Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 14:25:22 GMT -5
I do not know whether there is such a thing as world government, but BBC News reports that David Cameron's hopes of getting a reform deal on Friday look in doubt as haggling continues at the EU summit. BBC News - EU ReferendumI am not in Brussels tonight, but will it be dinner for one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 23:43:49 GMT -5
If "Britain" had become a real "member" of a real Union it would no longer be possible for it (its inhabitants) to have a say. A better question is: "why only Europe?" What about allowing China to join, or Siam? Or in fact every one? (The common people of many "lands" are just that - common - and mostly bonkers as well, so they would of course have to be sat upon. No easy task.)
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 20, 2016 0:51:48 GMT -5
If "Britain" had become a real "member" of a real Union it would no longer be possible for it (its inhabitants) to have a say. A better question is: "why only Europe?" What about allowing China to join, or Siam? Or in fact every one? (The common people of many "lands" are just that - common - and mostly bonkers as well, so they would of course have to be sat upon. No easy task.) The question is "to whom should one put the question?" (your question "why only Europe", that is). There is a European Union (EU) and has been for many years; it has expanded to 28 member states and may well expand further. The Council of Europe is a larger European grouping and comprises 47 member states including all EU member states. Even this, however, does not include all European nations, but then the question of what constitutes Europe will presumably always be an open one in any case. That it doesn't include China is obvious and for obvious reasons; as for "Siam", Thailand hasn't been known as that since before the formation of the Council of Europe and the original predecessor of the European Union! That Britain has been a member of both for a good many years is as "real" as any other member nation's membership; why, then, would it not be possible for it, or any other member state, to "have a say" in its own and the EU or CoE affairs? What's supposedly "unreal" about the EU - to you, at least?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 3:27:51 GMT -5
That it doesn't include China is obvious and for obvious reasons. Not obvious in the slightest here, Mr. H. Would you be so kind as to explain your "obviousness" for the benefit of the other members? Supposing one day you were to set off on a long journey on your bicycle, and head eastwards from Calais. You might sooner or later pass through Poland, later through Russia, later again through Mongolia, and later still come to China. At what point in your journey do your "obviousnesses" step in and how? Are they obviousnesses of commerce, or obviousnesses of culture, or something to do with the price of butter, even? Here is a little Lao song with unusual and clever tongue vibrato which may help you on your journey. CLICK HERE
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 20, 2016 3:47:45 GMT -5
That it doesn't include China is obvious and for obvious reasons. Not obvious in the slightest here, Mr. H. Would you be so kind as to explain your "obviousness" for the benefit of the other members? Supposing one day you were to set off on a long journey on your bicycle, and head eastwards from Calais. You might sooner or later pass through Poland, later through Russia, later again through Mongolia, and later still come to China. At what point in your journey do your "obviousnesses" step in and how? Are they obviousnesses of commerce, or obviousnesses of culture, or something to do with the price of butter, even? And the question remains unanswered, as of course I rather expected it to be. Have you actually looked at people from China and the Far East - or from the Indian subcontinent? Are you not aware of certain differences between them and Europeans? China is made up of many provinces, just as is US of many states. Europe is made up of many nation states. Where's the problem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 15:36:31 GMT -5
If I may address your final question directly, ahinton: " ... Where's the problem?" Everywhere!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 1, 2016 2:55:37 GMT -5
If I may address your final question directly, ahinton: " ... Where's the problem?" Everywhere! How so? Perhaps the question might better have been expressed as " what's the problem?"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2016 10:36:18 GMT -5
Good afternoon to you all! Gŵyl Dewi Hapus, or Happy St David's Day! If I may address both your questions below directly, ahinton: The problem can probably best be seen at the borders of Europe, if we can define where the borders of Europe are. Calais? BBC News - EU migrant crisis: Calais 'Jungle' clearance work resumesIn 1992, the historian Norman Davies predicted that somewhere between the depths of Russia and the heart of Europe a new dividing line would have to be established - hopefully along a border of peace. Well, [the] Ukraine and Syria, for example, are not at peace in 2016, and no one seems quite sure where Europe begins and ends. Is Sydney right, for example, to argue that China is continuous with Europe? Well, in geographical terms, they are both part of Eurasia, and Sydney is right to argue that they (and we) are part of a continuum. On an eastward journey from Calais to China, where does Europe end? Russia? As far as Dave's dinner in Brussels went on Thursday (17 December 2015) night, the chicken terrine, roast venison and spiced oranges were not the problem, but instead of banging his fist on the table, David Cameron delivered heart-felt pitch that his vision of Europe – more competitive, more flexible and more realistic – could save a continent in crisis. The Daily Telegraph - How David Cameron's passionate dinner speech kept EU renegotiation aliveTo be honest, Dave really did not have much of a breakfast, lunch or dinner on Friday 19 February 2016, as far as I can tell, so perhaps I was being ironic in the opening post (OP)! b. Perhaps the question might better have been expressed as " what's the problem?"... The problem is not Dave's dinner, nor lack of it! This thread was conceived ironically. The problem is world government.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 1, 2016 18:13:39 GMT -5
