America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

It would be fairer to say "amongst member states" for the EU and preceding EEC.

I don't think many people claim that the EU/EEC have kept all of Europe safe from war but with the exception of Northern Ireland, it hasn't done too badly for its member states and even then, the island of Ireland being detached from the mainland kept those Troubles well away from anywhere else, if anyone else cared at all.

The end of communist rule might have been a revolt but the 1992 dissolution of Czechoslovakia into Czechia and Slovakia was peaceful. And for the other places, as mentioned they are not member states or were not at the time.

The European Union didn't come into existence until the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty on November 1st 1993. At that point, the member states and their previous involvement in conflicts were:
Belgium - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Denmark - WW2, 1945 (48y)
France - WW2, 1945 (48y)*
Germany - WW2, 1945 (48y)*
Greece - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Ireland - Creation, 1948 (45y)*
Italy - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Luxembourg - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Netherlands - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Portugal - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Spain - WW2, 1945 (48y)*
United Kingdom - WW2, 1945 (48y)*

The situations in asterisked countries is... askew. Ireland was technically neutral in WW2, but was also not officially a nation until 1949, when the Republic of Ireland act came into force. Prior to that, its last conflict was technically the Civil War in 1923, but there's also "The Troubles" to take into act - which folds the UK into its action. Spain is awkward, because it was a fascist dictatorship through to 1978, and there's also Basque separatism - and more recently Catalonian separatism - which brings France into the picture too. France also has Corsican nationalism to contend with, even today, and Gilets Jaunes is becoming classed as "an ongoing conflict". Germany is hilariously complex. West Germany, of course, has zero conflict history since the end of WW2, but that stuff with East Germany just makes things weird.

Nonetheless, it's fairly safe to say that the 12 original member states had no state-sponsored external conflict with any of the other 12 member states at any point in the 48 years between VE Day and 1/11/93. That's continued for the 26 years since too.


It's a vast overstatement to say that the EU has "successfully kept peace in Europe for the longest time in centuries", because it's beaten by the period immediately preceding it, by almost double. I'm also not sure what the mechanism is for the EU's peacekeeping role - we know it has no army yet, because that was one of the key threats in the Brexit discussion.

 

[Liquid]

Nonetheless, it's fairly safe to say that the 12 original member states had no state-sponsored external conflict with any of the other 12 member states at any point in the 48 years between VE Day and 1/11/93. That's continued for the 26 years since too.

Pretty much what I was going for too.

It's a vast overstatement to say that the EU has "successfully kept peace in Europe for the longest time in centuries", because it's beaten by the period immediately preceding it, by almost double.

Agreed. But why people say it? Seems to be that most people take the preceding bodies of the EU and their memberships as part of the continuing 'canon' of the EU, starting with the 1957 Treaty of Rome (European Commission). Or you can take the 1951 Treaty of Paris (Coal and Steel Community) or the 1967 Treaty of Brussel (Merger Treaty), if you're so inclined.

I'm also not sure what the mechanism is for the EU's peacekeeping role

The trade and good intra-union diplomacy that comes with membership. Disputes are rarer and typically more sedate than in previous times. I mean, I'm just guessing here. As someone who lives in the geographical mid-point of Europe, I'm counting my blessings that things are as reasonable as they are.

 

[Famine]

Agreed. But why people say it? Seems to be that most people take the preceding bodies of the EU and their memberships as part of the continuing 'canon' of the EU, starting with the 1957 Treaty of Rome (European Commission). Or you can take the 1951 Treaty of Paris (Coal and Steel Community) or the 1967 Treaty of Brussel (Merger Treaty), if you're so inclined.

This is an argument used by second referendumers in the UK, to state that the Brexit referendum was actually already the second (1975 was the first), so why not have a third. The issue is that this isn't the EU.

In fact, not even the Maastricht Treaty created the current EU, which is intrinsically different from that created in 1993, but at least bears the same name. I've posted about this elsewhere before, so I'll just quote it:

In fact the EU was originally very simple. The first component of the EU was a coal and steel trading bloc in 1957. When we voted in the referendum in 1975 to remain in that bloc, it had become a trading bloc for coal and steel, nuclear power and research, and money, now known as the EC (European Communities). It was in fact three organisations operating as one by then: the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), the EAEC (Atomic Energy) and the EEC (Economic Community).

