23rd Regiment of Foot "Royal Welch Fusiliers" [German but recruiting int.!]

[Von Bergen]

Nice that ya all talk about the 23rd  oh wait

23rd is in its second little Summer break right now (mostly because i am on vacation ), we are just using the Time to strengthen our regimental boundaries by discussing important political and society matters. How dare you to question This act of pure brotherhood?! 

[Auror Davee]

Nice that ya all talk about the 23rd  oh wait

23rd is in its second little Summer break right now (mostly because i am on vacation ), we are just using the Time to strengthen our regimental boundaries by discussing important political and society matters. How dare you to question This act of pure brotherhood?! 

[ZeroNight]

fuck germans kill them all

[Auror Davee]

fuck germans kill them all

Execuse me Mister, can you repeat that ? 

[sirkaide]

Spoiler

The thing with Germany when it Comes to military is just: We  could do a lot, but we just dont want to. This has two main reasons: 1. Obvious historic Ones 2. Our participation in the NATO; German military has no need to be able to defend the Country on its own alone, because its Very unlikely we would be Attacked on our own alone. We are the 4. Biggest Economy in the World (our GDP is 1.2 billions higher Than the UK <3), we are the main payer in the EU, the most important trading Partner for dozens of countries, there are nearly 30 Million people in Germany theoretically being able to be put into military Service in case of war (while only about 22 Million in the UK). Just give us a reason and we would be able to go full scale Wehrmacht-Blitzkrieg again within a Few months. (The reason why i compare it to the UK is to Show that even though we dont practically are a World Power by kaides Definition, we could be easy.)

Exactly what I meant by a reluctant world power. However, as the EU continues to take on the trapping of statehood, we will soon talking of the EU as a superpower and Germany a mere state of the EU.

Speaking from a laywers point of view the EU is not more than a Brunch of treaties. In scale of international law we speak of a construct "sui generis" (of its own kind) and it will be no more until we get loose of the idea of nationalitys in europe, and until that point it will take decades, which the EU has to survive First.

That's just a simple perspective of de jure and de facto though isn't it? in practice the EU did not respect the will of the member states, even when it came to the agreement of said treaties. I do agree however that the EU may not survive to see the day that it's members merely become states, ( I hope) but it does appear to becoming more of a reality, especially when you look at how much contempt the EU treat's it's member's sovereignty, which is an enormous amount.

The dejure perspective is the defacto perspective when it comes to the EU. Defacto there is no such thing as "The EU", Every EU Institution consists either of Member States representatives or people elected by the Member states. Saying the EU with is treaties is not respecting its MS will is, sry for that, pure bullshit. Every Treatie defining the EU and its powers had and has to be ratified in every single national Parliament. In all core issues there is not even the possibility to make decisions with majority vote, but all Member states have to agree together. I can go way more into detail on This if you want, but for now let me just say the following: The wide known Image of the Power hungry and mighty decision making EU could not be more far from reality, it was just found by (mostly populistic) politicans trying to blame someone else for their Problems.

[close]

Why do you deny your European Union? The EU is taking on the fundamentals of statehood. You have a flag, an anthem, a citizenship, common regulations across the union, you have a shared currency and a parliament. Along with a EU border force, EU passport and a EU trade policy.

To deny that the EU is heading towards a centralised union is simply inept. You can argue about how EU nation states will have certain prerogatives and rights but in future years they will erode.

I mean the state of Texas in the USA has a huge amount of autonomy. They can even have the death penalty something EU nations cannot have.

You can be proud of the EU or against it but to deny that the EU isn't increasingly becoming more like a state is plain wrong. The EU  are alre

[Tylerus]

Spoiler

The thing with Germany when it Comes to military is just: We  could do a lot, but we just dont want to. This has two main reasons: 1. Obvious historic Ones 2. Our participation in the NATO; German military has no need to be able to defend the Country on its own alone, because its Very unlikely we would be Attacked on our own alone. We are the 4. Biggest Economy in the World (our GDP is 1.2 billions higher Than the UK <3), we are the main payer in the EU, the most important trading Partner for dozens of countries, there are nearly 30 Million people in Germany theoretically being able to be put into military Service in case of war (while only about 22 Million in the UK). Just give us a reason and we would be able to go full scale Wehrmacht-Blitzkrieg again within a Few months. (The reason why i compare it to the UK is to Show that even though we dont practically are a World Power by kaides Definition, we could be easy.)

