I Need Help

[angus]

as of march, 2005

source:  european public health alliance

I should think Gustaf (the poster) would be a wealth of information.  maybe you can contact him on the side.

[angus]

remember, if you're searching on-line, use English spellings, not American spellings.  e.g., "Eurosceptic" will turn up more hits than "Euroskeptic"

Good luck.

[12th Doctor]

Thanks, Angus.

[Jens]

No, that is not the point of my paper.  The point is to analys nationalism in Europe and I intend to prove that the EU is not only not ending nationalism, but acctually taking it to new hieghts that have not been seen since the start of the Cold War.

You don't put an end to the strongest political and social idea in the last 150 years in a period of just a bit more that 10 years (remember the EU has only existed since 1993. Before that is was the European Community). I wouldn't say that nationalism has rearched new heights in the latter years. What has happened is that immigration and rapid changes in the sociatal structures has provoked some people who would like to go back to the "good old days"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is basically our substitude for the old patterns (war) Everybody makes jokes about the other nationalities. We make jokes about the Swedes (like: Keep Elsinore clean - put a Swede on the ferry (reason: because of cheaper beer prices, many Swedes gets very drunk when in Denmark) and always descriping German tourists as big fat and nude on our beaches

Your little verbal fights between southerner and yankees, east coast vs west coast ect is peanunts when you realise that the EU is a union between countries that has been constantly in war with each other the last 1500+ years (Denmark and Sweden has fought each other in 90 of the last 1000 years alone - actually 1026-1814)

by the way, links to the exact division in the EU parliament

http://www.parties-and-elections.de/eu.html

and

http://www.parties-and-elections.de/eu-ep2004.html

Union for a Europe of Nations (UEN) is the rightwing nationalists
and
Indepencence and Democracy (ID) is the leftwing

[Middle-aged Europe]

No, that is not the point of my paper.  The point is to analys nationalism in Europe and I intend to prove that the EU is not only not ending nationalism, but acctually taking it to new hieghts that have not been seen since the start of the Cold War.

Well, I don´t think that´s not the case in Germany. We don´t have any political parties who are specifically "euro-sceptic" like the UKIP in Britain. And as I already mentioned the right-wing extremists got a combined vote of 2.8% (1.9% + 0.9%) in the last elections to the European Parliament.

So, the real interesting question would be why some countries (United Kingdom, Sweden etc.) have strong anti-EU movements, while others (Germany, Spain etc.) don´t.


EDIT:

I found some poll numbers for the EU from late 2002.

"European and national identity":
--> 38% of all EU citizens saw themselves as members of their respective nation only
--> 49% saw themselves as members of their respective nation as well as Europeans
--> 7% saw themselves as Europeans as well as members of their respective nation
--> 3% saw themselves as "Europeans only"

Membership in the EU:
--> 55% said that the membership of their respective nation is a "good thing"
--> 10% said that the membership of their nation in the EU is a "bad thing"
--> the remaining 35% answered with "don´t know"

Did the membership in the EU bring more advantages or disadvantages?:
--> 27% said that the membership in the EU had brought their country more advantages than disadvantages
--> 15% said that the membership in the EU had brought their country more disadvantages than advantages
--> 46% said the the membership in the EU had equally brought advantages and disdvantages for their country

Huge surprise: The Britains gave by far the most euro-sceptic answers to all three questions.


In comparison the German answers only:

European and national identity
"German only": 37%
"German and European": 47%
"European and German": 10%
"European only": 3%

EU membership
"good thing": 59%
"bad thing": 6%
"don´t know": 35%

advantages/disdvantages
"more advantages": 30%
"more disdvantages": 15%
"equally advantages and disdvantages": 44%

[minionofmidas]

So, then you would all agree that the "Euro-intellectual" idea of the EU being a kind of "death of nationalism" in Europe is no where near the truth, not only because there is growing opposition, but also because those who are not opposed really don't give a damn?

I'm not sure you can really talk about "growing opposition". "Waxing and waning" is more like it, while the EU itself grows in strength.
I don't see a "death of nationalism" around the corner though - although the ancient German/French antagonistic nationalism is certainly dead as a doornail. Which is easily the most important development in Europe 1945-89.
And just because lots of people don't care one bit about the minutiae, doesn't mean they don't care about the European idea.

But yeah, it's definitely true that the EU somewhat fails to emote. Due to a lack of democratic legitimation, mostly. Although the European Parliament is elected (in elections that were taken as serious as the national ones for a short while in the late 70s/early 80s, but not since...and which therefore suffer from ridiculously low turnout), the Commission is created largely by the heads of government. It's sorta like as if the Electoral College were made up of the State Governors.