By 1993, the EC had emerged from the EEC - and note that this was a different EC (Community, rather than Communities) than the EC of 1975, as the EAEC, now known as Euratom, still existed. That EC, with Maastricht, become one pillar of three in the EU (Union), along with the CFSP (foreign security policy) and PJCCM (policing and judicial). The EC pillar of the EU dealt with healthcare, citizenship, agriculture, fisheries, competition law, the environment, free movement, immigration, and money. The CFSP dealt with peacekeeping, human rights, foreign aid and defence policy, while PJCCM dealt with crime, including organised crime, drug smuggling, people trafficking, fraud and terrorism. Maastricht also established the EMU and thus the Euro.

It was all a far cry from coal and steel trading! The powers that the EU had in 1993 were unimaginably different than what the EC had in 1975.

The Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 kicked all that up a notch. It abolished the pillars and created the EU as a "legal person" (so that the EU on its own could be party to treaties), bringing in new powers, new administrative bodies, a change in voting procedure (qualified majority), the adoption of the central bank as an EU entity, the Court of Justice, and so on. Amusingly, one of the new things brought in by Lisbon was the withdrawal procedure known as Article 50. The powers that the legal person of the EU had in 2009 were unimaginably different - and larger - than what the EU as an organisation had in 1993.

In essence, the EC of 1975 ceased to exist in 1993, but part of what it did became part of the powers of a much larger, different body in 1993... and then that all happened again in 2007 (enacted in 2009). What the UK voted to remain part of in 1975 was a coal, steel and nuclear energy trading bloc. What it voted to leave in 2016 was, legally, a person.

This is important to the next step, so I'll also summarise. What started in 1951 was a coal and steel trade agreement between BeNeLux, France, Italy and Germany. This became a coal, steel, nuclear research and finance trade agreement between those six nations, Denmark, Ireland and the UK, then Greece, Portugal and Spain. The EU of 1993 was built on that, folding the trade bloc into the EC pillar, with two further pillars dealing with crime and foreign policy, plus the establishment of the single European Currency. The EU of 2007 swept all of that away and put it under one roof along with a new bank, parliament, courts, commissions, and so on.


This actually means that the statement is exactly 180 degrees about. It's the longest peace (excluding internal nationalist conflicts, and only among nations that are party to the agreements) kept in its subsequent member nations for centuries that has allowed the EU to exist...

The trade and good intra-union diplomacy that comes with membership. Disputes are rarer and typically more sedate than in previous times. I mean, I'm just guessing here. As someone who lives in the geographical mid-point of Europe, I'm counting my blessings that things are as reasonable as they are.

Essentially yes, you don't want to have a scrap with a country supplying you with coal and seasonal workers, but it's the trade agreements that created the EU - and it exists to the benefit of only those nations that are in the EU (and associate nations, like Switzerland). Conditions elsewhere in Europe have been much more volatile, much more recently. Including 1991's Ten-Day War in Slovenia.

 

[Biggles]

How, and what are we defining as "peace"?

How about: no major war killing hundreds of thousands of people - millions of people & directly affecting multiple countries?

The formation of European political cooperation & integration began immediately after the Second World War. In 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community moved to unite European countries economically and politically. The six founding countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. From there it continued as a gradual (understandably) development.

 

[Famine]

How about: no major war killing hundreds of thousands of people - millions of people & directly affecting multiple countries?

The formation of European political cooperation & integration began immediately after the Second World War. In 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community moved to unite European countries economically and politically. The six founding countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. From there it continued as a gradual (understandably) development.

Cool. Now read the post above that one you just made. The EU didn't come into existence until 1993 - off the back of the trade agreements which were founded on the peace you say it kept - and certainly had no dealings with crime, human rights, or foreign policy until then, when the Maastricht Treaty created "pillars" (in addition to the EC pillar for trade) to deal with them. The EU is a result of trade, as a result of peace, and not the other way around.

