of course the US doesn't ban Burqas like some countries in the EU
Perhaps you are thinking of the French ban on the Hijab? To properly understand why this is NOT a lack of religious tolerance you should read more on the French Republic. The French maintain that religion is a private matter and as such you should not talk about it in public or make it an issue in school. So naturally you may not carry or wear large symbols of any religion in French schools and Universities! This includes crosses, stars of David and Muslim hijab or burqa. The ban thus ensures a true freedom of and from religion.
Actually the European Union has over 461 million citizens, and next year it will include another 20 million (Romania and Bulgaria). And the EU is not Europe.. there are millions of Europeans outside!
First, socialism has not significantly benefited non-white immigrants in Europe
What utter rubbish! In fact what has strained our "socialist" welfare system is the very group you are talking about! Of course "non-White" immigrants and "white" immigrants from Eastern Europe are included under our welfare system(s). However since the EU is not national government - it is the member countries that decide what, how and who benefits. Even illegal immigrants without citizenship are given welfare benefits in Europe! That includes housing, food/clothing and education. And the sheer amount of money in benefits given to recently arrived immigrants are fortunes in their home countries - and reports show that this money is of incredible importance to their home countries economies.
Many Europeans actually view (mostly non-White) immigrants as a huge burden on our welfare systems because they are often not able to find work as they lack social and language skills, education or training neccessary in a modern industrial nation. Peasants from Africa do not fullfil a need here as farmers. And then there is the cases in the media of abuse of the system like claiming benefits for multiple non-existent children, unemployment benefits when working etc.
You do not seem to have any in-depth knowledge of how the many different European nations organize their social-Democratic welfare systems. In fact even calling it a "socialist" system is very wrong from a European perspective. Socialism and Social-Democracy is not the same. Today the "socialists" are even more market friendly (in some countries) than their opposition.
using Onelook dictionary search for "Turkey"... said Turkey was the Southeast of Europe and..Asia
Sure, the dictionary might say that. And, yes, a small piece of Turkey lies on the continent of Europe. However does the Spanish enclave of Ceuta make Spain an African nation? It is a question of culture and history. Spanish citizens living in Ceuta are still Europeans, and the people of Istanbul act like Europeans - its just that the rest of the country is nothing close to European. I have been to Turkey and I know people from Turkey (living here in Europe). They really are not Europeans according to me for whatever it is worth.
Does admitting Turkey into the EU really give it control of Europe or just a say? I thought the EU was supposed to a union of equals.
Yes, it does give Turkey a very strong say in European Union matters because votes in the council are given in accordance with population size. Turkey will according to reasonable growth predictions soon have a larger population than Germany. Then theres always the question of Turks living in Europe acting as pressure groups.
In one sense after the Crusades Turkey was "justified", tit for tat
No, it is not the manner in which they gained their minor claim to status as a European nation - its more the fact that they have no historical background to claim a share in our common heritage. Granted Asia Minor was once such a place. The recent history of the Turkish nation has never been such. Then again the religious and ethnic turmoil in that region has changed a lot over the centuries.
Then there's the Catalan, inhabitants of Catalonia, and Andorra, Castile, Valencia, and so on.
Sure, I know Spain very well having traveled extensively, lived and worked there. I have Basque friends as well. However their claim to nationhood and the diverse ethnics groups in Europe - does not change the fact that in one sense or another they have always been part of or under the control of a state that was intrinsically European. The fact that Europeans have changed does not mean we have to be flexible enough to include Asian countries. Georgia (Sakartvelo), is European culturally however stands no chance in getting accepted as a member either.
It's not just the Turks who've cheated the Kurds
I wish the Kurds had been given their own nation - it would have served Turkey well. And I would not be so against their membership if their borders did not reach all the way to Iraq.
religious values shouldn't be envolved with politics!
I do not quite agree with you. And that probably has to do with your American cultural background. For me it is perfectly normal to see a Christian political party with strong emphasis on Christian values. And living in a country with a State Church even more so. Perhaps you understand my background better then? Besides the point I was really making was:
Are you saying Europe is secular and democractic because of religion?
No, absolutely not! I do not see why would think so. My point was that there is a link between the thoughts and values we have today that have a common history and heritage that is connected with Christianity. Many people fail to see that even though compassion and other noble values are shared with Humanity as a whole - they are often not expressed in the same way.
The Wiccans would not have a great claim to a mention in a European Constitution due to their lack of influence on recent history. I for one feel it is right to include a mention of our historical ties to Christianity that led to both good and bad developments. From the trade in slaves and colonialism to the modern, tolerant and democratic regimes we enjoy today. It is part of our identity more so for Europeans than for Americans - even for the atheists. We prayed every day in the public school I like everyone else attended, but today I chose not to worship at all.
