Where's the world going?
Been trying to be a good student of Politcal Science yesterday. I went to a voluntary sort of lecture which took place in the evening and there were 5 people who felt they wanted to tell the audience something about where, in their opinion, Europe was going at the moment or in the future rather.. So, where is it going then? Apparently straight into a deep crisis, the problem of identity, to be precise. Of course, that's no news really but, for example, the integration problems in Paris' suburbs existed long before they became well-known through the news of recent riots. So now the EU has been enlarged by 10 new members and countries like Rumania, Bulgaria and Turkey are knocking on heaven's eeeh Europe's door, Europeans start thinking about the question what exactly they want Europe to be. Some consider political aspects, some prefer financial facts and others philosophise about morality, religion, ethical values. "Does Turkey belong into a Union of only Christian countries?" Why do people keep going on about that? How many people in the EU seriously regard religion as an important part of their life? Religion is fading away, besides it's a personal thing and it should be left out of politics. If mixed with politics religion only ever becomes an excuse for wars.
Anyway, these 5 people who talked about that topic yesterday were so uninteresting that I can't even be bothered to introduce them. I'll skip that part and start with my criticism straight away.. Basically, they've lost all dreams, all the dreams they started with when the EU was created and now none of the former idealism is left. Regarding that, they did talk quite a lot. I reckon as a politician you only succeed if you talk others to the ground and remain the last one standing. Europe is being talked to pieces while the countries have not managed to find a common ground for their ideas. I think the real question is: where's the world going? Because what matters to Europe is a matter of the whole world, after all, borders are lines on the map, and countries' names are only different sounds..
Anyway, these 5 people who talked about that topic yesterday were so uninteresting that I can't even be bothered to introduce them. I'll skip that part and start with my criticism straight away.. Basically, they've lost all dreams, all the dreams they started with when the EU was created and now none of the former idealism is left. Regarding that, they did talk quite a lot. I reckon as a politician you only succeed if you talk others to the ground and remain the last one standing. Europe is being talked to pieces while the countries have not managed to find a common ground for their ideas. I think the real question is: where's the world going? Because what matters to Europe is a matter of the whole world, after all, borders are lines on the map, and countries' names are only different sounds..
posted by Silk_and_Velvet at 9:43 pm
12 Comments:
Attempting to start a discussion and risking being labelled as having lost all dreams, I’d like to comment on a particular part of your stand.
Firstly, while we may agree that boarders are simply lines on the map, I think it’s quite evident that most people feel otherwise.
Secondly, I think you should view the question of being Christian or not in a broader context, since the Christian values have definitely shaped Western European countries, which might be the very reason why politics and religion are separated. Therefore, I don’t think this, say, cultural factor is totally unjust.
Maybe it’s relinquishing dreams, but if the EU project is to continue I think you need to consider these factors. After all, what good is it if the EU project develops beyond the wishes of the EU’s citizens?
hey Morten, good to see you in action again ;) but as you know I'm not as easily defeated as a certain lady who likes to steal names I'm going to reply (in an imitation of your fabulous eloquence, of course..):
Firstly: Sure most people believe in borders, that was part of my criticism which I'm aware only shoots at pure air because it's not a realistic point of discussion.
Secondly: just because the different cultures have formed the countries of the EU it doesn't mean we need to consider these aspects when another country wants to join the EU which started off being simply an economic and slightly political union. The seperation of politics and religion was never a question in doubt, so I don't see the importance in emphasizing that.. If, say, Turkey joins, then there will be an economic impact but no cultural impact! The people in Europe would never notice the difference between the EU including an Islamic state or not including it. So why the fuss?
And lastly, well, the wishes of the EU's citizens are so broad you can hardly travel beyond it, or rather, we have travelled beyond it ages ago because many people were against the Union in the first place and many who favoured it think it's going too far..
I thought I might encounter more opposition in this arena! I should never allow myself to lower my defences despite a single victory, however glorious. By the way, I actually had the opportunity to attend a lecture of this my historian friend yesterday and to my surprise he recognised and greeted me! :)
Anyhow, my intention was to state that continuous expansion of the EU might not be as self-evidently easy. I think that the fact that a lot politicians and scholars seem to have lost their dreams is but the logic consequence of them realising that the elites have been moving faster than the people. If - as could be indicated – most people don’t favour further expansions (or the service directive for that matter) – the EU needs to accept and act accordingly.
