Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/europes-human-rights-court-rules-against-crucifixes-in-italian-schools-/1

Wow, I could care less about the court decision, however, the death of national sovereignty in the EU that just occurred is...interesting. I wonder how France will react.

European court rules against crucifixes in Italian schools
11:37 AMYahoo! BuzzShare
DiggNewsvineRedditE-mailSavePrintShare19 Comments

Recommend Europe's court of human rights said today that the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools violates religious and education freedoms, the Associated Press reports.


The seven-judge panel stopped short of ordering Italy to remove the crucifixes, which are common in Italian public school, but the ruling could force a review of the use of religious symbols in government-run schools across Europe.

The BBC notes that an Italian law requiring crucifixes to be hung in schools dates back to the 1920s.

The court said the crucifix could be disturbing to non-Christian or atheist pupils and rejected arguments by Italy's government that it was a national symbol of culture, history, identity, tolerance and secularism.

The Italian government immediately said it would appeal, with one minister saying the court should be ashamed and a conservative senator calling the ruling "absurd."

The Italian Bishop's Conference said they were perplexed by the decision, noting that the Strasbourg-based court either ignored or overlooked that the crucifix "is not just a religious symbol, but a cultural sign."

The court ordered Italy to pay $7,390 fine to Soile Lautsi, the mother of two children who claimed public schools in her northern Italian town refused eight years ago to remove the Roman Catholic symbols from classrooms.

National Sovereignty died several years ago in the EU.

When it happened most Europeans were busy pointing at America and saying how dumb y'all were.. or something. Then you had an election in which people's votes actually counted, and then, at some point the people in Europe started to look round and go

"Oh £$%^ "

This IS irony. You know, that thing "we" are constantly telling you that you don't get. My one hope is that this is actually just a really OTT practical demonstration of it.

As to the French.. they'll be quite happy with this. They and the Germans have been amongst the strongest pusher for a U.S.E. for years now, hell a few years back they even let the foreign ministers for their respective countries represent both countries at various EU talks.

The French will be fine. Their government is strongly secular anyway.

National sovereignty is a slippery concept in the EU. Anyone not a member of the Euro can still set their own central bank interest rate.

Governments set their own tax rates and foreign policy. In theory they are required to comply with Directives, but there are ways of getting out of that. Various countries have broken the rules on public borrowing requirements, and had a finger wagged at them, and gone on as they like.

There isn't really anything the EU can do to stop a member nation from doing what it likes except cut off the flow of aid, which wouldn't affect net donor nations anyway.

The vaguely sound like a tiny UN.

I dunno man, it all sounds ominous to me....

Why weren't we allowed to have a referendum? Ah, that's right - our unelected Prime Minister decided we didn't need one!
I dunno, we spend most of our modern history repelling invasions by our european neighbours - now all of a sudden we can't wait to jump into bed with them?

Hmm.

They are ganging up against us! Man the ships!

To be honest, why do people care? Either we live in a gak run United States of Europe or we Live in a gak run Fragmented States of Europe.

The end result is the same.

As a War Studies student, I've examined the motives and long term aims the Germans possessed with regards to the first World War. One of the things they actually intended to set up having defeated France and Russia (Britain was peripheral to this until the last minute), was the establishment of a German dominated trade bloc across Europe. Unrestricted travel, a common currency, much freer trade for themselves, and so on.

There was a controversial book published a little while ago by a historian detailing how if Britain had stayed out of the First World War, the actual result would have been much the same as the EU is today. The main difference is that we, of course, would still have an empire, and be one of the most powerful nations in the world. It's an interesting concept to be sure.

The UK should totally join the US. Canada too.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The UK should totally join the US. Canada too.

The UK nearly did at one point.

We'd rather do our own thing if you don't mind. The Canadians would too.

The Canadians don't seem to like you guys much actually. Call a Canadian an American, and you're looking for a smack in the face. It's like calling a Gibraltarian Spanish, or a Chinese person Japanese.

The UK should totally join the US. Canada too.

Um, no thanks. Why don't you join us? We've got free healthcare. And cooler accents.

The main difference is that we, of course, would still have an empire, and be one of the most powerful nations in the world.

We are still one one of the most powerful nations in the world, just not as powerful as before. Plus, we still have British Overseas Territories - does that count as 'Imperial'? I'm not sure.

Aw, come on you guys. It'll be cool! We can call it the United Kingdoms of Americanada.

Maybe we can make Australia a commonwealth or something.

Actually, the British Empire Never died.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc are all still part of it, we just gave them a Devolved Parliament

Then we're halfway there!

Face it Albatross, we're sitting in the decrepit decaying shell of a once great Empire.

