Please supply a source for this rather silly claim. Especially since the UN rankings consistently places Northern European countries on top the lists for life expectancy, health, quality of life etc.
Your claim is even more silly when you consider the fact that you claim your figures include "Europe" vs the US. There is no such thing as "Europe" in terms of cancer survival rates! There are 50 countries, with 50 different health care systems! You can't even mathematically compare them since they are based upon different methods, societies, economies etc.
The Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch and British are usually ranked the best countries to live in [the world] for a number of reasons [by the UN, OECD etc].
You on the other are just making up numbers to please your sense of nationalist pride. "Go USA!", haha.
I should have qualified what I meant by "on the scale of the US".
I have not heard of tent cities in Ireland? Or lack of public health care available to Greeks and Irish citizens? Or how major national champions collapsed (GM, Chrysler, major banks). Or the incredible housing collapse that lead to literally millions of homes being abandoned or sold at auction.
The incredible scenes from the US of real human suffering, poverty, destitution and homelessness have not been repeated in Europe as far as I can tell?
You have a very simplistic view of things, and you sound like a blind nationalist.
Your "faith" in people's accountability is somewhat blemished by all the recent American scandals from politics to business. Where was that famous American sense of personal responsibility? Did the lack of regulation really work for the people when the banks collapsed? I think not.
My government doesn't tell me anything in particular, I live my life as I want to, and I probably have exactly the same freedoms as you. I don't have a gun, but if I want one I can get one. I wouldn't carry it around, but that's the law in several US states as well.
I live my life under the motto "freedom with responsibility" (in my native language it's more detailed). As long as I don't hurt anyone, I'm free to what I like. Does that meet your "approval"?
It amuses me that you Americans in general feel so "superior" that have your "freedom" from government regulation when you in fact don't! In my opinion, and that of my American friends, your society is far more regulated and controlled by laws and authorities.
I believe my countrymen and I have far *stronger* senses of personal accountability and judgment than the average American. Your cries of "freedom" are often at the expense of others!
My country is a strict, historically Lutheran, society where these values have been thoroughly ingrained in us as a people from the first days of my Viking nation.
While we take our responsibilities serious on a personal level, it is even more so as a society. We take care of our own, especially the weak and those without the ability to take care of themselves.
Even more so in cases where some might feel pressured to ignore one of the central tenants of our legal system; the precautionary principle. The common safety is surely more important than the losses of the few!
We have a healthy skepticism of people employed by the state, but they don't set the policies! As in any nation the elected representatives do that! However we do appreciate the fact that people employed to work for the people have a sense of obligation, duty and responsibility. They act in our best interest, not at the whim of businesses!
We have a different sense of unity, and nationhood, than you do, we have been one people since ancient times, and have a strong feeling of common, shared responsibility and trust. We trust each other, that we will do our best to help each other, to act together out of common interest.
Your silly and outrageously absurd questions are not "evidence" of any problem with my society, they are merely figments of your politically diseased imagination. What makes you think your cereal is any less regulated than mine? I would rather worry about your health than mine, at least here we know the government food inspection works as a bulwark *against* business pressure over safety regulations. Have you seen the documentary "Food, Inc."?
While my government certainly won't tie my shoes, they will provide top of the line services for people that need them. And they do *make sure* that everyone, everyone, checks their car for serious errors each year. While it might no be necessary to push everyone, it's for the few that do, and our common good. The same rules apply to everyone, for the benefit of all.
And while they don't "announce" bans on working during dangerous conditions those are the exact situations where employers are required to act in accordance with their personal sense of duty and the law to protect their employees, the public and their property.
The government doesn't have to tell people to act, they don't have to ban anything, they merely expect people to act in accordance with "pater familias"-standard. What would a normal, sensible and conscionable citizen do in a case such as this. A central question in our tort legislation.
Your distrust of your government, its employees, capabilities, intent and elected representatives is so crucial to your American identity that is completely a
That's the problem, I'm not from a major European country. I'm Norwegian. Norway took the correct measures to stave off any negative effects (according to the OECD). Jobs, banks and housing markets remained stable. We have 2.6% unemployment.
