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.
ordoteutonicus wrote: So, yes I feel European. But that is because we grew up, here in Germany, with a denial of a real German feeling during the 70th and 80th, because of the WWII thing.
I dislike the politics of the EU, but the concept of moving closer in continental Europe to prevent further war is very fundamental for me. So things like student exchanges and work experiences
abroad or working in another EU country is very important.
On the other hand as a economical power compared to the US or China only a united Europe can really compete . As single countries, not even France or Germany, would be up to the competition with the US or China. This is important for all Countries in the EU, I think, as the aim has to be to keep jobs and welfare at least on a level we have now.
Perceived issue here is that economical benefits of the EU and Euro seem to fall primarily on France & Germany (mostly Germany) who dominate European single market with their geography and economies of the scale. Small EU countries increasingly have their production and service sectors captured by major player from big EU countries.
ordoteutonicus wrote: So, yes I feel European. But that is because we grew up, here in Germany, with a denial of a real German feeling during the 70th and 80th, because of the WWII thing.
I dislike the politics of the EU, but the concept of moving closer in continental Europe to prevent further war is very fundamental for me. So things like student exchanges and work experiences
abroad or working in another EU country is very important.
On the other hand as a economical power compared to the US or China only a united Europe can really compete . As single countries, not even France or Germany, would be up to the competition with the US or China. This is important for all Countries in the EU, I think, as the aim has to be to keep jobs and welfare at least on a level we have now.
Perceived issue here is that economical benefits of the EU and Euro seem to fall primarily on France & Germany (mostly Germany) who dominate European single market with their geography and economies of the scale. Small EU countries increasingly have their production and service sectors captured by major player from big EU countries.
While Germany and France (just like the UK used to) complain that they're bankrolling the rest of the EU while smaller, poorer countries leech off them. Every government thinks (or tells) that they're being ripped off.
ordoteutonicus wrote: So, yes I feel European. But that is because we grew up, here in Germany, with a denial of a real German feeling during the 70th and 80th, because of the WWII thing.
I dislike the politics of the EU, but the concept of moving closer in continental Europe to prevent further war is very fundamental for me. So things like student exchanges and work experiences
abroad or working in another EU country is very important.
On the other hand as a economical power compared to the US or China only a united Europe can really compete . As single countries, not even France or Germany, would be up to the competition with the US or China. This is important for all Countries in the EU, I think, as the aim has to be to keep jobs and welfare at least on a level we have now.
Perceived issue here is that economical benefits of the EU and Euro seem to fall primarily on France & Germany (mostly Germany) who dominate European single market with their geography and economies of the scale. Small EU countries increasingly have their production and service sectors captured by major player from big EU countries.
This is something that would happen even more without the EU. Germany is the largest and most powerful economy of Europe, it will dominate regardless. Now the smaller countries at least have a say. The EU at least puts a democratic check on German hegemony. At the very least it works better than past attempts to deal with the 'German problem'.
Must be difficult to addapt to a overarching culture if you lived in nation states with an unified culture and suddenly have to adapt....
Somehow i feel i've seen this somewhere...
ordoteutonicus wrote: So, yes I feel European. But that is because we grew up, here in Germany, with a denial of a real German feeling during the 70th and 80th, because of the WWII thing.
I dislike the politics of the EU, but the concept of moving closer in continental Europe to prevent further war is very fundamental for me. So things like student exchanges and work experiences
abroad or working in another EU country is very important.
On the other hand as a economical power compared to the US or China only a united Europe can really compete . As single countries, not even France or Germany, would be up to the competition with the US or China. This is important for all Countries in the EU, I think, as the aim has to be to keep jobs and welfare at least on a level we have now.
Perceived issue here is that economical benefits of the EU and Euro seem to fall primarily on France & Germany (mostly Germany) who dominate European single market with their geography and economies of the scale. Small EU countries increasingly have their production and service sectors captured by major player from big EU countries.
This is something that would happen even more without the EU. Germany is the largest and most powerful economy of Europe, it will dominate regardless. Now the smaller countries at least have a say. The EU at least puts a democratic check on German hegemony. At the very least it works better than past attempts to deal with the 'German problem'.
Historically Germany after it's unifaction was never a problem, mentally handicapped leaders in the late 1800s and early 1900s were the problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 11:27:27
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I'm quite solidly English in terms of culture; albeit with a sprinkling of other ethnicities from my father's side. I apologise instinctively to people who walk into me, buy in my round, and believe very strongly believe that a good cup of tea is one of the best palliatives.
