How do you think about EU?

I'd like the idea... but i think that nowadays it's really difficult to merge so many different (and someones nationalistic, too) countries!
We are not like USA and many of us don't want to be like that even in the future...

P.S. even the non europeans ones are allowed to speak here!

Where's the 'Indifferent' option? It could become a good thing, could just as well become a bad thing, and knowing how politicians are 'round here nowadays (looking at Dutch, British and Italian politicians mainly, as I don't know anything 'bout other), it'll probably be turned into another way for them to fill their pockets and behave like headless chickens. I'm indifferent 'bout their little playground.

i used to love the idea of the european dream. i thought it was a great idea and that it would be good for the world to have a superpower that isnt america, however the whole thing depresses me now. no offense to turkish people, bulgarians or any of the other countries that they are trying to get to join, but we still have homeless people in england. our goverment doesnt do much to help single parent familys, and they have set up a nasty tax trap for middle class familys, we still have a housing shortfall, our public transport is the worst in western europe, our hospitals are infected with a flesh eating supervirus, we have some serios issues here basically that need to be sorted out. i dont think we or the french or the dutch should have to pay out money to bulk up the econmies of these lesser countries that are trying to join, we have problems on our home turf. we need to sort these out first before we go helping others.

In that case you can vote NO

I think the European Union should have stayed a trade body, the European Economic Community (the Common market) If they really wish to go through with this idea (and they of coarse do) they should put the entire thing on hold. Maintain the status quo for a while. I mean the euro hasn't been along for that long yet and countries need to pay more attention to their national problems vefore tackling new international frontiers. Also in terms of expansion we already have a lot of new member states in need of aid, expanding even more right now would be insane.

the common market is a good thing. giving our money to bolster the econemys and social infrastructure of other nations is not. not untill we have our own sorted out.

edit: amazing that the nos are in the lead ........

I vote YES :ok: , cause it gives my country the protection against the MF+ Russia. They wanted my country and all the Baltic in their MF+ union. Well F+ it - your left out. :evil:

Jesus... vote YES people....

It's a good idea and it may yet work, provided that we can make all of the economies self-sustaining, at the the moment it's all a bit fragile...

does that mean the me and omg are the only people who voted yes?

sorry dude, though we normally agree with each other i voted no. for the reosens i give above. we really need to sort ourselfs out first. the nhs is still terrible. (mrsa with your tea vicar?)

We should unite, because alone, many countries are strugling. United, we could achieve your dream. Anyway, you are not against it, because you said that you will join it when everything is sorted out in your country. See? :cheers:

good point i should have voted "later" rather than "no"
:cheers:

Now 3 of us vote for YES. :cheers:

:Titan: :Titan: :Titan: are better than => :tomato:

Yeah, on thinking about it so should I... oh well....

hindsight - a beautiful thing in politics.

wouldn't that just spread out the misery over the other member states?

wouldn't that just spread out the misery over the other member states? [/b][/quote]
Well, youre so optimistic... :whistle:
No, it wouldnt, besides, the country which is strugling to keep it self alive, wont get any worse, so it shouldnt care about that. The strong countries will have a great comrade if they help it build its spirit and power.
Clear now?

One of the main achievements of the EU is that through cooperation it has kept it's territory war-free for 60 years. By agreeing on certain joint values (such as peace, prosperity, human rights etc.) the EU has kept it's stability. Even though the nations have kept their identities and local issues, the overall picture is quite good.
If economics where the only basis for cooperation between the EU=-countries, I'd vote against it, but since stuff like air pollution, human rights etc. don't stop at a nations border we HAVE to think broader. For this, the EU is a great institution.
Off course it's not all hunky-dory, the sheer amount of red tape involved in running the thing has made it in-efficient and sluggish. It's too bad my fellow countrymen have voted against the 'constitution' because it would have made things a little bit easier (not perfect, but a little bit better at least)...

Well it's a difficoult question (much more then it actually seems to be).

I voted yes on the real referendum - before Slovenia joined the union.

But the problem is this:
The Union is getting too big - way to big. Such a union might have worked with 3 or 4 more or less equaly big and equaly developed states (like the Benelux states, or the Baltic states). In such cases you could get an effective union. But like the EU is now... It still presents great economic oportuneties, but everything else - I doubt very much.
I still support the idea though - mainly because of the following logic:
As long as the countries are in the union there is a lesser chance of another great war breaking out.
This logic doesn't always apply, but as long as the countries are working on a way to resolve their differences in order to live together in a union - they won't really prepare for any hostilities among themselves (at least I hope).

As a historian I'm really scared that another huge war is about to happen (there are many indications for that). a unified Europe would reduce a chance of such a war happening on the European continent.

What war do you have in mind? Who against who? :blink:

Basically the equivalent of a civil war. I can personally see one coming too.

It will probably start off as minor actions between those who wanted an EU and those who didn't before starting off properly with the government funding its side of choice.

It will probably be more than slightly reminiscent of the early Weimar Republic days before kicking off on a Europe-wide problem.

You'd really think so? You should work for the dutch government :P

please elaborate

What strong countries? In case you haven't noticed the economy isn't all that great, and neither is employment (thanks in no small part to low-wage workers from the new european member states)

The EU isn't a charity, you know?

@ Spoonman

I reckon that eventually people will either swing one wasy or another on the views held by themselves and their communities and will either take it upon themselves to do something about it or join them and fight the opposite factions to be honest.

A bit like the American Civil War, but with different languages involved making surrenders harder to obtain/easier to ignore.

What strong countries? In case you haven't noticed the economy isn't all that great, and neither is employment (thanks in no small part to low-wage workers from the new european member states)

The EU isn't a charity, you know? [/b][/quote]
It's not that "oooh look, everything is great in EU, blah blah..."
It's just thoughts for a better world, man.
If you want war - you can get it in a few seconds.
I just wanted to mention that the protection against other countries in a possible war would be highly increased.
Not to flame, but dont spread pesimistic thoughts about everything.

I think joining the EU would be good for us (we're not in it yet), because many of laws that would be applied from EU, and the whole justice system are much better there, and would put an and to the corruption, and lesser the instabilities in my country, making it more favorable for investors, which would be good both for us and for the foreign(EU) investors...

Hmm this is sad but true. War comes about so quickly and yet peace evades us all... how poetic yet saddening.

I hate to burst your bubble of optimism but in politics things are rarely rose-coloured.

Unless we're talking about the equal rights for for the homosexual communities. But even there the intolerance level is extremely high (at least in my homo/xeno/intelecto... phobic country).

I think that it is in a lot of places and to be honest I think that people will never be really tolerant of them.

Whilst I agree that gay marriage etc. is good, people creating rules at workplaces to 'protect' them from anti-homosexuals can do more damage than good, as the homophobics feel left out and start to take their anger out on them.

There's no real answer to a lot of problems like this, the best one would be to have a world free of prejudice, but if I'm being honest I know that a world like that will never exist.

Luckily PrejudiceSucks :D

I hate to burst your bubble of optimism but in politics things are rarely rose-coloured. [/b][/quote]
Did I say anything like that? No.
But if countries just stand around complaining and keep being full of pesimistic thoughts, there will be nothing left. Sure, there may be disadvantages in many ways to some of us but in a probable war, waiting for a nuke over your head is not a good idea - is it? Trying to do SOMETHING is way better worthwhile than wasting time on nothing. You can hate EU if you want, I take unions more seriously. This may have sounded like propaganda, but I dont care, it for the sake of humanity... :whistle:

Oh so controversial...