While there might be more to the story than simply having regulated our banking industry we did very well during this recession. It doesn't hurt that we're the world's 3rd largest exporter of oil, or that we have no national debt, and put our oil revenue in a huge sovereign fund invested abroad. We base our welfare state on taxes, not on oil revenue.
Part of the reason our banks were already regulated was the fact that during the 1980s Norway had its own bank crisis and housing market crash. The government had to take control of the collapsed banks and rebuild them. Since then our banks have been strictly regulated and the housing market stable.
The UK was badly hit by the recession obviously, but Germany has been out of recession for a long time now. Germany is the major nation in Europe. I believe France technically came out of recession too. Spain, Portugal and Greece are not large countries. I doubt you can find a European country that experienced the recession on the scale of the US.
the maintenance of airplanes is the airline's business, not governments.
Sorry, but you're wrong, the governments have the responsibility to ensure their citizens are safe. Keeping airlines in check and making sure they value safety above profits is their task.
Airlines can't simply be trusted to do this by themselves, even if they have the best maintenance routines and model employees [like any business] their decisions will be influenced by shareholders and upper management. Considering the difficult economic conditions for airlines I wouldn't put it past some of them.
If you're American you might have a different view on this, but as a European I trust my government over any business. We [the people] want our representatives to control this and determine when it's safe or not. We like regulations in Europe, it keeps companies in check. The banks in my country were regulated and we avoided the recession that hit the US.
The EU maintains a long list of blacklisted airlines, if the airlines don't hold adequate maintenance standards they don't get to enter European air space. There's obviously a need for some oversight.
The Americans/Australians/South Africans are no more British than you are Scandinavian just because you were a colony.
Scandinavia consists of the three Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
I know you Finns like to think you are Scandinavians, but we Scandinavians don't think of you as such - and that's the only opinion that matters.
German, British or general European ignorance of who is what does not make you any more Scandinavian. You're Nordic, get over it.
I tend to think you have more in common with your Russian neighbors than us, not the Finns in present day Russian territory, but the real Russians. Or perhaps more like our Sami friends in some ways.
Either way you're not ethnically, linguistically or historically (see: Vikings/Kalmar union) related to us Scandinavians. You're still very nice people, but you're not part of our family. Just our extended "family" of Nordic friends.
"Hello, I'm a lawyer, I need these documents delivered to my client in person."
On a related note this is Europe, we're mostly socialists here, the "free market" is not that interesting to us. We're more interested in social services, and the postal service is not a profitable operation in most countries. It's a basic service required and paid for by the government. Reducing the cost, without reducing the service level is more important.
You're missing the point, the Finns want to use it by default for everyone. That is a whole lot more innovative than offering it as an optional service.
It would reduce the frequency of physical postal delivery, saving on delivery costs while maintaining service levels.
We all know how to scan and email documents, the Postal services of the world aren't blind. Lots of countries offer this as a service, it just doesn'treduce the cost structure of the Postal service.
That's very innovative of Portugal, but the Finns want to use it by default. That's very different from just offering it as an optional service. The Finns want everyone to use it.
It's actually very logical that the postal services of the world would want to stop wasting time and money on delivering mere documents. It's the box/parcel/package delivery that is profitable and important today.
You're missing the point, this is meant to replace postal delivery to all consumers and corporate customers.
That's very different from your "outsourcing" scenario which I doubt very many buy into. This would be the standard service for all, not some extra service you buy.
We have the same law(s) in all of Scandinavia (as well as non-Scandinavian Finland).
It extends to e-mail as well, you are not allowed to spam consumers by phone, SMS, email or mailunless you already have a direct relationship with them (i.e. they're already customers).
My government provides a website where you can register your reservation against any form of commercial solicitation. It does however not include charities. All businesses have to update their registers every three months to filter out any new reservations, and it's *their* responsibility to do so. If they break the law there are severe penalties available to the relevant authorities.