And to expand the debattle: I seriously doubt that admitting as huge a country as Turkey into the EU would be limited to economic advantages. After all, it seems that every other country uses the EU as a tool to follow its own interests, so why would Turkey act differently? And with the influential role that Turkey would have to be granted in the EU institutions, Turkey would surely succeed in reshaping the EU to some extent, don’t you think? I’m not saying that it’ll necessarily be for the worse, but if, and a lot of people seem to have this view, you would like to minimise outside influence on society, concerns about letting Turkey in seem logical…
hey morten, what's your historian friend lecturing about? i mean, if you decide to attend his lectures it sort of implies you actually agree with his work and, well, that's a first! ;)
but let's get down to business (how i hate when people say that..):
Of course the only reason why Turkey wants to join the EU is for its own interests, surely it's not because they want to save the world or anything. my point was, do you really believe admitting Turkey into the EU would have any influence on the society in other countries? in what way? i think the main problem is in people's minds. i know i'm generalising now but i seriously believe most europeans have a negative attitude towards Turkey regarding its admission because they are tabloid readers and know nothing about the complexity of the european union and even less about Turkey itself, so it's just some weird kind of what they call "ethical doubts" or something which would spoil all referendums relating to that question. just look at how the media treats the subject. i remember you telling me about that election campaign placard of the rightist party in denmark, you know what i mean?
First: My historian friend isn't Sperling - who's female by the way - but her opponent in the Chechnya debate. It was he who came over and talked to me after my victory. Therefore I sort of felt I had to attend his lecture although it was from 16 to 18! And it was about his thesis that the Soviet Union was able to beat Germany not because the Russians loved their country and/or Stalin, but because they were forced with a brutality that exceeded that of Germany. I think I don't quite agree with that, but it's still an interesting idea.
Second: Let's get down to business! :) It's an interesting question in what ways Turkey will influence other countries. Someone should ask the people's party that question - by the way, I don't recall the campaign that I seem to have referred to? Naturally, it's highly hypothetic, but if Turkey was allowed into the EU, it'd be the most powerful country and its stands in the council or whereever would then influence the EU policies which would in turn influence the other countries. I think it's comparable to the way that France and Poland for instance are basically deciding the EU's agricultural policies. On the other hand, you might of course argue that this is simply democracy at work though.
finally! i did indeed miss our various misunderstandings, but here we go again. maybe you find it really difficult to keep the overview regarding two different historians but personally, i did understand that mrs sperling (you showed me a picture of her so i remember she's female!) is not (as far as we know) the same person as your historian friend. the thing is, you only said he wanted you to comment on his work and that you both agreed on mrs sperling's.. let's call it illogical statements. but maybe i thought you don't agree with HIS work either, that's why i asked. can you follow me? i tried to be especially precise in my explanation!
anyway, did you have a good discussion with him again? the election campaign i referred to was a placard saying something like "60 million turkish immigrants? no thanks" or something similarly stupid as that.
as far as our topic is concerned, i would indeed argue that this is just democracy working if turkey joins, either you allow countries to have a certain influence on the whole union or you just forget the whole idea, you can't have both: economic advantages and complete sovereignity of each country. actually though i think it's not much use discussing things like that now because nobody knows what the situation will look like in 10-20 years, we'll probably have other problems than discussing the moral aspects of admitting the islamic religion to enter the eu.
by the way, if i don't answer until monday that's just because i'm off to a trip with some people of my semester at uni, so don't change your nick to Morten:1, Aylin:0 !
Well, the thing is that Sperling is not a historian, but indeed a journalist. If you keep googling the word you might find her picture as well! I did ask him a question again to demonstrate our special relationship, but the whole thing wasn't as, say, emotional as the Chechnya issue... At least not for me, while it might be for those Russians still alive with memories of the WWII!
Anyhow: It seems we agree that that if admitted, Turkey will inevitably influence the EU and thus its member states? Hence, I'd say that there's internal logic in the arguments of those opposed to admitting Turkey. And that's why I argue that such sentiments should be respected. Basically, I think that especially now talks of admitting Turkey when polls have it that even 2/3 of the Danes oppose it would do nothing but to harm the EU. In general, I think it's strange to negotiate with countries that are obviously not fit for the EU (i.e. also Romania/Bulgaria). Because regardless of their progress it'll be difficult to turn them down. Consider Turkey's anger when the talks were about to be terminated because of Austria - what would it be like if the EU in 10 or 20 doesn't admit Turkey anyway? Surely, the countries expect that the talks will result in their admission, so even if they fail to comply with the EU standards it'll be difficult to say no to them, wouldn't it?