In terms of European culture...? I find it hard to pin down what that is. I mean, you couldn't exactly say it was a dedication to freedom of speech and democracy; looking at the history of most of Europe. The architectural styles are radically different between the Czech republic and Malta, the attitude to life very different between Portugal and Poland, and there's no real gastronomic commonalities shared between even four of those. Sure, if you compare one neighbour to another, you can pick up similarities; but the minute you move two or three countries over, the difference is quite striking in most regards.
I can't say I feel I have anything in common with a German that I don't a Brazilian. And I feel I have a lot more in common with Canadians than I do the Hungarians; despite the latter being attached to the same continental land mass as me. I probably have more in common with a Greek than I do a Mongolian, but that's not saying much. Compared to somebody from New Zealand, they're both strangers.
Upon reflection, I don't think a 'European' really exists for most people except as a geographic or political indicator. Sure, you get the fervent believers in 'Europe' declaring themselves 'European', but that's usually tied to the European Union as some sort of political declaration of self. I don't think it means much when it comes to culture or commonalities.
To me, 'Europe' is that bunch of countries over the river; in the same way America is that other country over the pond. They're other countries. I'm in my mine. I've really no reason to assimilate a 'European' identity, anymore than I do a 'Western' identity, or a 'Global' one.
I think that people who go to another country and find no difference between themselves and those they associate with, tend to not realise that class lends itself to a greater commonality of shared experience than anything else. Sure, if you're a uni student, hanging around with other uni students, you'll have a lot in common. Same if you're a tech worker travelling from London to Vienna; one IT office is much like another both in terms of the business and the people in it. If you're heading to Brussels to push paper, you'll find other EU penpushers have a broadly similar mindset and educational background. If you're going to China to teach a language, you'll have a lot in common with other Europeans who are doing the same thing, and those commonalities will increase as you all navigate the same hurdles.
But that's not so much being 'European' as it is a class and experience thing. Take a member of the Spanish royal family and dump them in a concrete tower block filled with working class people in an isolated Polish town? You'll see a lot less in the way of feelings of unity and brotherhood. Take a Scottish fisherman who's spent fifty years fighting the North Sea and drop him in polite society in Hungary? Same again.
I'm not saying that they'd have nothing whatsoever in common, but they'd have a lot less in the way of 'Brotherhood of man', 'we're all Europeans and the same' feelings than the original examples, I should think. Class and shared background/experience is far more of a social link between people than being 'European'.
All of this is completely true but I would still argue that if comparing like for like, usually Brits will be more culturally ‘in-tune’ with most of Europe (and certainly western europe) than most of the world, with the notable exceptions of Australia and New Zealand. It’s certainly anecdotal, but I find that I always settle into the company of most Europeans in my field (archaeology) more freely than those from elsewhere. At major conferences I tend to find that you see fairly distinct groups form (ignoring that people also hang out with the folks they work with directly), and largely the Brits fall in amongst the Europeans, with the US being a distinct contingent, the Turks are usually their own crowd, the Israelis are also their own group, the Arab nations kinda collect together, etc. There are a lot of other things in play beyond culture, education systems being a big one in this example (British universities are far more like European ones than US ibstitutions, for example) but there’s certainly a bit of cultural gravity involved.
All of this is completely true but I would still argue that if comparing like for like, usually Brits will be more culturally ‘in-tune’ with most of Europe (and certainly western europe) than most of the world, with the notable exceptions of Australia and New Zealand.
I'd tack on Canada to that list.
I've always found Canadians to be the most similar to the English quite frankly; I think I could likely move there and completely feel at home with the people. I think it might be due to having the Americans on their doorstep, but Canadians always seem quite keen to adopt more British traits as a counterweight to the cultural behemoth on their doorstep.
It’s certainly anecdotal, but I find that I always settle into the company of most Europeans in my field (archaeology) more freely than those from elsewhere. At major conferences I tend to find that you see fairly distinct groups form (ignoring that people also hang out with the folks they work with directly), and largely the Brits fall in amongst the Europeans, with the US being a distinct contingent, the Turks are usually their own crowd, the Israelis are also their own group, the Arab nations kinda collect together, etc. There are a lot of other things in play beyond culture, education systems being a big one in this example (British universities are far more like European ones than US ibstitutions, for example) but there’s certainly a bit of cultural gravity involved.
