It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Britain under threat from plot to create super-powerful EU president 'that will mean the end to nat

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:57 PM

Originally posted by RawkMan
Phew ArMaP, so many posts... Did you hit the character limit or just kick yourself for forgetting something and then posting again
No, I just like to keep things separated, so I don't get even more confused.

That definition alone actually suggest that the British Isles should not be encapsulated within the concept of a existing continent since it is not part of a continuous, discrete landmass except in itself. In fact, that definition lends itself to suggesting that the British Isles should be defined *as* a continent in itself, notwithstanding the application of the adjective, "large".
That would mean that part of Greece is in Europe but all the islands are not, the same happening with Italy, Spain, etc.

So, now that we have the 'misnomer' out of the way, let us work through your points, energetically provided as they were.
I don't think we have...

Incorrect as I indicated above, they are conventions that effectively make use of lines 'drawn in the sand'. Generally they follow natural boundaries, e.g. the Urals, coastlines etc, however, the rules are often 'bent' for geo-political purposes.
Could you give an example of that?

The Earth has obvious natural boundaries, but continents do not necessarily share them. I have already mentioned the Urals and coastlines, but there is an obvious boundary between the British Isles and the Continental Mainland called "The English Channel". This is conveniently overlooked.
It's not overlooked, because of the proximity to the rest of the continent and because geologically, the British Islands (what's the correct spelling, Islands or Isles?) are really part of Europe. In fact, geologically, the south of England and the north of France are the same.

Depends on which of the citizenry you are talking about. If it is pen-pushing Ministers who have egotistical visions of being classed as international statesmen, then yes, they probably think of themselves as 'European'. The rest of us don't.
That doesn't answer my question, and I wasn't talking about present day politicians, I was talking about the definitions used by the British all these centuries.

We are culturally entirely different from the Continental Mainland and this is perhaps easier to understand if you ask a 'continental' whether they are 'like' the British.
That depends, as we can always find cultural differences even between people from the same county. If we are talking about culture in general (language, traditions, etc.), the British share some cultural characteristics with the Germans and French.

I might ask a Portuguese whether they are really just Spanish... They're all on the same peninsula after all...
No, we are not Spanish, be we usually call them "our Spanish brothers", as we consider them much closer to us than the rest of the world (except, for some people, the ex-colonies)

Ahhh, the convenience of convention. That is the beauty of having 'conventions'.
The problem is that we need conventions, otherwise I may be calling something a car while you call it a biscuit.

Once more, as I am using the geological and not the political definitions, Greenland is North America.

Simple answer - yes!
Could you point to some reference to that?

Europe is more of a cultural rather than a geographical definition although the 'convention' is to indicate it as a distinct continent and imply physical boundaries (where I would refer you to my opening comments).
This is the first time I see someone saying that, I always have read and heard the definition as being a physical one, not a cultural one.

If it was a cultural definition, what culture would be chosen to represent it, as there are so many (although interconnected) different cultures?

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 03:10 PM

Originally posted by RawkMan
Hmmm, shakey territory there I am afraid. Culturally, the British are as different from the Continental Mainland as the resident Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English are from each other, not to mention significant regional differences that are often glossed over.
But don't those cultures have some things in common. The same thing happens with other cultures from other European countries, that's why I said that they are still associated (connected is probably a better word) to Europe.

When it comes to religion, you may know of a previous ruler called Henry VIII and one of his most significant acts was to break away from the Catholic Church and create the Church of England.
Yes, I know, it was a easy way of getting divorced without sinning.

You may say, "well, it is all Christian"
No, I wouldn't.

Since that agreement is defined by wish-washy government personnel rather than a reflection of the citizenry, it is not what you might call the vox populi
A definition is a definition, regardless of who created it. If other people accept it I think that is vox populi.

It is fair to say that we are part of Eurasia, but that does not mean we are part of Europe.

If Eurasia is Europe and Asia, how can you be part of Eurasia but not part of Europe?

All previous statements apply. Europe has always had a more signficiant cultural scope than a physical one (unlike Eurasia) and this is reflected in the way it has evovled. During the 8th century during the 'Christian World' was affected by the massive expansion of Muslim territory and not just restricted to the 'Holy Lands'. The 'line' of Europe were redrawn to reflect that only Northern Iberia was considered as 'Europe'.
Could you show me an example of the redrawing of Europe? And I don't mean "the Christian World".