I think that the EU in its present form is not some sort of confederation of the european nations. I t is a merely an institution whose goal is just to aid the GOVERMENTS of the member states to aplly the new-liberal polices. The PEOPLE have no real power over the European Council or the Commision. This is extremely obvious from the fact that most decisions are not made by the European Parliament but by the Commisionant counsil of the ministers. In fact this has been already made clear by the writers of the European Constitution, which in my opinion is as dead as mummy. I read in a newspaper that a man named Ziscar (d'Estene?) want to be written in the introduction of the European Constitution what Thucedides said about democracy.(In ancient greek demos means people and -cracy--->kratos means state. Some told Ziskar that it ha s nothing to do with the European Union, SINCE CITIZENS DO NOT VOTE. THE MEMBER-STATES VOTE INSTEAD.

NO I do not want this kind of Europe
NO we do not want a federation of geverments
NO the power should not be only in the hands of the goverment

However I say yes to Europe
YES to the Europe of the PEOPLES
YES to the Europe of social justice

I voted NO, an I have my reason! :ranting:

As you probably know by now, I live in Hungary. We joined EU a couple of years ago, and things are just getting worse for *us*. With us, I mean we, common people. <_<
I make it sense: (Please read THIS! PLEASE! IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME!)

Before we joined EU, Hungary had a hell of an economic. Now things are not berret, but far worse then ever! Our doctors, scientists and other important people are flowing abroad to work becouse they get 3x-4x more salary then here! <_< Our healthcare system is a failure, doctors are overworked and underpayed, the hospitals are understaffed and underfinanced. Our police is getting corrupt and the presence of underworld is increasing. I fear to go out to the streets at night! :crazy:

Most people think of Hungary as an ex-fashist, ex-communist, ex-socialist country with no proper government, and think of Hungarians as racists, fashists, gangsters and low-lifes! I read it all over the internet, see it on TV and hear it from foreign friends... <_<

There is no work! Unemployment is skyrocketing, companies closing down workplaces, the prizes going up, and there is no hope of improvement.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHERE IS HUNGARY? Can you point it on a map? Guess few of you can... :cry:

Anyway, If I ever finish the university, wich seems impossible becouse of high corruption and selfishness in the educational system, I wont have any work!

And all this becouse EU... We export gain, and import pain.... :cry:

I'M DOOMED! :cry:

Now tell me your opinion on this one... :unsure:

(I'm not spreading pessimist thoughts, but things are THIS bad here. Please don't blame me for this... :unsure: )

Cheer up, I can. :D I went there on holiday a couple of years ago and everybody seemed dead keen on joining the EU. But that was before Hungary actually DID join the EU, of course...

I can too - I went to a nifty festival (the Sziget festival) in Budapest a few years back, it was on an island in the middle of the Danube. I drank lots of Lipton iced tea, which just doesn't work in a British climate but is great in southern Europe. But that's a bit off topic.

I'm generally in favour of closer ties with Europe, and certainly joining the single currency if the conditions are right (agreeing with Gordon here for a change) but it's an incredibly complicated issue and I don't think I'm very well informed about it to be honest.

Hi neighbour :D
We went to Hungary's shopping malls a lot 5-6 years ago, but now we have cheaper prices here, that might have to do something with EU too...

Of course I know where Hungary is (just half an hour drive from where I'm sitting right now).

Look Slovenia joine the EU on the same day (1st of May last year). And we have many similar problems. It's got nothing to do with the EU. It's the legacy we all got from the old communist system. One of our humorists said it best:

We got rid of the old communist values instead of the converted old communists.

The main problem is this - in communism they wanted everything to apeare perfect for the workig class, so things like medical care were supported (Even if most of it didn't work like it should have). Now the system is basically the same and none of the thing work, but because they are there you need to pay for them!
Before they wanted people to be employed even if they had to build a useless factory that produced nothing but loss. Now they just can't do that any more, because they can't maintain the high costs of that.
Communism had many flaws, but the system all the ex-communist countries got now isn't much better. Many people expected the EU to be the solution to this - I guess many actually felt that they'd live off the charity - but that's not so.
EU didn't worsen the situation in Hungary - but because thre are many countries in such a bad situation the economical growth is put to a hold. It's a world wide phenomena. And becuase the once 'rich' EU countries are barely handeling their own problems at the moment the once 'poor' countries that just recently joined the EU are very disapointed with the union.

I agree your point Sebatianos... :unsure:

But the thing is, EU benefits more from all this than we are. All our experienced doctors, scientists, inventors and other important people going abroad to work. That IS BECAUSE EU, becouse the restriction to work abroad is no more since we joined. There are no visa requirements and such, so we are loosing all our great intellects. :unsure: They are taking the money abroad, their intellects and all. Our country IS falling apart, and nobody does NOTHING about it!
Now that's sad!
The other (somewhat greedy) EU countries refuse to lend us any money, an withot it, we are doomed! I know EU is not charity, but we are suffering here! IN THE VERY CENTER OF EUROPE!! HELLO! Knock, knock! Just try to see farther then your own wallet, please! :cry:

Yet the westerners see it the other way around, they think our cheap workforce is taking away their jobs, the problem with EU is that you can't have so many equal laws and measures for so many different and unequal countries...

The westerners are partly right. Our people are FORCED to work for almost free...
They need every coin they can get, and sorry for us, they get almost nothing for a hard days work here... Or not enough to live a livable life that is... :cry:
And the lowest western pay is higher than the average salary here, so our people go abroad to work becouse they get more money... hence the westerns see it, they are cheap workers according to their standards <_<

The worst thing of all, there are eastern countries from here as well, and for them WE ARE THE WESTERNS! :unsure: and this all goes in circles...

It's called the great circle of poverty...

what is a poverty? :blink:
Sorry but I really don't know... :unsure:

And what is your opinion about this whole thing?

I have no Idea what you are taling about! apparently everyone else does though, so can someone explain this?

about the economic issues, I believe that while EU isn't a charity joint it still makes a great leveler. and when you level things out turbulence is bound to be produced. I see those problems mentioned here every day (we've got higher prices, restictions on 'not approved' (but still effective) medicine from the East, mind leaks (aren't there regulations that limit immigration from new memebers in the first few years?), as well as incerdibly wasteful safety regulations), but something has to be done. When rich live next to the poor, crime strarts, and what is a robbery interpersonaly is called war when acrures between countries. we must alloso be a united front against troubles from outside. we are no longer the center of the world- US is getting bored and picks fights all over the world, terrorists thereaten everyone, and seeng who governs Russia, I won't be surprised if one morning they'll tell me in the news that it has turned into a dectotorship.
I believe that there's no question on wheter or not we need EU, but how we should improve it (most of the stuff I hear about the buerocracy there would be funny, if they weren't so sad)

Poverty is people being poor... I guess you could call it pooredom...
I stated my opinion about EU from my countries perspective now, a few pages back...

This reminds me of the Monty Pythons song:
I like Chineese, they come from a long way over seas,
they're cute, they're cudlly and they're ready to please...

I know what you're talking about Playbahnosh.
For the work I do here I'd get at least three times more if I was working in Germany. The costs, but the costs woudln't be three times higher!

But trust me, all of this will change.

