Secret Federalists

View · 05-10-2009 5:25pm

caseyann wrote: »

Well if you have passport or driving licence i dont see why you need it.But happy to hear you are out on the chip idea

The advantage of National ID cards (within the EU), for cross-border travel purposes (within the EU), is they provide all the functionality of the passport while, being credit card size, they are an awful lot less cumbersome.

I'd imagine if the passport office gave people a choice between either getting a passport or a National ID card, then for the majority of people who only travel within the EU, the National ID card would be a better (and hopefully cheaper) alternative.

nesf · 05-10-2009 5:36pm

caseyann wrote: »

I carry both of my ids everywhere with me already so i dont need any

That is the point not yet they are saying,but ah who knows probably never happen:D

I also always have ID on me, but there are very few legitimate reasons for not wanting to be identifiable to Gardaí for instance. I've similar grounds for not having a problem with CCTV cameras in city centres etc.

caseyann · 05-10-2009 5:39pm

View wrote: »

The advantage of National ID cards (within the EU), for cross-border travel purposes (within the EU), is they provide all the functionality of the passport while, being credit card size, they are an awful lot less cumbersome.

I'd imagine if the passport office gave people a choice between either getting a passport or a National ID card, then for the majority of people who only travel within the EU, the National ID card would be a better (and hopefully cheaper) alternative.

Well if they change it before my passport runs out i want it free,and to amount i paid for and if cheaper longer then the time. I so am not paying again :mad:
Chip though out of the question i am not a dog to go stray :rolleyes:

View · 05-10-2009 5:58pm

caseyann wrote: »

Well if they change it before my passport runs out i want it free,and to amount i paid for and if cheaper longer then the time. I so am not paying again :mad:
Chip though out of the question i am not a dog to go stray :rolleyes:

I don't think it is possible to actually replace passports with National ID cards in their entirity as - for travel outside the EU - you still to have room for (paper-based) Visas to enter many countries.

Obviously, though if you only travel within the EU that isn't an issue and a National ID card would be handier for many people.

caseyann · 05-10-2009 6:27pm

nesf wrote: »

I also always have ID on me, but there are very few legitimate reasons for not wanting to be identifiable to Gardaí for instance. I've similar grounds for not having a problem with CCTV cameras in city centres etc.

Yeah i don't mind it been made compulsory that people should carry id and if not carrying then reason for suspicion.
I dont mind the cctv either its policing of streets faster efficient protecting of innocent citizens.

caseyann · 05-10-2009 6:53pm

View wrote: »

I don't think it is possible to actually replace passports with National ID cards in their entirity as - for travel outside the EU - you still to have room for (paper-based) Visas to enter many countries.

Obviously, though if you only travel within the EU that isn't an issue and a National ID card would be handier for many people.

Yeah i guess they would have to implement it in all countries all over the world.
I will be doing without though i much prefer my passport then,Logical for me to use in all areas and if i want to go outside EU.

Not been bad i am not forking over anymore money for things like that when i already have my id for all areas.

How much truth is in the chip been introduced.Hasnt it started in USA already?

nullzero · 05-10-2009 7:27pm

I find the idea of a United States of Europe strange.
The original EEC was a great idea, but I definitely don't agree with an over politicised EU.
Somebody made a point early in the thread that a greater level of glabal political hegemony will ultimately be better for everyone worldwide.
I find that statement to be somewhat naive.
I think the idea of a peaceful world populated by shiney happy people is fantastic, however a greater level of centralised power led by the current global power brokers frightens me.
Ultimately humanity has to evolve beyond nation states, however it would be counter productive for us to do so in a time in our species development when we still find ourselves creating finacial gain from war, which is still people killing people on the say so of ruling elites, much like it has been all through our history.
Until we can get beyond our reliance on war as an economic tool and grow the hell up any centralisation of power should be put on the long finger.
A United States of Europe may sound like a wondeful thing, as may a one world government, but we have to do it properly, weed out the warmongers and profiteers and create an open, equal and responsible society. Until we can do that I will vehemently oppose any plans for a USE or OWG.

metrovelvet · 05-10-2009 7:52pm

I had, in my ignorance of the whole treaty had a fuzzy assumption that this was about federalism. I didn't think there was anything secret about it.

