lukashenko is *not*
working with a popular mandate, as you seem to think. Check human rights
records.)
Poland. Bought. Let's not be naive here.
I don't know how much is left, but not much.

> The policy of the UK for the last 30 years has been to break
> Franco-German domination of the EU.

Noble goal. Way to create something.

> The UK does not want to control the EU
> - it simply wants to make sure that France and Germany are unable to
> do so.

More accurately: make sure that it fails.

> You are talking about the Euro again.

Huh?

> As I said before, first get the
> basics sorted out (Treaty of Rome issues), then we can worry about
> later innovations like the Euro and Schengen.

Oh come on! I've been using the Euro for years now. Couldn't imagine
anything else anymore. The basics are pretty well sorted out, except if
you mean the destruction of it all, of course.

> Most of the EU isn't in
> the Euro zone anyway.

You like to pretend the ten new members _are_ Europe, don't you? You
sound a tad like Rumsfeld. Don't worry, Poland will join the zone next
year. They're overtaking you, along with a lot of other new members.

> "Push ahead" with what?

A unified foreign policy for one. And no, I don't think the way it is
working at the moment is okay. UK foreign policy sucks in unimaginably
horrific ways and reflects very poorly on Europe. I'm amazed it hasn't
been kicked out just for that, honestly.

> Then, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
> France implemented a derogation from the the last accession treaty
> (the 10 new members) specifically allowing it to impose work permit
> restrictions for 2 to 7 years. This applies only to the ten new
> members, not to the pre-existing 15 - and consequently makes a
> mockery of any claim to value principle over expediency.

Sounds reasonable to me. Nothing outrageous there.

>> You've got to be joking. LOL! If it weren't for the UK we'd be 50
>> years ahead!
>
> "Ahead" in what sense?

In creating a political union as a counter-balance for a very unhealthy
US hegemony.

> Equally, efforts to quarantine destructive
> economic policies like those prevalent in France are way ahead of
> where they would have been without UK involvement.

You need to check the migration figures between the two countries and
you'll notice that very few French are migrating to the economic
paradise known as the UK. The opposite, however, is enormous.

Did you know that many Brits come to Belgium to get basic and extended
medical treatment? They'd perish before a doctor has time to see them in
the UK. "Destructive" policies, you say? Ha!

> Economic
> stagnation has thus far mostly been contained within the countries
> that created it - France and Germany.

Oh, come off the high horse. The UK is an every increasing class
society. The only reason your economy is keeping up is because Blair is
rapidly turning the country into a quasi communist state in the sense
that everybody works for the government. Wages are low, cost of living
is high. Property prices are absurd. Matter of time before that silly
bubble bursts.

> Free movement of Goods, Services and People is the foundation stone of
> the EU so yes, I do "obsess" about it.

So, practice it, like we do. Watch and learn.

> The UK is interested in a Europe based on the principles upon which
> the EU was founded. In case you have forgotten, the original driving
> force was the need to stop France and Germany going to war every few
> decades.

I must have forgotten that because it never existed. Only in the heads
of the British. It is true that there's always been one or the other
European power that tried to unite the lot under one flag, but that has
been going on since a couple of centuries before Christ. The EU was the
only democratic and sensible solution. The end result, so to speak. Not
a temporary patch.

I got really tired listening to the emotional tirades of many British
against the French. Illogical and childish. Many British need to get
over their hatred. It's precisely that hatred that is the root of most
anti-European sentiment.

> we in the UK
> end up sorting out.

You don't look back far enough. The UK has been the cause of a lot of
trouble before that.

Hitler was a mess, but Napoleon gave us the Code Napoléon, a
constitution on which much is founded today. And quite superior to what
was at work in the UK.

> Consequently the guiding principle of UK European policy has
> always been to water down and constrain Franco-Germany power and the
> best way to do that is to keep driving forward the expansion agenda.

<head in hands> How sad!

> This won't change until the EU is large enough to ensure that any
> Franco-German initiative can be outvoted and blocked, if necessary.

Such an obsession. Such hate.

"Dominic Willems" <domus.software@pandora.be> wrote on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:45:51 +0100
>
>Hitler was a mess, but Napoleon gave us the Code Napoléon, a
>constitution on which much is founded today. And quite superior to what
>was at work in the UK.

Napoleon also, for some unimaginable reason, decided to change a custom that had been going on from pre-Roman times.  His loopy decision to change from driving on the left to driving on the right is still causing problems today - aside from unnecessary extra expense in car manufacture.