I think you should focus on the preferred and likely method for illegal immigrants to enter the US. Its not by airplane from Europe, its walking across the border from Mexico/Canada. Like I said in my previous post its not very likely that you will find illegal immigrants flying from Europe - because they will not be allowed to board the plane without valid visas or citizenship.
A person with a valid visa going to the US is probably screened already for both terrorism connections and immigration status. A European citizen is unlikely to emigrate illegally this way - and could fly in on a tourist visa no questions asked anyway. You do know most Europeans dont need visas to go to the US?
So maybe for other parts of the world it would make more sense to screen for illegal immigrants - but thats not really what the data exchange is meant to solve. It is for security and fighting terrorism. We have had terrorism in Europe since the 50s, and we know how to handle it. We have successfully eliminated and solved several conflicts without taking away basic human rights and laws meant to protect the population. So do not acuse Europe of not doing enough - we just find it is better to fight terrorism without giving up our rights!
I find Americans are very protective and patriotic about not giving away any of your constitutional rights in other contexts - but you fully expect Europeans to simply let go of ours? No, thank you. Even if it would stop all and any attacks!
I dont think the US should be allowed any more information than absolutely necessary because I simply dont trust your government to keep it safe and not abuse it. I appreciate having better protection and regulation here in Europe - and believe you should fight to improve yours instead! Then again we might also have use for more information on people going here - especially from Muslim countries.
Were talking about tourists and business travellers not immigrants. If they were coming to live in the US sure - but going on a holiday? Europeans flying to the US are not that big on emigrating to the US. We usually have far better lives back home than the US can offer (income/benefits/democracy).
Turkey is of interest to Europe, of course, however theres a difference between trading, talking and cooperating and giving Turkey control over our continent. Turkey has tried to invade and take Europe by force several times, and only just been stopped outside the city gates of Vienna. Even today the Austrians remember this. Im not saying Turkey cant be a friend of Europe and the US. Theres always the possibility of a trade agreement - which they already have. The problems is that the arrogant Turkish government dictates that anything less than full membership is "not acceptable" to them! The nerve!
Where did you get your data on Muslims in Scandinavia anyway? I live here and the truth is less than 3% of the population are immigrants from Muslim countries. I dont consider that a considerable minority? Most of them are Turks by the way. France does not allow the census to include information on religion so nobody really knows. I believe about two million Turks live in Germany.
As I said in a previous post I am sure Turkey and Greece might at one point in the future again clash - and as I said Europe will side with the exisiting members Greece, Cyprus and Crete. The Cyprus and Northern Cyprus issue is really far more immediate. And Cyprus is the only internationally recognized nation on the island, the other part is occupied by Turkish forces. Just like all of the European territory Turkey has - it was taken by force. If only Greece remains a member Turkey would not dare attack the whole of Europe. So that argument works both ways.
A courtship is always pleasant - and as Turkey woos Europe they know exactly what to say. Except I dont believe the marriage will be a perfect match and would rather the bride stayed single. Turkey is a poor Muslim country looking for access to a wealthy Europe. Morroco also applied for membership at one point. So what if the Kurds now have a few rights they didnt before? They should have been there all along. The Kurds have been cheated by Turkey for a long time, Ataturk the Founder promised full independence. Why should this be an internal European Union concern? Its a human rights issue in Turkey.
You missed my point on the Vatican suggesting the inclusion of a Christian heritage message. The Vatican is not a member of the EU. They simply wanted European values to be included in the future Constitution. Its not much to ask. Except were already accommodating Turkey and everyone else.
Boy! You really have a strange view of Europe and its peoples. I sincerely suggest you read some more. My own nation has existed as a Kingdom since the Middle Ages and still is. New identity? Hardly. Your claim is too simplistic. Regardless of our changing borders and national structures Europe is a democratic and secular continent with a Christian heritage. Our human rights and democratic principles originated in Christian thought. We have a right to preserve and continue our way of life. We respect minorities, tolerate religious differences and alternative lifestyles. Like you said we have to force them on Turkey!
The identity of Europe has little to do with the national borders of its outlying nations as cultural allegiance. Turkey has sought to change its identity to a European nation since Ataturk - wishing it does not make it so. Within the EU there are greater possibilites for "nations" such as the Catalans to have self-governance. It simply does not matter as much since everyone enjoys the same freedoms. The identity I want preserved and unchallenged is our fundamental values and I dont see Turkey sharing them!
How ironic that you would bring up France and the Netherlands rejecting the Constitution in the same paragraph dealing with Turkey. You do know that many have attributed the rejection of the constitution to resistance to Turkey joining?