Do you think that this lack of "democratic" process is due largely to the fact that the governments of EU nations want it, but fear their people don't and thus don't trust them to handle the matter Democratically?

No, it's due to the fact that elected governments don't like to give up that immense bit of power. Although there may be a small component of your reason in there as well...at least to pacify their conscience.

[minionofmidas]

What is all of your guy's oppinion about the idea that the French are using the EU as a away of strengthening their own global power by making themselves the defacto leaders of Europe?

(yawn) also sometimes said of the Germans. Tiny kernel of truth created largely by Britain's ridiculous behaviour. Otherwise hilarious.

Sorry. Running out of patience. If you already know what sort of extremist anti-EU paper you want to produce, why ask me?

No, that is not the point of my paper.  The point is to analys nationalism in Europe and I intend to prove that the EU is not only not ending nationalism, but acctually taking it to new hieghts that have not been seen since the start of the Cold War.

No. I don't think that's a claim you could make over here without being laughed out of the room.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good shot.
Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, the Brite now pay by far the smallest amount into the EU of all the major countries in it...and get the smallest amount out of it of all the countries. As one of the EU's chief de-facto functions is to serve as a huge wealth redistribution scheme (towards structurally weak regions...and towards farmers to an extent that's frankly slightly ridiculous) that would largely serve to explain why the Brits aren't really getting warm with the E.U. ... and is what I meant when I spoke of "ridiculous". Basically she tried to take Britain out of Europe without losing a voice in Europe's internal managament, and she has sort of succeeded. Although of course Britain's voice, as a direct result, is nowhere near as powerful as it would otherwise be...and the vacuum may be said to be filled by Germany and France.
That's what I meant.

[Gustaf]

I wouldn't trust the EU's own polls a bit, especially sa teh head of it is facing corruption charges (and we know from their polling on the euro that they were way off in Sweden).

Chris, France is trying to use the EU, just like they do with most international organisations (as in fact do all great poewrs, including the US), for their own means. But apart from getting aid to the CAP they're not doing very well.

Thanks Angus, btw.

The EU is mostly used to get money. And yes, the lack of democracy is largely b/c people aren't trusted to vote "correctly".

[12th Doctor]

Thank you, everyone, for the help.  I quoted many of your comments in my paper.  I esspecially liked this one, from Gus. 

This was acctually in the conclusion of the paper.

About the constitution the general picture in Europe is nobody cares about it and of those who do I think most are sceptical. Generally, the population in Northern Europe (Scandinavia, the UK, Austria, nowadays also the Netherlands and Germany) are pretty unhappy with the EU. In Southern Europe people are more positive. But no average man cares much for the EU, it's by and large a project for, by and of politicians.

[Michael Z]

What is all of your guy's oppinion about the idea that the French are using the EU as a away of strengthening their own global power by making themselves the defacto leaders of Europe?

(yawn) also sometimes said of the Germans. Tiny kernel of truth created largely by Britain's ridiculous behaviour. Otherwise hilarious.

Sorry. Running out of patience. If you already know what sort of extremist anti-EU paper you want to produce, why ask me?

No, that is not the point of my paper.  The point is to analys nationalism in Europe and I intend to prove that the EU is not only not ending nationalism, but acctually taking it to new hieghts that have not been seen since the start of the Cold War.

So, you blame the British for "ridiculous behavior".  Tell me, is it common for the people of EU countires to disparage other EU member states?

So, in other words, you're letting personal prejudice influence your judgment instead of writing an objective assessment of the situation.

[minionofmidas]

Well, he's written it now. You should have butted in earlier, Mike. This forum needs you anyways.

[Michael Z]

Dankeschoen.   I've been busy with my new job, but things have settled down so I should have some time to stick around. Besides, with all the excitement after the last UK election I have plenty of things to get off my chest.

[12th Doctor]

What is all of your guy's oppinion about the idea that the French are using the EU as a away of strengthening their own global power by making themselves the defacto leaders of Europe?

(yawn) also sometimes said of the Germans. Tiny kernel of truth created largely by Britain's ridiculous behaviour. Otherwise hilarious.

Sorry. Running out of patience. If you already know what sort of extremist anti-EU paper you want to produce, why ask me?

No, that is not the point of my paper.  The point is to analys nationalism in Europe and I intend to prove that the EU is not only not ending nationalism, but acctually taking it to new hieghts that have not been seen since the start of the Cold War.

So, you blame the British for "ridiculous behavior".  Tell me, is it common for the people of EU countires to disparage other EU member states?