The EU is not a federal government for a number of reasons and it's heavily debated what to call it. A supranational union is the common term used to describe the unique nature of the EU, it lies somewhere between a confederation that is an association of States and a federation. Between confederalism which recognizes the complete independence of States in an association and federalism which seeks to fuse them in a super-state.
What clearly distinguishes the US from the EU is in matters of foreign affairs. The EU only recently agreed to a create a "foreign affairs minister", in an attempt to form a unified front within the EU. However each country still runs their own foreign affairs how they like, power lies with national governments. This is not the case for American states.
While American states plead with the federal government for aid, the EU kindly asks for funds to operate from European national governments. There is no European federal tax because they have no such right.
Another example would be in foreign representation, citizens of the U.S.A. go to their embassy abroad, European citizens go each to their own embassy [where available]. There is no "European" citizenship, just like there is no European identity [only national, cultural lines]. Don't confuse this with the diversity you have in your states, we are talking about whole nations of single ethnic group(s), languages, cultures and religions. Europeans are first and foremost their own nationality, we don't see "European" as in any way descriptive of who we are, only as a loose generalization.
I'm sorry but your states ceased being sovereign states a long, long time ago legally speaking. And while American history is not my specialty I do know there have been three basic accounts of sovereignty in America. The Lincolnian notion that the Union was antecedent to the states; the Hamiltonian notion that adoption of the Constitution operated a transfer of sovereignty to the federal government; and the "Calhounite" notion that the states remain sovereign. So while Lincoln spoke of returning to "his" nation (i.e. state) after the war it is no longer valid.
Why join? Iceland is already covered by the same acts for all intents and purposes through the EFTA and the EEA-agreement between EFTA and the EU.
The browser election update from Microsoft is even called the European Economic Area (EEA) update:)
As a Norwegian I think of Iceland as family, and we would rather help Iceland in any way we can than see it fall to the EU. Like my own nation your country was only recently freed from a neighboring colonial power, stay independent, Iceland, stay free.
The treaty is not the central issue here, it is far more complicated than that.
First of all you have to be a lawyer, understand European legal systems (not Anglo-American "Common Law") and know EU law to really discuss this. I happen to qualify:)
Even if the EU wanted to impose a three strike law it would have to overcome a number of obstacles. I believe it could be argued that it would be in conflict with the constitutions of several of the EU member nations. You see as the EU is NOT a federal government, the individual nations still have sovereignty and national constitutions.
More interestingly the European Convention on Human Rights, a central treaty to *ALL* European countries both inside and outside the EU, spell out fundamental rights that neither the EU or individual nations can ignore.
The question has already been raised if such legislation as the proposed "three strikes" law would be in conflict with several fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, access to information and possibly other rights from enterprise to education.
In many European nations the courts have deliberated and expanded what we consider basic and necessary to function in a modern society. A law that denies people such a "basic" right to communicate, educate, trade/work and participate in public discussions would probably be in conflict with the ECHR [to be determined by the *non-EU*European Court of Human Rights]
Try reading it "FAst Search & Transfer"...
You see? You *do* have selective dyslexia! Hehe.
If you read the link you would see that the company was formally called "Fast Search & Transfer", and that it's a recursive acronym.
I added a serious comment with relevant information about the cultural differences between the US and Europe, and you added an outrageously stupid reference to Nazis! You, sir, are an idiot.
Europeans in general don't view their government with hostility. That's a fact. So this law is viewed in a different light here, that might be news to some people in the USA, right?
While your own worthless post was neither factual or relevant. It says nothing about the sentiments that exist here in many European countries (not all).
The German people never had a say in WWI, the country was ruled by the Kaiser! And the second time you are referring to involved a coup and conspiracy! The Reichstag fire was not an accident in case you have forgotten.
And the German people didn't trust their government, it was in fact the Nazi Party organzation that was the new power structure. Just details, but you don't care as long as you can spout your anti-Government propaganda, right?
