I don't agree with that, the EU has a very strong cultural union that was created by the enunciation of the French Revolution principles. It's not by accident that, for example, there is no state in EU with death penalty. This makes states within the EU very similar at certain levels, otherwise a claim could be made that the cultural delta is the same between two different EU states and between an EU state and US, but this is not true, if you check a bit the fundamental values you'll see that EU nations have a lot in common.
Careful with the French Revolution. I'm sure you know but I was an adult before I understood how insanely brutal that thing was, not only towards former monarchy and nobility but also, or possibly even especially, towards common people.
The revolution set the stage for the modern world though, a world separated in sovereign states (instead of kingdoms) the three branches government etc. etc. For countries that are hanging on the edges of europe, which weren't strongly ethnically homogeneous, like my country, Greece, that style of government was vital for the definition of the nation.
That said, let's not derail the conversation with irrelevant historical anecdotes that are out of time anyway.
The revolution set the stage for the modern world though, a world separated in sovereign states (instead of kingdoms) the three branches government etc
I'm fairly certain that the US was already independent and had adopted the current Constitution by the time the French Revolution happened.
Well, sorry to say this (it might offend Americans), but nobody important at the time really cared. Except for Britain, as the directly involved party. The US at the time was a minor player and its independence and democratic process didn't really affect a lot of people. Abraham Lincoln, ~80 years after the American Revolution was replying to San Marino's government along the lines: you are the only fellow state in the world (San Marino being the oldest republic in the world) in this period of turmoil (i.e. Civil War).
The French Revolution was the event that kick-started the spread of democratic ideas and regimes throughout the Old World. It brought about the downfall of the medieval regimes, the abolition of serfdom and slavery, etc.
The American Revolution was more of a symbolic event at the time. On the other hand the fall of the French monarchy was a colossal event at the time: the new French Republic was continuously attacked by all its neighbors to prevent the dangerous ideas from spreading.
The main difference is that the French Revolution overthrown the old Order.
If you read Tocqueville, he actually clearly comment on the difference, and even impressed with American institution or people, he says that it only works because it was basically a blank slate, and does not believe it could work in Europe.
The American independence did not endanger that much the British Monarchy or British Empire (who happily went on to be the first world power in the XIXth century)
Well, Poland was inspired to adopt a democratic constitution in 1791 and the speed with which its neighbors invaded probably shows that they cared about the spread of democracy too in a more negative way. But yes, that wasn't as significant as the French Revolution.
Ironic that the Poles set themselves back by electing their new right-hardline leader, who immediately moved in to take control over the national television, don't you think?
The elected official in question actually saw no problem with that. To make matters even "better", he is stuck to communist regime / fascist methodology of tightly controlling television and radio... in the age when everybody is on the Internet... awesome!
I know of another guy, over in Turkey, who works the same way... Ataturk would be turning over in his grave if he saw what that other guy is doing in the country he founded.
Anyway, when is Poland holding the referendum on leaving the european union?
Sorry, but you are very misinformed about current events in Poland, as well as the broader geopolitical context. The current party has for the most part used methods that have been employed by every government in Poland since 1989. Purging the national media is standard practice (please see what the previous party did, or the numerous shocking scandals it was involved in). Worth noting is that Polish media are owned (~80%) by German media conglomerates Bauer and Axel Springer which means that the mainstream media are largely pro-German. That is a far more worrying state of affairs than the recent tradition of purges and political jiggery-pokery. I won't get into all of the details, but Poland faces numerous challenges that the Western media never discuss, leaving Westerners horribly misinformed about what's actually happening or why it's happening. What Chomsky calls neoimperialism is very much a factor.
> Ataturk would be turning over in his grave if he saw what that other guy is doing in the country he founded.
Well Atatürk was not exactly a saint, for example I've just learnt the history of İzmir, which had a large Greek population who had been living there for generation and was relocated to Greece after the Greco-Turkish war.