Exactly what I meant by a reluctant world power. However, as the EU continues to take on the trapping of statehood, we will soon talking of the EU as a superpower and Germany a mere state of the EU.

Speaking from a laywers point of view the EU is not more than a Brunch of treaties. In scale of international law we speak of a construct "sui generis" (of its own kind) and it will be no more until we get loose of the idea of nationalitys in europe, and until that point it will take decades, which the EU has to survive First.

That's just a simple perspective of de jure and de facto though isn't it? in practice the EU did not respect the will of the member states, even when it came to the agreement of said treaties. I do agree however that the EU may not survive to see the day that it's members merely become states, ( I hope) but it does appear to becoming more of a reality, especially when you look at how much contempt the EU treat's it's member's sovereignty, which is an enormous amount.

The dejure perspective is the defacto perspective when it comes to the EU. Defacto there is no such thing as "The EU", Every EU Institution consists either of Member States representatives or people elected by the Member states. Saying the EU with is treaties is not respecting its MS will is, sry for that, pure bullshit. Every Treatie defining the EU and its powers had and has to be ratified in every single national Parliament. In all core issues there is not even the possibility to make decisions with majority vote, but all Member states have to agree together. I can go way more into detail on This if you want, but for now let me just say the following: The wide known Image of the Power hungry and mighty decision making EU could not be more far from reality, it was just found by (mostly populistic) politicans trying to blame someone else for their Problems.

[close]

There were several occasions in which the treaties were rejected and they were just repackaged and sent back to the member state that rejected them, they changed very little about them and often the contentious part of the treaty was not changed. However having to have the treaties agreed by all member states is of course a healthy thing to have so in that they are golden. As for the second part I can certainly see your point on populists using the euro-sceptics to whip up support, and I would agree that it certainly does happen.  The EU does and has however shown a distinct contempt for the sovereignty of MS. Whether it be in their structure, which is deeply flawed or the way in which they operate. I do not believe that they have evil intentions and do understand the purpose of their actions but they do act in problematic ways when it comes to the will of MS.

[sirkaide]

Another factor that many people fail to understand is that many governments in EU states are apart of a liberal europhile metropolitan class. They won't consult the nations electorate about transferring more powers.

Look at Gordon Brown in 2008/9, he promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and didn't and then passed the Lisbom Treaty through the backdoor.

This harbours Eurospeticism because Europhiles won't admit what the EU is and what it's long-term aims are, and often don't give it's people referendums on EU matters.

[Von Bergen]

I spent two Semesters studying about the question wether the EU is a statelike/souverign construct or not. One in cologne and one in Amsterdam. With all warm heart i Suppose neither you kaide, nor you tylerus are law Students (pls correct me if i am wrong), so i will break it Down to the two main reasons why the EU is not taking on the fundaments of statehood (yet):

1. It Got no so called "competence-competence", meaning the EU is not able to take or gain political Power on its own. Everything the EU is allowed to regulate, every Action it imposes through its institutions, it can just do because the Member States gave the regarding Power to the EU. The EU is not able to take This Power on its own. The flag, the anthem, the borders, the currency etc, all of This was put in place by the Member states, not the EU itself. A State on the other Hand seizes its Power from inside itself.

2. Every Member State can leave the EU at any point, as we all now dramatically Got to know. If the UK wanted and the EU did not gave a fuck, the UK could have left the EU the day after the Referendum, and neither the EU, nor the MS could have done anything about it. In a State, even if it has a federal structure, no single Region can just leave the bigger construct. Texas could not just leave the US, NRW could not just leave Germany and as we could See catalonia could not just leave spain (even though it wanted to). Yes the MS gave some competences to the EU, still every MS is still souvereign. As long as that is the case, the EU can not even be called close to a State.

