Thoughts about the European Union.

[inked]

Do you really think that the colonialism and empire-building natures of GB, France, and Germany, not to forget the Belgians and the Dutch et alia, has so died from the draining effects of 2 world wars and their consequences? I suspect the motive is well at work even if limited to a "continental" scale. The moves of Germany and France as discussed above would seem to imply a revivication (if not a full scaled resurrection) of the concepts. But, despite the history, current bloc building is certainly evidence prima facie of the goals, is it not?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Oooh, don't get me started about free markets. As a Canadian, this reminds me of those irritating words "free trade". If you work in the lumber industry in British Columbia (logging is our largest industry), "free trade" translates to "the Americans get to impose terriffs on our softwood anyway" and "we will sell them cheap power regardless". Personally, I think we should flip the switch, but that's another thread.

You seem to ignore how Canada adds Tarriffs to US goods to protect your own. So please don't play the "oh poor canada" song. It's the same thing with the EU - they like to bitch about our tarriffs - but ignore the many things they protect through tarriffs and laws against our products.

As for member states coming together as equals - it can be done - the US has succeeded with this for over 225 years. What the EU is doing - we did during the Constitutional Convention - for the same exact reasons even. We came together to promote trade from within and outside of the group (it was felt a STRONG single voice was much louder on the international stage, than 13 small voices yelling over each other) and for nati0nal defense. It was much easier to deal with Britain illegally ignoring the Paris treaty, or spain blocking the Mississippi when all 13 states worked together under ONE umbrella (Known as the United States), than it was for only the particular states to fight for those issues. It also prevented the wars that were already starting to brew between the various states. NY illegally laying claims to parts of Pennsylvania or bottling up the Connecticut and NJ ports as just two examples.

But the problem with the EU is that they are having the same problem out founding fathers had. Big states versus the little states and how to keep both happy. The thing is though that France and Germany want to CONTROL the EU at the detriment of the smaller states. This was evidenced when certain (at the time future) EU members sided with the US on the war and Chirac told them - they should shut up if they knew what was good for them. His implication was that if they sided with the US - their membership was in jeopardy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yeah, there's no such thing as a free market.

I guess it's all about overcoming short-sighted national interest. Governments have a duty to get the best deal they can for their country, but that's not necessarily what's best for everyone. The EU is very much an exercise in trying to make the broader view prevail, though of course there are lots of issues around establishing agreements and implementation!

So then you have no problem with the outsourcing of jobs for the betterment of Asia? Because that helps out India and China. Personally - my feeling is that home is number 1. And we have to protect our interests. Europe has no proplem protecting it's interests - and you often spout off about European interests - while ignoring US interests - so how is that being inclusive?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You seem to ignore how Canada adds Tarriffs to US goods to protect your own. So please don't play the "oh poor canada" song. It's the same thing with the EU - they like to bitch about our tarriffs - but ignore the many things they protect through tarriffs and laws against our products.

Maybe we do, being from BC the softwood lumber dispute is the thing I hear most about. Maybe the free trade agreement should be scrapped altogether then - it seems like neither of us abide by it anyway.
Come post in the new thread! ^.^ I'll start it after this post and call it "Canada-USA Relations".

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for member states coming together as equals - it can be done - the US has succeeded with this for over 225 years. What the EU is doing - we did during the Constitutional Convention - for the same exact reasons even. We came together to promote trade from within and outside of the group (it was felt a STRONG single voice was much louder on the international stage, than 13 small voices yelling over each other) and for nati0nal defense. It was much easier to deal with Britain illegally ignoring the Paris treaty, or spain blocking the Mississippi when all 13 states worked together under ONE umbrella (Known as the United States), than it was for only the particular states to fight for those issues. It also prevented the wars that were already starting to brew between the various states. NY illegally laying claims to parts of Pennsylvania or bottling up the Connecticut and NJ ports as just two examples.

This is a pretty good example, but is it comparable to nations in Europe? How like nations were states before unification?

A lot of countries can make a similar claim. We've had at least 7 provinces and territories working together since 1871... France has provinces, England has counties, Sweden has regions, etc. etc.

But the problem with the EU is that they are having the same problem out founding fathers had. Big states versus the little states and how to keep both happy. The thing is though that France and Germany want to CONTROL the EU at the detriment of the smaller states. This was evidenced when certain (at the time) future EU members sided with the US on the war and Chirac told them - they should shut up if they knew what was good for them. His implication was that if they sided with the US - their membership was in jeopardy.[/QUOTE]

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

But the problem with the EU is that they are having the same problem out founding fathers had. Big states versus the little states and how to keep both happy. The thing is though that France and Germany want to CONTROL the EU at the detriment of the smaller states. This was evidenced when certain (at the time future) EU members sided with the US on the war and Chirac told them - they should shut up if they knew what was good for them. His implication was that if they sided with the US - their membership was in jeopardy.