Some of the events around the revolution and the subsequent foundation of the Turkish Republic would now be considered ethnic cleansing now. And the man is still worshipped in Turkey (at least in parts of the country that don't have an AKP majority). In İzmir there is even a Mount-Rushmore-like statue with his face.
This is not to say that Erdoǧan is better, far from it. But Turkey is a complicated country with a complicated history and talking about Kemalists vs Islamists as if they were good guys vs bad guys is a bit simplistic.
Simón Bolívar (born 1783) was an extremely important historical figure. Much of Latin America threw off their European oppressors in part through inspiration Bolívar took from what the Americans accomplished in getting rid of the British.
Clearly the American Revolution was far more than symbolic: it directly, entirely reshaped both North and South America.
And isn't it ironic that this name was used to re-enforce Hugo Chavez's "Bolivar Revolution" aka dictatorship. Now Venezuela is in shambles and the poor people can barely afford food when the government controls more proven oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.
Forget the excessive gerrymandering or his successful change to the Venezuelan constitution which allowed for him to be reelected indefinitely. He was indeed a lot of things, but his legacy will be mismanaging a country with enough natural resources to be one of the richest countries in the world. He was an authoritarian dictator. Faux democracy with fake votes and a press which is govt controlled and a leader that wants to run forever is a dictatorship no matter how you skin it.
Many of your critiques apply to many countries considered democracies. Excessive gerrymandering is an issue in many democracies including the US. Not to mention that in the US minorities are specifically targeted for exclusion. A lot of countries don't have term limits for heads of state (for most of its history the US didn't). Press freedoms aren't what defines what a dictatorship is either. Would Saudi Arabia be a democracy if suddenly all censorship laws are purged from the books?
> Except for the time he lost, and within two days a military coup of the democratically elected body put him back in power
LOL. The coup was done against him after being democratically elected in 2000 but it failed disastrously, making him some kind of a folk hero in most of Latin America. If you don't know this basic fact you really have no business talking about Venezuela, let along calling Chavez a dictator just because you didn't like the guy. Venezuela had many chances of getting rid of him democratically and they decided not to, we all can disagree about how wise a decision it was but that is different matter.
The US independance was completely inspired by the "Lumières" (the philosophical movement of the Enlighteners), which originated in France and led to the French revolution as well as the emergence of true democracy accross Europe. So even if the US was already independant by the time the French Revolution happened, this is only because it was way more complicated to achieve the latter. But let's not be mistaken about its origins.
There was a lot of inspiration the other way too, though.
Here are two little instances I came across recently where the french copied their rhetoric and symbolism from America:
In 1787 Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Then in 1793 Bertrand Barère, in an influential speech to the national assembly advocating execution of the king, repeated "The tree of liberty grows only when watered by the blood of tyrants" . In French sources the quote is often (incorrectly) attributed to Barère only.
Similarly, during the American revolution, Americans raised symbolic "liberty poles" in their towns. Directly inspired by this, during the french revolution most cities raised and decorated "Trees of Liberty" in their central squares. King Louis even stooped to visiting and honoring the one in Paris to appease revolutionaries (it didn't help).
(The French took the idea of "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" quite literally).
Let's not make nonsensical statements like US independence was completely inspired by the Lumières then.
Most notably, US independence was also inspired by the Glorious Revolution in England (the American Bill of Rights is even based on the English Bill of Rights), about a century earlier.
"The Lumières (literally in English: Enlighteners) was a cultural, philosophical, literary and intellectual movement of the second half of the 18th century"
Yes, but the original claim was that the French Revolution codified the idea of the separation of powers, which is clearly false. The evidence of that is that America already existed with this structure and was obviously known to the west.
Democracy was also known in Greece a couple thousands of years prior. As others have stated, the ideas were the ideas of the enlightenment and while America was a wonderful project, it wasn't the real example to show that these ideas could work -- the French Revolution did that.