If there is something I learned from analysing the situation in former Yugoslavia, it's that you can't have unity with such great economical differences.
Example:
State jobs like a border guard were payed equaly all through Yugoslavia. But a borderguard in Macedonia was among the richest people in a village he lived in, while a border guard in Slovenia was among the poorest in the village he lived in (remember both of them got an equal pay).
So if entire Europe is to have the same currency (€) then similar problems will happen.
You'll get great price difference for certain articles. Just compare the price of milk (It's cheaper for me to drive to Hungary to buy Slovene milk at your stores, then to go to a store just outside my door and buy Slovene milk). That's because prices are that much different in different EU countries (and that's because wages are so different).
Now as long as there are different currencies this isn't quite so obvious, but once we all have €s this will only worsen. Then every price should be comparable (but should you take the highest or the lowest price?). In every case some people will suffere because the price will raise or the pay will get lowered. So you'll have that case with the border guard.
For the same job people will have a completely different standard of living. This will cause migration to an even greater extend. Now add to this the competition of the underdeveloped asian/african countries that can lower prices, because people will work for small change - and what do you get?
It's either economical collapse - or bye-bye social right and privilages. This will lead to a situation similar to the one in which Marks wrote his communist manifesto. Also the extreme right wing polititions are getting stronger. All of this does remind me on the situation of the late 19th century. It doesn't look rosy.

@Sebatianos

Exactly!!!

There will be a disaster in the near future(say 10 years)! But no just a country wide disaster, nor just Europe wide... A world wide disaster awaits us. and this is not a doomsday prophecy! The facts talk... :unsure:
Like you said Sebatianos, the milk is cheaper in Hungary. The vegetables and the pork meat is cheaper here too, then in the neighboring countries. But look at the fuel prises!! :blink: There are horribly high fuel prizes here nowdays, and ALL of the neighbor countries have cheaper. And we have quite many of them... <_<

Let me state an example for you to see what am I talking about:

Let's say, we have an ant farm, divided into four sections. Each section has different properties, like food, water, air and light supply. now... :ph34r:
If we leave it like this, the ants will start to accept what they have, and make use of the resources. They will probably have conflicts on their own territory, but they will ignore the other sections for the time being. Every section become a self-supporting economy with all the pros and cons of their own.
But what if we lift out the dividers? :sneaky:
Just like the EU, borders are disappeared...
The ants will start to realize what the other sections have. That may be better than their own section's, so they move over there instead. :blink: The rich sections will lose their wealth due to migration, the poor sections will lose their quality workforce... local problems will become not just their own, but they will stack and become global problems. OMG
In time, they will start to fight for resources and territory, and a global chaos will occur... :Titan:

This will happen here as well... :cry:

In time, this world will burst out to a revolution... or, what I most fear, world war 3! I know this sounds redicoulos...
I'm not a doomsday prophet, and I don't want to say false things. These are all based upon surveys and real documents... I'm trying to stay optimistic, but it is very hard....

This is not a joke at all. Just get down and think this over for a second! You will realize that I'm not talking nonsenses... :unsure:

the odd weather isnt helping either. climate change is an effect and it is spoiling crops, and overfishing is leading to a definate reduction in how much fish a lot of supermarkets stock. i have heard fishermen tell me that if they dont stop fishing there will be no stock left in our seas.
nothing stimulates war like food shortages, its a cascading point thing, the effects are gradual at the moment but as climate change takes hold and gradually more natural resources are plundered we are going to reach a point where there is a shortfall on the amount of food produced. europe could be forwards about this. a european state has the potential power to put money into researching this. into developing hydroponic crop facilities and clever gm to help defend against the potentiol disastor we are heading towards. otherwise its going to break down into anarchistic comunes. as the resources gradually dwindle. europe is meant to be about more than trade.
we could be the biggest lobby in the world. and there are some good social ideals buried within the red tape.

on the contrary, if one part of an ant farm has a limited supply of everything, it might invest in solider ants in order to brake the restrictors and then take their rivals eggs for food. it happens in nature (I think it does, I got this from discovery, and they aren't excatly famous for their true facts), if you remove the border prematurely, they will offcourse have some initial fights over the terretory, but those will be mostly 'defensive' conflicts, then they will just go around the enemy terretory and calim what they need.

World war 3 (or whatever passes for it) might accure, but it will most likely involve arabs and americans, withe europe having the same role as south america had during WWII- arbitrarily chosing sides and recieving limited help from their new allies, so If we all choose the same side, there will be no war in europe, which is allready a good thing.

@a1s

What are you talking about? Are you totally sensless? War is NEVER a good thing, regardless wich side we are on, or which country we live in!!

What I said in my antfarm example, is all happening in real life in the animal world... As I said, I only talk facts... :ph34r:

@OMG

I see your point. You are right about the developments we need. But the thing is:
We already have them!

You see, we developed hydroponic crops that can surivie even the worst condidions. We have designed a car that works with water, instead of fuel. We have all the developments on paper... stucked away in some very secret government facility. :(

If you read the news last years, you should know that we developed a car that uses water disintegration to use hydrogen as fuel, and only exhausts steam...
(Not the one that needs hydrogen, this one works with distilled water)

And if you know about this one, you should know that the project leader and some scientists were killed in a mysterious accident, shortly after presenting their archivement to the public. The governments smeared the whole thing away, and declared the prototype to be too expensive and closed the whole thing down. :blink:

Why did they do this? Simple:

The oil barons, and the big oil companies can't let to lose their profit by leaving water fueled cars roam the streets. The oil industry is the biggest on earth, and those filty rich people who works in it, wont let their income got through the window. Even for humanity's sake <_<
They are not concerned about he climate, or the fact that all of earth oil deposits will empty in 20 years in the current rate of extraction. Or the fact that they are leading the world towards a world war for oil. And as a cause of all this, a world war in general! OMG

As you can see, this is only one example of the thousand, that in one can lead to war. If these stack... God knows what will happen... And all this just becouse the money and personal gain! This is disgusting...

What do you say tho this?

i hate it. they want to sell evry last drop of oil before they introduce fule cells to the masses. its hard to judge what to do. just cross our fingers? i voted for the greens in the last european election purly because they actually seemed to have there heads screwed on about what individual european seats can gain in terms of european policy change, they seemed to have there head screwed on about what they wanted to do in europe a lot more than the tories or labour. i actually watched the broadcasts. in a way it was digusting to see the men in power just ranting on meaninglessly about what they belive europe to be.

I voted for nobody. This is mainly becouse I don't think it will change anything to the better... :(
Yes OMG , it is really disgusting to see how the "big mans" tear each other apart for the money and all... They know how big danger are we in, but they say "We wont be here when the disaster breaks, so I enjoy my life and leave the suffering to the next generation..."

I think they shall die...