Headline news in New Zealand today was the high incidence of accidents involving pedestrians that were either Asian immigrants or tourists who step out in front of traffic on their right hand side.

Thanks Boney!
Cheers


Jeff
--
Jeff Cook
Aspect Systems Ltd
Phone: +64-9-424 5388
Skype: jeffcooknz
www.aspect.co.nz

Dominic,

> Well, no, that is not all. I get asked where I am going, and why. They
> check the car. I don't call that freedom.

You have a *right* to cross the border, you might be asked some
questions but in the end you cannot be refused entry (aside from corner
cases like being a known terrorist).

> indeed with only one purpose: water it all down, diminish the say of
> France and Germany. I call that not only childish, it's destructive.
> Wishing the expansion without any higher goal than sabotage is sad.

Water "what" down? UK policy is to dismantle as many social programmes
as possible, bankrupt all farmers (etc.) who cannot compete in the world
market without subsidy and expose all sectors of the economy to
unbridled competition. That seems like pretty strong stuff to me -
certainly not anything I would recognise as "watered down".

> And no, Lukashenko is *not*
> working with a popular mandate, as you seem to think. Check human rights
> records.)

You are stepping way beyond what you know anything about here. Lets not
go there.

>>The policy of the UK for the last 30 years has been to break
>>Franco-German domination of the EU.
>
> Noble goal. Way to create something.

Errr ....way to create a lasting peace perhaps.

> More accurately: make sure that it fails.

Fails "at what"? Fails to spread Franco-German influence and policies?
In that case yes, of course - we've been fighting like hell to keep the
lid on that for more than 200 years. Fails as the largest, unified free
trade zone in the world? No, of course not.

> Oh come on! I've been using the Euro for years now. Couldn't imagine
> anything else anymore. The basics are pretty well sorted out, except if
> you mean the destruction of it all, of course.

I use Dollars, Euros, Zlotys, Litas, Rubles all on a day to day basis. I
repeat, the Euro zone is NOT the EU.

> You like to pretend the ten new members _are_ Europe, don't you? You
> sound a tad like Rumsfeld. Don't worry, Poland will join the zone next
> year. They're overtaking you, along with a lot of other new members.

I don't care in the slightest. I am European and I identify as European.
I refuse to vote in UK elections because there is no party who support
the formation of a proper "United States of Europe". We probably largely
agree on this point - aside from the fact that you would still want
Europe to be run by France or Germany and I would rather it be run by
Estonia or Slovenia. Marginalisation of the UK is fine with me on that
basis.

> A unified foreign policy for one. And no, I don't think the way it is
> working at the moment is okay. UK foreign policy sucks in unimaginably
> horrific ways and reflects very poorly on Europe. I'm amazed it hasn't
> been kicked out just for that, honestly.

I'm amazed that the rest of Europe didn't just proceed with ratifying
the constitution and kick out France when they refused to get with the
programme.

>>Then, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
>>France implemented a derogation from the the last accession treaty
<snip>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Nothing outrageous there.

Nothing more to discuss where that is concerned then. You are a
protectionist and a nationalist. Case closed.

> In creating a political union as a counter-balance for a very unhealthy
> US hegemony.

"Counter-balance" is just an obfuscated word for "rival". You want to
reinvent the cold war by turning the EU into the 21st century
replacement for the Soviet Union. Why am I getting that "1933" feeling
all of a sudden?

> Did you know that many Brits come to Belgium to get basic and extended
> medical treatment? They'd perish before a doctor has time to see them in
> the UK. "Destructive" policies, you say? Ha!

Of course I know that (though countries like Hungary are doing even
better in relative terms with such services). All excellent stuff and I
applaud it. Free movement of people and services in action.

> Oh, come off the high horse. The UK is an every increasing class
> society.

Probably. UK society has never been Marxist and has always been class
based. So? Is there something wrong with a class based society? Are you
advocating a Soviet European Union here?

> The only reason your economy is keeping up is because Blair is
> rapidly turning the country into a quasi communist state in the sense
> that everybody works for the government. Wages are low, cost of living
> is high. Property prices are absurd. Matter of time before that silly
> bubble bursts.

OK, OK. You are WAY off base here. You need to check some statistics
regarding public sector employment in France or Germany vs. the UK
before going down that line of argument.

> So, practice it, like we do. Watch and learn.

Now you are just being contradictory. You already admitted that you
don't do that because of your work permit system and insistence on
distorting subsidy regiemes.