But your point was that Europe could "control" or moderate Turkey if we let them join the EU. Why would we want to do that? The European Union was not created to control American interests - and thats what Turkey is. A geographic location for operations (Incirlik) close to Israel and Iraq. The EU is more than a trading bloc - it will become a federal state. Once youre in its permanent.
What advantages could there be? Turkey might have a great number of people - but they dont represent a market for European goods because most are too poor. Cheap labor for sure. But we already have millions of Eastern bloc laborers looking for opportunities. Not to mention millions of turks already in Europe. And next year the EU will have an additional twenty million citizens in Romania and Bulgaria. And when a country joins the union we invest billions of dollars in infrastructure and support to bring them up to a decent level. A hefty sum to be sure. Besides if Turkey joined the EU it would with projected growth rates be the largest nation and thus have a controling vote in EU institutions. Whos controling who then?
The Vatican and the Pope was turned down when he wanted to add a reference in the preamble to the Constitution to the Christian heritage of Europe - because it might upset the Muslim immigrants, secular socialists and Turkey. Wheres this leading? I dont know - but I dont want Europe to loose its identity and values. Turkey represents the Middle East and Islam - the strategic value of Turkeys geography does not equal what we would stand to lose. And America would lose too.
Its not surprising we dont share the same view on NATO, of course, living in totally different cultures will do that. I would like to point out that I am not a socialist nor do I have general anti-American views. However I do feel that NATO has outlived its usefulness and is now being misused for international missions outside its intended area of operations. If the US wants international backing from European friends and allies - we should consider founding a new alliance with a different set of goals. The UN is not living up to its lofty goals - and is ineffective at best where we need firm action (Darfur etc). I do see the need for military intervention, I just dont like being taken for granted and brought along for a ride..
My hope is that the European Union becomes a stronger federal government and is given power to become a stronger military power capable of defending Europe and intervening where neccessary when we say so. Of course today not many Europeans agree with me on the concept of a federal union.
You mention the Balkans as a potential troublesome area with history on your side - and its a good point - however as some of those miniature states are already fast becoming stable enough to be allowed to join the EU your point will soon be simply history. I believe in the concept of trade and cooperation within the capable and vigilant EU democratic structure. However Turkey is indeed a problem. Turkey is not a European nation in any sense neither people, culture nor religion. And it is most certainly not democratic with a military keeping the Islamists out of government. Not that the ruling J&D party isnt Islamist in the shadows. No, Turkey should never join the EU - and it annoys many Europeans that the US is pushing to have Europe include your "pet" in our family. Its like asking the US to make Mexico the 51st state!
So, yes, there might be a conflict between Greece and Turkey. But Greece, Crete and Cyprus are already members of the EU.. guess who well be siding with.
How we keep our budgets down? We dont pay USD200 for screws... And were focused on defence.
Maybe I am optimistic about the future of mankind as a whole - but I only said peace would last in the EU. In other regions of the world I have no doubt there will be war. It just wont happen on European soil unless were invaded.
Europe was not occupied by the US for 50 years - the Soviets did have their troops there to force the Eastern bloc. Dominated perhaps is the more correct term for US influence - and boy has it taken a hit!
I actually agree in some ways when you call it the American occupation of Europe - and I hope that in the future Europe will distance itself from the US and NATO. Today I feel NATO is nothing but a tool for the US to wield European troops in foreign theatres where American loss of life would be to politically "expensive". But the real reason peace was permanent was because trade ties between Germany and France became so important that they now both stand to loose a lot from the others demise!
Although you dont outright claim it - it is obvious - you are claiming Europe enjoys peace because the US is doing "all" the dirty work?! Americans so often fall back on that old joke about you "saving" Europe during WWII. You Yanks only showed up AFTER the British had done the hard work anyway. And today I rightly claim that Europe does more than its fair share of peace keeping missions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. You probably wouldnt know where anyway so I will refrain from listing them. We dont invade nations without UN approval, sure makes for better relations afterwards. Now, for the REAL reason Europe has enjoyed peace and growth is because we sought to end the in-fighting in the family by creating the European Union. And, yes, this time peace is permanent for European Union citizens.
Creating "peace" and democracy in Iraq sure has been effective, I must say. The draft, coming soon to a city near you!
When did Airbus get slammed with a lawsuit? If so what action did the EU take? Secondly the EU is not the national government behind the Airbus consortium EADS. So if anything it would have to be the British, German, French and Spanish governments that complained. Then again maybe they did. I am really just asking.