Anecdotally, I'm not sure I'd agree with this assessment. I think people are more likely to hang with those they understand (language is a big factor in comfort); but I sit with a Japanese scholar as happily as I do a German one. I don't particularly feel any more culturally in tune with one than the other. They're both foreigners, both have their quirks and their own language. Which is cool. I've a good friend from university that came from Hong Kong, and don't think we'd somehow feel a deeper connection if she was from Latvia instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 13:41:41
All of this is completely true but I would still argue that if comparing like for like, usually Brits will be more culturally ‘in-tune’ with most of Europe (and certainly western europe) than most of the world, with the notable exceptions of Australia and New Zealand.
I'd tack on Canada to that list.
I've always found Canadians to be the most similar to the English quite frankly; I think I could likely move there and completely feel at home with the people. I think it might be due to having the Americans on their doorstep, but Canadians always seem quite keen to adopt more British traits as a counterweight to the cultural behemoth on their doorstep.
It’s certainly anecdotal, but I find that I always settle into the company of most Europeans in my field (archaeology) more freely than those from elsewhere. At major conferences I tend to find that you see fairly distinct groups form (ignoring that people also hang out with the folks they work with directly), and largely the Brits fall in amongst the Europeans, with the US being a distinct contingent, the Turks are usually their own crowd, the Israelis are also their own group, the Arab nations kinda collect together, etc. There are a lot of other things in play beyond culture, education systems being a big one in this example (British universities are far more like European ones than US ibstitutions, for example) but there’s certainly a bit of cultural gravity involved.
Anecdotally, I'm not sure I'd agree with this assessment. I think people are more likely to hang with those they understand (language is a big factor in comfort); but I sit with a Japanese scholar as happily as I do a German one. I don't particularly feel any more culturally in tune with one than the other. They're both foreigners, both have their quirks and their own language. Which is cool. I've a good friend from university that came from Hong Kong, and don't think we'd somehow feel a deeper connection if she was from Latvia instead.
Japanese have a lot more weird quirks than Germans do though. Not to mention that Japanese society works very differently from British and German society, which largely work the same way. I love chatting with Japanese people too (way more interesting than chatting with Germans, Germans are almost exactly like Dutch people, and they are almost just as common around here), but Germans are definitely more relatable. Which makes it more likely you will become friends with them. Like I have only one friend who is not from Europe or the CIS (he is Chinese), but I have 6 Czech friends. And that is despite Chinese people outnumbering Czech people by quite a bit here. The Czechs and other Europeans are just way more intermingling with the Dutch students than the Chinese are, who mostly stay isolated in their own groups. Despite the Chinese all speaking fluent English and therefore being just as capable in interacting with the Dutch as the Czechs are (in fact, Chinese usually speak better English than the Czechs). And that becomes especially clear in a demanding environment like an archaeological excavation, where you are stuck with a bunch of strangers in the middle of nowhere for quite a bit of time. Just yesterday I was talking with a girl who had just returned from an excavation in Turkey as well. She was talking about the same thing with social groups forming. There was a 'European' group (mostly Brits and Germans, with a few other nationalities. There were at least three Dutch and two Finns, as well as two Australians), an American group and a Turkish group. Notably, the Brits and two Australian guys stuck with the European group rather than approaching the American group. I think it is telling that in such an environment, where the choice is between two English-speaking groups, the Brits choose en masse to hang out with the Germans rather than the Americans. Just as telling I think is it that the Americans form a social group of their own. It is natural that when you are in a place with lots of people from your own country, you will group up with them. But if there is only a few people of your own country, you form a group with the 'next best thing', which is people whose language you speak and have a culture you can closely relate to. I think Brits can relate more closely to German culture than to American culture, but both would be more relatable than Turkish culture. It is like 'tiers' of cultural closeness. It is all anecdotal of course, but I definitely think that it supports there being some sort of common 'European culture group' that is distinct from Chinese or other Asian cultures, but also from American culture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 14:32:09
All of this is completely true but I would still argue that if comparing like for like, usually Brits will be more culturally ‘in-tune’ with most of Europe (and certainly western europe) than most of the world, with the notable exceptions of Australia and New Zealand.
I'd tack on Canada to that list.
I've always found Canadians to be the most similar to the English quite frankly; I think I could likely move there and completely feel at home with the people. I think it might be due to having the Americans on their doorstep, but Canadians always seem quite keen to adopt more British traits as a counterweight to the cultural behemoth on their doorstep.