I am from the US and I love my country, but I do believe in more state than federal control and federal taxes are a bitch. It would certainly weird to see a US equivalent here on your paystub: EU taxes, State taxes, municipal taxes, and social insurance taxes [technically not a tax but in reality that is what it is - its just immune to any magic an accountant can do - thank you FDR for that.]

I cant see any European nation or citizen willing to give up their national passports or embassies for an EU passport or an EU embassy. Then again I didnt think they would give up their currencies either, so I could be wrong about that one too.

Scrambled egg · 05-10-2009 11:00pm

I know what you mean OP. It is just inevitable when you think about it. A strong Europe with the largest GDP in the world, capable of standing on its own two feet on par with Russia, America, China and other superpowers.

The Corinthian · 06-10-2009 10:06am

Scrambled egg wrote: »

I know what you mean OP. It is just inevitable when you think about it. A strong Europe with the largest GDP in the world, capable of standing on its own two feet on par with Russia, America, China and other superpowers.

That there are compelling advantages and historical precedents cannot be denied, however calling it "inevitable" is another matter.

Not all such unions actually last for very long to begin with, with the United Arab Republic (1958 - 61) and the Federal Republic of Central America (1823 - 38) being good examples. Some movements for union, such as Scandinavism, don't even get that far.

Even when they last more an a handful of years, they can be notoriously difficult to maintain and ultimately fall apart - examples of this are the Iberian Union (1580 - 1640), Austria-Hungary (1867 - 1918), the USSR (1922 - 91) and, of course, Yugoslavia (1918 - 2003).

On the other hand other unions last the test of time (so far); almost all of the major European nations are examples of what were originally unions between ethnically diverse (at least in the context of when they were united) states - France, Germany, Italy, Russia (as opposed to the USSR/Russian Empire), the UK and even Spain.

Ultimately my point is that whether there are economic and political advantages or not does not make it inevitable that a union will actually occur, let alone last, and so an EU superstate is not "inevitable" by any stretch of the imagination.

turgon · 06-10-2009 10:38am

Would I be fair in saying Corinthian, that Austria-Hungary, USSR and Yugoslavia were only kept together forcibly by means of central power. The difference with the EU being that it is voluntary.

ei.sdraob · 06-10-2009 11:05am

turgon wrote: »

Would I be fair in saying Corinthian, that Austria-Hungary, USSR and Yugoslavia were only kept together forcibly by means of central power. The difference with the EU being that it is voluntary.

exactly there are no tanks that will roll in if Ireland decides to leave EU, hell the EU even sets out how a country can leave

unlike what happened in many replublics when USSR was falling apart

SkepticOne · 06-10-2009 11:17am

It's interesting the divergence of opinion on the Yes side over what they think they voted for.

The Corinthian · 06-10-2009 11:30am

turgon wrote: »

Would I be fair in saying Corinthian, that Austria-Hungary, USSR and Yugoslavia were only kept together forcibly by means of central power. The difference with the EU being that it is voluntary.

Only the USSR was kept together forcibly, the other two were not - Austria-Hungary applied force internally on much the same level as other European nations (and largely relied on power sharing between Austria and Hungary - and arguably was looking at extending this to the southern Slavs). Additionally none of the other short-lived unions I cited applied force.

Ultimately, regardless of how you try to create and maintain a union, it does not always work out.

SkepticOne wrote: »

It's interesting the divergence of opinion on the Yes side over what they think they voted for.

I'd imagine that this divergence of opinion is no greater than that which you would find between Eurosceptics - some are anti-capitalists, others are nationalists and others again are simply anti-Fianna Fail and not too hung up on either capitalism or nationalism.

marco_polo · 06-10-2009 12:16pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

It's interesting the divergence of opinion on the Yes side over what they think they voted for.

What are you talking about? With examples from this thread please.

turgon · 06-10-2009 12:16pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

It's interesting the divergence of opinion on the Yes side over what they think they voted for.

Well for thos of us who voted for Treaty reasons there is no opinion, only fact.

SkepticOne · 06-10-2009 12:25pm

marco_polo wrote: »

What are you talking about? With examples from this thread please.

LOL. Try the OP.

marco_polo · 06-10-2009 12:27pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

LOL. Try the OP.

He wants a federal Europe at somepoint in the future?

Not for me thanks but each to their own and all that.

SkepticOne · 06-10-2009 12:30pm

marco_polo wrote: »

He wants a federal Europe at somepoint in the future?