Incorrect. The (then) candidate states had a gentleman’s agreement with the EU; they would not take an important decision regarding international politics without consulting with their EU partners; these states failed to do so. Future members of a club have the responsibility to abide by their own word, regarding the respect of the rules of the club they agreed upon.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Maybe we do, being from BC the softwood lumber dispute is the thing I hear most about. Maybe the free trade agreement should be scrapped altogether then - it seems like neither of us abide by it anyway.
Come post in the new thread! ^.^ I'll start it after this post and call it "Canada-USA Relations".

I personally think that Nafta is the future - and far more than that too. Canada, the US and Mexico will have to become much closer to compete with teh EU if they actually manage to get their act together.

This is a pretty good example, but is it comparable to nations in Europe? How like nations were states before unification?

A lot of countries can make a similar claim. We've had at least 7 provinces and territories working together since 1871... France has provinces, England has counties, Sweden has regions, etc. etc.

Almost identical situtations. We had our own armed forces (which stated ours until at least the civil war, which are now the national guard, we had our own currencies. Several times the Constitutional Convention broke up because of fighting and people not being able to agree.

A good book to read would be Decision in Philadelphia. As I have stated - the problem with people outside the US is they view us a one country - when we do not have a NATIONAL government - we have a federal government. During the Civil War the south felt it was perfectly in their right to leave the Union. However - to preserve the Union - the north fought them on this. You will note we are still referred to as a Union.

France's provinces, or englans counties or Sweden's regions - in no way compare to the US states. That jsut shows your complete lack of understanding of the US if you are trying to make that comparison. Our national government hardly controls anything in the states. We do not even have a "national" drinking age. It is a state drinking age of 21 that congress basically forced on the states by threatening to oull federal highway funding - because the federal government does not have jurisdiction of drinking age.

States also initiate trade between other countries in our own behalf - aside from the federal government. It was just on NJN News yesterday about a new business partinership between NJ and Israel (I can't find an article - but you can watch the news program at NJN News - Note that this link will only work for a short time. BTW - I was at the Atlantic City Tourism Council meeting that is included in the news program; Both are at minute 16 in the news program, but you can gain a lot of understanding if you watch the whole thing - since this news concentrates on State news, whereas what most people see is our national news programs) . They also went onto say that NJ's largest trading partners are Canada, UK, Germany and 4th is Israel (starts on minute 20). Our governors go to various countries to promote trade with our state. If peopel actually watch the news program which is about a half hour - maybe they will have a small understanding of the way the EU and the US are very similar.

As a matter of fact - some states didn't like the US position on the Kyoto treaty - so they went and attended the UN conference back in December and they plan on working out an agreement on the Kyoto treary outside of the federal government (there was a cnn article on it - but now I can't find it - there is this though - Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. These are things people outside don't understand about the US. They only view us as the United States - not the Union of INDIVIDUAL states (countries) that we are.

As another example - we do not have a national school system - we have state school systems. The federal government basically plays NO ROLE ion our school systems. That is why it is so frustrating to me when people compare the US school system to other countries - since that is erroneous. The states should individually be compared - just like they are with the member countries in the EU. The school system of NJ is nothing like the school system of Indiana or California.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

Incorrect. The (then) candidate states had a gentleman’s agreement with the EU; they would not take an important decision regarding international politics without consulting with their EU partners; these states failed to do so. Future members of a club have the responsibility to abide by their own word, regarding the respect of the rules of the club they agreed upon.

A "gentleman's agreement" is as good as the paper it's written on. And I didn't hear anything on french news about any "gentleman's agreement" Can you please provide proof of this? Also - they may have "consulted". Consulting does not mean doing and giving up their sovereign rights - does it? They're argument was that Britain was siding with the US also - so a MEMBER country went against France and Germany - so who do they have to consult. AS I said - France and germany both want to be in control of the EU. The new member states just sided with Britain.

I like how europeans view the Eu as a "club" while lumping all the of the US under one umbrella - instead of looking at as as what we are - which is a UNION of SOVERIEGN states.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That jsut shows your complete lack of understanding of the US if you are trying to make that comparison.

And it shows your complete lack of understanding of Europe that you equate US states with EU member states.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

you often spout off about European interests - while ignoring US interests

No, if you'd pay attention you'd notice that I'm spouting off about internationalism and how we need to get away from narrow national interests to be able to engage with the enormouse challenges we face in the coming decades.