The Yugoslav Wars, in Europe, covered the period in which the EU was founded (1991-2001, but ongoing in subsequent border disputes up to at least 2013) and resulted in more than a hundred thousand deaths and four million displaced peoples, including ethnic cleansing and genocides. I guess at 8,000, including all passengers aboard the civilian passenger jet MH17, the Russia-Ukraine conflict from 2014 to present falls below the benchmark and can be considered peace.

 

[Biggles]

Cool. Now read the post above that one you just made. The EU didn't come into existence until 1993 - off the back of the trade agreements which were founded on the peace you say it kept - and certainly had no dealings with crime, human rights, or foreign policy until then, when the Maastricht Treaty created "pillars" (in addition to the EC pillar for trade) to deal with them. The EU is a result of trade, as a result of peace, and not the other way around.

The Yugoslav Wars, in Europe, covered the period in which the EU was founded (1991-2001, but ongoing in subsequent border disputes up to at least 2013) and resulted in more than a hundred thousand deaths and four million displaced peoples, including ethnic cleansing and genocides. I guess at 8,000, including all passengers aboard the civilian passenger jet MH17, the Russia-Ukraine conflict from 2014 to present falls below the benchmark and can be considered peace.

Cool. You're narrowly focusing on the date of formation of the EU, but my comment (originally to Dotini) was not focused on the bureaucracy of the EU, but on the spirit of international co-operation & renewal (including of course, freer trade), that took place after the destruction of the Second World War. As early as 1948 the Congress of Europe took place in the Hague:

"The Congress brought together representatives from across a broad political spectrum, providing them with the opportunity to discuss ideas about the development of European political co-operation. Important political figures such as Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, Pierre-Henri Teitgen, François Mitterrand (both ministers in Robert Schuman's government), three former French prime ministers, Paul Reynaud, Édouard Daladier, Paul Ramadier, Paul van Zeeland, Albert Coppé and Altiero Spinelli took part.

A broad range of philosophers, journalists, church leaders, lawyers, professors, entrepreneurs and historians also took an active role in the congress. A call was launched for a political, economic and monetary Union of Europe. This landmark conference was to have a profound influence on the shape of the European Movement, which was created soon afterwards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Movement_International

The European Union was arrived at through a series of conscious & deliberate steps that started long before 1993.

The Yugoslav Wars, in Europe, covered the period in which the EU was founded (1991-2001, but ongoing in subsequent border disputes up to at least 2013) and resulted in more than a hundred thousand deaths and four million displaced peoples, including ethnic cleansing and genocides. I guess at 8,000, including all passengers aboard the civilian passenger jet MH17, the Russia-Ukraine conflict from 2014 to present falls below the benchmark and can be considered peace.

The bloodiest conflict in Europe since WWII, tellingly, took place in a country that had not been absorbed into the European community. There, nationalist, ethnic & religious rivalries quickly escalated into bloodshed & brutality. Still, the number of casualties pales into insignificance compared to the tens of millions killed in European wars in the 19th century & the first half of the twentieth century.

 

[Famine]

Cool. You're narrowly focusing on the date of formation of the EU, but my comment (originally to Dotini) was not focused on the bureaucracy of the EU, but on the spirit of international co-operation & renewal (including of course, freer trade), that took place after the destruction of the Second World War.

Cool. That set the conditions that would eventually lead to the formation of the EU, but it was not the EU.

War created the need to trade to rebuild, which created enduring peace, which allowed the EU to eventually come into being. The EU did not keep the peace, it was a result of it.

The bloodiest conflict in Europe since WWII, tellingly, took place in a country that had not been absorbed into the European community.

But it was in Europe. How did the EU keep peace in Europe if there was no peace in Europe?


Really your statement should read "The EU arose from trade agreements that successfully extended the peace between those nations that were party to the agreements."

 

[Liquid]

How did the EU keep peace in Europe if there was no peace in Europe?

Because of the disputed usage of the word Europe. In this context, it refers to members of the European Union and other related bodies before it and not strictly to every member of the European continent*.