Just in case you haven't noticed, your country is filled with fanatical facists with strong nationalist sentiments. Go America, USA, USA, USA! Flags hanging from every building. Any opposition is "unamerican", haha.
Your notion of "liberty" didn't get you involved in the WWII until the Japanese attacked you! You stood by on the sidelines while Germany rolled over Europe! Cowards and credit stealers! The British resisted alone and PAID the US for every piece of equipment the following sixty years!
Your people are totally ignorant of the major and decisive contribution the Russians made. It was Russians that saved my Western European country.
The Russians did far, far more to save Europe from the Nazis than the Americans. And I don't care if they wanted Europe for themselves, both Empires wanted to control Europe for their own benefit.
And just in case you throw out that stupid comment about "saving" us from speaking German today; we all learn German in school anyway. And, yes, even Russian. So, no thanks, America, we actually believe in government of the people for the people. It works.
You misunderstand the French, it's okay to cheat, but it's insulting to FALSELY accuse them of cheating!:) You don't accuse a man of being unable to cheat!
In Europe, there's an "opt out" system with 80-90% participation.
Nonsense, there is no such thing in "Europe" because each country has its own system! Europe is not a country, not even the EU member states have central administration for transplants. You are just making things up.
You cannot possibly claim 80-90% participation when there is no European common ground on transplants. And there certainly is NO "opt out" system in Europe as a whole. There are only national systems! Your claim is an outright lie. I also checked with the European Transplant Coordinators Organisation.
Further research shows that just within the EU (27 out of 50 countries in Europe) there are wildly different figures. The Nordic countries show a high degree of willingness to donate organs, but there is still no opt-out system. In fact you absolutely have to choose to opt-in and get a donor card!
I quote from the European Union's report on organ donations: "Donation rates and transplantation activity varies widely between the Member States, ranging from 33.8 deceased donors per million of population (pmp) in Spain to 1 deceased donor per million population in Romania. Only Spain and few others Member States have succeeded in increasing significantly the number of donors. These increases are linked to the introduction of better organisational practices".
There is NO way you will ever see a "unified global laws on sales and export/import tax".
That would be in conflict with several constitutions and face huge national sovereignty issues without even thinking about the problems involved with adjusting for "local" needs and flexibility.
There is a reason there is no common tax rate/system in the US, European countries or any other part of the world. Different circumstances, different needs!
If you want to sell your products in the future you will [still] have to adjust your business for each geographic region of the world. There might be fewer regions to adjust for; The European Union [and European friends], the US/NAFTA, some South American block, the African Union, possibly a Gulf Union in the Middle East, maybe some Asian block(s) [if possible] and last but not least China.
Actually, if you happen to be part of the forum called "parliament" or "congress" you can in fact nominate...
These people may nominate candidates for the Peace Prize:
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:
Members of NATIONAL assemblies and governments, and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
University PROFESSORS of history, political science, philosophy, law and theology, and university presidents and directors of peace research institutes and institutes of international affairs
Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague and of the International Court of Justice at the Hague Members of Institut de Droit International Former Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and board members of institutions that have previously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize Present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Former permanent advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Institute
The Nobel Peace Prize is not "political" in the sense that you mean.
Are you American? I can understand if you think it is, but it's not always about you and certainly not about *your* politics.
How would you even know? The Norwegian politicians that decide have NEVER talked about their motives for choosing this or that. The choice is made according to the will of Alfred Nobel [and that was recently proven by auditors].
And your claim that you "doubt" anything is laughable, you don't know squat about the people that make the decision!
Slashdot Mirror
Please supply a source for this rather silly claim. Especially since the UN rankings consistently places Northern European countries on top the lists for life expectancy, health, quality of life etc.
Your claim is even more silly when you consider the fact that you claim your figures include "Europe" vs the US. There is no such thing as "Europe" in terms of cancer survival rates! There are 50 countries, with 50 different health care systems! You can't even mathematically compare them since they are based upon different methods, societies, economies etc.
The Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch and British are usually ranked the best countries to live in [the world] for a number of reasons [by the UN, OECD etc].
You on the other are just making up numbers to please your sense of nationalist pride. "Go USA!", haha.
I should have qualified what I meant by "on the scale of the US".
I have not heard of tent cities in Ireland? Or lack of public health care available to Greeks and Irish citizens? Or how major national champions collapsed (GM, Chrysler, major banks). Or the incredible housing collapse that lead to literally millions of homes being abandoned or sold at auction.
The incredible scenes from the US of real human suffering, poverty, destitution and homelessness have not been repeated in Europe as far as I can tell?
You have a very simplistic view of things, and you sound like a blind nationalist.
Your "faith" in people's accountability is somewhat blemished by all the recent American scandals from politics to business. Where was that famous American sense of personal responsibility? Did the lack of regulation really work for the people when the banks collapsed? I think not.
My government doesn't tell me anything in particular, I live my life as I want to, and I probably have exactly the same freedoms as you. I don't have a gun, but if I want one I can get one. I wouldn't carry it around, but that's the law in several US states as well.
I live my life under the motto "freedom with responsibility" (in my native language it's more detailed). As long as I don't hurt anyone, I'm free to what I like. Does that meet your "approval"?
It amuses me that you Americans in general feel so "superior" that have your "freedom" from government regulation when you in fact don't! In my opinion, and that of my American friends, your society is far more regulated and controlled by laws and authorities.
I believe my countrymen and I have far *stronger* senses of personal accountability and judgment than the average American. Your cries of "freedom" are often at the expense of others!
My country is a strict, historically Lutheran, society where these values have been thoroughly ingrained in us as a people from the first days of my Viking nation.
While we take our responsibilities serious on a personal level, it is even more so as a society. We take care of our own, especially the weak and those without the ability to take care of themselves.
Even more so in cases where some might feel pressured to ignore one of the central tenants of our legal system; the precautionary principle. The common safety is surely more important than the losses of the few!
We have a healthy skepticism of people employed by the state, but they don't set the policies! As in any nation the elected representatives do that! However we do appreciate the fact that people employed to work for the people have a sense of obligation, duty and responsibility. They act in our best interest, not at the whim of businesses!
We have a different sense of unity, and nationhood, than you do, we have been one people since ancient times, and have a strong feeling of common, shared responsibility and trust. We trust each other, that we will do our best to help each other, to act together out of common interest.
Your silly and outrageously absurd questions are not "evidence" of any problem with my society, they are merely figments of your politically diseased imagination. What makes you think your cereal is any less regulated than mine? I would rather worry about your health than mine, at least here we know the government food inspection works as a bulwark *against* business pressure over safety regulations. Have you seen the documentary "Food, Inc."?
While my government certainly won't tie my shoes, they will provide top of the line services for people that need them. And they do *make sure* that everyone, everyone, checks their car for serious errors each year. While it might no be necessary to push everyone, it's for the few that do, and our common good. The same rules apply to everyone, for the benefit of all.
And while they don't "announce" bans on working during dangerous conditions those are the exact situations where employers are required to act in accordance with their personal sense of duty and the law to protect their employees, the public and their property.
The government doesn't have to tell people to act, they don't have to ban anything, they merely expect people to act in accordance with "pater familias"-standard. What would a normal, sensible and conscionable citizen do in a case such as this. A central question in our tort legislation.
Your distrust of your government, its employees, capabilities, intent and elected representatives is so crucial to your American identity that is completely a
That's the problem, I'm not from a major European country. I'm Norwegian. Norway took the correct measures to stave off any negative effects (according to the OECD). Jobs, banks and housing markets remained stable. We have 2.6% unemployment.
While there might be more to the story than simply having regulated our banking industry we did very well during this recession. It doesn't hurt that we're the world's 3rd largest exporter of oil, or that we have no national debt, and put our oil revenue in a huge sovereign fund invested abroad. We base our welfare state on taxes, not on oil revenue.