If you'd rather argue about opinions I've expressed elsewhere, you should to to those threads and take up the cudgels.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And it shows your complete lack of understanding of Europe that you equate US states with EU member states.

No -= it's very easy to equate the two. it's people in Europe who want to thik they are taking on a historical indeavor and refuse to face that fact that what they are attempting to do - we've already done successfully for 225 years. I know it's difficult for you to understand that though. The only true difference is that european society is older and that you speak other languages (although, the state representatives often complained that couldn't understand a word one another were saying because of all the different accents).

No, if you'd pay attention you'd notice that I'm spouting off about internationalism and how we need to get away from narrow national interests to be able to engage with the enormouse challenges we face in the coming decades.

Well then I'm glad you are happy that Europeans are losing their jobs to india and China because they need them more than you. But at least it's all for the betterment of the world.

If you'd rather argue about opinions I've expressed elsewhere, you should to to those threads and take up the cudgels.

Why - what you say in other threads have a basis on what you say here. I find it funny how you would have a problem with me doing that - when you RUTINELY bring up stuff I say in other threads to a different thread. Oh well - i see hypocracy is still rife here.

[The Gaffer]

Yawn!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yawn!

yeah I know what you mean - it's the same way I feel when I read your redundant posts. But I suppose that your posts are making a "point" while you just consider mine meaningless gibberish. So much for your "international" and take into consideration your fellow man attitude. I think I rest my case - the only people you support in their views - are the people you agree with. That is why you come up with these sarcastic remarks - such as "yawn" because you really don't have respect for others. And that just shows it.

But oh well - maybe one day you will actually understand American history and the founding of this country - but I doubt it - because it isn't really that much of an interest to you. I at least try to see what the other point of view is - whether I agree with it or not.

And I have studied a lot of European History - as well as American history. I continue to look at what is going on with the EU to better my understanding of it. But with my expience of American History and European History and the development of the EU - I really do not see any difference between what we did and what the EU is doing. I think it's more of an ego thing for europeans to think they are doing something new. As well as a lack of understanding of the US and the relationship with the states.

[jerseydevil]

For thise who are interested - this is a forum discussion on the book "United State of Europe" by the CATO Institute. I had seen most of this on C-Span when it was shown. But I had missed the beginning.

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1766

You can watch it or listen to it.

It is a discussion on both sides of the issue. In addition to reading and watching things like this - I also see many things on French news.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

A "gentleman's agreement" is as good as the paper it's written on.

If you want to be seen as an untrustworthy partner whose word is worthless, than yes, that is a good way to see it. Just don’t expect your word to be taken seriously afterwards.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And I didn't hear anything on french news about any "gentleman's agreement" Can you please provide proof of this? Also - they may have "consulted". Consulting does not mean doing and giving up their sovereign rights - does it? They're argument was that Britain was siding with the US also - so a MEMBER country went against France and Germany - so who do they have to consult. AS I said - France and germany both want to be in control of the EU. The new member states just sided with Britain.

No, it is precisely the conferring bit they should have done, and failed to.

It is no big secret that any country that commits itself with the EU is under request to consult with the rest of the Union regarding mutually important international affairs that can affect all, to coordinate efforts, (if they agree or not with a common position is another matter, and we all know they often do not). It should be supposedly general practice within the EU. Yet, it is still quite ineffective.
As far as EU lore goes, every accessing country, and not just these last ten, have agreed with implementing this behaviour since the moment of the signature of their Accessing Treaty, as a sign of good faith. In practice, this is just an anticipation of what is seen as part of the EU membership rights and duties, something that candidates are often eager to do anyway, to show they are part of the group and have a saying in the general opinion.

The ten candidates did confer with those EU countries signing the Letter of the Eight, but not with the EU per se, and particularly not with those countries that opposed the US; hence the criticism of the French President, a justified one at that. Oh, and I didn’t heard this in the French news, I’ve heard if from a Portuguese diplomat, one that actually supports the war, btw.

I like how europeans view the Eu as a "club" while lumping all the of the US under one umbrella - instead of looking at as as what we are - which is a UNION of SOVERIEGN states.

You shouldn’t have gone there. The US states are not sovereign. Whatever ephemerous sovereignty your individual states may have had, you abdicated and lost it long ago; first with the Union and then with the Civil War. You are part of a Federation, and that federation is the sovereign state.
With all frankness, it is debatable if the EU states are full sovereign states, considering what they already "lost" of their individual powers, but they are still recognized as such. In the other hand, you are an American, no one else is going to recognise the State of New Jersey as a sovereign state (anymore than the Principality of Sealand is), while you are part of the US; deal with it.