Once upon a time we built great edifices that inspired the world. Now we build stuff like the Millenium Dome. Once upon a time we had an Empire that spanned the entire globe. Now we have the UK, the Falklands, and Gibraltar. Once upon a time we had a Navy of which there was no equal. Now, we've sold it to Canada. Once upon a time, we had an industries that produced the highest quality and most advanced goods in many fields, from navigations to weaponry. Now we sell each other money and call it an economy.

Face it. Compared to what we once were, we're pitiful. Our politicians have sold our nation to the French and German dominated European bloc. In 300 years time, we'll be nothing more than an overly proud part of the United States of Europe. The Commonwealth is a joke, and NATO effectively ceased to be worth anything the day the Soviet bloc collapsed.

To think ourselves greater than we are is one of the current day follies of the regular Englishman. Our military whilst being of the highest quality in terms of training and motivation, is tiny, and has severe equipment shortages. Our traitorous government may pretend to strut upon the world stage,w agging the odd finger at the likes of president mugabe, but in reality, no one gives two damns about British opinion.

The EU autocrats don't give a damn as long as we conintue to fund the burgeoning state. The Americans tolerate us because we speak the same language, and have a shared sense of history. The Russians don't give two shiny halfpennies for British opinion, and neither do the Chinese. The corrupt African governments have been raising two fingers at us for the last 50 years whilst they plunder the wealth of their people. The Arabs smile politely whilst scorning us for the depths our government will sink to to keep the black gold coming. The Asians don't even think about us anymore, we're too far away, and have no bearing on them other than ordering goods from them.

The fact is, we are a fading nation with a puffed up sense of our own importance on the world stage. It's harsh, but true.

Apparently The British Empire DOES still exist, and was responsible for 9/11 - according to this lunatic:

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2007/webcasts/3441oct10_opener.html


Wow.

It wasn't the Jews?!

Jewish Lizardmen, actually. The Queen's one.

Oh, right.

They live in Antarctica.

Theoretically speaking, Parliament is capable of dissolving the CommonWealth, and re-establishing the Empire. However, this is similar to Royal Power, it might exist in technicality, but any attempt to actually use and enforce it would result in it being completely ignored.

Ketara wrote:There was a controversial book published a little while ago by a historian detailing how if Britain had stayed out of the First World War, the actual result would have been much the same as the EU is today. The main difference is that we, of course, would still have an empire, and be one of the most powerful nations in the world. It's an interesting concept to be sure.

The idea is basically dead on arrival, though. The world economy had changed and the trade goods of the colonies weren't the money spinners they had been, and the cost of maintaining those colonies was ever increasing. What had once been a great source of wealth was now a money sink.

The British empire died because the world's economy changed, not because they fought two wars with the Germans.

Ketara wrote:As a War Studies student, I've examined the motives and long term aims the Germans possessed with regards to the first World War. One of the things they actually intended to set up having defeated France and Russia (Britain was peripheral to this until the last minute), was the establishment of a German dominated trade bloc across Europe. Unrestricted travel, a common currency, much freer trade for themselves, and so on.

There was a controversial book published a little while ago by a historian detailing how if Britain had stayed out of the First World War, the actual result would have been much the same as the EU is today. The main difference is that we, of course, would still have an empire, and be one of the most powerful nations in the world. It's an interesting concept to be sure.

The key reason for the UK joining WW1 was the alarming build-up of German naval power from 1890 (ish) onwards. If that had not been removed, the same eventual result may have been obtained in terms of reduction of British power.

It's worth noting that the UK is still one of the most powerful nations in the world today, in terms of military forces, wealth, and cultural influence. It's just overshadowed by the much more powerful USA and China.

The world economy had changed and the trade goods of the colonies weren't the money spinners they had been, and the cost of maintaining those colonies was ever increasing. What had once been a great source of wealth was now a money sink.

Yeah, because NO-ONE uses oil, sugar, coffee, tea, rubber, gold, silver and diamonds anymore, do they? Ah, the good old days....

Albatross wrote:
Why weren't we allowed to have a referendum?

Other than that not being the way the British Governmental system works you mean ? And on what exactly ?

Ah, that's right - our unelected Prime Minister decided we didn't need one!

We don't elect the Prime MInister, that's very much the point of the system we have.

See Cameron finally folded to the inevitable today and admitted there's no point to a referendum.At least he's being honest about it, he's got to be careful though, Europe is the one issue that the Tories have never had a decent or consistent angle of approach over and it would be sadly typical if they were to shoot themselves in the foot over this befroe the election has even begun.