And what about all the EU standards for this?

fisrst of all, if war is not good, than no war is good, it's as simple as that. and as long as there's no actual fighting involved, I don't see why you can't choose to side with someone. troughout this century europe will remain a powerfull (allthough like I said not the most powerfull) organistion, noone will dare to mess with us If we all reamain together.

as for your example, what is your point? that it is just an ananlogy? well that's what we all see it as, the stuff that happens in nature is just a 'fun fact', and has nothing to do with the discussion.


about the oil barons plot. it all seems to fit, doesn't it? the scientists die, and their tracks are covered by the government, and the evil oligarchs? So now they're all trying to start a war to make the prices even higher? a geat theory. just afew questions, if I may? First of all, is this technology you speak of patented? if not, why don't you assemble one in your garage? even if it will need many expensive parts, you'll still save in the long run. So it's patented then. who holds the patent? or rather why? there's no point in simly having one. Now Imagine you actualy have such patent, and maybe you are even related to the oil companies, to make things harder. However we know they're not doing this out of their love for oil- the're doing it for the money, and money is something you can get if you sell an oil company for it's market price. and then you introduce your eco-mobile-thing to the market, it doesn't matter if it costs pennies to build, you can still sell it for as much as you want (within reason), and you get to put your competitors out of buisiness as a bonus. that is how the world works, because the 'oil barons' are not vilains or incarnates of ultimate evil, they're buisinessmen whose primary goal is to earn money, not cause wars (allthough, offcourse, they would if it meant high profits)

So, anyway, I don't deny there might be a war for oil, but I still think that we stand a better chance as Union, then as a group of unrelated countries with no common agenda.

the eu needs to be taking social and enviromental reforms straight to its heart. the reosen people are reacting against it, i think in part is its becuse it seems to be taking on some american ideas ie: long working hours. loads of small states. centralized beurocracy. we as the eu have a major advantage ie: our miltary budgets. we dont have the vast army that china and america has. so we have a lot of free money. some of it has been spent rejuveanating areas in england.
one problem i think with a freshly created superstate with a lesser military. we just kind of sit back in europe with our nuclear deterrent rather than building loads of surface missles? it means theres a big pot of money out there. compared to the more military countries. and corruption is always a major matter when you have an administration looking at big pots of money.

@ a1s the eco market thing is a dark slippary slope my freind. it was gearing towards silcon, but then the world silicon price went up. turbines are viable. we have a huge one
near me. and im not to far from a windfarm.
whenever someone opens a windfarm they get this small hardcore of people lobbying against it. a lot of the time these people are summer residents. i actually like them. i see it and i feel good. the worrying thing is this part time residents have had effects in some areas near me and prevented turbines. our goverment still rants on about nuke power though. about how its cheaper in the ultra-long-term which we all know is a lie. the goverment spends a lot a hell of a lot of the tax fund on subsidiesing these monsters. they never pay for themselfs.
the goverment spends a lot of money researching nuke 2. they dont spend a fraction of that on hydro eletrics an renewables.

i think with correct investment this *european pot* could help build us a far safer future. all i see though is administrators with yachts. you cant trust people with loads of money and power. and a united europe creates a very powerfull set of individuals.
viva le presidente?

I'll become an electrical engineer in few months, so i can say something about that...

Fuel cells should be the future IMHO, and they use hydrogen to make electricity causing no pollution, but nowaday hidrogen is produced largely by using oil!
So, maybe the cities could have a better air, but for the eart nothing change (perhaps it produce a bit more pollution due to the energetic loss of adding a transformation-step)
Someone is creating new processes for hidrogen production and we hope about that.
And there are so many kind of electricity generators that you can't imagine! For example, it's possible to produce electricity directly from muck!

Anyway you are right about the will of oil... and you have to now that there are much oil than how the producers say! Sometimes they say: "oil will finish within 40 years", but you can be sure that they are only kidding to rise the price...

Well i'm a litte :ot: , but EU could teach a different way in energy production to USA with our larger use of alternative-oil-energy...

yeah you can get quite an effeciant methane source from chicken poo. hydrogen can be extracted from water. takes a bit of electricity though. if they run out of oil thats going to lose us plastics as well. maybe it should be hoarded more. i always thought the eu was meant to be about something more than buisness. maybe this split in the eu is a good thing. it sorta seems to be about this being a constitution geared towards big buisness? i dont know. i hoped to see a few more enviromental ideals.

No, it's not that! I mean that it's possible have directly the electricity from muck! there are some microorganisms that live in muck ( :sick: ) and in their digestion produce iones, so you need only to put electrodes to have a voltage (like with lemons, but due to another principle)

Okey. My point of view.

I don't want Iceland to join the EU.
If we'd join, we'd loose our fish. Then anyone could come and fish it, and we'd loose what means the most to us. Most of our income comes from the sea. One of the biggest class in the working-life is sailors and people who work in fish (people that work on land, cleaning the fish, selling, etc).
We even sell it to all over the world, even to Japan.
If our sea would become a common property of Europe, we'd be screwed.

About low salaries in Eastern Europe..

Have you ever tried living in Western Europe? Tried living in Iceland?
Iceland is said one of the richest countries in the world.
Last summer, my average monthly salaries were the same as an adult in Serbia gets in one year.
But everything is MUCH more expensive here. 2 litres of coke cost 3€. How much does it cost for you? How much money do you get per month? During the winter I get average 240€. It's enough for me, but could be better.
EVERYTHING is up to 10x more expensive here than in many other countries. So it's just fair and reasonable that we get higher salaries. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to live.
We live on an island, so it's not easy for us to go buy gas, milk or whatever in some other country. The cheapest way out of the country is 240€ one way. Usually much more expensive.

My dad used to work in Germany, he did all the shopping there. Even groceries. That saved us a lot of money. YET Iceland is considered one of the richest countries ;)

Although this all doesn't have to do with the EU, i just wanted to say this. Things aren't great here either.

@a1s

If you are here to blow my opinions to pieces, you are doing a damn good job... :)

"and as long as there's no actual fighting involved..."
Dude, war IS about fighting! There is no war without bloodshed!

My example with ant farm is just an example. It is no "fun fact", but reality, and it has more things to with the discussion! Ants have the most sophisticated government and life system on earth, and it is a good example. Please think it through, and try to understand before you make hasty exclusions... That's all I ask...

You are gotta be kidding! Do you even read what you just posted? You expect me to build the water fueled car IN MY GARAGE, and knock the oil companies out of business? Are you completely out of your socks? How on earth could I do that? It requires parts that doesn't even exist now, and it'll cost thousand millons of cash to build a car like that. The only prototype is kept safe in some secret place, that the only thing I know. If you are not content with what I just worte, seek info on the internet, you can probaly find some. Think before you post, please... :cry:

I agree, oil barons are probably not incarnates of untimate evil, and they probably don't want to cause wars in the first place, but as you said their primary goal is to make money. The USA is thebiggest oil consumer on earth. And they are sneaky, and I mean the politicians.(sorry, I don't meant offense). Why do they doing war in the balkan? I tell you: oil! Why, do you think, they runned down Afganistan and Iraq? Not to fight terrorists, that's for sure... <_< They want to secure the remaining oil reserves there, to maintain the needed supply. And If the oil will
deplete(wich is closer than we think), they can sell it to other countries for astrological amounts of money. I don't blame them, this is mere business strategy. I don't say I've done this myself, but I tought of it, before this whole "terrorist war" started, and the real thing just made my theories true... Sadly... <_< The war is good for their economy too. They runned down the balkan countries becouse they are no match for the US Army, and more will come soon I fear... And all in the name of "terrorist threat". I don't want to hurt the feelings of US residents here, and if I did, I'm sorry... :unsure:

(sorry for the double post, bu it just does't fit in one. Please don't delete it... :unsure: )

@all

About chosing sides: Hungary has a hell of a history, but you probably learnt that in school. Our stupid politicians always choosed the wrong side, and thus we became the almost smallest country in europe with no economy or future. In the middle ages, Hungary was the most powerful country in central europe(um...it was the only country in central europe), we even had sea-shore!
I think you guys, from the neighbor countries will probably hate me for this and grudge me to death, but countries like Slovakia, Croatia, Romania and the likes were apparetny non-existent in that times... :unsure:
They were all part of Hungary, in it's glory!
But then came the chain of destruction... :( First, the Ottoman Empire(Turkish) took over our country for 200 years. Then came the Habsburgs and took it over from the Ottomans, making Hungary a part of their empire.