Except it didn't work. After overthrowing the monarchy, France went through a number of highly unstable governments until Napoleon ascended to the throne in 1805. That period was called the Reign of Terror for a reason. If you were suspected of being a counter-revolutionary, you could be executed without trial.
After Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, the French monarchy was restored. When the Second Republic was established after the revolution of 1848, Napoleon III quickly abused his uncle's popularity to establish another dictatorship within five years. This lasted until 1870.
He's right. In a dichotomy of revolutionaries vs. monarchists, Napoleon is definitely seen as the former. It's not really as simple as democracy vs. lack thereof. Many of the most radical revolutionaries were extremely undemocratic. At times during the Revolutinary period even suggesting democratic measures (like implementing the Constitution) could get you killed.
The Franco-American Revolution created via violence or a new model of governance who's moral authority wasn't challenged until the Russ-Sino Revolution nearly 100 years later which was also violent.
Why does HN pretend political revolutions are peaceful?
> Why does HN pretend political revolutions are peaceful?
So HN is a single-minded entity? Just because a couple of people say something you don't like, you paint all of HN, with its 1000s of members, with that?
The UK does not have that shared French Revolution tradition at all, and neither do a large number of European countries that are still monarchies. Instead of a violent French Revolution, the UK had a nonviolent change of power from royalty to the people. Instead of a civil war over slavery, the UK had a peaceful transition where the state bought the slaves from the slave owners. This referendum fits in a great tradition of nonviolent change.
The UK abolished slavery, and even fought commonwealth territories that resisted. Maybe if parts of the US had still been in the commonwealth, slavery would have ended sooner there too.
Let's be honest, it is actually the brutality of the French revolution which forced the British royalty to hand over power to the people. And before doing these "peaceful" transitions, all neighbouring countries tried to smother the French with war in order to preserve the priviledges of the remaining monarchies.
You kinda throwing the thousand years of gradual maturing of democracy in UK out of the window with that common. The "royalty" didn't suddenly give power to the people after seing horrors of French revolution; it happened over ages of internal conflicts and civil wars.
So you are implying that a add-hoc democracy like in the cold war country's or post-war Germany, is not a real democracy? Cause it had no time in the barrel, going to the irish-famine, the scottish conquering s, the Falkland wars, the opium-wars. Dear god, what uncivilized undemocratic huns we outsiders are.
And nothing off value got lost.
Hrm, England had its own bloody Civil War, and if that wasn't enough there was also the Glorious Revolution. These were the 2 events that ultimately gave political power to the parliament.
If you look at the way Western Countries transitioned from one form of govt. to another its seems to have been very bloody. Glorious Revolution, French Revolution, American Revolution, German Revolutions, Russian Revolution etc.
> nonviolent change of power from royalty to the people
So regicide doesn't count as violence? Also, as mentioned down-thread, we had a pretty bloody civil war here, which replaced the monarchy with a 'Lord Protector' which ultimately amounted to the same thing by another name and so we decided the monarchy wasn't that bad, as long as parliament kept the worst excesses in check.
What on earth are you talking about? Not only did the UK have the 'French Revolution tradition', it's arguable that they got there first. I take it you're not that familiar with the English Civil War...
Not that England/Britain didn't have their own bloody, violent civil wars along the way to get there. The English were ahead of the curve by just over a hundred years, as far as executing their king and instituting a military dictatorship goes.
What culture do Germans, Greeks, Latvians, Bulgarians, Fins, and Spaniards share? It takes more than vastly differing attachments to a vague sense of liberalism and a desire to not blow the continent to high hell again.
Coca cola, modern sports, national health care, the Internet, videogames and on a more serious side a higher degree of respect for minorities that countries bordering the EU, no death penalty, gun control, a will to improve civil rights and liberties, ... should I go on?
Once you start meeting people from all those countries you realize even more how similar your cultures are. Some common sayings, some common tales, very similar political divisions, etc
There's a reason why Europe is many times referred as a whole. "They do it like this in Europe", "In Europe they prefer that" (and it's not always ignorance ;)).