Albatross wrote:Yeah, because NO-ONE uses oil, sugar, coffee, tea, rubber, gold, silver and diamonds anymore, do they? Ah, the good old days....

Just because a good is in demand that doesn't mean the good will always be a highly profitable trade good, nor will it mean that trade alone will always be the best means of becoming a wealthy nation.

Just ask Chile about the value of their guano reserves. There's more fertlisier around than ever, so by your reasoning their batpoo must be making a fortune. The Chileans might tell you that the Germans developed artificial fertilizer in the lead up to WWI, which quickly made shipping guano from South America a non-commercial enterprise.

Unfortunately mercantilism was replaced by capitalism, and the wealth of the great nations slowly came to be derived from industrial production, not trade.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Aw, come on you guys. It'll be cool! We can call it the United Kingdoms of Americanada.

Maybe we can make Australia a commonwealth or something.

Sorry, we're a little busy at the moment merging with mexico and Central America. We'll get back to the UK after that, but you'll have to be prepared to learn Spanish.

Viva enchiladas!

Why haven't you annexed Canada yet? Don't you people read the news? The Reds have taken Anchorage!

Ketara wrote:Theoretically speaking, Parliament is capable of dissolving the CommonWealth, and re-establishing the Empire. However, this is similar to Royal Power, it might exist in technicality, but any attempt to actually use and enforce it would result in it being completely ignored.

Yea, would you really want to see Canada kick the UK's keister? I'd admit it be the politest war in history. Mayhaps you could settle it with a drinking contest or a matchup between football hooligans and hockey fans. I'd pay to see that. The UK may have the best soccer hooligans in Europe, but come on, your competing against the Dutch. THE DUTCH! Canada is like that world on Star Trek. They are painfully polite but focus all their latent aggression and rage into Hockey games. Plus they can high stick you.

sebster wrote:
The idea is basically dead on arrival, though. The world economy had changed and the trade goods of the colonies weren't the money spinners they had been, and the cost of maintaining those colonies was ever increasing. What had once been a great source of wealth was now a money sink.

The British empire died because the world's economy changed, not because they fought two wars with the Germans.

One of the main reasons for the collapse of the British Empire was in fact, the debt left behind from Two World Wars. It economically wrecked us. Unlike Japan and Germany, who had massive US subsidies thrown at them to quickly attempt to rebuild them to hold out against Soviet encroachment, to a large extent we had to go it on our own. This isn't to say that the Empire have continued on indefinitely, but it would have lasted considerably longer than it did.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The key reason for the UK joining WW1 was the alarming build-up of German naval power from 1890 (ish) onwards. If that had not been removed, the same eventual result may have been obtained in terms of reduction of British power.

It's worth noting that the UK is still one of the most powerful nations in the world today, in terms of military forces, wealth, and cultural influence. It's just overshadowed by the much more powerful USA and China.

The Uk actually wasn't so keen on war with Germany initially in World War 1. I just finished a very interesting book titled , 'Helmuth Von Moltke and the origins of the First World War'(Annika Mombauer), and there are many more details to it than a simple naval arms race. Yes, Tirpitz's naval programme created tension, but Germany never intended for it to be anything other than a bargaining counter with England. The initial hope was to gain a bargaining chip with great Britain by having a larger home fleet then Britian, and so force it to come to negotiating table. However Fishers reforms nulled this somewhat.

What you actually find is that initially just prior to the execution of the Schlieffen Plan is that Britain, despite the Triple Entente, actually approached Germany, and tried to negotiate for their neutrality, one of the key points of which was the inviolability of Belgium, which was of course by this stage for Germany, not an option. Not only that, we attempted to negotiate a situation whereby Germany could fight a war with Russia, and not only we would stay out of it, but we would guarantee the neutrality of the French as well. The only reason these negotiation attempts failed is because the Germans didn't want to risk everything on British assurances, and the fact that their military had but one strategic plan of action(the Schlieffen Plan), and were completely in the wrong position for a war in the East( See Gerhard Ritter's 'The Schlieffen Plan' for more detail on that). Not only that, but due to expecting British intervention over the violation of Belgic neutrality, the Germans were already psyched up to fight a war with Great Britain. The prevalence of Prussian militarism in their society at the time made any kind of negotiation difficult by this stage, and Britain was actually not too keen on the idea of war at this point.

In other words, the reason World War 1 started was more down to the militarism inherent in german society, and the British commitment to Belgic and Dutch neutrality. Our alliance with Russia was tenuous at best, and even our relationship with France was only one of convenience. Due to the position of strength the British Empire occupied at that time, European affairs were not of the most crucial concern to us. We only wished to prevent the establishment of a German dominated trade bloc, which could then go on to threaten our position.