Dont mistake the EU for the government or administration of Europe. Germany is very much an independent country with its own political structure and system. The EU court is located in Luxembourg where it tries cases of unionwide importance. Everything else is left to the national governments and the local legal apparatus. The EU system is NOT like the federal government of the US (yet).
You say its an outrage what the Belgian court did - I on the other hand think it says a lot about your lack of understanding for Belgian sovereignty and their independent legal system. Maybe you should not be so quick to judge something you do not know or understand. Unless you know much about the European Civil Law system (as opposed to Anglo-American common law) and Belgiums traditions you have no right to be critical of their verdict and practises. The very fact that they forced Google to publish the verdict is not so shocking to me, as a fellow European citizen, because its in fact very common for media companies to repent in this way. The humiliation has nothing do with - its letting the public know whats acceptable and not.
P.S. In no way is the robots.txt issue an open and shut case for European legal systems..
The EU was founded to create a lasting peace and cooperation in Europe - to claim anything else is just silly. Suing Microsoft has everything to do with the EU because free trade within the block is vital, and Microsoft was breaking EU competition laws and not respecting the verdict. Now when some group of Belgian companies sue Google in Belgian courts (not EU courts) it has NOTHING to do with the EU!
You dont know much about Nokia and Ericsson if you dont know that they earn substantial percentages of their incomes from supplying network infrastructure. Nokia supplies and manages networks for 180 service providers! They not only sell them networks, they make sure they work! This does not make the actual operators of course. To quote Wikipedia: "Nokia Networks provides mobile network infrastructure, communications and networks service platforms, as well as professional services to operators and service providers. Networks focuses in: GSM, EDGE and 3G/WCDMA networks; core networks with increasing IP and multiaccess capabilities; and services". The same goes for LM Ericsson.
The SonyEricsson P990 Smartphone has Wifi and 3G (UMTS) in one package - Im waiting for mine right now:) Nokia has a similar product.
I dont agree with you on the low end hardware issue - have you ever seen OS X on a G3 400Mhz iMac? I have a couple of them and they run just great! At first the machine had only 128MB of RAM and the performance was just fine. I added another 512MB just for fun - and I was amazed. The speed of OS X on that old machine was comparable to any modern Windows system! The fact is that OS X runs great on even the slowest hardware available - and it will certainly run great on even the cheapest system from Dell today. The experience was enough to convince me to purchase a MacBook Pro.
And I believe if Apple wanted to they could just specify what Dell systems would be supported and sold with Mac OS X. They dont have to support every Dell system and price range you know. And for hardware I guess all it would take is EFI support on those Dells Apple wanted to support. I think its very likely that they could do it - if Apple wanted to.
I realize that "misleb" has already commented on this - but I just have to say it again to be perfectly clear - You are wrong! Of course you dont own a copy of Mac OS X/Microsoft Windows when you purchase your *license*. Think about it - if you did own a copy you could do anything you like with it - like reverse engineer the software, modify it and do anything you like except distribute it. When you purchase any piece of software you are effectively purchasing the right to use it (a license). Ever hear of "shrink wrap" licensing?
I'm sorry but you seem to forget that Norway is subject to the same laws as EU member states due to the extensive EEA agreement. Of course you can agree to resolve issues in a foreign court of law. The issue is not simply a matter of EU membership or not. The real issue is one of consumer protection not commercial contracts. In fact according to a European Union directive consumers can actually choose to invoke their local legislation when shopping from a European website. Yes, this directive is also valid in Norway. And under Norwegian law when a website is reachable and targes Norwegian citizens it's also subject to local law.
Tyldis, you are simply dead wrong! Norway pays peanuts to the EU! Germany annually pays 8.5 billion, little Norway is committed to transferring 1 billion over FIVE years! Not to mention the fact that Germany has ALWAYS been the largest net contributor since the contributions are based upon the size of the economy. Germany's economy is far, far greater than Norways - exactly because they're 80 million people. You, my friend, are misinformed.
I certainly don't agree with your sentiments - Norway feels very much in control of Svalbard with the treaty in hand. The only other issue is of course the conflict with Russia and Iceland over fishing in the waters surrounding Svalbard. Now, establishing the seed bank on Svalbard would not change anything in that regard! Every major and minor nation party to the treaty including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom (including overseas dominions) and the United States, Russia and Germany recognize Norwegian sovereignty over these islands. It's the sea surrounding it and the territorial limits that we expanded that they don't fully agree with!
Well consider the following: one of the worlds richest nations, third largest exporter of oil and gas, vast natural resources, a *small* army armed with American weapons like F-16s etc - next door to Russia...