The problem is not Dave's dinner, nor lack of it! This thread was conceived ironically. The problem is world government. Which doesn't exist, so how come it's a problem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 9:59:16 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, ahinton: " ... Which doesn't exist, so how come it's a problem?" Because world government is the subject of Dave's dinner. According to Wikipedia, world government is the notion of a common political authority for all of humanity, yielding a global government and a single state. Such a government could come into existence either through violent and compulsory world domination or through peaceful and voluntary supranational union. Currently there is no worldwide executive, legislature, judiciary, military, or constitution with jurisdiction over the entire planet. The United Nations is limited to a mostly advisory role, and its stated purpose is to foster cooperation between existing national governments rather than exert authority over them. The only union to have achieved the status of a supranational union is the European Union (EU): If the European Union (EU) is the most relevant model we currently have for world government, then Dave's dinner could ultimately destroy it.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 2, 2016 10:57:58 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, ahinton: " ... Which doesn't exist, so how come it's a problem?" Because world government is the subject of Dave's dinner. According to Wikipedia, world government is the notion of a common political authority for all of humanity, yielding a global government and a single state. Such a government could come into existence either through violent and compulsory world domination or through peaceful and voluntary supranational union. Currently there is no worldwide executive, legislature, judiciary, military, or constitution with jurisdiction over the entire planet. The United Nations is limited to a mostly advisory role, and its stated purpose is to foster cooperation between existing national governments rather than exert authority over them. The only union to have achieved the status of a supranational union is the European Union (EU): If the European Union (EU) is the most relevant model we currently have for world government, then Dave's dinner could ultimately destroy it. There are flaws and omissions in what you write here. The extent to which "the EU's example is being followed by the African Union, the Union of South American Nations, the Organization of Central American States, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations" is, in practical terms of outcome or the perceived possibility of moving towards one, at the very least highly questionable, in that none of these has anything like the established governmental structure that EU, notwithstanding all its problems, has enjoyed for quite some time and, I suggest, none is likely to achieve anything like this in the foreseeable future. "World government" is accordingly by no means "the subject of Dave's dinner" and, to the best of my knowledge, he has not sought publicly to advocate any such thing; likewise, there is no evidence in any case that "the European Union (EU) is the most relevant model we currently have for world government" and not only have I yet to hear anyone suggesting that it is so or might be or become such, the credibility of such a notion would also in any case be highly questionable. As to the Eurozone, 9 of EU's current tally of 28 member states are at present outside it. You also omit mention of the Council of Europe, which predates the forerunner of EU and whose member states total 47 including all EU member states; the reason that I mention this here is that the differences between CoE and EU point up the fact that the question as to what actually constitutes "Europe" remains very much an open one, especially as even CoE member states might not necessarily be regarded as making up Europe in its entirety. For this reason and in this sense, one could perhaps argue that "Europe" as a union of all European member states is hardly farther forward than are "the African Union, the Union of South American Nations, the Organization of Central American States, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations" as established and recognised supranational groups except that, at least within "Europe" as a whole, there are two long established groupings of member states which is not the case with those other examples. The future of Europe as a whole, as well as that of EU and CoE, might depend to some extent upon the impact of desired and forced populaton movements largely into parts of Europe, to the extent that these could well come to exert a destabilising influence by impacting adversely upon any kind of overall European unity and the free movement of citizens within Europe that are fundamental tenets of EU and CoE as we know them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 10:02:00 GMT -5
I have had to do some research on the subject of Dave's dinner, as I was not in Brussels for the English dinner on the evening of Friday 19 February 2016. According to Tim Ross and Ben Riley-Smith, writing for ' The Telegraph', the menu for the “English dinner” was artichoke with goat's cheese and rocket, fillet of veal with tarragon jus, and passion fruit bavarois for dessert. The Telegraph - David Cameron's 47-hour battle with Brussels - then the CabinetOf course, Dave's dinner is just a metaphor, and as world government is the subject of this particular thread here in ' The Third', the notion, models and/or lack of world government are on topic. In the context of the migration crisis, however, which was also a subject of Dave's dinner, Immanuel Kant considered World Citizenship to be a necessary step in establishing world peace (1795). This may of course be Sydney's fundamental point: world government is no easy task. Nevertheless, it might still be worth trying!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 3, 2016 13:37:47 GMT -5
I have had to do some research on the subject of Dave's dinner, as I was not in Brussels for the English dinner on the evening of Friday 19 February 2016. According to Tim Ross and Ben Riley-Smith, writing for ' The Telegraph', the menu for the “English dinner” was artichoke with goat's cheese and rocket, fillet of veal with tarragon jus, and passion fruit bavarois for dessert. The Telegraph - David Cameron's 47-hour battle with Brussels - then the CabinetOf course, Dave's dinner is just a metaphor, and as world government is the subject of this particular thread here in ' The Third', the notion, models and/or lack of world government are on topic. In the context of the migration crisis, however, which was also a subject of Dave's dinner, Immanuel Kant considered World Citizenship to be a necessary step in establishing world peace (1795). This may of course be Sydney's fundamental point: world government is no easy task. Nevertheless, it might still be worth trying! After 200 years - and given all that's happened within them? There's have been greater likelihood of Chopin forging an international career as a virtuoso oboist, methinks!
|
|