> Coca cola, modern sports, national health care, the Internet, videogames and on a more serious side a higher degree of respect for minorities that countries bordering the EU, no death penalty, gun control, a will to improve civil rights and liberties, ... should I go on?
This is interesting to me. As an American, our national identity certainly looks similar; it's composed of favorite pastimes and products and shared political values.
But is that true in Europe? The cultures of European countries are much older, predating capitalism and the democratic governments they have today. Most of them are more or less homogenous, whereas the US has always been a nation of immigrants, and the whole "melting pot" idea has been around for most of our history, even if our behavior and policies sometimes clash with it.
Also, I'd argue some of the nation states in Europe are invented, like Italy and Germany, which each were basically just a bunch of city states that were more or less force ably amalgamated into one country. I don't know much about modern German or Italian nationalism, but I think that might have a negative impact on an overall European identity.
Granted, I'm speculating here. At the end of the day I'm an American who doesn't know what he's talking about. Though I do think it's telling that a good number of things you offered as components of a shared European identity were invented in America.
> There's a reason why Europe is many times referred as a whole. "They do it like this in Europe", "In Europe they prefer that" (and it's not always ignorance ;)).
Do actual Europeans say that? Sounds more like the typical American who just got back from a vacation in Europe.
As a non-american / non-european, I find this interesting.
For a lot of things, I see countries of the EU are _more_ unanimous on topics than the US is internally.
The death penalty is a prime example. It varies state to state in the US, but (AFAIK) is consistent across EU countries.
Gambling is another, I didn't realize it was actually illegal in some US states. I'm not aware of any individual countries in the EU that differ from the majority there.
> For a lot of things, I see countries of the EU are _more_ unanimous on topics than the US is internally.
The death penalty is a prime example. It varies state to state in the US, but (AFAIK) is consistent across EU countries.
Ah. I wasn't trying to say we as a country have univeral political positions, but rather shared beliefs and values. Americans certainly don't agree on the death penalty, gun ownership, the limits of free speech, or hell, even gambling, but most everyone believes in things like one man one vote and equality (once again, even if we behave differently sometimes for the latter).
Gambling actually is a big point of contention in the EU, because countries try to control it/grab profits from it and regularly get in conflict with the free market rules. E.g. Germany is under pressure because most German states only allow state-run organizations to offer sport bets, "to limit gambling addiction". Which would be ok, but at the same time they heavily advertise for it, which made the argument hard to believe to EU courts. (State monopoly on gambling is just so very, very profitable...)
I disagree. I do not identify with New Yorkers (or north east coast), Florida, Texas, California, Oregon, the rust belt, or the southwest. You probably guessed by now I'm from the Midwest. I also don't identify with the blacks, Hispanics, Cubans, Irish or Italians. All of these have rich and interesting cultures. I respect them, but they are not mine. When I meet one of them, we often have difficulty finding commonality. My point is that you would be hard pressed to find one specific example of something that relates to all American backgrounds. I think this is a good thing.
Let's start from the basics: All nation states are invented. You've mentioned Italy and Germany. Let me add the UK (England conquered others), Spain (Castille and the Kingdom of Aragon merged, then Castille imposed their culture over the years), France (many different tribes and many different languages apart from French), Belgium (what is Belgium?), etc
Even some more homogeneous (apparently) countries are melting pots. Romania: Some regions speak only Hungarian (and they're not bordering Hungary) and some others speak also Ukrainian. Their borders have changed a lot in the last 150 years. Hungary itself is nothing like it used to be (and it was the same country / empire with Austria... go figure!). Let's also not start with disastrous examples like the former Yugoslavia...
The difference is that the US assumed and took advantage of the "melting pot" idea whereas nationalistic views in Europe have been making the world think we have some special character or culture (and each of us different than its neighbour). Two World Wars mostly based on nationalism haven't helped either.