[sirkaide]

I spent two Semesters studying about the question wether the EU is a statelike/souverign construct or not. One in cologne and one in Amsterdam. With all warm heart i Suppose neither you kaide, nor you tylerus are law Students (pls correct me if i am wrong), so i will break it Down to the two main reasons why the EU is not taking on the fundaments of statehood (yet):

1. It Got no so called "competence-competence", meaning the EU is not able to take or gain political Power on its own. Everything the EU is allowed to regulate, every Action it imposes through its institutions, it can just do because the Member States gave the regarding Power to the EU. The EU is not able to take This Power on its own. The flag, the anthem, the borders, the currency etc, all of This was put in place by the Member states, not the EU itself. A State on the other Hand seizes its Power from inside itself.

2. Every Member State can leave the EU at any point, as we all now dramatically Got to know. If the UK wanted and the EU did not gave a fuck, the UK could have left the EU the day after the Referendum, and neither the EU, nor the MS could have done anything about it. In a State, even if it has a federal structure, no single Region can just leave the bigger construct. Texas could not just leave the US, NRW could not just leave Germany and as we could See catalonia could not just leave spain (even though it wanted to). Yes the MS gave some competences to the EU, still every MS is still souvereign. As long as that is the case, the EU can not even be called close to a State.

No I didn't do law but I do study History and Politics at university alongside being in the British Army. So what's next, you can't make statements about the military? Such a stupid comment lol.

I am sorry to tell you this but you don't need a law degree to make a political statement on the EU. The fact that my argument is that the "EU is becoming a state" and you claim to of studied  "EU Law" actually supports my statement. The EU has it's own legal system  = supports my argument.


As a law student I am surprised that you didn't know that
regions of countries can secede from their parent nation.

The UN makes it strictly clear that national self-determination is a key cornerstone of the UN and it is apart of international law and diplomacy.

Germany and the USA are signed up members of the UN and would be expected to comply with UN resolutions that supports self-determination.

Yes, the Catalan people have been suppressed because they held an illegal referendum. However eventually Spain will have to hold a legal referendum.

Secondly Scotland can leave the UK but the UK is still a sovereign state. The UK parliament is higher then the Scottish parliament and can revoke the Scottish parliament at any time.

However, in the USA, the federal government cannot abolish the state. So you're tinkering on the edges of what a state is. Many people now consider the EU to be a state or at least close to becoming one. The UK gov and the Italian Gov being two examples. And it isn't just right-popularism.

[Tylerus]

I spent two Semesters studying about the question wether the EU is a statelike/souverign construct or not. One in cologne and one in Amsterdam. With all warm heart i Suppose neither you kaide, nor you tylerus are law Students (pls correct me if i am wrong), so i will break it Down to the two main reasons why the EU is not taking on the fundaments of statehood (yet):

1. It Got no so called "competence-competence", meaning the EU is not able to take or gain political Power on its own. Everything the EU is allowed to regulate, every Action it imposes through its institutions, it can just do because the Member States gave the regarding Power to the EU. The EU is not able to take This Power on its own. The flag, the anthem, the borders, the currency etc, all of This was put in place by the Member states, not the EU itself. A State on the other Hand seizes its Power from inside itself.

2. Every Member State can leave the EU at any point, as we all now dramatically Got to know. If the UK wanted and the EU did not gave a fuck, the UK could have left the EU the day after the Referendum, and neither the EU, nor the MS could have done anything about it. In a State, even if it has a federal structure, no single Region can just leave the bigger construct. Texas could not just leave the US, NRW could not just leave Germany and as we could See catalonia could not just leave spain (even though it wanted to). Yes the MS gave some competences to the EU, still every MS is still souvereign. As long as that is the case, the EU can not even be called close to a State.

I am aware this was mostly directed towards Kaide and his discussion on the EU and statehood but I feel like it coincides with my points on democracry within the EU so I will put in my pennies worth.