Then after a long time, came the first world war, and(why not? <_< ) Hungary was on the loosing side. Then came the WW2 and Hungary was AGAIN on the loosing side. :cry:
They ripped apart our country, and the rest was taken over by the Russians... :cry:
Before the Trianon peace-treaty, Slovakia doesn't even existed!(sorry If I offended somebody :unsure: )
The romanians lived in peace with the transylvanians, the slovaks lived in peace with the hungarian highlanders, the austrians lived in peace with the burgenlander hungarians...and so on!
But after the war, everybody wanted a piece of hungary, and sadly, they got it... :cry: The racist thoughs only started to spread AFTER all this. Now I hear romanians fighting hungarians in transylvania, croatians driving away hungarians in croatia and slovenia :cry: all becouse of the greedyness of politicians! They ripped apart a working and prosperous community in central europe, despite of the dictatorships through out history, with is not our fault... Now many people of
neighbor countries see the hungarians living there as mere parasites on THEIR country. There are organised factions, that seek the removal of hungarians, SEE THE IMAGE ATTACHED! I THINK SOME OF YOU SEEN IT ALREADY!
I don't blame any of the common people or any of the forum members becouse of this (I think of you as my friends now :) ), but the politicians...

I don't want to whine or moan about how the things stand, but you have to understand my part! Please think this over...

I understand things have changed to you and you want it all back.

Here's my part of the story:

My country (before the middle ages) had the territory from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The Zechpospolita was created from a pact over Lithuania and Poland. By then, it had become bigger and stronger.
Past that, the wars with other countries had made it lose most of its fairly owned land. Before WW1 Russia (asian country) had occupied all the Baltic states and more. We then became an independent country (1918). After WW1 we were again taken to the USSR. Till 1990, we were an enslaved country. 1990, we got independance again. 1991, Russian tanks surrounded Vilnius and tried to enslave us again. We stoped them.

Dont blame me for wanting some protection against things like this. Military alliance with EU give my country protection. I dont want to lose the place in the world.

P.S. There were no losing and no winning sides in WW2. There were only territoty-hungry and territory-protecting.

I dont blame any of you for making your own choises. This is my choise.

You obviously learned history the wrong way because Croatia was in alliance with Hungary until 1527. which is the whole middle ages... (Croatian - Hungarian monarchy)
And both Hungary and Austria predated our country for a loong time...
And Hungarians are treated equally as any minority here...
And about that picture you posted, what's that got to do with Hungary, AFAIK it's the sign of Chetniks, a group of Serbian people that have ideas of 'Great Serbia' and they're also mostly to be blamed for the war here...

2 Playbahnosh: I didn't explain quite well my vews on the future war, I guess you don't posses telepthy, so I should explain it better:
we are operating from the assumption that it will be a world war, right? so there will be a lot of participants (though only two or so sides). Europe is an important region, and we will proably have to say who we support (allthough we could somehow become neutral, which is even better), and as you know from history a suport in a war isn't only by troops, If you will sell your 'allies' food, supplies and equipment and refuse to do that for their enemies, that would be one of the ways to support them.

as of making a hydrogen cell car in a garage, that was exactly my point- it proably is too expensive, and costs hundreds of thousands to porduce (even en masse).

the value to the enviroment tho. there are a lot of alternatives to fossil fuels. fossil fuels are going to run out. so the nation with the best renewable energy resources wins that game, which has been the game scince we began this industrial cycle. european armys have driven there tanks on vegetable oil. i have knowen a chap who drove his rover on bio diesel. and thats just one of many reknewable resources. becuse it means we can horde our oil for plastics and the many other chemicals we produce from oil.

The great cost of hydrogen car is caused by the problem of stoking Hydrogen in liquid form, but in the future will not be! There are few metods to produce directly in the car the Hydrogen from water in not-so-expensive ways.

But to give you an example, maybe someone of you heard about Eolo, a city-car using compressed air instead of oil.
This could make better the air of our cities, i saw the prototypes and it's ready to be produced for masses... but they have big trouble in finding who want to give them the factories and the machines necessaries for the production... do you imagine why?

EU is a conspiracy between some fat a$$-hole dictators.

Soon the USA will join the EU because they want military aid.

I really don't think so. I think that if the USA wants military aid it will go to the UK or Australia, some of its allies for it.

There is no-one else in the EU who would even consider it unless pressed to do so.

The whole cost/wages issue is a hard one.

In the UK, we get paid about the same as those in Belgium or wherever else in western Europe, but food is a lot cheaper here.

On the continent, pretty much everything is more expensive (other than bread, but that's more to do with european history) than it is here.

Why?

It's because 100 years ago, we exploited countries thousands of miles from our won to gain massive wealth, which pays straight off to us.

Other reasons include the british climate, which is very good for farming.

We have also been a trading nation since the stone age, so we know how to get a good deal.



On the other hand, you have ex-communist countries such as Hungary which a lot of western governments view as 'the enemies to democracy', especially places like the USA.

That causes a lot of problems due to Hungary being lied to or being sold things at a higher price because of prejudice that has lived for 50 years and will probably be a fixed idea in the minds of a lot of US citizens for many years.

I find that a real shame, I would love for all countries to be treated as equals and traded to that way as well.

And for the whole renewable power issue, a lot of people get killed because the oil producing people usually have a lot of influence over the world due the the need for fuel. Until that changes, people will always be at their mercy.

Take the Iraq war. Bush + Cheney both make millions from oil and surprise, surprise, a country with plenty of it somehow gets invaded. It's the same with Afghanistan, where they're building an oil pipeline.

Sadly, there will always be cases like this. People don't yet fight over coal, but in 100 year's time... well.... we shall see.

That's not true at all.
People get higher salaries in the UK, but everything is much more expensive (especially food)

English people probably get paid more and as a result things cost more but i don't think things are that much more expensive. How much does a pint of milk and a loaf of bread cost is Belgium?

Slightly more, I went to the Ieper/Ypres area on a field trip and it was about 3 euros.

I've never bought a pint of milk.

Check a supermarket's website (one where you can buy your groceries on the internet).

well there is no such thing as a pint in belgium (except for ofcoarse a beer)
Where I buy it, it all comes in a package of six.

anyway, trust me on this, I know England is a lot more expensive in almost every field than Belgium.

EDIT: alright, a rough estimate would be 1,41 euros for a normal bag of bread and bottle of milk.

Well the prise differences in countries are obvious. In countries where the wages are higher, the costs are higher too. Wages - costs = GDP (or at least something like this. I'm no businessman)
The more the salary and the less the costs, the more comfortable life there will be.
But there are more countries around the world that this difference is almost zero. I mean the costs are just as high as the wages. Like in Hungary, people have almost no spared money becouse of this, but in the erm...western countries, they have more money to spare each month, regardless how much higher the costs and wages, the difference beetween them is higher. And that is what counts!

about the war: It is no matter why *the war* will finaly break off, be it oil, food or any resource. The thing is, that we will suffer from it, and it is not our fault.

I agree the point, that in the end, the country with the most developed eco-system wins it all. But the matter is that this country is also the USA. They are prepared for everything, wich for I admire them. They have their economic package ready in case the disaster strikes. They can build wind-farms, hyroponic gardens, solar plants and thermal plants in a jiffy. But before that, they'll use up all of their fossil resources and squeez every cent from them before "going green" :whistle: . It's worth it for them, I guess they are right in a wierd meaning... :unsure:

The most economically developed countries are the skandinavian countires up north. There are eco-cities in Finnland and Norway, and they are using the most percent of renewable power sources on earth nowdays. They can do it, they can work out the deficit...

yeah, and?