In many European countries it is frowned upon to worship the national flag or at least it's considered potentially close to extreme right wing and racism. Why? Because as opposed to the US flag which represents a melting pot and freedom, European flags represent nationalistic ideas. Ask and Englishman about Saint George's cross or a Spaniard about their flag. In both cases they'll only wave the flag during sporting events like the current Eurocup. Outside that, the above applies.
> Though I do think it's telling that a good number of things you offered as components of a shared European identity were invented in America.
Globalisation. Also, America didn't just happen. America is a branch of older European cultures (British, Irish, Dutch, Spanish and French at least), so in a sense the American culture is child of European culture, hence why it's not difficult for us Europeans to make it our own too.
American ideas and ideals come from Europe and / or Christianity. Some of them even predate the idea of Europe, coming from the Romans or Greeks. This is a long heritage than you guys and us have shared for long time. Globalisation is just making the rest.
> Do actual Europeans say that? Sounds more like the typical American who just got back from a vacation in Europe.
Not unheard of, specially if we're talking to someone not European. A clear example is political views: In Europe we consider American elections a choice between right wing and righter wing ;) whereas some of our social democratic (or labour) parties might look communist to you guys.
Times change and this might not be true anymore in a few decades, but a majority of Europeans would always choose Democrats over Republicans (and Bernie over Hillary).
As a European I say that you are wrong. Of course there are quite a few right wing extremists in Europe, but in general we are very happy with people from other European countries coming to study or work in our own home countries. (Those who come to beg are seen as more problematic.)
In addition, we as everyone else are capable of identifying with many things, and what is important at the moment depends on the context. When I speak to an American or Chinese, I'm European, when I speak to an Englishman I'm a Swede and if I speak to another Swede I'm from Stockholm.
In Catalonia, I identify as someone from Barcelona.
In most world affairs, I identify as European.
It is human nature to look for your own identity; and sharing that with your neighbours substracts from your own personality. On the other hand, against external competition you would look for group membership.
What I'm saying is, the Brits are not special or different on their aspirations than their neighbours. Their main difference is who owns the media and the aspirations of those media moguls.
Don't forget morality. There are many atheists in Europe nowadays and not all countries are Catholic or even Christian, but I think we share a very similar set of moral values.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the foundations of mathematics and physics are European. Rather that mathematics, physics, etc... are themselves the foundations of the Western civilization.
But to the news at hand, many English people don't like to be referred to as Europeans. They don't think they have much in common with Spaniards as an example.
And no offense or disrespect, but Spain has a history with Latin American countries that they don't have with the Germans. That cannot be ignored.
Spain has a history with Latin American countries, that's true. It's something that all former colonial empires share. UK has also a history with the Commonwealth members.
Said this... do you seriously think that UK is closer culturally to India than to Germany?
I think you are putting words in my mouth. I was talking about Spain and Latin American history because the parent was saying they feel closer as a Spaniard to Germany than Latin American countries. I think it's plausible that history has something to do with that.
The UK sees itself as an important world player in its own right.
EU membership challenges that, because in the EU the UK is one country out of many - and not even the most important one.
Of all the countries in Europe the UK has been least able to deal with the loss of empire in the previous century, and hasn't yet worked out a way to look forward to the rest of the 21st century instead of back to the 19th.
This is unfortunate because there's a lot of talent of all kinds. But it's trapped in a political and financial wasteland which is built on a bizarre nostalgia for the glory days of the 19th century.
If the UK had been like this in the 18th century, the industrial revolution would never have happened here. We'd have been pining for the old pre-civil war monarchy instead of building a future.
There is a difference between wishing/thinking to be different and actually being different. The moral code, greater world view, etc. is very much alike. We celebrate our differences, as we should, but it seems that Britain forgot the common base we share. I fear it will hurt them more than they realize.