As for Europe being a club; why not? What is the problem with the analogy?
Bottom line is, we still can leave if we want to, , just like in a club

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

If you want to be seen as an untrustworthy partner whose word is worthless, than yes, that is a good way to see it. Just don’t expect your word to be taken seriously afterwards.

You didn't provide any proof to me that there was a "gentleman's agreement".

No, it is precisely the conferring bit they should have done, and failed to.

It is no big secret that any country that commits itself with the EU is under request to consult with the rest of the Union regarding mutually important international affairs that can affect all, to coordinate efforts, (if they agree or not with a common position is another matter, and we all know they often do not). It should be supposedly general practice within the EU. Yet, it is still quite ineffective.
As far as EU lore goes, every accessing country, and not just these last ten, have agreed with implementing this behaviour since the moment of the signature of their Accessing Treaty, as a sign of good faith. In practice, this is just an anticipation of what is seen as part of the EU membership rights and duties, something that candidates are often eager to do anyway, to show they are part of the group and have a saying in the general opinion.

The ten candidates did confer with those EU countries signing the Letter of the Eight, but not with the EU per se, and particularly not with those countries that opposed the US; hence the criticism of the French President, a justified one at that. Oh, and I didn’t heard this in the French news, I’ve heard if from a Portuguese diplomat, one that actually supports the war, btw.

Funny - Britain sided with us - as did Spain. Members at the time. they went into Iraq. I didn't see Blair requesting permission from the EU at all. he did what he felt was right for his country. But then again - Britain is a lukewarm supporter of the EU. Britain plays both sides of the fence when it come to the EU.

You shouldn’t have gone there. The US states are not sovereign. Whatever ephemerous sovereignty your individual states may have had, you abdicated and lost it long ago; first with the Union and then with the Civil War. You are part of a Federation, and that federation is the sovereign state.

You obviously have little understanding of the US. Basically similar limitations which are put on EU states - are the same ones put on us. As i said - up through the civil war - the states had their own armies. The armies were referred to by their state names. They fought under state banners. I suppose you also chose to ignore the part about several states going and supporting the Kyoto treaty and going to the UN convention on it (including NJ). That is the problem with europeans - they have little knowledge of our government and the relationship with the states to the FEDERAL government. This is why you have this false sense of it being different for the EU.

With all frankness, it is debatable if the EU states are full sovereign states, considering what they already "lost" of their individual powers, but they are still recognized as such. In the other hand, you are an American, no one else is going to recognise the State of New Jersey as a sovereign state (anymore than the Principality of Sealand is), while you are part of the US; deal with it.

Sorry - but you do acknowledge us as a soveriegn state - at least your governments do. You're governments have no problem making trade deals directly with OUR state. Canada is our leading trading partner with NJ - followed by the UK, Germany and Israel. Our governor goes all over the world to work out trade with various countries. (note however that we can't set up actual treaties) I see you never watched the video I posted - otherwise you would have seen the story on trade between NJ and Israel. (the only thing is - we can not make trade deals contrary to US law - but neither can EU members go against EU trade laws). By the way - I'm an American AND a New Jerseyan - but I am a New Jerseyan first. The same infighting that goes on in european between yours states goes on here. You shouldn't be so condescending about this issue when it's obvious you are very ignorant of the United States and the relationship with the states and the power they still retain.

As for Europe being a club; why not? What is the problem with the analogy?
Bottom line is, we still can leave if we want to, , just like in a club

Can you really? as i said - the US has been doing this for 225 years - in the beginning any state at that time could have left. During the Wer of 1812 - Massachuchetts almost left. The south before the civil war felt they could leave and actually they did leave and had their own president - but Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. He felt for the statbility for the region - it was important. He did not want the United States to fall into what we viewed as Europe's problem - a lot of little bickering states constantly waging war against each other. I seriously doubt you will be allowed to just leave if you wish in the future for the smae reasons states can't just leave today. To much money has gone into supporting the infastructure of the various states. Hawaii has the independence party - but they don't have a following. Texas has in their agreement with the US that they can leave whenever they wish (which I doubt we would just let them).

Youre complete ignorance of US and the relationship with the states has just shown right through and will be glaringly obvious for people who live in the US and understands the role of the Federal government and the power of the states. As i said - our governors go around the world to talk about trade and other things. We just don't have a military. The federal government's main purpose was for national defense.

as it says in Amdenment X of our constitution -

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please tell me since you know SO MUCH about the United States and the states - what is the power of the federal government and how is the state governments set up? I'd really like to hear this from you.

BTW - I personally think that all EU members should lose their olympic teams and UN membership and should only be represented by the EU. For all purposes you are basically under the control of the EU and are no longer free to do whatever you wish to do. The EU has a anthem, has a single currency, has a parliament, has a president and has a supreme court that can override any law in any member state. You are no longer countries - but states. Deal with it.