It's like how with Brexit people keep saying Brexit takes us out of Europe. It isn't, because the island Great Britain will remain exactly where it is on the geographical continent, but the lay meaning of the word "Europe" has changed over the last 30 years, for ease of speech more than anything; it's quicker and more convenient to say Europe and European rather than European Union every time even if it is ambiguous.

It's also, to steer this back on topic to the thread at hand, not dissimilar to how the word "America" also has different and disputed meanings. People in Mexico and South America often consider themselves American but this is at odds with the word's most frequent usage in English. Canadians count as Americans too but I doubt many of them would refer to themselves like that unless they had US citizenship.

*Even then, Cyprus is an Asian country but for all intents and purposes is culturally European.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The European Union didn't come into existence until the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty on November 1st 1993. At that point, the member states and their previous involvement in conflicts were:
Belgium - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Denmark - WW2, 1945 (48y)
France - WW2, 1945 (48y)*
Germany - WW2, 1945 (48y)*
Greece - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Ireland - Creation, 1948 (45y)*
Italy - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Luxembourg - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Netherlands - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Portugal - WW2, 1945 (48y)
Spain - WW2, 1945 (48y)*
United Kingdom - WW2, 1945 (48y)*

I see your point about the ratification of the EU-proper but when people refer to "The EU" as part of the multi-national movement for peace between sovereign governments it (mostly) implies all that went before - the European Parliamentary Union and the Schuman Plan in particular.

 

[Famine]

It's like how with Brexit people keep saying Brexit takes us out of Europe.

I was thinking something similar, but it's not an error that someone informed should make (which is why it was common parlance during the referendum!).

It also changes the meaning of the statement to "the EU has successfully kept the peace in the EU", which... doesn't seem like much of an achievement even if we ignore the fact that the cart is going before the horse in terms of how peace is generated.

Indeed (and this folds in @TenEightyOne's post above) it wasn't until the EU's formation that the former trade associations gained an ability to deal with crime and human rights internally, or defence and foreign policy externally - with the CFSP and PJCCM pillars alongside the existing (but adapted) EC pillar for trade.

Before that it was trade, and only trade. War set the conditions for trade (we were getting money from the USA, so we didn't get involved), because after Nazi Germany's invasion of the other five countries and the Allies bombing Germany's coal and steel production back into the 4th Century, they needed to cooperate to rebuild. That, and with the horrors of what the Nazis did ringing in the ears for decades, brought about enduring peace, and that brought about the cooperative agreements that lead to 1993's "not just trade" EU.

It's also, to steer this back on topic to the thread at hand, not dissimilar to how the word "America" also has different and disputed meanings. People in Mexico and South America often consider themselves American but this is at odds with the word's most frequent usage in English. Canadians count as Americans too but I doubt many of them would refer to themselves like that unless they had US citizenship.

It's an interesting topic this, because the USA is not America, it's of America. The 50 member states all have their own names, of course, but the combined unit merely reflects their status and geography - a union of states on the American continent(s).

That the official name for someone who is a US citizen is "American" is interestingly confusing. It should really be United Statesian, because that reflects the nation they are from, not a continental land mass.

However, the Declaration of Independence has an interesting kicker for this. It refers to the colonies exactly zero times as "United States of America", but twice as "united States of America" - the only capitalised U is in "these United Colonies". The Bill of Rights meanwhile starts with "Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.", and mentions the United States three more times in the preamble - twice with "of America" and once without (one instance of each for "the Constitution of the..."). It seems that the only constant proper noun is "States", so perhaps "Statesian"?

The name isn't even in the national anthem...

 

[Liquid]

United Statesman or Stateswoman would seem more correct than the stilted Statsian but even statesman/woman have different meanings too.

 

[Biggles]

Cool. That set the conditions that would eventually lead to the formation of the EU, but it was not the EU.

War created the need to trade to rebuild, which created enduring peace, which allowed the EU to eventually come into being. The EU did not keep the peace, it was a result of it.

But it was in Europe. How did the EU keep peace in Europe if there was no peace in Europe?


Really your statement should read "The EU arose from trade agreements that successfully extended the peace between those nations that were party to the agreements."