It’s certainly anecdotal, but I find that I always settle into the company of most Europeans in my field (archaeology) more freely than those from elsewhere. At major conferences I tend to find that you see fairly distinct groups form (ignoring that people also hang out with the folks they work with directly), and largely the Brits fall in amongst the Europeans, with the US being a distinct contingent, the Turks are usually their own crowd, the Israelis are also their own group, the Arab nations kinda collect together, etc. There are a lot of other things in play beyond culture, education systems being a big one in this example (British universities are far more like European ones than US ibstitutions, for example) but there’s certainly a bit of cultural gravity involved.
Anecdotally, I'm not sure I'd agree with this assessment. I think people are more likely to hang with those they understand (language is a big factor in comfort); but I sit with a Japanese scholar as happily as I do a German one. I don't particularly feel any more culturally in tune with one than the other. They're both foreigners, both have their quirks and their own language. Which is cool. I've a good friend from university that came from Hong Kong, and don't think we'd somehow feel a deeper connection if she was from Latvia instead.
Oh I’m not suggesting these are universals, but in broad strokes these groups tend to form. Like I say there are certainly lots of other factors, but all other things being equal these splits frequently appear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 18:49:21
Oh I’m not suggestion these are universals, but in broad strokes these groups tend to form. Like I say there are certainly lots of other factors, but all other things being equal these splits tend to appear.
Taking what you're saying as the absolute truth for the moment; it's still a case of correlation, rather than causation. We could easily conjure up alternative sociological explanations for the phenomena.
For example, seeing those groups of scholars form, we could quite easily finger visual racial appearance as the primary culprit instead. Psychology has evidenced that we subconsciously feel most at ease with people who look like us. In such a case, we might see the African scholars in one corner, the Asian in another, the Middle-Eastern in another, and so on; but it wouldn't be down to a cultural or 'European' identity as much it is a subconscious tribal impulse. If you subdivided it further, you'd likely see those who dressed the most similar moving into closer groupings than with people from the same continent who were attired differently.
But these are all strictly visual cues and signals; and a white Scotchman wouldn't necessarily automatically associate with a European more than he would a white South African if this were the reason. We might well see a black man from London segue more easily into a group of black African men rather than join a bunch of white guys from Hungary; despite their similar 'European' background.
There's really no way of proving it one way or another without extended testing. Anyone got the grant money handy?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/07/04 17:01:12
Oh I’m not suggestion these are universals, but in broad strokes these groups tend to form. Like I say there are certainly lots of other factors, but all other things being equal these splits tend to appear.
Taking what you're saying as the absolute truth for the moment; it's still a case of correlation, rather than causation. We could easily conjure up alternative sociological explanations for the phenomena.
For example, seeing those groups of scholars form, we could quite easily finger visual racial appearance as the primary culprit instead. Psychology has evidenced that we subconsciously feel most at ease with people who look like us. In such a case, we might see the African scholars in one corner, the Asian in another, the Middle-Eastern in another, and so on; but it wouldn't be down to a cultural or 'European' identity as much it is a subconscious tribal impulse. If you subdivided it further, you'd likely see those who dressed the most similar moving into closer groupings than with people from the same continent who were attired differently.
But these are all strictly visual cues and signals; and a white Scotchman wouldn't necessarily automatically associate with a European more than he would a white South African if this were the reason. We might well see a black man from London segue more easily into a group of black African men rather than join a bunch of white guys from Hungary; despite their similar 'European' background.
There's really no way of proving it one way or another without extended testing. Anyone got the grant money handy?
What you are describing here is called eigenface - the set of facial traits typical to a given genetic strain (that is not equivalent of race mind you) is different. Given that non-verbal face expressions are a huge part of interpersonal communication and even the smallest minutiae of those expressions matter, human species involves quite a lot computing power into reading those expressions in quite "fine resolution". This is also why uncanny valley phenomenon exists. Back to Europe - because of how interwoven our history is, common eigenfaces in european countries are quite closely related. Of course there are obvious differences between typical greek and swede, but the underlying eigenface mix of those two is still more familiar than subsaharian eigenface or east asian eigenface.
But within scholar disciplines one cannot leave more practical explanations out of the equation - are EU grants in archeology easier to get if your team is made purely from EU citizens? I imagine that a team made of one US citizen, one EU citizen, one Japanese person and one Turk would struggle more to get funding for their next excavation. I might be wrong as I'm not an archeologist, but it seems logical given EU grant nature in different disciplines.