[jerseydevil]

Ahhh - I found the artilcle concerning several US states going to the UN Kyoto meeting...

U.S. states consider European carbon controls
Source: Copyright 2004, Associated Press
Date: December17,2004

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- Two sets of Americans have come here to talk global warming: the United States, opposed to controls on carbon emissions, and a bloc of united states, from Maine to Delaware, that plan to impose them.

"It's not an in-your-face thing," Kenneth Colburn, helping coordinate the nine-state effort, said of the seeming defiance of the Bush administration. "They're doing what they think needs to be done."

That may even include linking up with the Europeans in a backdoor trading scheme on emissions -- although a key Republican says that would meet a "lot of skepticism" in Congress.

The American by-play is taking place at the annual U.N. conference on climate change, where delegates from scores of nations are filling in last-minute details on the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 pact that takes effect February 16 requiring 30 industrial nations to reduce, by 2012, emissions of "greenhouse gases" that scientists blame for global warming.

The biggest pollutant is carbon dioxide, byproduct of fossil fuel burning by automobile engines, power plants and other industrial operations.

The United States is not among the 30. The Bush administration has rejected Kyoto, protesting that it would damage the U.S. economy and that it should also cover poorer nations, such as China and India.

But in the pyramid of powers called the U.S. federation, there were other ideas.

"The United States is 'states' with an 's,"' said Fred Butler, a New Jersey public utilities commissioner here for the U.N. conference. The 50 states are 50 "laboratories of ideas," he said.

More than two dozen U.S. states have taken action individually to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by ordering cuts in power-plant emissions, for example, and limiting state government purchases of fuel-inefficient sport utility vehicles.

Most significantly, California regulators last September ordered the auto industry to trim exhaust levels on cars and light trucks in the state by 25 percent before 2016. Other states may follow if California's move survives a court challenge.

In the U.S. Northeast, New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, in April 2003 invited other states to develop a regional plan for "cap and trade" on power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide -- a system whereby plants that don't use up their reduced quotas of emissions can sell "offsets," or credits, to other companies that overshoot their allowances.

Under an existing consortium, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, eight other states joined in: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware. Four have Republican governors, four Democratic. Combined, they account for 14 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

A proposed design for the system is expected next April, to be considered and approved by the nine states. Colburn, executive director of the Boston-based consortium, said the states may be trading carbon emission credits in two or three years. "It's a question of 'when,' not 'if,"' he said.

Although the governors want to help ease climate change, there's a host of other environmental, health and economic motivations, Colburn said.

For one thing, New York is seeing London take the lead in "carbon trading," which may balloon into a multibillion-dollar market. "We're missing out on this economic opportunity," he said.

The 25-nation European Union launches its own carbon-trading system on January 1, and it has left the door open for outside participants, a possibility the U.S. states are examining.

"I don't see why our own individual power plants couldn't register and purchase allowances in the European system," Colburn said.

The head of the Bush administration delegation to the climate talks was asked about such a merger of U.S. and European markets. "We haven't had an opportunity yet to analyze and look at such proposals -- what it would mean for U.S. law and international law," replied Paula Dobriansky, an undersecretary of state.

Republican congressman Joe Barton was less noncommittal.

Any international compact involving state governments would have to be approved by Congress, said the Texas lawmaker, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"We would tend to look at it with a lot of skepticism," he said.

But Colburn questioned the need for federal authorization, saying any trans-Atlantic trades would be pure commercial transactions, not government-to-government. In some states the plan won't even need legislative approval, but could be enacted via executive regulations, he said.

The list of trading states may grow.

Washington, Oregon and California, jointly developing plans to control carbon dioxide, are studying the possibility of carbon trading. And next-door Canada, which like the European Union has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, may be yet another natural partner.

As you can see - we aren't that controlled by the federal government - as you would like to believe. If you think we are solely controlled by the federal government - with no communication to outsdie countries - then I would like you to explain to me how 9 states - including NJ and NY were part of the UN conference.

Don't worry - I know it's difficult for you to understand. Most people in the world think of us as a single nation - not made up of sovereign states in a united union. Of course they are just ignorant of the role and power of state governments.

[jerseydevil]

Here is something I found which is written by a swedish group comparing economic statistics (particularly GDP) of the individual US states - with the economic stats of EU states.

EU Versus USA

If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.

Stark differences become apparent when comparing official economic statistics. Europe lags behind the USA when comparing GDP per capita and GDP growth rates. The current economic debate among EU leaders lacks an understanding of the gravity of the situation in many European countries. Structural reforms of the European economy as well as far reaching welfare reforms are well overdue. The Lisbon process lacks true impetus, nor is it sufficient to improve the economic prospects of the EU.