You mean adjusting to the index (adjusting wages to the inflation)

As for natural energy, I think a good alternative to nuclear power still has to be found.
belgium is going to construct another huge park of energy mills in the sea off the coast. This will cost a lot of money to place and will also make it more difficult for ships to reach harbors (contrary to the "government report" claiming otherwise) meanwhile all this will lead to 1000 families receiving energy from these energy mills... that's not all that much.

When the EU gave money to Spain so they could update their infrastructure and powersources they had to make a certain percentage of their powersuply dependant on either solar powered- or wind powered stations) Nowadays they Spanish countryside is ruined by gigantic energy mills, this also barricades further expansion into these areas.

Now you tell me Stroggy... :blink:

Sou you now saying that renewable power sources are actually BAD ?

And about my economics lament: read ith over again...

I didn't say that, I'm saying that current renewable powersource plants are... cumbersome, the installations cost too much, take up too much space and don't produce all that much. However I'm sure the technology will improve in the near future.

OK - a historian here to reply.

The Hungarians came to the Panonia plains only in 12th century (before that there was Velika Moravska).
No matter how you look at it you'll see one simple story repeating over and over again:
Almost every European country was much more powerful and had more glory at a certain point in the past then it has right now. This goes for Spain (that was once an Empire where the Sun never sets - from Filipines to Chille), Poland (that was the great military state that procetded the entire Europe from the barbarian Mongole hordes), Czechia (in the times of Otokar they almost took over the whole Habsburg theritory and they'd be the rules of central Europe for centuries to come)... and I could go on and on.
most countries have their glory moments from the past - but most countries should also forget them. Because the only thing you'd see is the raise of intolerance. The heart of the former Karantania (first Slovenian state - about 1300 years ago) is close to the Slovene Austrian border (on the Austrian side). Should Slovenia therefore attack Austria to claim it back?
Most countries that were newly created after the WW1 were cheated out of some parts of their theritory (some mistakes were repaired after WW2, some were made even greater). But people should not concentrate on what was - but on what si going to be.

If we'd look back in the history far enough, we see Hungary flooded by the Panonic sea (didn't mean to offend you, but it's just a part of the geological history of Hungary).

I didn't say that, I'm saying that current renewable powersource plants are... cumbersome, the installations cost too much, take up too much space and don't produce all that much. However I'm sure the technology will improve in the near future. [/b][/quote]
Do you want know an interesting story about renwable energies?

An engineer lead a study about hydroelectric power plants and he said that they cause more pollution than a conventional oil plant!! :blink:
This can be because all the vegetables covered by the water of the artificial lake made for the powerplant, start to die emitting CO2 and other gases...
Well, this is a bit exaggerate, but there is a little truth...

Anyway i'm quite qualified to say that actual renewable power sources can't substitute for fossil resources... maybe in the future...

Yeah, that's true. The dams make methane out of the dead things behind it, which is 21 times worse for the environment than CO2.

On the other hand, this only happens after a long time and this is slightly unbalanced.

Also, oil power plants use a non-renewable resource. That is the important difference.

That assesment of the environmental impact of dams is thought by many experts to be flawed - there were some odd figures and a fair amount of that methane would have been released ultimately anyway, but it does illustrate that more research is needed into a lot of these renewable sources before they can be introduced on a larger scale. Of course, if your government relies on funding from the giant oil companies and industry they're unlikely to want to fund such research...

What the hell are you talking about? :eeeeeh: That is ALL WRONG! I don't know where'd you get that, but thats not true! :not_ok:
Hungarians came to the Pannonia plains in 895!!! Before that, it was Attila the Hun's territory! In 900 the Hungarians take over Pannonia, and this is the beginning of the Hungarian conquests through out Europe. In 1000 St. Stephen, the first Hungarian king founded the Hungarian Kingdom ...etc! There! :angry:
Do you want to know what happaened to the Hungarians in the 12th century? Watch: in 1116 Könyves Kálmán dies(he was the third king of Hungrary). 1172-1196 is III. Béla's reign, he founded the hungarian council and thing like that...

I hope thats enough for a history lesson... Trust me, I'm Hungarian and I know our history... :ok:

I agree with you on the rest :ok:

Dude I'm telling you in 12th century Croatia and Hungary where in the same country (Croato Hungarian Monarchy), but it's obvious you don't learn this in school since Hungary was represing Croatia, trying to make it part of Hungary durin those 8 long centuries in the same countries...(later in Habsburg Monarchy)...

I post if for you again, if you didn't read it properly...

He said that Hungarians were NOT EVEN HERE in the 12th century wich is WRONG.
Tulac, I know that Croatia was part of Hungary in those times until the f :whistle: ing Habsburgs taken over... <_<

What's wrong with you people? :blink: Please read before you post things. Please! :cry:

Read my posts!!!
Croatia wasn't a part of Hungary, we were allies united under the same king, that's what I'm proving the whole time...

GRRRR :ranting:

Part of each other, allies, same king... I'TS THE SAME FOR GODS SAKE!!!
Please don't annoy me farther! We are talking about the same thing, that's what I'm talking about... <_<

That's settled, I dont want to argue with nobody, I'm already in a f :whistle: ing bad mood... :(

Just...just leave it okay?

Get back on topic please, before you start a flame war. Im not having one of them.
and even if you do want to argue peacefully, get rid of the words you were using, Playbahnosh.

It's not the same, it's a difference between freedom and oppression, but that's for another topic...

Now on subject of EU, what do you people think about letting Turkey join it?

They have to sort out the trouble around human rights abuses and the hyper-inflated currency, after that's been dealt with (which is easier said than done) I see no reason why not.

Well from what I've heard many people think that they are not a natural part of Europe, that then Marroco can aswell be accepted, but then again that's more of an ethical than an economycal issue...

I think EU shoul first solve the internal probles before accepting new countrys...
Almost all the EU countries have problems now, and accepting new ones to join will just multiply them...
But they all should be accepted by the way... If we can solve things together, there is no limit on the parttaking... :D

I'm opposed to it for the aforementioned reasons.

Back to the fossil fuel thing...

The prise of benzin gone up again!!! Now all the neighbor coutries have cheaper fuel then we are...

I think we wont last for long twith this....

This may not sound very friendly but one of the reasons I do support (a good) renewable fuelsources is because a shift in the importance of fossil fuels would weaken the Arab world's political playingcard (namely OPEC), perhaps that would bring some much needed change to countries where a few rich Oilsheikhs exploit an impoverished population.

Yes but it would bring imbalance of power throughout the world, new countries would become superpowers, those that have some other resources that wil be key in the future...

I know this might sound like a far fetched statement, but Volvo developed a hybrid car (similar to the ones made today in Japan) already in the late 70's. But some sheik bought the right to the invention (for tons of money), because the Arab world feared that Oil would loose its value.

If that's true, then it's very well possible we already do have alternatives, but aren't allowed to use them for the political reasons.

But seriously - what alternative source would you suggest? The only real substitude for Oil would be electricity that's not produced by fossil fuels (that's either hydro river/sea or nuclear plant - produces much more energy). Unless they finally made that little cold fusion reactor...

Not really, the key idea of renewable powersources is that you won't need any specific resources to produce it, so anybody can produce it.

Nuclear Power would be great if we could dispose of the waste afterwards, but as it is it's a load of crap.