Spain was ruled by the Habsburgs for a long time, the same dynasty that infested central Europe. Spain also fought central European powers regularly, intermarried with them, so on and so forth. It's crazy to say that half a millenia of Spain and Central Europe being entwined politically is somehow less of a cultural bond than colonisation, where slaves were shipped out-of-sight, out-of-mind to produce wealth for the people 'back home'.
> What culture do Germans, Greeks, Latvians, Bulgarians, Fins, and Spaniards share?
What culture does a hill billy from the Ozarks share with a Bostonian? (And no, it is not a function of social status only; it really are deep cultural differences.)
> What culture does a hill billy from the Ozarks share with a Bostonian?
TV.
From east to west to north to south everyone in the States has this common bond, television, and through this medium our "culture" is propagated.
Flip on the TV in Europe and not only will the language very likely vary from country to country, so to will the content, which is based on the cultural norms of that particular country (or language group from which the country evolved).
Also, given how new the country is, the "united" in United States is easily traced to the American Revolution and Civil War. In Europe there is no such common identity given the rich and varied history.
in europe most of the the time if you turn on the tv you _will_ find the same stuff.
Holliwood movies, Game of thrones, Kommissar Rex, the borgias, eurovision song contest, european football championships, local versions of "the billionaire" or "big brother" etc.
Did you grow up in southern europe in the '80s? Then you probaly watched the same dubbed animes like "Captain Tsubasa". In eastern europe? Same, but this time it was Krtek.
Are you a kid now? Then you are likely watching Masha & The Bear across the whole continent.
>in europe most of the the time if you turn on the tv you _will_ find the same stuff. Holliwood movies, Game of thrones, Kommissar Rex, the borgias, eurovision song contest, european football championships, local versions of "the billionaire" or "big brother" etc.
That list sounds more of a reason to being done with Europe rather than an argument for its shared culture.
Bostonians generally don't believe in exceptionalism. Ozarkians tend to, but I know liberal citizen-of-the-world people from, and actually residing in, the Ozarks.
Anyway, exceptionalism isn't really a common bond.
Whatever is happening between football factions in Euro16 is nothing specific to international European matches; violence is very frequent even for national ones.
Actually Finno-urgic languages include Finnish and Hungarian; but also include others like Estonian, and many others besides in Russia, northern Norway, Sweden, etc.
Celtic languages (Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Manx, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton) are all distantly related to Latin, and probably closer to Latin than other branches of Indo-European.
Basque is a language isolate spoken in parts of Spain and France. There's also Turkish - part of Turkey is in Europe, but not in the EU.
What is the explanation for part of Turkey being in Europe and part in Asia? AFAIK, that is not common, right, for a country to be part of two continents?
An bhfuil Gaeilge agaibh? I was correcting someone who didn't think that the Celtic languages and Latin were in any way related. That is not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic explains this, even if the similarities are no longer obvious. Hungarian is unrelated to Latin.
No, I'm Brazilian/Hungarian. I've been here for months and still can't even figure out the structure of sentences, much less their meaning (unless it's obvious from external clues). I've always thought of myself as having a knack for languages, but Ireland humbled me. I can write Klingon, but I wouldn't be able to read safety warnings on the train were they not also written in English below.
Which makes me want to put up some bilingual fake warnings with jokes written in Irish and innocent information written in English as if it were a translation from the text above.
It'll be fun to learn Irish from my daughter as she starts school in the next months.
That does not mean that English is a Latin descendant.
English sits on Germanic/West Germanic/Anglo-Frisian branch of the language tree. The Germanic branched together with Romance, Slavic, Celtic, Baltic, Helenic from the Indo-European/European branch, but Latin belongs to Romance, not Germanic.
Perhaps that is because the language tree does not effectively express multiple inheritance.
Multiple invasions of Britain by different ethnic groups have patched together so many language roots into English that the conjugation of the core existence verb "to be" is just an aggregation of the same verb from seven or eight different languages, pasted together in one etymological mishmash.