> I must have forgotten that because it never existed. Only in the heads
> of the British.

OK, you are right. The Italians were in the game too if you want to go
back to the Roman Empire. However, if we take the last 200 years - who
else, besides the French and the Germans have precipitated continental
conflicts? One could argue that it was the Hungarians and the Serbs in
WW1 if one wanted to be obtuse - but it wouldn't convince anyone.

> I got really tired listening to the emotional tirades of many British
> against the French. Illogical and childish. Many British need to get
> over their hatred. It's precisely that hatred that is the root of most
> anti-European sentiment.

There is no 'hatred' involved. It is merely a question of ridding France
of its domineering, Gaullist pretensions and educating it to 'follow'
rather than delude itself that it can 'lead'.

> You don't look back far enough. The UK has been the cause of a lot of
> trouble before that.

Conflict in the Norman constituted a French "civil war" ...the UK was
invaded by people from mainland France if you recall.

> Hitler was a mess, but Napoleon gave us the Code Napoléon, a
> constitution on which much is founded today. And quite superior to what
> was at work in the UK.

He also devastated large parts of Europe with his attempts to impose pax
Francais. I could equally observe that Hitler created the Autobahn and
Mussolini made sure the trains ran on time.

>>Consequently the guiding principle of UK European policy has
>>always been to water down and constrain Franco-Germany power and the
>>best way to do that is to keep driving forward the expansion agenda.
> <head in hands> How sad!

What is "sad" about it? Do you WANT Napoleon back? Or Hitler? For the EU
to work one must first ensure that no single country or minority cabal
of a few countries can dictate policy. Since Germany, France and the UK
are among the largest such countries they are the ones who must be
disempowered to the greatest extent. All is proceeding well in that
regard. If we can get Turkey and Ukraine into the EU then no single
country or bilateral treaty between any two countries will be able to
dictate policy - and we will finally be able to drive a stake through
the heart of 'nationalism' and its paramilitary cousin 'patriotism'.

Eryk

Dominic


You just seem to be sprouting the brusselcentric stuff very strongly.

Roy Lambert

> > Your freedom to travel is not curtailed, your identity is checked
> > that is all.
>
> Well, no, that is not all. I get asked where I am going, and why.
> They check the car. I don't call that freedom.

You seem to need to get your definitions straight... What you just
described is security. After they perform a security check, you are
then *free* (a.k.a. freedom) to go. As Eryk said, "Your *freedom* to
travel is not curtailed..." He didn't say you wouldn't be checked for
security purposes, especially in this time of terrorist acts of
aggression.

--
Regards,
Jan Ferguson


Dominic Willems wrote:

> Eryk Bottomley wrote:
> > Your freedom to travel is not curtailed, your identity is checked
> > that is all.
>
> Well, no, that is not all. I get asked where I am going, and why.
> They check the car. I don't call that freedom.
>
> > > I am ONLY interested in Europe as a principle. That's why I don't
> > > understand why the UK keeps backstabbing it and kissing up to
> > > American imperialism. That's pathetic.
> >
> > You persist in equating the EU with France (unsurprisingly).
>
> Huh? Where did I mention France here? Most Europeans, as individuals,
> oppose the invasion by the US and UK. The UK chose not to respect the
> democratic principle. The striving for unbridled European expansion
> is indeed with only one purpose: water it all down, diminish the say
> of France and Germany. I call that not only childish, it's
> destructive. Wishing the expansion without any higher goal than
> sabotage is sad.
>
> > Personally I don't agree with US neo-imperialism but if you check
> > the facts you'll find that the UK is far from alone among EU
> > countries in providing assistance to the USA. Italy and Poland
> > spring immediately to mind, along with several smaller countries.
>
> Indeed. Italy. Take a close look at its leadership. I hope you
> haven't got used to Belarus standards, however. (And no, Lukashenko
> is not working with a popular mandate, as you seem to think. Check
> human rights records.) Poland. Bought. Let's not be naive here.  I
> don't know how much is left, but not much.
>
> > The policy of the UK for the last 30 years has been to break
> > Franco-German domination of the EU.
>
> Noble goal. Way to create something.
>
> > The UK does not want to control the EU
> > - it simply wants to make sure that France and Germany are unable to
> > do so.
>
> More accurately: make sure that it fails.
>
> > You are talking about the Euro again.
>
> Huh?
>
> > As I said before, first get the
> > basics sorted out (Treaty of Rome issues), then we can worry about
> > later innovations like the Euro and Schengen.
>
> Oh come on! I've been using the Euro for years now. Couldn't imagine
> anything else anymore. The basics are pretty well sorted out, except
> if you mean the destruction of it all, of course.
>
> > Most of the EU isn't in
> > the Euro zone anyway.
>
> You like to pretend the ten new members are Europe, don't you? You
> sound a tad like Rumsfeld. Don't worry, Poland will join the zone
> next year. They're overtaking you, along with a lot of other new
> members.
>
> > "Push ahead" with what?
>
> A unified foreign policy for one. And no, I don't think the way it is
> working at the moment is okay. UK foreign policy sucks in
> unimaginably horrific ways and reflects very poorly on Europe. I'm
> amazed it hasn't been kicked out just for that, honestly.
>
> > Then, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking
> > about.  France implemented a derogation from the the last accession
> > treaty (the 10 new members) specifically allowing it to impose work
> > permit restrictions for 2 to 7 years. This applies only to the ten
> > new members, not to the pre-existing 15 - and consequently makes a
> > mockery of any claim to value principle over expediency.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Nothing outrageous there.
>
> > > You've got to be joking. LOL! If it weren't for the UK we'd be 50
> > > years ahead!
> >
> > "Ahead" in what sense?
>
> In creating a political union as a counter-balance for a very
> unhealthy US hegemony.
>
> > Equally, efforts to quarantine destructive
> > economic policies like those prevalent in France are way ahead of
> > where they would have been without UK involvement.
>
> You need to check the migration figures between the two countries and
> you'll notice that very few French are migrating to the economic
> paradise known as the UK. The opposite, however, is enormous.
>
> Did you know that many Brits come to Belgium to get basic and
> extended medical treatment? They'd perish before a doctor has time to
> see them in the UK. "Destructive" policies, you say? Ha!
>
> > Economic
> > stagnation has thus far mostly been contained within the countries
> > that created it - France and Germany.
>
> Oh, come off the high horse. The UK is an every increasing class
> society. The only reason your economy is keeping up is because Blair
> is rapidly turning the country into a quasi communist state in the
> sense that everybody works for the government. Wages are low, cost of
> living is high. Property prices are absurd. Matter of time before
> that silly bubble bursts.
>
> > Free movement of Goods, Services and People is the foundation stone
> > of the EU so yes, I do "obsess" about it.
>
> So, practice it, like we do. Watch and learn.
>
> > The UK is interested in a Europe based on the principles upon which
> > the EU was founded. In case you have forgotten, the original driving
> > force was the need to stop France and Germany going to war every few
> > decades.
>
> I must have forgotten that because it never existed. Only in the
> heads of the British. It is true that there's always been one or the
> other European power that tried to unite the lot under one flag, but
> that has been going on since a couple of centuries before Christ. The
> EU was the only democratic and sensible solution. The end result, so
> to speak. Not a temporary patch.
>
> I got really tired listening to the emotional tirades of many British
> against the French. Illogical and childish. Many British need to get
> over their hatred. It's precisely that hatred that is the root of
> most anti-European sentiment.
>
> > we in the UK
> > end up sorting out.
>
> You don't look back far enough. The UK has been the cause of a lot of
> trouble before that.
>
> Hitler was a mess, but Napoleon gave us the Code Napolion, a
> constitution on which much is founded today. And quite superior to
> what was at work in the UK.
>
> > Consequently the guiding principle of UK European policy has
> > always been to water down and constrain Franco-Germany power and the
> > best way to do that is to keep driving forward the expansion agenda.
>
> <head in hands> How sad!
>
> > This won't change until the EU is large enough to ensure that any
> > Franco-German initiative can be outvoted and blocked, if necessary.
>
> Such an obsession. Such hate.

Dominic

J. B. Ferguson wrote:
> What you just
> described is security.

Yes, "security" is always a good excuse to curtail freedom. Look across
your pond.

"Please bend over, sir, it's for your own security". LOL

Jeff Cook wrote:
> Napoleon also, for some unimaginable reason, decided to change a
> custom that had been going on from pre-Roman times.

Oh, I don't doubt the Commonwealth is pretty frustrated they are driving
on the wrong side of the road. Actually, they have whole bags full of
excuses to bash the French. Time they did something constructive, I say.

> Headline news in New Zealand today was the high incidence of
> accidents involving pedestrians that were either Asian immigrants or
> tourists who step out in front of traffic on their right hand side.