Renewable energy is a good idea as well, but it takes time to learn how it works and use it efficiently.

That's why people use fossil fuels = They have a very high amount of energy in a tiny package. It's also easy to extract.

its just we dont have unlimited supplies of it.

True, but what we have left is useful.

but what happens when we run out? 2055, no more coal. what then? world war 3 over oil and gas? damn, I had to be the generation that looses coal..

I still wonder why nobody has come up with a way to make synthetic fossil fuels.
I mean other minerals (that came into existance in pretty much the same procces as oil) have been synthesized.

Then again my knowledge on the subject is very, very... rudimentary.

they probably can do it, in some underground US military research base in the middle of Nevada costing $100,000 per kg of coal.

Well I'm only 15, so gas, oil and coal are probably going to all be lost by the time I die.

Im 13, so.. same problem! goddamn overuse..

I think that we should just burn it all now so that we have to get renewable energy sharpish.

I SUPPORT YOU! WE SHALL BURN ALL FOSSIL FUELS! less car emmisions too...

apart from at the period when we burn them...

why not use them all to power and enormous rocket onto Mars?

That's what you think. Contray to popular belief, there is still lotsof oil in the the world, it's just that lots of it is in war-torn nations in Africa. Also, Canada is the country with the world's largest oil reserve, with several trillion barrels in the land. the only problem is that it's in the form of thick tar that is very hard to extract and crack to make useful so it is not economically viable to do so right now, it should be in the future. America also has lots of oil, but they're storing it up so they can sell it for a hugely inflated price in the future, so they'll find themsleves in the same position Saudi Arabia is now.

I like the idea even better! and then we can burn anything left on mars, to create a greenhouse atmosphere, to heat it up, then we get a whole new planet.. and WAHEY!

Indeed, we could use the European Space Agency to do it!

well duh, of course. who wants NASA? they're too bush-supporting.

But the point is the loss of power in some countries of the world, I guess I should've expressed myself differetnly, the balance of power that is today would be disrupted...

Ehm... or not...

But the ESA could launch the rockets for our glory.

That's not that ESA though...

Don't use the word ESA here! THAT wrecked havoc on Abandonia, ruining almost all of the great downloads... <_<
I'm still having nightmares about clicking on the "get it!" link, and seeing a huge popup blowing in my face with a big ESA logo saying "HAHA! I GOT YOU THERE SUKER! NO FREE DOWNLOADING FOR YOU!!! MUWHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!" :crazy:

:D

I think we should get all of our fuel and explosives to one side of your globe, make a huge GIGANTIC thruster, and jetison Earth to another solar system, where there are alien planets with never ending quantities of fossil fuel... :D
We take the fuel to our planet, and geather the smoke. then, If an alien invasion stuck, we can gas the entire planet(or theirs :D )....

he's on about the European Space Agency.

ESA - European Space Agency
The ESA - THE ESA :D
And renewable energy wouldn't be able to power up the whole world, with todays technology, it would destroy nature even more...

Come on people!!! Where is your sense of humour?? :blink:

Oh, well, I might as well never write nothing houmouros in the future becouse you don't get it <_<

I know the ESA is ESA and the ESA is the ESA, jeeez... :/
I know all tha Tulac... it comes again... :unsure:

We will return to use wood, that's renewable! But in 2055 we'll have the right renewable energy tecnology, for sure!
With no energy, what could they sell us?

And that is such a terrible thing?

Well it would lead to wars and such, and wars are terrible...

@Playbahnosh: I did get your joke I was only explaining this to people who open ESA threads, and they're about THE esa...(it's really stupid I know)

Oh boy, we are going off topic a little...

Lets get back to the EU matters, may I ask...

Tulac, you think too much and explain too much. I KNOW what I wrote! No need to blow all my opinions to pieces! :D
Please don't overexplain things, just to say something... :)

Wait, to those who are even considering wood, it makes places into deserts when too much of it is chopped down.

It also takes away the habitats of many animals.

If we got pine from the russian forests it might be feasible, as it grows back very quickly, but not from places like the Black Forest.

Everything leads to wars these days.
Saying no to the EU constitution leads to wars, saying yes to the EU constitution leads to wars.
Having fossil fuels as a main energy source leads to wars, having renewable energy sources would change the (so-called) world balance and leads to wars.

let us face the truth: war, much like cancer, is caused by pretty much anything these days.

There are towns in Norway (or in Sweden...) that use exclusively wood and and they are not creating a desert... with a right planning of when chop and when plant, this is a good sistem.
The good think is that wood release less CO2 than the large amount of O2 it produced... :max:

Apart from at night

Wood grows back that's for sure, but the ancient rainforrests isn't... :(

which is why we plant artificial pine forests for harvesting.

Which get destroyed by different kinds of insects, because there's only one type of trees...

Ok boyz... we are going a little :ot: don't you think?

I'd like you tell me something about this:
most of you speaked about economical, political, social and historical problems of the union, but forgetting all these problems, do you think that all we europeans could be united? In future will an "european brotherhood" be possible? or we can only dislike eachothers?

Hmm I don't really know. There has been a lot of hatred in the past and I think that people will be prejudiced against other countries forever, but it would be nice if we could all help each other.

With at least 2000 years of war as a legacy, I wouldn't bet on it.

Not just these days.

Look - I'm a pacifist, but I know very well that peace is just a temporary state. As long as people posses weapons they will use them on each other. And no one is willing to completey disarm himself, because that would mean one would become an easy target.
The only thing we have achieved through civilization so far is, that not every individual needs to be armed, because there are institutions that should keep you safe.
But with so and so many weapons they problem is - they need to be used. It's a horrid idea, but if you spen certain amounts of money to arm a country you must prove that it's not money spent in vain.
If you admit your weapons are not strong or useful enough - why did you buy them and spend the money?
If you proclaim they are strong enough - why don't you use them when things get really bad?
If you say you won't use them - so why have them in the first place if you won't use them?
If you say you'll only use them for defence - well as soon as the life standart starts to fall the people feel like under an attack. How many times did I hear that foregners are taking over... that we'll get overrun by them... that others are trying to cheat us out of what's ours because we aren't determened enough...

When the situation is bad enough - people are prepared to go to war (and war preperations also mean an increase in the economy). And since the government is just a representative of the people it has to do what the poeple want it to do. There's no "let's go to war" referendum, but there were (and certainly are) situations where at least 70% of people support a country going to war.

So the big picture is this:
Living the everyday life.
Being unable to cope with everyday problems.
Problems get bigger.
People get agressive.
People go to war.
The winner enjoys the spoils of war and feels the extasy of victory.
The looser needs to accept the situation, because of the winner forces him to.
After some time both start to resume normal life.
Because of the reconstruction the economical situation is tolerable - because of the humbling lesson of the war both are less demanding and satisfied.
Few generations later (2-3 at the most) the euphory is gone and the complaints start again.
People are living the everyday life with everyday problems.
People can't cope with those problems again and we're back to the starting point.

So every few generations there needs to be a war. It's a simple psychological, sociological and historical truth (but most don't want to see it).

Oh no. It seems that 25 people voted yes while only 15 (including me) voited no. I can't believe some people are so stupid!

So basically you're calling everyone who voted yes stupid? Before calling someone stupid you should at least explain your reasons, either you end up being - stupid.
(I didn't vote cause my country isn't in EU)

I wonder why we are stupid. :blink:
Does a vote really indicate stupidity? :eeeeeh:

Hey guys, don't start ANOTHER flame war okay? We had one too many already... <_<

Sebatianos has many good points there, but the thing is, that there are no answers for those quuestions just yet...