Neither of your points are incorrect, I agree whole heartedly on the first point about how the EU gets it's power from the MS and do not believe that to be undemocratic. (although there is an argument for the MS not being democratic in giving up said powers without consulting the electorate first... that's another discussion entirely) This process doe not mean that the EU does not act in a way that is undemocratic, problematic and against the wishes of MS or motivated by politics over best practice. Apologies for making you fight a war on two fronts but it's a worthwhile topic.

[Von Bergen]

@Kaide: My comment at the Start was just meant to clear out that i will not dive into legal Details that in fact you need to understand to understand how the EU works. That you Think the EU having its own legal System is supporting your Argument, actually prooves that a Non lawyer/law Student aint Got enough Detail knowdlege to completly understand how the EU works. I can explain This to you in Detail, but i would be happyer to just keep on relaxing on the beach and not diving into the regarding articles of the treaties. Its up to you, i recommend you just believe me there. After all we are not taking about political views in the EU here, but its legal Basis and working style. The EU is a laywers construct.

What the UN says in its resolutions is de facto completly irrelevant. There are dozens of examples that Show, that the States only follow those resolutions when it fits their needs. Why? Because the UN has only little posibilites to enforce its resolutions, we will never see the UN imposing sanctions on the US for example. Also not if they ignore the wish of one of their states leaving the USA. Spain hasnt Held a Referendum yet and they wont do. What i said in my second point is not the only factor defining souvereignity, its just one of the main (as i actually stated before i made my points), so of course you can have different situations in different Systems. Still the EU is not souvereign. As said in the common laywers oppinion the EU is not a State but as said a Kind of its own. Law is a science, the opinion of the majority is what counts regulary. That does not change only because two governments (of which both you mentoined are/were until short Time ago right-populistic) say so.

I was also in the military btw

@Tylerus i actually agree with you that it is a Big Problem that MS imposed important EU constructs and regulations within their State without following wide democratic procedures. That weakens the Image the people Got of the EU. Still as i Think you would agree that are internal Problems not to be blamed on the EU

[Rikkert]

Hi, I study European Law. VonBergens 2 points are right. I've explained this before in a fucking 2k word post on some other thread. But the EU can only act on certain fields of law if that power is given to them by the member states.
Also, you don't need a law degree to make a statement about the EU. But an educated statement based on facts is worth more than your opinion on the matter. You can have your opinion, however that does not mean you are right. On the other hand, facts are facts and when they are laid down in law there is no denying their existence, no matter your opinion.

[Von Bergen]

Hi, I study European Law. VonBergens 2 points are right. I've explained this before in a fucking 2k word post on some other thread. But the EU can only act on certain fields of law if that power is given to them by the member states.
Also, you don't need a law degree to make a statement about the EU. But an educated statement based on facts is worth more than your opinion on the matter. You can have your opinion, however that does not mean you are right. On the other hand, facts are facts and when they are laid down in law there is no denying their existence, no matter your opinion.

Couldnt +1 more

[sirkaide]

Hi, I study European Law. VonBergens 2 points are right. I've explained this before in a fucking 2k word post on some other thread. But the EU can only act on certain fields of law if that power is given to them by the member states.
Also, you don't need a law degree to make a statement about the EU. But an educated statement based on facts is worth more than your opinion on the matter. You can have your opinion, however that does not mean you are right. On the other hand, facts are facts and when they are laid down in law there is no denying their existence, no matter your opinion.

Well done for pointing out the obvious

[Rikkert]

Hi, I study European Law. VonBergens 2 points are right. I've explained this before in a fucking 2k word post on some other thread. But the EU can only act on certain fields of law if that power is given to them by the member states.
Also, you don't need a law degree to make a statement about the EU. But an educated statement based on facts is worth more than your opinion on the matter. You can have your opinion, however that does not mean you are right. On the other hand, facts are facts and when they are laid down in law there is no denying their existence, no matter your opinion.

Well done for pointing out the obvious

Then why did you not understand it when Bergen said it with less words.