Part of the reason our banks were already regulated was the fact that during the 1980s Norway had its own bank crisis and housing market crash. The government had to take control of the collapsed banks and rebuild them. Since then our banks have been strictly regulated and the housing market stable.
The UK was badly hit by the recession obviously, but Germany has been out of recession for a long time now. Germany is the major nation in Europe. I believe France technically came out of recession too. Spain, Portugal and Greece are not large countries. I doubt you can find a European country that experienced the recession on the scale of the US.
I can provide a source too if you like: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009217763_norway14.html
Sorry, but you're wrong, the governments have the responsibility to ensure their citizens are safe. Keeping airlines in check and making sure they value safety above profits is their task.
Airlines can't simply be trusted to do this by themselves, even if they have the best maintenance routines and model employees [like any business] their decisions will be influenced by shareholders and upper management. Considering the difficult economic conditions for airlines I wouldn't put it past some of them.
If you're American you might have a different view on this, but as a European I trust my government over any business. We [the people] want our representatives to control this and determine when it's safe or not. We like regulations in Europe, it keeps companies in check. The banks in my country were regulated and we avoided the recession that hit the US.
The EU maintains a long list of blacklisted airlines, if the airlines don't hold adequate maintenance standards they don't get to enter European air space. There's obviously a need for some oversight.
The Americans/Australians/South Africans are no more British than you are Scandinavian just because you were a colony.
Scandinavia consists of the three Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
I know you Finns like to think you are Scandinavians, but we Scandinavians don't think of you as such - and that's the only opinion that matters.
German, British or general European ignorance of who is what does not make you any more Scandinavian. You're Nordic, get over it.
I tend to think you have more in common with your Russian neighbors than us, not the Finns in present day Russian territory, but the real Russians. Or perhaps more like our Sami friends in some ways.
Either way you're not ethnically, linguistically or historically (see: Vikings/Kalmar union) related to us Scandinavians. You're still very nice people, but you're not part of our family. Just our extended "family" of Nordic friends.
"Welcome to DHL, how may I help you today?"
"Hello, I'm a lawyer, I need these documents delivered to my client in person."
On a related note this is Europe, we're mostly socialists here, the "free market" is not that interesting to us. We're more interested in social services, and the postal service is not a profitable operation in most countries. It's a basic service required and paid for by the government. Reducing the cost, without reducing the service level is more important.
You're missing the point, the Finns want to use it by default for everyone. That is a whole lot more innovative than offering it as an optional service.
It would reduce the frequency of physical postal delivery, saving on delivery costs while maintaining service levels.
We all know how to scan and email documents, the Postal services of the world aren't blind. Lots of countries offer this as a service, it just doesn't reduce the cost structure of the Postal service.
That's very innovative of Portugal, but the Finns want to use it by default. That's very different from just offering it as an optional service. The Finns want everyone to use it.
It's actually very logical that the postal services of the world would want to stop wasting time and money on delivering mere documents. It's the box/parcel/package delivery that is profitable and important today.
You're missing the point, this is meant to replace postal delivery to all consumers and corporate customers.
That's very different from your "outsourcing" scenario which I doubt very many buy into. This would be the standard service for all, not some extra service you buy.
We have the same law(s) in all of Scandinavia (as well as non-Scandinavian Finland).
It extends to e-mail as well, you are not allowed to spam consumers by phone, SMS, email or mail unless you already have a direct relationship with them (i.e. they're already customers).
My government provides a website where you can register your reservation against any form of commercial solicitation. It does however not include charities. All businesses have to update their registers every three months to filter out any new reservations, and it's *their* responsibility to do so. If they break the law there are severe penalties available to the relevant authorities.
The EU is not a federal government for a number of reasons and it's heavily debated what to call it. A supranational union is the common term used to describe the unique nature of the EU, it lies somewhere between a confederation that is an association of States and a federation. Between confederalism which recognizes the complete independence of States in an association and federalism which seeks to fuse them in a super-state.