All of this is completely true but I would still argue that if comparing like for like, usually Brits will be more culturally ‘in-tune’ with most of Europe (and certainly western europe) than most of the world, with the notable exceptions of Australia and New Zealand.
I'd tack on Canada to that list.
I've always found Canadians to be the most similar to the English quite frankly; I think I could likely move there and completely feel at home with the people. I think it might be due to having the Americans on their doorstep, but Canadians always seem quite keen to adopt more British traits as a counterweight to the cultural behemoth on their doorstep.
It’s certainly anecdotal, but I find that I always settle into the company of most Europeans in my field (archaeology) more freely than those from elsewhere. At major conferences I tend to find that you see fairly distinct groups form (ignoring that people also hang out with the folks they work with directly), and largely the Brits fall in amongst the Europeans, with the US being a distinct contingent, the Turks are usually their own crowd, the Israelis are also their own group, the Arab nations kinda collect together, etc. There are a lot of other things in play beyond culture, education systems being a big one in this example (British universities are far more like European ones than US ibstitutions, for example) but there’s certainly a bit of cultural gravity involved.
Anecdotally, I'm not sure I'd agree with this assessment. I think people are more likely to hang with those they understand (language is a big factor in comfort); but I sit with a Japanese scholar as happily as I do a German one. I don't particularly feel any more culturally in tune with one than the other. They're both foreigners, both have their quirks and their own language. Which is cool. I've a good friend from university that came from Hong Kong, and don't think we'd somehow feel a deeper connection if she was from Latvia instead.
Japanese have a lot more weird quirks than Germans do though. Not to mention that Japanese society works very differently from British and German society, which largely work the same way. I love chatting with Japanese people too (way more interesting than chatting with Germans, Germans are almost exactly like Dutch people, and they are almost just as common around here), but Germans are definitely more relatable. Which makes it more likely you will become friends with them.
That's what I was going to point out.
Many moons ago I was on a serious relationship with a Korean lady. We were both college educated, we were both baptised Christian (she was a Protestant, though, and her family was took religion way more seriously than mine, too), we had a chosen a similar career path (we met at work). Other than religion and the fact her family had more money than mine we led pretty parallel lives.
Yet many things about her felt extremely foreign. Customs, general demeanour, quirks, humour.... the list is extensive. And that was her, who had spent over half a decade in Europe. Her family might as well come from a different
planet. It wasn't the religion, or the money. I deal with toffs and religious people every day so it wasn't that, but so many things about them felt from the opposite side of the world, which they were.
On contrast my brother's Dutch wife is definitely foreign, but a next-door foreign type. One you can relate to in a myriad more ways than my Korean experience.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 19:20:29
Oh I’m not suggestion these are universals, but in broad strokes these groups tend to form. Like I say there are certainly lots of other factors, but all other things being equal these splits tend to appear.
Taking what you're saying as the absolute truth for the moment; it's still a case of correlation, rather than causation. We could easily conjure up alternative sociological explanations for the phenomena.
For example, seeing those groups of scholars form, we could quite easily finger visual racial appearance as the primary culprit instead. Psychology has evidenced that we subconsciously feel most at ease with people who look like us. In such a case, we might see the African scholars in one corner, the Asian in another, the Middle-Eastern in another, and so on; but it wouldn't be down to a cultural or 'European' identity as much it is a subconscious tribal impulse. If you subdivided it further, you'd likely see those who dressed the most similar moving into closer groupings than with people from the same continent who were attired differently.
But these are all strictly visual cues and signals; and a white Scotchman wouldn't necessarily automatically associate with a European more than he would a white South African if this were the reason. We might well see a black man from London segue more easily into a group of black African men rather than join a bunch of white guys from Hungary; despite their similar 'European' background.
There's really no way of proving it one way or another without extended testing. Anyone got the grant money handy?
This doesn’t really match up to what I was describing, though - where there are clear distinctions frequently formed that subdivide those superficial racial markers and some of those groups that frequently fall in together can be quite racially diverse.
As I said, all things being equal these groups often form but there’s no question there are myriad other factors involved.
Perceived issue here is that economical benefits of the EU and Euro seem to fall primarily on France & Germany (mostly Germany) who dominate European single market with their geography and economies of the scale. Small EU countries increasingly have their production and service sectors captured by major player from big EU countries.
This is something that would happen even more without the EU. Germany is the largest and most powerful economy of Europe, it will dominate regardless. Now the smaller countries at least have a say. The EU at least puts a democratic check on German hegemony. At the very least it works better than past attempts to deal with the 'German problem'.