How can we cope with war, when the weapons industry is still rising? And this is only one of the man... :unsure:

I guess it's in our nature to kill each other...

Well - humans are a part of the nature (no matter how much they strugle). And in nature there is always balance.

If there is too much prey a strong predator starts populating the area and it has a lot of offspring (lots of food, so the offspring survives). The predators eat the prey and run out of food, so they start fighting each other until only the strongest survive.
Lower number of predators - they can't catch so much prey - so the prey starts reproducing.

The only problem is, that apart from viruses and bacteriae humans have no natural enemys left - no predators.
So on one hand more and more people die of desieses (which are getting more and more potent) ont he other hand people kill each other off. Thus the natural balance is getting restored. The third factor is contraception - this actually means that people have a common desire not to produce too much offspring.

Were much more "natural" as we'd like to admit. But sinse we can explain our behaviour and not just act acording to the instincts we think we're stronger then our own nature (no way). Just because you know why you do something doesn't mean you're able (or even willing) to stop doing it!

The question is if we can evolve from that, but that's for another topic...

Don't worry, the two votes that counted ended up in a no (actually a "non" and a "nee")
...Oh and don't call people stupid based on who or what they vote for... it reminds me too much of the European attitude towards the US when Bush got reelected.

Well this topic got quite off - but it only got more and more interesting (from an almost newspaper poll - do you want EU? - through fossil fuel, right to the depth of the human society and it's capability to prevent war).

We might be :ot: , but it's really an interesting one - so maybe if someone can make a split topic... I guess we have at least three very interesting thing to talk about here (probably more).

Or this could be the political discussion topic or something?

I kind of liked how this topic is twisting and turning, it is better than droning on about one specific subject (something very common in debates)

This whole human nature thing is an interesting point. I think that even if you took away the world's weapons, people would still fight due to human nature.

Put it this way -

One of your friends has just taken something you hold dear, maybe as a joke, maybe just to be unkind.
You do not think of this as funny, so you try to calm the situation down with diplomacy.
Your friend acts in an inappropriate manner and no amount of talking will solve the problem.
What do you do?

You use violence, something that everyone understands. It's that simple.

Why did you want that object/person back? Because they had it. You wanted it because of human nature.

That simple.

War will always continue as long as the people in power have human instincts and feelings. Their power to influence people will make us fight, even with no weapons.

Hence war is just an element of human life.

It has always bothered me that the UN-research into violence and war stated violence is not preencoded into the human mind (and thus violence is something one learns from the world around him), I always found this to be something typically for them to say... I also think it is wrong. When you take a toy from a baby that baby will usually begin to cry. Why? Because it is too young to fight for itself and wants its parent (usually the mother) to fight for him.

I know no research will ever say violence is part of human nature since that would be a fascist thing to say (according to the researchers) This is not really true either since Fascism-darwinism expanded further on this theory by saying that, if violence is part of human nature, violence is a legitamate way to achieve goals.

I disagree with that, too. The human mind is a conflict between the inborn feelings of violence and once conscience. The real question is: is conscience something automatically part of human nature, or does it need to be taught (or perhaps trained) in order to become a psychological equivalent to violence.
Sadly the only 'studies' into these questions were preformed by fascists and the outcome was thus, much like the UN-researches, predetermined. We all know the findings of the fascists (moreover the nazis), Goebbels clearly stated that, while violence is inherent to human nature, conscience is soemthing invented by religions (primarily Judaism) in order to weaken the human spirit and to control them.

Eventually one could simply go back to Freud's findings and say both are engrained in the human mind: The Über-Ich fighting the Es inside the Ich.

Yes. It's very unfortunate such research is predetermened.

Every living creature with the will to survie has violent impulses in its self (if for no other purpose then for self preervation).
But as things get more complex so does the thoughts and feelings. Human society developed by the stronger (more agressive) members starting to lead hunting formations and ordering other members (also by taking the best females - usually).
The most violent member of a horde was (unless there was a really skilled and cunning hunter amnog them) the most potent hunter. Also no one dared oppose him - he was too strong, so he was the alpha male.
So the human society was born out of violence (in a way).

Today people don't really fight to survive (at least not in the developed countries). But they do fight to improve their suroundings - to survive with more luxuries.
Most people would be able to survive in a box in some back alley (at least for some time). But still people will be prepared to kill in order to protect their possesion (even if not needed to stay alive).

Would you really die without the TV, VCR and the Hi-Fi is a robber took it? You wouldn't die, but at that point you were robbed - would you not point a gun at the robber (if you had one)? It wouldn't take much more to fire it...

That's right! I'm very proud to have started this topic :D

And I'm happy that you all are avoiding to start flaming discussions!

I've only a thing to say to Jacek Dobrzyniecki: if you call stupid everything you can't understand, there are no problems for me, call me stupid :wacko:

i voted opn europein live in new zealand duh

That's right! I'm very proud to have started this topic :D

And I'm happy that you all are avoiding to start flaming discussions!

I've only a thing to say to Jacek Dobrzyniecki: if you call stupid everything you can't understand, there are no problems for me, call me stupid :wacko: [/b][/quote]
Yeah, my peace-keeping mission is going well I guess :angel:

About war: there will always be wars. It is not just human nature, it is nature itself. Not just humans fight, all lifeforms fight. For food, for self defence, for greed, anything...
It is in our DNA, we can't do much about it. It probably has something to do with biological overpopulation control... :blink:

your right playbanosh

Well we lost many things that once were our instincts(like predicting the weather and earthquakes), maybe we'll loose killers instinct one day too...

Naah, that's impossible. We use our fighting instinct every day, so it shall develop not diminish, as things stand :D

We'll have to find more suptile ways of fighting in future, thrugh games maybe?
Or this is how I think of it, there will be robots who will be controled much like we control FPS games today, they will be massively controlled by a person that was good in a TBS, they are breeding us I tell you :D

yeah tulac mabey

Yeah, true! Someday war will be a giant team deathmatch! :D
Like in Unreal 2004 :)
That yould be possibly true in the future...
But what will we do against overpopulation then? :huh:
(Argh my headache is getting worse, I can't type sorry)

if war was a death match win the world wars i would not exict my grandpa was in the world war and did not have childern when he entered

Ther will be no overpopulatin, except if our lifespan spans dramatically, because many developed countriesare allready having greater mortality than natality, and this is spreadinf, it is estimated that by year 2070 population will reach it's peek, and then start to fall down slowly, ofcourse who know what will happenuntil then...

We are talking about the wars that might yet come.
But I doubt very much that such wars would become reality. Because the main objectives in such a war would be the fascileties to produce battle gear. And there people would work (unless there would be no people at all).

This reminds me of a sci-fi story (really short one I read a long time ago). It went something like this:

"Tell us again about the last war father."
"No children. It was too dreadfull."
"Please father."
"Very well."
'We knew the war was inevadable. We put all our trust in our secret weapon. It was so potent it would easily turn the tide of war, but was not tested yet. We were afraid to unleash such power. But we had no choice. We had to use it, if we were to win the last war. To win the war of wars and bring eternal peace to all teh man-kind. And we won. The enemy bowed before our might and admited defeet.'
"Show us the weapon again father."
And the father took the bow and arrow off the wall and showed it to his children.

OK - this is a shortened version of the short story, but I guess you see the point.

Not a very imaginative story, its just turning Einstein's quote into a (really) short story.