What clearly distinguishes the US from the EU is in matters of foreign affairs. The EU only recently agreed to a create a "foreign affairs minister", in an attempt to form a unified front within the EU. However each country still runs their own foreign affairs how they like, power lies with national governments. This is not the case for American states.
While American states plead with the federal government for aid, the EU kindly asks for funds to operate from European national governments. There is no European federal tax because they have no such right.
Another example would be in foreign representation, citizens of the U.S.A. go to their embassy abroad, European citizens go each to their own embassy [where available]. There is no "European" citizenship, just like there is no European identity [only national, cultural lines]. Don't confuse this with the diversity you have in your states, we are talking about whole nations of single ethnic group(s), languages, cultures and religions. Europeans are first and foremost their own nationality, we don't see "European" as in any way descriptive of who we are, only as a loose generalization.
I'm sorry but your states ceased being sovereign states a long, long time ago legally speaking. And while American history is not my specialty I do know there have been three basic accounts of sovereignty in America. The Lincolnian notion that the Union was antecedent to the states; the Hamiltonian notion that adoption of the Constitution operated a transfer of sovereignty to the federal government; and the "Calhounite" notion that the states remain sovereign. So while Lincoln spoke of returning to "his" nation (i.e. state) after the war it is no longer valid.
Oh, and you *do* have an American Court of Human Rights. It was created on the same basis as the European Court of Human Rights. However obviously the Organization of American States is not as important as the EU is to Europe.
Why join? Iceland is already covered by the same acts for all intents and purposes through the EFTA and the EEA-agreement between EFTA and the EU.
The browser election update from Microsoft is even called the European Economic Area (EEA) update :)
As a Norwegian I think of Iceland as family, and we would rather help Iceland in any way we can than see it fall to the EU. Like my own nation your country was only recently freed from a neighboring colonial power, stay independent, Iceland, stay free.
The treaty is not the central issue here, it is far more complicated than that.
First of all you have to be a lawyer, understand European legal systems (not Anglo-American "Common Law") and know EU law to really discuss this. I happen to qualify :)
Even if the EU wanted to impose a three strike law it would have to overcome a number of obstacles. I believe it could be argued that it would be in conflict with the constitutions of several of the EU member nations. You see as the EU is NOT a federal government, the individual nations still have sovereignty and national constitutions.
More interestingly the European Convention on Human Rights, a central treaty to *ALL* European countries both inside and outside the EU, spell out fundamental rights that neither the EU or individual nations can ignore.
The question has already been raised if such legislation as the proposed "three strikes" law would be in conflict with several fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, access to information and possibly other rights from enterprise to education.
In many European nations the courts have deliberated and expanded what we consider basic and necessary to function in a modern society. A law that denies people such a "basic" right to communicate, educate, trade/work and participate in public discussions would probably be in conflict with the ECHR [to be determined by the *non-EU* European Court of Human Rights]
Try reading it "FAst Search & Transfer"... You see? You *do* have selective dyslexia! Hehe.
If you read the link you would see that the company was formally called "Fast Search & Transfer", and that it's a recursive acronym.
Actually the full name of the company is Fast Search And Transfer (FAST).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_%26_Transfer
What is your problem?
I added a serious comment with relevant information about the cultural differences between the US and Europe, and you added an outrageously stupid reference to Nazis! You, sir, are an idiot.
Europeans in general don't view their government with hostility. That's a fact. So this law is viewed in a different light here, that might be news to some people in the USA, right?
While your own worthless post was neither factual or relevant. It says nothing about the sentiments that exist here in many European countries (not all).
The German people never had a say in WWI, the country was ruled by the Kaiser! And the second time you are referring to involved a coup and conspiracy! The Reichstag fire was not an accident in case you have forgotten.
And the German people didn't trust their government, it was in fact the Nazi Party organzation that was the new power structure. Just details, but you don't care as long as you can spout your anti-Government propaganda, right?
Just in case you haven't noticed, your country is filled with fanatical facists with strong nationalist sentiments. Go America, USA, USA, USA! Flags hanging from every building. Any opposition is "unamerican", haha.