Yes, proportional representation goes a long way towards giving minority views seats in parliament. However I believe that Sweden, like my country Norway, elects representatives on a county level.. So any political party has to achieve a certain level of support on a county basis to amount to anything. Effectively it means votes for minor parties are wasted votes... imagine what it means for the Pirate Party!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you are thinking of the French ban on the Hijab? To properly understand why this is NOT a lack of religious tolerance you should read more on the French Republic. The French maintain that religion is a private matter and as such you should not talk about it in public or make it an issue in school. So naturally you may not carry or wear large symbols of any religion in French schools and Universities! This includes crosses, stars of David and Muslim hijab or burqa. The ban thus ensures a true freedom of and from religion.
Actually the European Union has over 461 million citizens, and next year it will include another 20 million (Romania and Bulgaria). And the EU is not Europe.. there are millions of Europeans outside!
What utter rubbish! In fact what has strained our "socialist" welfare system is the very group you are talking about! Of course "non-White" immigrants and "white" immigrants from Eastern Europe are included under our welfare system(s). However since the EU is not national government - it is the member countries that decide what, how and who benefits. Even illegal immigrants without citizenship are given welfare benefits in Europe! That includes housing, food/clothing and education. And the sheer amount of money in benefits given to recently arrived immigrants are fortunes in their home countries - and reports show that this money is of incredible importance to their home countries economies.
Many Europeans actually view (mostly non-White) immigrants as a huge burden on our welfare systems because they are often not able to find work as they lack social and language skills, education or training neccessary in a modern industrial nation. Peasants from Africa do not fullfil a need here as farmers. And then there is the cases in the media of abuse of the system like claiming benefits for multiple non-existent children, unemployment benefits when working etc.
You do not seem to have any in-depth knowledge of how the many different European nations organize their social-Democratic welfare systems. In fact even calling it a "socialist" system is very wrong from a European perspective. Socialism and Social-Democracy is not the same. Today the "socialists" are even more market friendly (in some countries) than their opposition.
Sure, the dictionary might say that. And, yes, a small piece of Turkey lies on the continent of Europe. However does the Spanish enclave of Ceuta make Spain an African nation? It is a question of culture and history. Spanish citizens living in Ceuta are still Europeans, and the people of Istanbul act like Europeans - its just that the rest of the country is nothing close to European. I have been to Turkey and I know people from Turkey (living here in Europe). They really are not Europeans according to me for whatever it is worth.
Yes, it does give Turkey a very strong say in European Union matters because votes in the council are given in accordance with population size. Turkey will according to reasonable growth predictions soon have a larger population than Germany. Then theres always the question of Turks living in Europe acting as pressure groups.
No, it is not the manner in which they gained their minor claim to status as a European nation - its more the fact that they have no historical background to claim a share in our common heritage. Granted Asia Minor was once such a place. The recent history of the Turkish nation has never been such. Then again the religious and ethnic turmoil in that region has changed a lot over the centuries.
Sure, I know Spain very well having traveled extensively, lived and worked there. I have Basque friends as well. However their claim to nationhood and the diverse ethnics groups in Europe - does not change the fact that in one sense or another they have always been part of or under the control of a state that was intrinsically European. The fact that Europeans have changed does not mean we have to be flexible enough to include Asian countries. Georgia (Sakartvelo), is European culturally however stands no chance in getting accepted as a member either.
I wish the Kurds had been given their own nation - it would have served Turkey well. And I would not be so against their membership if their borders did not reach all the way to Iraq.
I do not quite agree with you. And that probably has to do with your American cultural background. For me it is perfectly normal to see a Christian political party with strong emphasis on Christian values. And living in a country with a State Church even more so. Perhaps you understand my background better then? Besides the point I was really making was:
No, absolutely not! I do not see why would think so. My point was that there is a link between the thoughts and values we have today that have a common history and heritage that is connected with Christianity. Many people fail to see that even though compassion and other noble values are shared with Humanity as a whole - they are often not expressed in the same way.
The Wiccans would not have a great claim to a mention in a European Constitution due to their lack of influence on recent history. I for one feel it is right to include a mention of our historical ties to Christianity that led to both good and bad developments. From the trade in slaves and colonialism to the modern, tolerant and democratic regimes we enjoy today. It is part of our identity more so for Europeans than for Americans - even for the atheists. We prayed every day in the public school I like everyone else attended, but today I chose not to worship at all.
I think you should focus on the preferred and likely method for illegal immigrants to enter the US. Its not by airplane from Europe, its walking across the border from Mexico/Canada. Like I said in my previous post its not very likely that you will find illegal immigrants flying from Europe - because they will not be allowed to board the plane without valid visas or citizenship.
A person with a valid visa going to the US is probably screened already for both terrorism connections and immigration status. A European citizen is unlikely to emigrate illegally this way - and could fly in on a tourist visa no questions asked anyway. You do know most Europeans dont need visas to go to the US?