No. The EU arose from a concerted effort starting immediately after the end of the Second World War to create a new sense of common purpose & political co-operation, in order to avoid repeating the nationalist mistakes that led to WW1 & WW2. The Congress of Europe held in 1947 was not a meeting of trade ministers, bureaucrats & businessmen. Winston's Churchill, an outspoken proponent of a "United States of Europe" made a famous speech which set the tone for the event:

This Congress has brought together leaders of thought and action from all the free countries of Europe. Statesmen of all political parties, leading figures from all the Churches, eminent writers, leaders of the professions, lawyers, chiefs of industry and prominent trade-unionists are gathered here. In fact a representative grouping of the most essential elements in the political, industrial, cultural and spiritual life of Europe is now assembled in this ancient hall. And although everyone has been invited in his individual capacity, nevertheless this Congress, and any conclusions it may reach, may fairly claim to be the voice of Europe. It is time indeed that that voice should be raised upon the scene of chaos and prostration, caused by the wrongs and hatreds of the past, and amid the dangers which lie about us in the present and cloud the future. We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.

*

It's easy to see that in the post-war devastation, trade was an important consideration, but certainly NOT the primary impetus for European unity that you suggest.

* Imagine having the "leader of the free world" making a speech like that. Put's Trump into grim perspective.

 

[Famine]

No. The EU arose from a concerted effort starting immediately after the end of the Second World War to create a new sense of common purpose & political co-operation, in order to avoid repeating the nationalist mistakes that led to WW1 & WW2.

It's easy to see that in the post-war devastation, trade was an important consideration, but certainly NOT the primary impetus for European unity that you suggest.

The cooperation started as trade agreements among six states that grew to encompass 12 and persisted for 48 years before gaining any political powers of any kind. Trade was the driver.

The peace and rebuilding after the war immediately required trade among affected states (the UK was in receipt of a $57bn 2% loan from the USA - which we eventually paid back in 2006 - and hadn't had its industrial heartlands destroyed by Barnes-Wallis), and that's what happened - the European Coal and Steel Community. It was literally created to prevent war by making nations rely on one another for resources. That's actually what the guy who suggested it said too - making war unthinkable by virtue of supranational cooperation starting with trade:

World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.

The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

This production will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising living standards and to promoting peaceful achievements. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the development of the African continent. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions.

By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.

To promote the realization of the objectives defined, the French Government is ready to open negotiations on the following bases.

The task with which this common High Authority will be charged will be that of securing in the shortest possible time the modernization of production and the improvement of its quality; the supply of coal and steel on identical terms to the French and German markets, as well as to the markets of other member countries; the development in common of exports to other countries; the equalization and improvement of the living conditions of workers in these industries.

To achieve these objectives, starting from the very different conditions in which the production of member countries is at present situated, it is proposed that certain transitional measures should be instituted, such as the application of a production and investment plan, the establishment of compensating machinery for equating prices, and the creation of a restructuring fund to facilitate the rationalization of production. The movement of coal and steel between member countries will immediately be freed from all customs duty, and will not be affected by differential transport rates. Conditions will gradually be created which will spontaneously provide for the more rational distribution of production at the highest level of productivity.

In contrast to international cartels, which tend to impose restrictive practices on distribution and the exploitation of national markets, and to maintain high profits, the organization will ensure the fusion of markets and the expansion of production.

The essential principles and undertakings defined above will be the subject of a treaty signed between the States and submitted for the ratification of their parliaments. The negotiations required to settle details of applications will be undertaken with the help of an arbitrator appointed by common agreement. He will be entrusted with the task of seeing that the agreements reached conform with the principles laid down, and, in the event of a deadlock, he will decide what solution is to be adopted.

The common High Authority entrusted with the management of the scheme will be composed of independent persons appointed by the governments, giving equal representation. A chairman will be chosen by common agreement between the governments. The Authority's decisions will be enforceable in France, Germany and other member countries. Appropriate measures will be provided for means of appeal against the decisions of the Authority.

A representative of the United Nations will be accredited to the Authority, and will be instructed to make a public report to the United Nations twice yearly, giving an account of the working of the new organization, particularly as concerns the safeguarding of its objectives.