Well done.

marco_polo · 06-10-2009 12:31pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Well done.

So you are not in fact going to provide any examples of the 'divergence' of interpretation after all?

SkepticOne · 06-10-2009 12:35pm

"So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?"

uprising · 06-10-2009 12:38pm

Nevore wrote: »

So, yes won the day, yay etc.

I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

Nevore wrote: »

Oh, definitely not before I'm an old old man, no. I didn't mean that I voted Yes because it was going to turn us into the USE overnight.

Get over your wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years, of course not in your time, in 100 year's thats great for megawar's, just as long as your not around.

And no I don't actually want to be ruled by Brussel's, nor do I want any of my decendant's dragged into some super army.

marco_polo · 06-10-2009 12:45pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

"So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?"

I am nearly sure there must be a point to your posts, but I just cannot see it currently.

Pro European in votes yes to treaty because he wants more integration in the future shocker!

The Corinthian · 06-10-2009 12:52pm

uprising wrote: »

And no I don't actually want to be ruled by Brussel's, nor do I want any of my decendant's dragged into some super army.

Nothing you can do about that, I'm afraid. In a century or two your descendants could be part of a European Federal Army. Or Europe could be part of a greater Russian Empire and thus they will be subject to conscription to the Russian military. Or they might leave Europe altogether, move to the USA and get drafted. Or something else again.

History does not stand still just because you want it to, after all.

DaSilva · 06-10-2009 2:01pm

I once had this secret fetish of a European super state for silly romantic reasons also, but it is foolish and naive.

To say that we were once tribal, and now identify ourselves with countries and therefore the natural progression is even larger super states is also ridiculously naive and way over simplified. Why is it the natural progression? Because it continues the pattern, small->medium->big? That's it? That is the argument?

Out of all the large countries (infact probably even small ones also), most have some form of problem with large groups of people wanting separation.

China -> Taiwan
Russia -> Chechnya
Mexico -> Zapatistas
Spain -> Basques, Catalans
France -> Bretons

Too name a few.

Also I find it strange, that some of the people here who romance the idea of a USE type situation would be critical of the current USA. Why would a USE be any different? We are more ethical? Europeans, have probably the worst history of being damaging to world peace.

Scofflaw · 06-10-2009 2:47pm

DaSilva wrote: »

I once had this secret fetish of a European super state for silly romantic reasons also, but it is foolish and naive.

To say that we were once tribal, and now identify ourselves with countries and therefore the natural progression is even larger super states is also ridiculously naive and way over simplified. Why is it the natural progression? Because it continues the pattern, small->medium->big? That's it? That is the argument?

Out of all the large countries (infact probably even small ones also), most have some form of problem with large groups of people wanting separation.

China -> Taiwan
Russia -> Chechnya
Mexico -> Zapatistas
Spain -> Basques, Catalans
France -> Bretons

Too name a few.

Also I find it strange, that some of the people here who romance the idea of a USE type situation would be critical of the current USA. Why would a USE be any different? We are more ethical? Europeans, have probably the worst history of being damaging to world peace.

In fact, out of the 500-odd acts of terrorism committed or planned in the EU last year, the overwhelming majority (397) were by separatist groups (97% in France or Spain). A USE would probably exacerbate that situation ten-fold.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick · 06-10-2009 7:17pm

Why would anyone want to live in a federal Europe? Federalism = far less power to the citizens...

nesf · 06-10-2009 7:20pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why would anyone want to live in a federal Europe? Federalism = far less power to the citizens...

Federal doesn't mean that. Not that I'm a big fan of the idea or anything.

hatrickpatrick · 06-10-2009 7:21pm

nesf wrote: »

I also always have ID on me, but there are very few legitimate reasons for not wanting to be identifiable to Gardaí for instance. I've similar grounds for not having a problem with CCTV cameras in city centres etc.

CCTV? Really?

So do you want to be on camera every time you try to find a secluded place in Dublin to make out with your girlfriend for example?
Or every time you want to take a pee in some bush after a night out?

nesf · 06-10-2009 7:43pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

CCTV? Really?

So do you want to be on camera every time you try to find a secluded place in Dublin to make out with your girlfriend for example?
Or every time you want to take a pee in some bush after a night out?

Um, you take them home with you?

Secret Federalists

Comments