No, it's actually complete opposite, as once you join the EU - and particularly EMU - small countries no longer have the legislative tools to deal with 'German invasion'.
And 'the small countries have a say' is in fact seen as a major flaw in the EU and hindrance to common economic policies, and it's something that the federative model (which Germany is pushing for) will do away with.
Perceived issue here is that economical benefits of the EU and Euro seem to fall primarily on France & Germany (mostly Germany) who dominate European single market with their geography and economies of the scale. Small EU countries increasingly have their production and service sectors captured by major player from big EU countries.
This is something that would happen even more without the EU. Germany is the largest and most powerful economy of Europe, it will dominate regardless. Now the smaller countries at least have a say. The EU at least puts a democratic check on German hegemony. At the very least it works better than past attempts to deal with the 'German problem'.
No, it's actually complete opposite, as once you join the EU - and particularly EMU - small countries no longer have the legislative tools to deal with 'German invasion'. And 'the small countries have a say' is in fact seen as a major flaw in the EU and hindrance to common economic policies, and it's something that the federative model (which Germany is pushing for) will do away with.
'German invasion'? What is this, WW2? With or without the EU, small countries do not have the economic clout to prevent Germany's much bigger economy from dominating them. They do not have the legislative tools to prevent that anyways, unless they aim to withdraw from all international institutions and the capitalist system entirely. Economies and capitalists do not stop at national borders. Those small countries would be dependent on the German economy regardless, but this time without any say in the way things are run. The EU, through common policies, does give these countries a say. Also, Germany is not pushing for a 'federative model'. Sure, there are some people in the German government who would like to see a European Federation, but it is not an official policy of the German government. And even if it were, they would never be able to push it through without other member states agreeing to it. The EU is a democracy. Germany usually takes a leading role because as the largest EU nation, it is expected of them, but when it comes to making decisions, every country has an equal vote and therefore say to Germany.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 22:48:00
Interesting, I've always felt a lot closer to Europe than the US. I consider myself European.
To me, while the US shares the same language etc, nothing could be more alien to me than their behavior and many of their beliefs. I find the US very arrogant and polarising and blind to it's own faults. Of course this is merely my opinion and an observation, not an attack on the US before someone goes gung-ho on me.
Curiously, I'm in Scotland and yet the Dakka flag on my profile insists on being American.... ugh
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/06 11:49:43
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
No, it's actually complete opposite, as once you join the EU - and particularly EMU - small countries no longer have the legislative tools to deal with 'German invasion'.
And 'the small countries have a say' is in fact seen as a major flaw in the EU and hindrance to common economic policies, and it's something that the federative model (which Germany is pushing for) will do away with.
'German invasion'? What is this, WW2? With or without the EU, small countries do not have the economic clout to prevent Germany's much bigger economy from dominating them. They do not have the legislative tools to prevent that anyways, unless they aim to withdraw from all international institutions and the capitalist system entirely. Economies and capitalists do not stop at national borders. Those small countries would be dependent on the German economy regardless, but this time without any say in the way things are run. The EU, through common policies, does give these countries a say.
Let me take an example: currently, Finnish pharmacy sector is very heavily regulated by State. Pharmacies are private but their licenses controlled. Requirements for license are such that for all practical purposes, only a Finnish pharmacist can start a pharmacy.
This kind of national quasi-monopolies are what EU wants to discontinue. If it's done, it would open the door for big international pharmaceutical companies, which would quickly outcompete local pharmacies and dominate the sector.
Currently, Finnish pharmacies pay taxes to Finland. If the international companies arrive, they take the profits out of the country. This is only one example, but same is applicable to all service sectors. Eventually, there would be precious little enterprices left in domestic hands.
Also, Germany is not pushing for a 'federative model'. Sure, there are some people in the German government who would like to see a European Federation, but it is not an official policy of the German government. And even if it were, they would never be able to push it through without other member states agreeing to it.
Of course they wouldn't, which is why the idea they are floating is that they would found a new "Wolfpack EU" of sorts, which would be made out of 'core' countries which really are committed to common EU policies. All those who won't agree, and non-EMU countries, would be left out. In a way this would make sense, current 'multi-tier' EU where there are many 'membership levels' (In EU and EMU, in EU but not EMU, not in EU but in Schengen, in EU but not in Schengen, Denmark the special snowflake...) is not really workable concept long-term.
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / 
Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / 
Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / 
Black Death 1500pts