The institution of the High Authority will in no way prejudge the methods of ownership of enterprises. In the exercise of its functions, the common High Authority will take into account the powers conferred upon the International Ruhr Authority and the obligations of all kinds imposed upon Germany, so long as these remain in force.

I've bolded up the third to fifth paragraphs for you, wherein Schuman states that a United Europe would be the eventual goal of a common trade agreement.


This evolved over time to include more states and more trade, eventually becoming the EEC which was more-or-less a free trade bloc of 12 nations. It wasn't until the EU's creation in 1993, following 1992's Maastricht Treaty, that it gained any political powers - the EEC became the EC pillar of the EU, along with the two other pillars (CFSP and PJCCM). Arguably it wasn't until the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 that the EU became a fully political body - in fact it created a legal person of the EU.

War created peace created trade (which stabilised the peace) created the EU, after 48 years of peace (except internal nationalist conflicts and the Yugoslav Wars) through trade, just as Schuman envisioned. The EU didn't keep the peace in that period - not least of all because it didn't exist.


To vaguely skew towards the thread title, the uneasy period right now reflects why the EU can't use the model of the USA to make a United Europe - much of the USA existed, briefly, with the same language, basic rules and customs, and currency, settled by the same people radiating out from the east coast, before uniting as 13 states, then the rest. The European states have existed in a constant state of flux for a couple of thousand years, with different languages, rules and customs and currency, and have invaded each other on an insanely regular basis. We mock the USA for how old it isn't, but it's actually officially older than all but two European countries (bonus points for naming them!) - we've had new countries this decade, and when I was at school, Croatia, Serbia, and Belarus didn't exist, while East Germany and Czechoslovakia did. Greece - Greece - is only two years older than me... Borders change in Europe with the tide. Literally, in the case of Cyprus.

As a result, every negotiation is seen as reparations on one side and revenge on the other. If Brexit happens there'll be a second stage of discussions where Spain will want Gibraltar back, France will claim Les Iles de la Manche, and Germany will want money for rebuilding Dresden. If France and Germany ever did fall out again, the divorce courts will have to assign custody of Alsace (it's in France, all the town names are German; guess why?). European history is littered with countries wronging each other and territories in the hands of one nation that were formerly part of another (and not just in Europe; while Spain is rattling on about Gibraltar again, they're quite quiet on the topic of Ceuta and Melilla).

Although the UK is probably the vanguard in this respect, there is growing unease across Europe about attempts to copy the US model and create a Federal Government for Europe, simply for this reason. The money thing was okay, because trade. The whole justice thing was fine, because trade and free movement for jobs - people from Croatia working in Portugal need to know they're covered by the same rules. The Parliament in 2007 seems to have set a few feathers to ruffled though, with the UK only being joint fourth (with Germany) for levels of distrust according to Eurobarometer (behind Greece, Austria... and France!).


It seems that the simple fact is we don't like each other very much, and most, if pushed, don't like England the most because we fought everyone at some point in the last 400 years. The peoples of the USA have always been much more... united.

Imagine having the "leader of the free world" making a speech like that. Put's Trump into grim perspective.

We've got Boris. As he might say, fondle my fermentation.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

United Statesman or Stateswoman would seem more correct than the stilted Statsian but even statesman/woman have different meanings too.

Or we could go by our statehood. I guess that becomes problematic for some of the lesser known states. What's a Idahoan?

Regarding the whole name thing, I wish the US had nabbed "Columbia" before the Colombians did. That's a great name. I mean I like that United States of America is very rational and all, but it's not all that evocative.

Extra trivia: California is thought to derive from the Arabic Khalif by way of a 16th Century Spanish romance novel.

 

[Liquid]

Extra trivia: California is thought to derive from the Arabic Khalif by way of a 16th Century Spanish romance novel.

Ah, so a caliphate does exist in the western world.

 

[Famine]

Or we could go by our statehood. I guess that becomes problematic for some of the lesser known states. What's a Idahoan?

Regarding the whole name thing, I wish the US had nabbed "Columbia" before the Colombians did. That's a great name. I mean I like that United States of America is very rational and all, but it's not all that evocative.

Extra trivia: California is thought to derive from the Arabic Khalif by way of a 16th Century Spanish romance novel.