So maybe for other parts of the world it would make more sense to screen for illegal immigrants - but thats not really what the data exchange is meant to solve. It is for security and fighting terrorism. We have had terrorism in Europe since the 50s, and we know how to handle it. We have successfully eliminated and solved several conflicts without taking away basic human rights and laws meant to protect the population. So do not acuse Europe of not doing enough - we just find it is better to fight terrorism without giving up our rights!
I find Americans are very protective and patriotic about not giving away any of your constitutional rights in other contexts - but you fully expect Europeans to simply let go of ours? No, thank you. Even if it would stop all and any attacks!
I dont think the US should be allowed any more information than absolutely necessary because I simply dont trust your government to keep it safe and not abuse it. I appreciate having better protection and regulation here in Europe - and believe you should fight to improve yours instead! Then again we might also have use for more information on people going here - especially from Muslim countries.
Were talking about tourists and business travellers not immigrants. If they were coming to live in the US sure - but going on a holiday? Europeans flying to the US are not that big on emigrating to the US. We usually have far better lives back home than the US can offer (income/benefits/democracy).
Turkey is of interest to Europe, of course, however theres a difference between trading, talking and cooperating and giving Turkey control over our continent. Turkey has tried to invade and take Europe by force several times, and only just been stopped outside the city gates of Vienna. Even today the Austrians remember this. Im not saying Turkey cant be a friend of Europe and the US. Theres always the possibility of a trade agreement - which they already have. The problems is that the arrogant Turkish government dictates that anything less than full membership is "not acceptable" to them! The nerve!
Where did you get your data on Muslims in Scandinavia anyway? I live here and the truth is less than 3% of the population are immigrants from Muslim countries. I dont consider that a considerable minority? Most of them are Turks by the way. France does not allow the census to include information on religion so nobody really knows. I believe about two million Turks live in Germany.
As I said in a previous post I am sure Turkey and Greece might at one point in the future again clash - and as I said Europe will side with the exisiting members Greece, Cyprus and Crete. The Cyprus and Northern Cyprus issue is really far more immediate. And Cyprus is the only internationally recognized nation on the island, the other part is occupied by Turkish forces. Just like all of the European territory Turkey has - it was taken by force. If only Greece remains a member Turkey would not dare attack the whole of Europe. So that argument works both ways.
A courtship is always pleasant - and as Turkey woos Europe they know exactly what to say. Except I dont believe the marriage will be a perfect match and would rather the bride stayed single. Turkey is a poor Muslim country looking for access to a wealthy Europe. Morroco also applied for membership at one point. So what if the Kurds now have a few rights they didnt before? They should have been there all along. The Kurds have been cheated by Turkey for a long time, Ataturk the Founder promised full independence. Why should this be an internal European Union concern? Its a human rights issue in Turkey.
You missed my point on the Vatican suggesting the inclusion of a Christian heritage message. The Vatican is not a member of the EU. They simply wanted European values to be included in the future Constitution. Its not much to ask. Except were already accommodating Turkey and everyone else.
Boy! You really have a strange view of Europe and its peoples. I sincerely suggest you read some more. My own nation has existed as a Kingdom since the Middle Ages and still is. New identity? Hardly. Your claim is too simplistic. Regardless of our changing borders and national structures Europe is a democratic and secular continent with a Christian heritage. Our human rights and democratic principles originated in Christian thought. We have a right to preserve and continue our way of life. We respect minorities, tolerate religious differences and alternative lifestyles. Like you said we have to force them on Turkey!
The identity of Europe has little to do with the national borders of its outlying nations as cultural allegiance. Turkey has sought to change its identity to a European nation since Ataturk - wishing it does not make it so. Within the EU there are greater possibilites for "nations" such as the Catalans to have self-governance. It simply does not matter as much since everyone enjoys the same freedoms. The identity I want preserved and unchallenged is our fundamental values and I dont see Turkey sharing them!
How ironic that you would bring up France and the Netherlands rejecting the Constitution in the same paragraph dealing with Turkey. You do know that many have attributed the rejection of the constitution to resistance to Turkey joining?
But your point was that Europe could "control" or moderate Turkey if we let them join the EU. Why would we want to do that? The European Union was not created to control American interests - and thats what Turkey is. A geographic location for operations (Incirlik) close to Israel and Iraq. The EU is more than a trading bloc - it will become a federal state. Once youre in its permanent.