I think the EU needs to consolidate its latest enlargements and make peace with its citizens before enlarging even further.
I hope you had a plesant trip and don't worry: As you will see, due to recent enlargements, there's hardly space for you in my nickname! By the way, it's really great that our correspondence has gone public so to speak. I always thought it was selfish of us NOT to share with the world our deep and wise thoughts!
hey, that's unfair, i never said i didn't respect other people's opinion regarding turkey ;) after all, there are too many opinions opposed to mine for me to ignore them.. i have the same worries about whether the eu would ever be able to turn down the countries it agreed to negotiate about their admittance. if they don't think a country fit for the eu it should be said straight away without ever starting those negotiations. of course, if somebody gives me her or his address i will expect that i'm allowed to turn up there and won't be very pleased to hear that now i am here i'm not allowed in and giving me the address was just some sort of motivation to get me to move! just as a real-life-example.. on the other hand, if the eu really stops the negotiations with turkey or whichever country, then i think we need to think of another motivation for the countries to keep up their reforms and their willingness to transform their country towards -let's be snobbish and call it "eu-standards", if you get what i mean. even if they don't join the eu, why not help to make a better world, aye?
so what's the enlargement of your nickname about? another person, your second self or do your little voices finally have a name? (in which case: congratulations uncle morten!)
Well, if I were in charge I would probably have postponed the talks with Turkey. In keeping with your metaphor, there's definitely no point in inviting somebody to your party if you know that everybody will dislike the person. It's also somewhat strange that the appliers need some extra motivation in the horizont. If they were truly ready for the EU, reaching the EU standards would be a reward in itself, wouldn't it?
The enlargement of my name is not so much a single person, but something much more powerful: the police! Last Friday, they fined me for cycling in the wrong direction. So petty it was, I only did it for 30 metres or so. And what is more: not once but twice they failed to stop Aarhus' very own version of the French riots, yet they have the capacity to send three officers out just to fine poor students, since everyone from my students' house uses that way. I really despise the police, nothing but a bunch of undereduacted retards with too much power they are!
hey ho morten, i'm back again, no i didn't vanish just to pop up again in a moment of surprise, i had a lot going on lately over here. i'm glad about the enlargement of my danish vocabulary though, i thought "politiet" meant something with politics, looks sort of similar.. somehow i reckon i missed something, namely the french-like events in Arhus you mentioned..?
i had a little liaison with the police the other day when i was cycling home from uni, tried to take a different route and-guess what- of course i got lost completely and ended up next to the american embassy. i needed to pass it so i thought that'd be no problem. to be honest it looked very pathetic: lonely and shut away from the world, the whole street is blocked, you know, so i had to cycle on the pavement. but oooh no, a scary green little man came with a solemn expression on his face and a grave voice, telling me "we have a problem", basically meaning i had a problem because apparently it's not allowed to drive in front of the american embassy because i look like a scary person who's gonna blow up any second. luckily the officer seemed like he only needed someone to talk to so he gladly apologised for troubling me but couldn't i...maybe.. walk the rest of the pavement? and sorry, it's only my job and have a good day!
nice, isn't it? if "undereducation" has the same effect on all people we should undereducate certain potentially aggressive ones, don't you think?
You know, I was minutes away from adding you to my nick name... And not with a positive score!
I'm glad you always seem to come across the one occasional good cop! I wish I had that ability... Or maybe the power persons in Germany are genereally more friendly than their Danish counterparts? Or maybe he had just already bullied his daily quota?
I remember the American embassy very well, by the way. Until I visited Moscow, I always thought Berlin was the city most densely populated with police officers!
hehe, well i dare to make the daring assumption that cities like new york will be even more police-populated than moscow or berlin, although the area in front of the american (and the british!) embassy will look the same around the world, quite pathetic really, what's the point in keeping up the building at all? they might as well close it down completely, it's not close to the citizens anymore, imagine an american would like to enter her/his embassy, she/he would be shot before being able to come close to the front door! i remember when i tried to enter the british embassy to ask for information: i didn't even pass the first fence because i was stopped by a police officer who sent me off to a completely useless address somewhere else..
i doubt that german police officers are any friendlier than danish ones, you know germans need to live with the knowledge that everyone thinks they're unfriendly anyway so they don't bother to behave otherwise. maybe you should grow long hair and dress in clothes similar to mine (which were the usual colourful mixture) ;) maybe then next time the police will let you off.. let's just hope you won't come across a police lady then!
Post a Comment
<< Home