EU versus USA is written by Dr Fredrik Bergstr鰉, President of the Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr Robert Gidehag, until recently Chief Economist of the same institute and now President of the Swedish Taxpayer's Association.

[Elvellon]

Since we are being candid, let me tell you that yours was a rather presumptuous post. As you are often known to say; you don’t know me, you do not know the extent of my knowledge either; what you did is making arrogant assumptions about me, and still completely fail to get to the real crux of the issue.

Oh, I’m sure you would be delighted in correct me about my obvious faulty knowledge of the Legislative, Judiciary and Executive branches of American power, perhaps amend me in my assumption congressmen are elected for the House of Representatives for a term of 2 years while the senators are elected for 6 years, something I’m not really sureif it is so).. Who knows, perhaps show me I should be aware the precise date when, during the early XX Century, Senators began to be elected directly; or then correct me in my assumption that, being a Federation, individual US states enjoy of a great degree of autonomy, having inclusive their own Constitutions.

Perhaps, being myself just a “ignorant continental” you would prefer show me how wrong I am in my assumptions of the relevance of the crossing of the Delaware for the moral of the American rebels, or belittle my limited knowledge of the accomplishments of Ethan Allen, (is that even his name?) and his Green Mountain Boys. But the problem is, neither of it have any relevance; for the issue is not my knowledge of the inner workings of the US, (that I never said to be particularly knowledgeable to begin with, despite your self induced assumptions), nor your knowledge of the inner workings of the European Nation-states, (And I wonder, how extant it is indeed?).

The issue is what constitutes a Sovereign State; and if you had a little bit more objectivity in your post, you would have noticed that I have questioned if, in the actual conditions, EU states are real Sovereign States, even if they are recognized as such.
And that brings the question, after all your implicit claims of intellectual superiority, concerning us, “poor ignorant continentals” and myself in particular, do you know what constitutes a Sovereign State at the light of International Law?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

Since we are being candid, let me tell you that yours was a rather presumptuous post. As you are often known to say; you don’t know me, you do not know the extent of my knowledge either; what you did is making arrogant assumptions about me, and still completely fail to get to the real crux of the issue.

Oh, I’m sure you would be delighted in correct me about my obvious faulty knowledge of the Legislative, Judiciary and Executive branches of American power, perhaps amend me in my assumption congressmen are elected for the House of Representatives for a term of 2 years while the senators are elected for 6 years, something I’m not really sureif it is so).. Who knows, perhaps show me I should be aware the precise date when, during the early XX Century, Senators began to be elected directly; or then correct me in my assumption that, being a Federation, individual US states enjoy of a great degree of autonomy, having inclusive their own Constitutions.

Perhaps, being myself just a “ignorant continental” you would prefer show me how wrong I am in my assumptions of the relevance of the crossing of the Delaware for the moral of the American rebels, or belittle my limited knowledge of the accomplishments of Ethan Allen, (is that even his name?) and his Green Mountain Boys. But the problem is, neither of it have any relevance; for the issue is not my knowledge of the inner workings of the US, (that I never said to be particularly knowledgeable to begin with, despite your self induced assumptions), nor your knowledge of the inner workings of the European Nation-states, (And I wonder, how extant it is indeed?).

I did not ask you for a history lesson - nor did I ask you for the foundation of the FEDERAL government. I am asking you about your knowledge of the STATE governments. Since you made statements regarding the soverignty of the US states - then questioning your KNOWLEDGE is completely appropriate. This is where YOU had the arrogant attitude of knowing EXACTLY what power the US States have.

Since you didn't answer the question - I will let you know - we have Transportation Departments, Education Department, We have a legislative and judicial branches of government - along with an executive branh of government we have our Environmental Protection Agencies, our own welfare departments, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, etc. NJ has it's own Constitution and it's own flag. Everything a sovereign state - has we have.

The issue is what constitutes a Sovereign State; and if you had a little bit more objectivity in your post, you would have noticed that I have questioned if, in the actual conditions, EU states are real Sovereign States, even if they are recognized as such.

If you weren't so arrogant you wouldn't assume that i didn't notice that. I did notice you said it - but I responded to your arrogant and ingnorant comments about the US states and the power they have. You seem to think we are just names with no power. I have stated that it is my opinion that you should NOT have individual membership in the UN any longer - nor should you have olympic teams. You are establishing an Union under the same model as the US basically.

And that brings the question, after all your implicit claims of intellectual superiority, concerning us, “poor ignorant continentals” and myself in particular, do you know what constitutes a Sovereign State at the light of International Law?