At some point, English started stealing vocabulary from any language used in international trade, and simply invented any new words that needed saying, using whatever etymological root that was convenient or marketable.
At some point, the Normans and Picards hammered enough French words into Middle English that there should be at least a second root extending into the Romance branch from English.
How else would you get "milk" from a "cow" (Germanic), but get "beef" from "cattle" (Norman), and refer to them all as "bovine" (Latin)?
Those trees are not a terribly good metaphor, though. English is more "descended" from its Germanic roots, but it also has enough in common with Romantic languages that I think it is reasonable to say that it descended from both.
Some significant portion of English is descended from French (which is descendant from Latin).
Edit: But taking some vocabulary from language does not mean being descendant. Half of the world uses the term "e-mail", but they still are not English.
What about Greek, the family of the Slavic languages like Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Kroatian, the family of Finno-Ugric languages Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian, the isolated language Basque and finally the big share of the Germanic languages: English, German, Dutch, Swedish and Danish?
If we want to define language as a common value for the European Countries, then it might be some Indo-European proto-language (even then it's not clear where Basque comes from).
I agree that Latin had a huge influence in most of the European languages, but this mostly through the Roman Empire and later through the Catholic Church.
That's something they share with South Korea, Ethiopia or Russia. I would not call them as a culturally coherent group - thus I would not hold having a major christian population in a country very uniting. Especially since parts of those are protestant and partly catholic - and that creates hugely divisive cultural views on e.g. womens rights even today. So one could claim 'christianity' a thing which culturally divides them as well.
> I don't agree with that, the EU has a very strong cultural union that was created by the enunciation of the French Revolution principles. It's not by accident that, for example, there is no state in EU with death penalty.
The conjunction of those two sentences is a bit hilarious, considering the wanton abuse of the death penalty during the Reign of Terror.
And I think that the lack of capital punishment is an indicator of one of the EU's problems: it's stunningly undemocratic. Polls (until recently?) have shown for decades strong popular support for capital punishment, and yet countries have been forced by the EU to ban it.
The death penalty is prohibited by protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Ratifying the convention is a requirement for joining the EU, but it isn't the EU that is doing the banning. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, which is not connected to (and pre-dates) the European Union.
I am unaware of anyone in any of the EU countries who support the death penalty nor capital punishment. It is overwhelmingly frowned upon. Now I admit I haven't asked everyone in every EU country. And I'm sure there are those in Central/Eastern Europe who still support it (I know life was especially brutal under the communist regimes).
Polls (until recently?) Which polls? I'm honestly curious.
Well, I'm in an EU country, and I support the death penalty for the most severe crimes; as execution method I only propose that the condemned shall be kept in prison until he or she dies. A lethal injection or bullet in the neck is too easy.
While you're mostly right (and associating the abolishment of death penalty with French Revolution made me chuckle too), it's not actually true that the EU banned death penalty outright. EU institutions surely oppose death penalty, and there would be political/diplomatic repercussions if a member state tried to restore it, but this is not imposed upon any state in legal sense.
There are of course lots of principles that European citizens all share. But there are also some principles that they don't. France, for example, is significantly more socialist than the UK.
Unfortunately the EU sees differences as a disease which must be wiped out with always the same prescription: more EU. Literally so. They talk of voting as a "contagion".
I'd like to see some evidence for your statement. Subsidiarity is a general principle taken into account for all EU decisions. It's the opposite of "seeing difference as a disease" IMO.
Just look at how they talk. Voting is a contagion that might "spread" to other countries, as if it was the bubonic plague. The EU has constantly increased its power. The goal of the people who actually run it is federalism. They hate the idea of countries picking and choosing integration from a menu, they are literally dead-set against the idea.
And why would you insist on a deal being all or nothing, bad with the good? Because you know that's the only way to get the bad ideas through. Same reason Congress attaches riders to bills they know will be strongly supported, when those same riders got rejected earlier.