What advantages could there be? Turkey might have a great number of people - but they dont represent a market for European goods because most are too poor. Cheap labor for sure. But we already have millions of Eastern bloc laborers looking for opportunities. Not to mention millions of turks already in Europe. And next year the EU will have an additional twenty million citizens in Romania and Bulgaria. And when a country joins the union we invest billions of dollars in infrastructure and support to bring them up to a decent level. A hefty sum to be sure. Besides if Turkey joined the EU it would with projected growth rates be the largest nation and thus have a controling vote in EU institutions. Whos controling who then?
The Vatican and the Pope was turned down when he wanted to add a reference in the preamble to the Constitution to the Christian heritage of Europe - because it might upset the Muslim immigrants, secular socialists and Turkey. Wheres this leading? I dont know - but I dont want Europe to loose its identity and values. Turkey represents the Middle East and Islam - the strategic value of Turkeys geography does not equal what we would stand to lose. And America would lose too.
Its not surprising we dont share the same view on NATO, of course, living in totally different cultures will do that. I would like to point out that I am not a socialist nor do I have general anti-American views. However I do feel that NATO has outlived its usefulness and is now being misused for international missions outside its intended area of operations. If the US wants international backing from European friends and allies - we should consider founding a new alliance with a different set of goals. The UN is not living up to its lofty goals - and is ineffective at best where we need firm action (Darfur etc). I do see the need for military intervention, I just dont like being taken for granted and brought along for a ride..
My hope is that the European Union becomes a stronger federal government and is given power to become a stronger military power capable of defending Europe and intervening where neccessary when we say so. Of course today not many Europeans agree with me on the concept of a federal union.
You mention the Balkans as a potential troublesome area with history on your side - and its a good point - however as some of those miniature states are already fast becoming stable enough to be allowed to join the EU your point will soon be simply history. I believe in the concept of trade and cooperation within the capable and vigilant EU democratic structure. However Turkey is indeed a problem. Turkey is not a European nation in any sense neither people, culture nor religion. And it is most certainly not democratic with a military keeping the Islamists out of government. Not that the ruling J&D party isnt Islamist in the shadows. No, Turkey should never join the EU - and it annoys many Europeans that the US is pushing to have Europe include your "pet" in our family. Its like asking the US to make Mexico the 51st state!
So, yes, there might be a conflict between Greece and Turkey. But Greece, Crete and Cyprus are already members of the EU.. guess who well be siding with.
How we keep our budgets down? We dont pay USD200 for screws... And were focused on defence.
Maybe I am optimistic about the future of mankind as a whole - but I only said peace would last in the EU. In other regions of the world I have no doubt there will be war. It just wont happen on European soil unless were invaded.
Europe was not occupied by the US for 50 years - the Soviets did have their troops there to force the Eastern bloc. Dominated perhaps is the more correct term for US influence - and boy has it taken a hit!
I actually agree in some ways when you call it the American occupation of Europe - and I hope that in the future Europe will distance itself from the US and NATO. Today I feel NATO is nothing but a tool for the US to wield European troops in foreign theatres where American loss of life would be to politically "expensive". But the real reason peace was permanent was because trade ties between Germany and France became so important that they now both stand to loose a lot from the others demise!
Although you dont outright claim it - it is obvious - you are claiming Europe enjoys peace because the US is doing "all" the dirty work?! Americans so often fall back on that old joke about you "saving" Europe during WWII. You Yanks only showed up AFTER the British had done the hard work anyway. And today I rightly claim that Europe does more than its fair share of peace keeping missions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. You probably wouldnt know where anyway so I will refrain from listing them. We dont invade nations without UN approval, sure makes for better relations afterwards. Now, for the REAL reason Europe has enjoyed peace and growth is because we sought to end the in-fighting in the family by creating the European Union. And, yes, this time peace is permanent for European Union citizens.
Creating "peace" and democracy in Iraq sure has been effective, I must say. The draft, coming soon to a city near you!
When did Airbus get slammed with a lawsuit? If so what action did the EU take? Secondly the EU is not the national government behind the Airbus consortium EADS. So if anything it would have to be the British, German, French and Spanish governments that complained. Then again maybe they did. I am really just asking.
Dont mistake the EU for the government or administration of Europe. Germany is very much an independent country with its own political structure and system. The EU court is located in Luxembourg where it tries cases of unionwide importance. Everything else is left to the national governments and the local legal apparatus. The EU system is NOT like the federal government of the US (yet).
You say its an outrage what the Belgian court did - I on the other hand think it says a lot about your lack of understanding for Belgian sovereignty and their independent legal system. Maybe you should not be so quick to judge something you do not know or understand. Unless you know much about the European Civil Law system (as opposed to Anglo-American common law) and Belgiums traditions you have no right to be critical of their verdict and practises. The very fact that they forced Google to publish the verdict is not so shocking to me, as a fellow European citizen, because its in fact very common for media companies to repent in this way. The humiliation has nothing do with - its letting the public know whats acceptable and not.