It hurts doesn't it? After all the years and up to the present of hearing about "ignorant Americans" I'm sure you'll get used it - or get over it - just like we're expected to. Whether you like it or not - your statements did show a complete ignorance of the States of the US.

As for international law - generally it is accepted that a soverign state is one that is not subject to a higher politcal authority, however there is no clear cut definition of what a soveriegn nation is under international law. Taiwan can be considered a soverign nation by the US - while Europe and China will refuse to recognise it. I will grant you that US states do not have the power to do anything we want - but your arrogant statements confirm your lack of understanding of the state power.. My view is that European states are no longer - nor should be considered independent sovereign countries, just like you seem to not think of New Jersey - in your sarcastic tone - as soveriegn. European States are not free to just pick and choose what to agree with when it comes to the EU. The people of European states - can appeal their own states judicial courts - up to the Supreme Court of the EU - just like we can in the US.

In addition to all this - the EU has an abassador to the US which - "has enjoyed full ambassadorial status since 1990" and the US has an ambassador to the EU - Ambassador Rockwell Anthony Schnabel.

It has been my view for a long time with studying European, EU and the US - that Europeans somehow think that they are doing somethign completely new by building the EU. Sorry - you're 225 years too late to take that title.

I think from now on - based on the evidence at hand - that we should no longer call you countries - but European States. Your states have government bodies - the same as US states have and you are just Europeans. You seem unwilling to acknowledge the differences in the states - so really - why should we recognize the differences between your states?

Let's face it - you are losing your national identities. Belgium. France, Germany etc - are nothing more than what California, NY or NJ is (you have an army - that's great - so do the 50 US states such as the NJ Army National Guard and the NJ Air National Guard - we also have a naval branch).

NJ Army National Guard

When natural or man made events put the lives and freedom of the citizenry of New Jersey in danger, it is the National Guard that answers the call to duty. We protect New Jersey when events such as floods, hurricanes, blizzards, riots, or explosions occur. We are the line of defense that protects the citizenry of New Jersey and America during times of domestic crisis.

Also part of our mission is assisting in protecting the citizenry from more routine domestic threats. Be it the war against terrorism or the war on drugs, the National Guard has a presence in trying to eliminate these threats. We bring resources in the form of personnel and equipment to any battle that the United States is fighting.

Although our primary mission focuses on domestic concerns, we also serve as part of the force that carries out federal missions. From medical assistance to the people of Nicaraugua, to building schools in Panama and conducting peace keeping missions in Europe, the New Jersey Army National Guard is making the world a better and safer place.

So you don't claim that this is just under the federal government - this is information on the Adjutant General Of New Jersey.

Major General Glenn K. Rieth

Major General Glenn K. Rieth was confirmed by the New Jersey State Senate as the 30th Adjutant General of New Jersey on March 4, 2002. General Rieth commands more than 9,000 soldiers and airmen of the New Jersey Army and Air National Guard.

The only thing limiting our military today is that it in times of foreign wars - it fights under the US flag, whereas before it fought under the NJ flag.

I know it hurts to accept this - I'm sure there will be many people who disagree. But you can't just do what you want anymore just like we an't do everything we wish. Just get used to it - or get out of the union while you still can.

[Elvellon]

I did not ask you for a history lesson - nor did I ask you for the
foundation of the FEDERAL government. I am asking you about your
knowledge of the STATE governments. Since you made statements regarding
the soverignty of the US states - then questioning your KNOWLEDGE is
completely appropriate. This is where YOU had the arrogant attitude of
knowing EXACTLY what power the US States have…

I haven’t give you an History lesson, I told your question was totally irrelevant

You did more than just question; you made affirmations and arrogant assumptions; as you keep doing here, it is not even the first time you use these tactic against posters here, instead of debete you try to intimidate. so don’t play the choir boy with me. You play this game far too often for not be know by everyone by now.

hurts doesn't it? After all the years and up to the present of hearing
about "ignorant Americans" I'm sure you'll get used it - or get
over it - just like we're expected to. Whether you like it or not - your
statements did show a complete ignorance of the States of the US.

Hurt? Why? Get over what? Are you serious?
Despite your claims you still fail to be objective, (again), If I was questioning EU members being full fledged Sovereign Nations, how on Earth could I assume the American federal states to be so, huh?
Get the picture this time?
And you say I was being arrogant for stating you haven’t been objective in your reading of that part of my post? Please.