There is a precedent for taking into account 'cultural' aspects for distinction since it has been done for years with 'Europe'.
Where is that precedent? I have never seen it.

The continent of the British Isles... I like the sound of that.
Or the continent of the Isles of Scilly...

Should the Falkland Islands be considered as part of the continent of the British Isles in my New World Order. I believe that a 'convention' is required, hahaha!
I think you need more than a convention for that.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:10 PM
All this bickering about whether Britain is "European" or not is ridiculous and pointless. Britain is Britain. It might be on the same geological tectonic plate.. but it's hardly surprising that the British Isles may or may not identify as "European".

Most other nations on a continent don't identify together. Americans and Canadians can identify through Culture, but we don't consider Central America or the Caribbean to be "North American." Just as Asian nations do not unify and self identify as Asian.

The idea of a European Union is a perversion .. it's a purposeful blending of culture and economic power for the sake of consolidated control over the people of Europe.

It's been tried numerous times.. from Rome to Napoleon, Hitler etc.. all the same thing as the EU just the method used was purely economic and political, no guns.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

No, also to those hating the US 2nd amendment, you obviously haven't read your history books.
Just ask the Jews if you want a few pointers...

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

The body may be born on earth, but not the soul / spirit.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:51 PM
hahaha,first step(the eu alliance,then the citizenship,the currency now a president?heck pretty soon there will be no states island or anything just eu,like in usa all the seperate countrys are now the usa.and ran by this entety that only they know who the hell is really running it,but it is not no voting process of people.oh wait a minute,they are the people,we are human resources or animals,makes no diference to tptb,its all the same sh it to them.and more laws for taxes and penalties wile your whole gets biger and wider. the New World Order (global control) of the recources of the world.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:01 PM
they stick it a little bit,no screaming? ah ok a little more.still ok? ok ,one and a half push this time.still no screaming?oh man!,this will be easier then planned.triple the push and stop cold,good,good good, no movement or screams or nothing? nope,ok slam it all in,but man, it is allready deep to the hilt. really?its all in? and not even a flinch?were in boys! unpack were are here to stay.the lion was only a pusy cat and it is snoring its ars thank god for all them sports and beers and the great tv.we couldnt have done it better. thats what tptb must be saying wile laughing their arses off. just like in the usa
edit on 5-5-2012 by bumpufirst because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Garfee
What has that to do with being a citizen of earth?
I thought it was obvious, so I didn't go further.
In the same way any person that was born on Earth is a citizen (in the sense of a human being, I whould have used that instead, probably) of the Earth, anyone born in Europe is an European, anyone born the UK is British, etc.

Some people act as if Europe wasn't a real place.

It is, which is why I asked you to clarify because there was simply no need for you to post the question. I am an inhabitant of earth but a citizen of Australia and a citizen of New Zealand and I would fight till death to defend these borders from agression.

My customs and culture are different to other countries and I am sick of some people trying to blend them all together so no, I am not a citizen of earth - I am an inhabitant. Just like you.

How does being a citizen - or inhabitant - of earth have any bearing on this debate?

edit on 5-5-2012 by Garfee because: lol

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by bumpufirst

I think you should have used the Frog in the Pot analogy .It would have made you look a little more educated .

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Garfee
How does being a citizen - or inhabitant - of earth have any bearing on this debate?
Europe is just a subdivision of Earth, the UK is a subdivision of Europe, so, regardless of if they like it or not, people from the UK are European, even if they say they aren't.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:16 PM

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Garfee
How does being a citizen - or inhabitant - of earth have any bearing on this debate?
Europe is just a subdivision of Earth, the UK is a subdivision of Europe, so, regardless of if they like it or not, people from the UK are European, even if they say they aren't.

Well then, lets get this one world government party started shall we?

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by Garfee

good reply ,and is when the dictionary has to come out and the law books.these politics are care sales men.we have to read the fine prints and verify every single word.we could be getting something diferent then expected.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

You can live in lala land as much us you like but do not expect the rest of us to live there with you...

You cant make black white.. And you cant make the British European..

We will NEVER submit to that..

It would be like pissing on our grandfathers and mothers graves..

Infact we have more in common with the Yanks than you.. And the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders...

I would rather enter a union with THEM than the EU... So would most Brits..