Your notion of "liberty" didn't get you involved in the WWII until the Japanese attacked you! You stood by on the sidelines while Germany rolled over Europe! Cowards and credit stealers! The British resisted alone and PAID the US for every piece of equipment the following sixty years!
Your people are totally ignorant of the major and decisive contribution the Russians made. It was Russians that saved my Western European country.
The Russians did far, far more to save Europe from the Nazis than the Americans. And I don't care if they wanted Europe for themselves, both Empires wanted to control Europe for their own benefit.
And just in case you throw out that stupid comment about "saving" us from speaking German today; we all learn German in school anyway. And, yes, even Russian. So, no thanks, America, we actually believe in government of the people for the people. It works.
You misunderstand the French, it's okay to cheat, but it's insulting to FALSELY accuse them of cheating! :) You don't accuse a man of being unable to cheat!
Did you notice that the article is about France? We Europeans have a different view of what liberty is and should be.
Your notions of "liberty" and "freedom from government" are *American* concepts, and they are certainly NOT universal!
Europeans in general have a more positive view of government and regulations, this is not just my opinion but the results of research
You call us "socialists", which is a half-lie at best, yet you don't understand how different we are from you, do you?
Nonsense, there is no such thing in "Europe" because each country has its own system! Europe is not a country, not even the EU member states have central administration for transplants. You are just making things up.
You cannot possibly claim 80-90% participation when there is no European common ground on transplants. And there certainly is NO "opt out" system in Europe as a whole. There are only national systems! Your claim is an outright lie. I also checked with the European Transplant Coordinators Organisation.
Further research shows that just within the EU (27 out of 50 countries in Europe) there are wildly different figures. The Nordic countries show a high degree of willingness to donate organs, but there is still no opt-out system. In fact you absolutely have to choose to opt-in and get a donor card!
I quote from the European Union's report on organ donations: "Donation rates and transplantation activity varies widely between the Member States, ranging from 33.8 deceased donors per million of population (pmp) in Spain to 1 deceased donor per million population in Romania. Only Spain and few others Member States have succeeded in increasing significantly the number of donors. These increases are linked to the introduction of better organisational practices".
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_threats/human_substance/oc_organs/docs/fact_figures.pdf
There is NO way you will ever see a "unified global laws on sales and export/import tax".
That would be in conflict with several constitutions and face huge national sovereignty issues without even thinking about the problems involved with adjusting for "local" needs and flexibility.
There is a reason there is no common tax rate/system in the US, European countries or any other part of the world. Different circumstances, different needs!
If you want to sell your products in the future you will [still] have to adjust your business for each geographic region of the world. There might be fewer regions to adjust for; The European Union [and European friends], the US/NAFTA, some South American block, the African Union, possibly a Gulf Union in the Middle East, maybe some Asian block(s) [if possible] and last but not least China.
Actually, if you happen to be part of the forum called "parliament" or "congress" you can in fact nominate...
These people may nominate candidates for the Peace Prize:
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:
Members of NATIONAL assemblies and governments, and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
University PROFESSORS of history, political science, philosophy, law and theology, and university presidents and directors of peace research institutes and institutes of international affairs
Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague and of the International Court of Justice at the Hague
Members of Institut de Droit International
Former Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and board members of institutions that have previously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
Former permanent advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Institute
The Nobel Peace Prize is not "political" in the sense that you mean.
Are you American? I can understand if you think it is, but it's not always about you and certainly not about *your* politics.
How would you even know? The Norwegian politicians that decide have NEVER talked about their motives for choosing this or that. The choice is made according to the will of Alfred Nobel [and that was recently proven by auditors].
And your claim that you "doubt" anything is laughable, you don't know squat about the people that make the decision!
The European Space Agency is NOT a part of the EU. When will people learn that the EU is NOT synonymous with Europe!?
Really? Do you know what "yob" means? Yob, a rude, noisy, and aggressive young man.