As for international law - generally it is accepted that a soverign state
is one that is not subject to a higher politcal authority, however there is
no clear cut definition of what a soveriegn nation is under international
law. Taiwan can be considered a soverign nation by the US - while Europe
and China will refuse to recognise it. I will grant you that US states do
not have the power to do anything we want - but your arrogant statements
confirm your lack of understanding of the state power.. My view is that
European states are no longer - nor should be considered independent
sovereign countries, just like you seem to not think of New Jersey - in
your sarcastic tone - as soveriegn. European States are not free to just
pick and choose what to agree with when it comes to the EU. The people of
European states - can appeal their own states judicial courts - up to the
Supreme Court of the EU - just like we can in the US.

A Sovereign Nation is one that enjoys of the totality of Rights and Duties recognized by International Law. The key word being totality.

That means, among others, (and to simplify) just regarding the domain of International competence;

Ius Legationis (the right of legation, to send and receive diplomatic agents, and to have embassies and consulates)

Ius Tractum (the right to celebrate international treaties)

The right of making International Protests, (I can’t remember the proper translation here, I haven’t study it in English in the first place; it means you make use internationally of certain means to make due certain rights, this means are recognized in principle by the article 34, number 1 of the International Court of Justice statute)

Ius Belli (the use of force; to wage war)

And to cut it short, Federal states are semi-sovereign States.

So in regard to this, keep the crap about my so call ignorance or arrogance; your attack was both unwarranted, arrogant, biased, and ignorant of my motives. And, at most, you can complain you don’t agree with the strictest view of I post here.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

I haven’t give you an History lesson, I told your question was totally irrelevant

You did more than just question; you made affirmations and arrogant assumptions; as you keep doing here, it is not even the first time you use these tactic against posters here, instead of debete you try to intimidate. so don’t play the choir boy with me. You play this game far too often for not be know by everyone by now.

You were the one that started the arrogant attitude in your post. So get over it. I wasn't playing the choir boy. If I was - I would deny being arrogant to you - I'm not though. I fullly agree I am being arrogant toward you - but this attitude is in direct response to your saarcasm.

Hurt? Why? Get over what? Are you serious?
Despite your claims you still fail to be objective, (again), If I was questioning EU members being full fledged Sovereign Nations, how on Earth could I assume the American federal states to be so, huh?
Get the picture this time?
And you say I was being arrogant for stating you haven’t been objective in your reading of that part of my post? Please.

You are arrogant and I'm being arrogant back. as for what I had a problem with - was your attitude that US states are nothing but names. To an ignorant person that would be the case. - Hence - my questioning your knownledge of the power that US states enjoy. It had nothign to do whether whether you felt we had FULL sovereinty or not - it was yoru complete lack of respect for the states that make up the US. As if they don't matter. That is a completely ignorant and arrogant attitude. But you have already proven to me that you have almost zero understanding or knowledge of the states.

A Sovereign Nation is one that enjoys of the totality of Rights and Duties recognized by International Law. The key word being totality.

That means, among others, (and to simplify) just regarding the domain of International competence;

Ius Legationis (the right of legation, to send and receive diplomatic agents, and to have embassies and consulates)

Ius Tractum (the right to celebrate international treaties)

The right of making International Protests, (I can’t remember the proper translation here, I haven’t study it in English in the first place; it means you make use internationally of certain means to make due certain rights, this means are recognized in principle by the article 34, number 1 of the International Court of Justice statute)

Ius Belli (the use of force; to wage war)

That isnt' all true. As I said - it's very complicated. For one thing - countries can choose recognize or not recognize a country as sovereign. Is Taiwan sovereign? Who determines if a country can or can't do all these things? Taiwan feels it can - but China feels it can't. The US views Taiwan as a sovereign country.

And to cut it short, Federal states are semi-sovereign States.

In the US - they are considered sovereign states, with simi

So in regard to this, keep the crap about my so call ignorance or arrogance; your attack was both unwarranted, arrogant, biased, and ignorant of my motives.

It weas not - it was in response to your following arrogant tone....

You shouldn’t have gone there. The US states are not sovereign. Whatever ephemerous sovereignty your individual states may have had, you abdicated and lost it long ago; first with the Union and then with the Civil War. You are part of a Federation, and that federation is the sovereign state.
With all frankness, it is debatable if the EU states are full sovereign states, considering what they already "lost" of their individual powers, but they are still recognized as such. In the other hand, you are an American, no one else is going to recognise the State of New Jersey as a sovereign state (anymore than the Principality of Sealand is), while you are part of the US; deal with it.

That is an example of your arrogance. I am a New Jerseyan - just like you are citizen of YOUR state. As i pointed out - which you completely ignored - is that if the US does not enjoy many soveriegn rights - what the hell was it doing at the UN Conference MEETING with international diplomats? That shows your ignorance and european arrogant attitude. You do NOT understand the US - yet you try to claim you do.

And, at most, you can complain you don’t agree with the strictest view of I post here.

What are you saying here?