As an immigrant living in London the "bad" ideas are in the eye of the beholder surely? Can you enumerate a few ideas that are bad?
Also, to me an institution keeping the peace also trying to contain the "contagion" of instability makes perfect sense. It's what I want and I contacted all my representatives to that end.
- Treating low taxes as "state aid" (EU Commission will be setting tax rates across the EU soon, just wait)
- Having a Parliament that can't make its own laws
But if you asked others you might get an answer like "the euro".
The EU has no relevance to peace or war. The USA is a much more strongly federalised union than the EU and had a brutal civil war. Most wars today are civil wars. There is absolutely nothing that'd stop the EU having a civil war even if it was incredibly federalised and had become practically a single country, like the USA. What has kept the peace in Europe was avoiding a repeat of the Treaty of Versaille, nuclear weapons, NATO, and the fact that European countries are now all mature democracies (the latter is imo the most important).
Exactly that's what sickens me the most. Not many politicians actually champion democracy and the populace's ability to decide for themselves what they want. They only want more power for themselves.
> Unfortunately the EU sees differences as a disease which must be wiped out with always the same prescription: more EU.
I don't see how the EU has pushed or facilitated any kind of political homogeneization. Apart from the short rise of the liberal democrat party, it seems UK politics have been the same for centuries.
The great irony is the EU motto is literally “United in diversity” (In Varietate Concordia). Apparently what they really meant was “United > diversity.”
I would think two World Wars fought over the continent would be more incentive to make it work. Considering how long ago the French Revolution took place it does seem no one there learned much until so many were killed it appalled all involved.
One major advantage the US has is a single main language. That is something that will in time possibly occur within the EU but language is a barrier that cannot be over estimated
When Napoleon took the reins of government, he decided to call himself an emperor rather than a king. Emperor is a temporal title, it's not intended to be passed down to heirs the same way a throne is. French emperors rule at the will of the people, and it's up to them to decide whether they want a monarch or not.
Napoleon III, the last French monarch, was captured during the Franco-Prussian war, and after his death, the French decided they'd had enough of monarchs and the third French republic lasted until WWII. It was replaced by the Germans with Vichy, and then after the war, the fourth and fifth republics.
It's highly unlikely that the French will ever accept another monarch. There are Bonapartist and a Orléanist (Bourbon) pretenders to the throne, but none hold any public office. If the government falls apart again like it did in 1958, it should be replaced with another republic as it was then. Nobody can really rule out a third French empire, but the trend of democracy worldwide has been towards devolution of power rather than centralization, France is more likely to break apart than it is to re-imperialize.
> EU has a very strong cultural union that was created by the enunciation of the French Revolution principles. It's not by accident that, for example, there is no state in EU with death penalty.
This is a somewhat funny thing to say, considering how many people were given the death penalty in the French revolution and its aftermath. Executions for "crimes against liberty" and whatever are estimated to have been between 16,000 and 40,000. [0]
Wait, hold on. Are saying that the EU doesn't like the death penalty because of French Revolution principles?! This is the same French Revolution that famously involved the guillotine, no?
No, we all agree that, both historically and presently, our political leaders are incompetent and not to be trusted with such a sharp blade. They get children's scissors and should be happy about it.
It's all relative. I live in Eastern Europe part of EU and I can tell that either it's London, or Stockholm or Vilnius, they all look and feel very alike. Biggest difference is amount of non-white people in western cities.
It's not enough to have things in common. The point the previous post make is that it requires a common enemy to forge unification as strong as the US and even here there are talks about some states wanting to go independent from time to time.
Without this external factor it's hard to find something to really feel the same about.
And yes. Leo Strauss was of that opinion and you will find a whole suite of argument that talk about how the middle east became the new enemy out of need rather than actual threat.
This was part of the PNAC (Project for New American Century) which identified the need for a new enemy after the fall of the wall.
Now whether they were actually successful is another discussion but it was part of the Bush administrations fundamental belief as several of it's key members where students under Strauss.