So, in other words, you're letting personal prejudice influence your judgment instead of writing an objective assessment of the situation.

That is the conclusion that I ahve come to after my study of the subject matter.  I have studied the subject of nationalism (in particular in Europe) quite extensivly.  The problem was, I was not allowed to use the material we used in class in the paper.

[12th Doctor]

And my paper was objective, Mike.  Its objective was to prove my point.  Regardless of whether you guys knew it or not, you acctually did it quite nicely.  Well, Gus knew it, but other than that.

[Michael Z]

And my paper was objective, Mike.  Its objective was to prove my point.

Heh, point taken, but it was a highly subjective point driven mostly by a political agenda. There's nothing objective about coming up with a hypothesis and then bending, or rather deliberately interpreting the facts to support that hypothesis. It is, however, objective to look at a topic without any personal foreboding and simply analyse the facts as they are and then come up with a conclusion.

But I suppose, if anything, this is a simple case of linguistics, ie. you're using objective as a noun whereas I used it as an adjective (after all both have different meanings in and of themselves).

I mean, you could take what Gus, Lewis, Al, et al have said and support your hypothesis. Sure. However, equally, you could pick other aspects of their statements and suggest entirely the opposite. It's neither here nor there, really. An objective assessment would be one which looks at both sides of the argument, not simply one or the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Heck, Gus made an excellent point about the flawed structure of the EU. The EU is ridiculously flawed. However, it's quite obvious that most of the suggestions made by American conservatives such as yourself only serve to implicitly suggest Europe's supposed inferiority towards your own nation, ie. serving an agenda which is wholly nationalistic; and nationalism is something I vehemently disagree with, no matter which side of the Atlantic it comes from.

Or maybe I'm just being paranoid (I suppose months of reading Jmfcst's and AuH20's posts would do that ).

[12th Doctor]

Heh, point taken, but it was a highly subjective point driven mostly by a political agenda. There's nothing objective about coming up with a hypothesis and then bending, or rather deliberately interpreting the facts to support that hypothesis. It is, however, objective to look at a topic without any personal foreboding and simply analyse the facts as they are and then come up with a conclusion.

But I suppose, if anything, this is a simple case of linguistics, ie. you're using objective as a noun whereas I used it as an adjective (after all both have different meanings in and of themselves).

I mean, you could take what Gus, Lewis, Al, et al have said and support your hypothesis. Sure. However, equally, you could pick other aspects of their statements and suggest entirely the opposite. It's neither here nor there, really. An objective assessment would be one which looks at both sides of the argument, not simply one or the other.

I understand that, it was classic example of my flawed sense of humor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nationalism exists regardless of whether you disagree with it or not and I doubt you do.  Only ivory-tower elitest intellectuals can even pretend to not feel some nationalist feelings, regardless of their claims of being "internationalist".  Hobsbaum is a ing joke.

Anyway, you missed the point of my paper, which was not how EU countries are using the system to promote thier nationalism, but how the rise of immigration, unemployment and EU involvement has caused many peopel in Europe to "rediscover" their nationalism, sometimes in a benign and sometimes in an extreme way.

[Michael Z]

Heh, point taken, but it was a highly subjective point driven mostly by a political agenda. There's nothing objective about coming up with a hypothesis and then bending, or rather deliberately interpreting the facts to support that hypothesis. It is, however, objective to look at a topic without any personal foreboding and simply analyse the facts as they are and then come up with a conclusion.

But I suppose, if anything, this is a simple case of linguistics, ie. you're using objective as a noun whereas I used it as an adjective (after all both have different meanings in and of themselves).

I mean, you could take what Gus, Lewis, Al, et al have said and support your hypothesis. Sure. However, equally, you could pick other aspects of their statements and suggest entirely the opposite. It's neither here nor there, really. An objective assessment would be one which looks at both sides of the argument, not simply one or the other.

I understand that, it was classic example of my flawed sense of humor.

Ugh. Or maybe just an example of me being thick, sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As somebody who was born a German national but has lived in the UK for the majority of his life (and has consequently experienced, directly, the benefits of European integration), and plans on living in the US or Asia hopefully at some point in the future, I'm not quite sure how you would describe me as someone who doesn't disagree with the concept of nationalism. But then "Nationalism" itself is a term which tends to take on different meanings to different people (and many seem to confuse it with patriotism); if you're talking of nationalism as being the sense that your own country is better than all others, then that's obviously a concept I wholly disagree with, at least from my subjective standpoint.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Middle-aged Europe]

A newly published poll seems to indicate that the Germans aren´t nearly as apathetic about the EU constitution as I suspected.

See here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16513.75