I thought it came from the German for "a whale's vagina"?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Ah, so a caliphate does exist in the western world.

Wait till Fox news gets wind of it...the enemy has been hiding in plain sight the whole time!

 

[mustafur]

The name wouldn't of happened if they knew it wasn't an Island which they thought it was when first discovered lol.

 

[Danoff]

The name wouldn't of happened if they knew it wasn't an Island which they thought it was when first discovered lol.

View attachment 871243

I don't know the date on that map, but I love these kinds of old maps of the Earth. They're always more recent than you expect, highlighting just how much we didn't know about our planet until astoundingly late.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't know the date on that map, but I love these kinds of old maps of the Earth. They're always more recent than you expect, highlighting just how much we didn't know about our planet until astoundingly late.

Agreed. I'm also impressed with the ability of these early cartographers to actually...you know, create the maps - even if many of them were pretty inaccurate. Must have been bloody difficult.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't know the date on that map, but I love these kinds of old maps of the Earth.

c.1650, stored in the Library of Congress, original by Jan Vingboons (or Vinckeboons). His work wasn't usually created first-hand but as a product of research. If you ever get to see his originals in exhibition they're breathtakingly gorgeous.

This map would never have been used for navigation, although sailors were quite used to re-annotating maps as they went along. It seems that this particular one presumed that the Gulf of California opened out into the sea at its northern extent. As for the etymology it's quite possible that the name comes from Kalifate through several degrees with the obvious waypoint being Queen Califia for whom the territory was named.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Know that on the right hand from the Indies exists an island called California very close to a side of the Earthly Paradise; and it was populated by black women, without any man existing there, because they lived in the way of the Amazons. They had beautiful and robust bodies, and were brave and very strong. Their island was the strongest of the World, with its steep cliffs and rocky shores. Their weapons were golden and so were the harnesses of the wild beasts that they were accustomed to taming so that they could be ridden, because there was no other metal in the island than gold. (translated from Spanish)

-García Rodríguez de Montalvo

It's interesting the extent in which literature/fiction influences our actual world/universe. We tend to evoke the imagination.

 

[Liquid]

I don't know the date on that map, but I love these kinds of old maps of the Earth. They're always more recent than you expect, highlighting just how much we didn't know about our planet until astoundingly late.

In the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1768), "Kaliffornia" is described as being an unknown land, possibly an island, off the west coast of America.

 

[Carbonox]

Black Hebrew Israelite nutters escalate things from their usual verbal provocations and general fake claims to outright murder.

Wonder if this is what it's going to take to expose them to wider society as the drooling unhinged hate group that they are? Their heavy role in that Covington incident didn't get acknowledged all that well.

 

[Blitz24]

Black Hebrew Israelite nutters escalate things from their usual verbal provocations and general fake claims to outright murder.

Wonder if this is what it's going to take to expose them to wider society as the drooling unhinged hate group that they are? Their heavy role in that Covington incident didn't get acknowledged all that well.

This actually occurred about a mile from my office and it was very unnerving.

 

[Dotini]

Send your homeless to Seattle, Portland and San Francisco. We love them, and treat them with respect. For now.

 

[PocketZeven]

I discovered a list of all the nicknames Trump has used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

Trump is a bully running your Country. It is interesting how when Trump bullies and gives people unrespectfull nicknames it has become normal, even for the left. While for example hillary used "deplorables", and is still to this day is heavily criticised by the right for this quote.

 

[BobK]

I discovered a list of all the nicknames Trump has used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

Trump is a bully running your Country. It is interesting how when Trump bullies and gives people unrespectfull nicknames it has become normal, even for the left. While for example hillary used "deplorables", and is still to this day is heavily criticised by the right for this quote.

If you dislike Trump so much, just don't vote for him in November.

 

[PocketZeven]

If you dislike Trump so much, just don't vote for him in November.

I am dutch.

 

[Dennisch]

I am dutch.

And yet, you seem obsessed by Trump.

"let's see what stupid thing that awful orange buffoon did today!"

You shouldn't worry so much about him, you have politicians in The Hague that are just as trustworthy as the folks over in DC.