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by SimonPeter
[mor i know! but in the events unfolding i really dont see the just shows you went to school,college and what grandad had a first grade yet,engeniers came to him for should of seen how he fun times ill tell you.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Garfee
Well then, lets get this one world government party started shall we?
That has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:02 AM
reply to post by EvanB

It's obvious that you have more in common with what was once a British colony, as the British "exported" their culture to those places, while, in some cases, destroying the existing culture (as did all colonialists, Portugal included).

I see that the British are, apparently, the only with a different definition of Europe, using a convenient cultural (and apparently using just the more recent times) definition instead of the physical definition.

As all this discussion has really been off-topic, from me, it stops here.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:04 AM
This concept of Europe is indeed becoming silly... Once and for all, Eurasia is a quite specific uninterrupted landmass and its associated islands and is based solely on geographical constraints. Britain is clearly within the Eurasian landmass. The distinction between Europe and Asia is driven by geopolitical forces which in turn draw lines in the sand to define where the so-called borders are 'desired'.

To indicate that if a convention has been reached then it must be a singular truth is a nonsense. I used an example earlier, when Germany had aggressively occupied other states and called the area The Greater German Reich. Although the 'controlling' body at that time promoted the convention, this didn't necessarily make it so for the people who lived in those regions. They believed that they were simply under the yoke of occupation.

The EU itself has indicated that the physical definition of Europe is amorphous, it has no basis in reality. This subject was brought up when Turkey wanted to join the EU and complaints were made that they were not in 'Europe'. The point is, the definition of Europe changes according to geopolitical expediency.

I have used a few examples to demonstrate this so far. Greenland is an obvious example that has a question mark over it even today with regard to its 'European' status. The point is, the borders of Europe extend beyond those of Eurasia for geopolitical purposes. Europe is not a purely geographic distinction. Examples of the movement of Europes borders during antiquity abound and I referred to changes during the 8th century. This proves the point, more examples are not needed since a single example is enough to validate the point that the borders have changed during history. Point in case, it was not until the early 18th century that the Urals were official indicated as the Eastern extent.

Put it this way, you cannot refer to Europe as a legal entity, it is entirely arbitrary, why are we still debating this? The EU has said it, history has demonstrated it and the people at the extremities of it do not necessarily regard themselves as European. It is churlish to simply say, "I have a map that colours your region red, the rest of Europe is coloured red, therefore you must be in Europe". You cannot go through life simply accepting what you read or are told. Please double-check what I am writing because you will find that all of my points are correct.

Why is this so important? Why belabour the point? Simple - identity! People throughout the ages have been 'lumped' together and usually so that negative, pejorative terms can be applied to them. "The Jews are to blame", "The blacks are to blame", "The Europeans are to blame"... Because 'Europe' is not a wholly geographic definition and is 'elastic' when it comes to indicating the area it covers, it can be used to inappropriately coalesce nations that are not really alike.

To say that we share some traits with Germans and French is obvious and redundant when associating the nations together, after all, we also share other traits with Africans, Indians and South Americans. However, it is the vox populi that speaks loudest and if Britains do not associate themselves with the geopolitical scope of 'Europe' then they are entitled to disassociated themselves from it. This is not denying reality, since 'Europe' is not 'real' per se, it is a human definition that is amorphous at best and is geopolitically oriented rather than subject to clearly defined geographical distinctions.

The vast majority of the population of Britain does not see itself as European, we cherish our island nation status and distinction from the Continental Mainland. No matter the treaties and documents that indolent politicians may sign us up to, the majority of the people of Britain do not submit to being Europeans, do not accept the hegemony of the EU and do not adhere to the swathe of colour in some textbooks that indicates that we should be geopolitically lumped together.

This is the end for me also.

edit on 6-5-2012 by RawkMan because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:52 AM

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Garfee
Well then, lets get this one world government party started shall we?
That has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

Well then by all means please explain yourself like I have been asking you to.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:19 AM
reply to post by ProRipp

Thanks for the video links ProRipp, I'll make sure I watch it throughout.

About time I stopped worrying about Americans who couldn't give a # about anyone but themselves and brought my worries back home.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:39 AM
By giving away our rights to the Europeans. The queen and govt have comitted treason.
Elections? 30% voted. So why should we the majority have to listen to the govt. We didnt vote them in nor should we have to listen to their bs about europe. 70% is the majority and we didnt agree to any of this bs. We need to have a revolution and throw these thieves and traitors out of office.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in