Well, start driving on the right side then. Don't the Americans? They
eventually got rid of the monarchic charade.

Roy Lambert wrote:
> You just seem to be sprouting the brusselcentric stuff very strongly.

I'm for a united and strong Europe, not a watered down cripple little
club. London seems to wish the latter, Brussels the former.

Eryk Bottomley wrote:
> UK policy is to (...) expose all sectors of the economy to
> unbridled competition. That seems like pretty strong stuff to me -
> certainly not anything I would recognise as "watered down".

Like your train service? No, thanks, matey. I'd rather live a bit
longer.

>> And no, Lukashenko is *not*
>> working with a popular mandate, as you seem to think. Check human
>> rights records.)
>
> You are stepping way beyond what you know anything about here. Lets
> not go there.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/10/belaru10301.htm

I'm convinced, however, you know better, since you feed from local news
sources.

> Errr ....way to create a lasting peace perhaps.

Yes, we witnessed UK efforts to create peace in the Middle East. Works
wonders. Again, I thankfully decline.

> I use Dollars, Euros, Zlotys, Litas, Rubles all on a day to day
> basis. I repeat, the Euro zone is NOT the EU.

No, it takes time to elevate the new members out of the slums. And
they'll be there before the UK.

> I refuse to vote in UK elections because there is no party
> who support the formation of a proper "United States of Europe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe
(scroll down and look at the name below Winston Churchil)
and
http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_interview&article=343725&lng=1

I think you're a Belgian in disguise.

> you
> would still want Europe to be run by France or Germany and I would
> rather it be run by Estonia or Slovenia. Marginalisation of the UK is
> fine with me on that basis.

I want it run by a competent European-minded assembly, not a handful of
countries, and certainly not by all the individual prime-ministers out
to get maximal national benefit.

> I'm amazed that the rest of Europe didn't just proceed with ratifying
> the constitution and kick out France when they refused to get with the
> programme.

I agree.

> Nothing more to discuss where that is concerned then. You are a
> protectionist and a nationalist. Case closed.

If you have raised your population to live in a specific system, you
cannot suddenly expose them to something radically new, to their
detriment. You have the responsibility to protect them. A gradual
conversion sounds perfectly OK to me.

Except when you hate the French, of course.

> "Counter-balance" is just an obfuscated word for "rival". You want to
> reinvent the cold war by turning the EU into the 21st century
> replacement for the Soviet Union. Why am I getting that "1933" feeling
> all of a sudden?

Because you seem to prefer US hegemony? I don't. I like balance. If the
US behaviour had been anything close to normal, I wouldn't have all too
many problems with it, but come on!

> Probably. UK society has never been Marxist and has always been class
> based. So? Is there something wrong with a class based society? Are
> you advocating a Soviet European Union here?

It's the UK that is a country of civil servants, not the EU.

> You need to check some statistics
> regarding public sector employment in France or Germany vs. the UK
> before going down that line of argument.

Will do.

> Now you are just being contradictory. You already admitted that you
> don't do that because of your work permit system and insistence on
> distorting subsidy regiemes.

Excuse me? Our work permit system? TOTAL freedom here!

> who
> else, besides the French and the Germans have precipitated continental
> conflicts?

You'll have to show me one Frenchman who has expansional ambitions! lol
Same with Germans. As docile as they come.

Don't be so afraid. Fear is a very bad motivator.

> There is no 'hatred' involved. It is merely a question of ridding
> France of its domineering, Gaullist pretensions and educating it to
> 'follow' rather than delude itself that it can 'lead'.

Fully agree if you do the same with the UK!

> Conflict in the Norman constituted a French "civil war" ...the UK was
> invaded by people from mainland France if you recall.

I know. You're French.

The "British" kept coming back on looting parties, however. A real pain.


> He also devastated large parts of Europe with his attempts to impose
> pax Francais.

Yes, he did. And the English were busy clubbing defenseless people in
the third-world, without witnesses. Equally trying to build an empire.

> For the
> EU to work one must first ensure that no single country or minority
> cabal of a few countries can dictate policy. Since Germany, France
> and the UK are among the largest such countries they are the ones who
> must be disempowered to the greatest extent.

Uhm, I fully agree here.

> If we can get Turkey and Ukraine into the EU then no
> single country or bilateral treaty between any two countries will be
> able to dictate policy - and we will finally be able to drive a stake
> through the heart of 'nationalism' and its paramilitary cousin
> 'patriotism'.

Hey, I FULLY agree!