P.S. In no way is the robots.txt issue an open and shut case for European legal systems..
The EU was founded to create a lasting peace and cooperation in Europe - to claim anything else is just silly. Suing Microsoft has everything to do with the EU because free trade within the block is vital, and Microsoft was breaking EU competition laws and not respecting the verdict. Now when some group of Belgian companies sue Google in Belgian courts (not EU courts) it has NOTHING to do with the EU!
You dont know much about Nokia and Ericsson if you dont know that they earn substantial percentages of their incomes from supplying network infrastructure. Nokia supplies and manages networks for 180 service providers! They not only sell them networks, they make sure they work! This does not make the actual operators of course. To quote Wikipedia: "Nokia Networks provides mobile network infrastructure, communications and networks service platforms, as well as professional services to operators and service providers. Networks focuses in: GSM, EDGE and 3G/WCDMA networks; core networks with increasing IP and multiaccess capabilities; and services". The same goes for LM Ericsson.
:) Nokia has a similar product.
The SonyEricsson P990 Smartphone has Wifi and 3G (UMTS) in one package - Im waiting for mine right now
Considering Apple has experienced a 15% INCREASE in market share I think its actually much more likely now that theyre running on Intel hardware.
You just have us confused with Sweden.. We love our pretty blonde women over here in Norway - its just that they enjoy sex too much to have babies.
I dont agree with you on the low end hardware issue - have you ever seen OS X on a G3 400Mhz iMac? I have a couple of them and they run just great! At first the machine had only 128MB of RAM and the performance was just fine. I added another 512MB just for fun - and I was amazed. The speed of OS X on that old machine was comparable to any modern Windows system! The fact is that OS X runs great on even the slowest hardware available - and it will certainly run great on even the cheapest system from Dell today. The experience was enough to convince me to purchase a MacBook Pro.
And I believe if Apple wanted to they could just specify what Dell systems would be supported and sold with Mac OS X. They dont have to support every Dell system and price range you know. And for hardware I guess all it would take is EFI support on those Dells Apple wanted to support. I think its very likely that they could do it - if Apple wanted to.
I realize that "misleb" has already commented on this - but I just have to say it again to be perfectly clear - You are wrong! Of course you dont own a copy of Mac OS X/Microsoft Windows when you purchase your *license*. Think about it - if you did own a copy you could do anything you like with it - like reverse engineer the software, modify it and do anything you like except distribute it. When you purchase any piece of software you are effectively purchasing the right to use it (a license). Ever hear of "shrink wrap" licensing?
I'm sorry but you seem to forget that Norway is subject to the same laws as EU member states due to the extensive EEA agreement. Of course you can agree to resolve issues in a foreign court of law. The issue is not simply a matter of EU membership or not. The real issue is one of consumer protection not commercial contracts. In fact according to a European Union directive consumers can actually choose to invoke their local legislation when shopping from a European website. Yes, this directive is also valid in Norway. And under Norwegian law when a website is reachable and targes Norwegian citizens it's also subject to local law.
It's much faster and better than what comes with the phone - you should really check out Opera Mini 2.0!
Tyldis, you are simply dead wrong! Norway pays peanuts to the EU! Germany annually pays 8.5 billion, little Norway is committed to transferring 1 billion over FIVE years! Not to mention the fact that Germany has ALWAYS been the largest net contributor since the contributions are based upon the size of the economy. Germany's economy is far, far greater than Norways - exactly because they're 80 million people. You, my friend, are misinformed.
4 557.eceo ney/html/who_pays_what.stm
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article97
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/m
I certainly don't agree with your sentiments - Norway feels very much in control of Svalbard with the treaty in hand. The only other issue is of course the conflict with Russia and Iceland over fishing in the waters surrounding Svalbard. Now, establishing the seed bank on Svalbard would not change anything in that regard! Every major and minor nation party to the treaty including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom (including overseas dominions) and the United States, Russia and Germany recognize Norwegian sovereignty over these islands. It's the sea surrounding it and the territorial limits that we expanded that they don't fully agree with!
Well consider the following: one of the worlds richest nations, third largest exporter of oil and gas, vast natural resources, a *small* army armed with American weapons like F-16s etc - next door to Russia...
Yes, proportional representation goes a long way towards giving minority views seats in parliament. However I believe that Sweden, like my country Norway, elects representatives on a county level.. So any political party has to achieve a certain level of support on a county basis to amount to anything. Effectively it means votes for minor parties are wasted votes... imagine what it means for the Pirate Party!