Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#26 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 8:24 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Gerbera
That's not quite true. Actually Britain is one of the states that are most "picky" because a lot of Britains are still anti-european.
France, like Germany, was one of the founders of the EU and is one of its most important countries, and one of the most "european" ones (though I don't know how that will change with Sarkozy now).


Just from my own observations I always thought Germany and France were the main driving force behind the EU. I think the UK is more anti-EU because we are an island and have always thought of ourselves as being apart from Europe.

I may be wrong here but I thought the main reason behind the EU was to help Europe trade more competatively in the world market. I don't know about the rest of the EU but I don't think it has helped Scotland much. We've always had a good export market for our own produce and our main investors come from USA and the Far East. Alot of US investors come here usually because they have Scottish ancestors (a form of nepotism I suppose), IBM's Scottish plant produces all their computers for the whole of Europe and 1/3 of their world market and they chose Scotland because their founder likes to holiday on the west coast of Scotland! And the Far East investors come here because of our high productivity rates.
Advertisement
Test Subject
#27 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 9:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by romyhorse
Just from my own observations I always thought Germany and France were the main driving force behind the EU. I think the UK is more anti-EU because we are an island and have always thought of ourselves as being apart from Europe.


Yeah, I think you are right with both statements.
I think Germany and France are the driving forces because they both have been part of the EU from they very start and seen how things have changed. The countries were like arch-enemies for a very long time, and now the thought of another war is just laughable.
The peace we now have in Europe is for me the biggest benefit of the EU, followed by the economical power.
I know that Ireland and Spain have had huge benefits from joining the EU ... And I think that generally the life for all the people in the EU has improved, for some more, for some less.
Top Secret Researcher
#28 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 9:10 PM
I think Europeans get on well together even without a constitution making us into the 'United States of Europe'. Each country is different. They all have different history, different political growth (e.g France's 'Revolution Creation' vs Britain's 'Evolved Politics'), different cultures, different rules, different economic status, different specialties, different weaknesses. It is our differences that makes us so compatible.

That's why in the long run I feel standardising things and making us all the same is a bad thing. I'm proud to be British, and I enjoy all the light ribbing and banter that comes when me and internet-friends from all over Europe come to chat with each other about stereotypes and our differences. The best melodies are not the ones where every instrument is doing the same notes at the same time, but the ones where each instrument harmonises and plays upon their strengths to create one whole.

As Jeremy Clarkson has said:

'At dinner last week in Austria, there were sixteen people around the table, and really it was like a bunch of flowers. There were Scandinavians, Germans, Brits, Italians, the lot, and it was great.

We explained jokes for the Germans, the French chose the wine, the Italians ordered the food, the Austrians chatted with the waitress, and the Dutchman spent his evening stopping the Swede from trying to commit suicide. We laughed at one another, joked with one another, learnt from one another an it was just the most perfect evening; a shining example of European cooperation and harmony.'

I would like to clear up the little matter of my sanity as it has come into question. I am not in any way, shape, or form, sane. Insane? Hell yes!

People keep calling me 'evil.' I must be doing something right.

SilentPsycho - The Official MTS2 Psycho
Test Subject
#29 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 9:20 PM
I agree that we don't need a "real" constitution because we can't put 27 different states in one big state.
But I would have liked a constitution in the way it was planned, because EU law is very complicated - I know that from my studies

But I have to protest on the "explain jokes for the Germans" :eviltongu That's a very wrong stereotype
Top Secret Researcher
#30 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 9:22 PM
Heheheh, you've just proven my point Gerbera.

*Huggles Gerbera anyway*

And don't get me onto the subject of EU law. I spent part of a year studying the differences between British and other European governments, and I REALLY want to forget that because it makes my head hurt over three years later.:D

I would like to clear up the little matter of my sanity as it has come into question. I am not in any way, shape, or form, sane. Insane? Hell yes!

People keep calling me 'evil.' I must be doing something right.

SilentPsycho - The Official MTS2 Psycho
Test Subject
#31 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 9:26 PM
Nah, I know it was not meant bad

Bot a different stereotype is true: we love beer! (and I am not talking about strange warm English stuff here )

*gives away bottles of cold German beer* Cheers! :D

---

I have EU-law and German law in my studies, it is actually interesting, but as I said, difficult ... So many different treaties and laws :smash: Simplify that, please! :einstein
Top Secret Researcher
#32 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 9:34 PM
*Grabs the beer and runs*

One thing we do agree. The colder the better! At least it's better than American beer.

Anyway, pehaps there was a mistake in using the terminology of 'constitution' to describe what is actually being described, because each country has a differing example of a constitution. Britain doesn't even have a codified constitution, so the only thing we have knowledge of is the American one and the United States is a binding too close for most European countries to really want. Maybe we need a new word to describe it, like Iunctio-causa (Connecting Laws)?

I would like to clear up the little matter of my sanity as it has come into question. I am not in any way, shape, or form, sane. Insane? Hell yes!

People keep calling me 'evil.' I must be doing something right.

SilentPsycho - The Official MTS2 Psycho
Test Subject
#33 Old 15th Aug 2007 at 9:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SilentPsycho
Anyway, pehaps there was a mistake in using the terminology of 'constitution' to describe what is actually being described, because each country has a differing example of a constitution. Britain doesn't even have a codified constitution, so the only thing we have knowledge of is the American one and the United States is a binding too close for most European countries to really want. Maybe we need a new word to describe it, like Iunctio-causa (Connecting Laws)?


Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking!
I believe that the people in France and in The Netherlands would not have voted against that document if it had had a different name. This way they'd have maybe read it and had seen that it was actually better for them then what we have now.
Unfortunately we can't go back Angela Merkel (German chancellor, for those who still don't know her ) tried to "revive" the constitutional process, but right now it seems as if she has failed, unfortunately
 
Page 2 of 2
Back to top