[Aekos]

What about those not from Dalmatia?

It depended on who you were. The Ustase were a puppet government, established by the Nazis as the regional government of their province of Croatia and Bosnia. There wasn't some charismatic Ustase leader who got elected after wow-ing the Croat electorate and then promising to rid Croatia of the Serb minority and blaming all of the country's problems on them, the country was Germany's bitch.

Anyway, none of this is really on topic. Maybe new Flanders will have a strong central government?

[Dave]

Last time something like that happened was the Benes Decree as far as I'm aware, and that was long ago. Heck there wasn't even an EU back then and Community laws barely had any presence. Seriously mate, this is just wishful thinking on the nationalist's part... hasn't happened for the past few decades and probably won't either.

So because something happened a long time ago, it can't happen again? Poor logic.

It's a great way to rake in all the votes from the local bigots though I'll admit that.

Bigotry is intolerance of opposing ideas, not people.

As for the rest of the stuff you said I'll just mention that they all conflict with European values.

These values are quite recent and not nearly as deeply rooted as older European values were, which were none the less driven out from large swathes of society quickly.

In other words, there are laws that are binding on all EU member states and not one of them can even breach them in the slightest. In other words, no European country has the competence to alter these. The only way something like what you suggested would happen is if that country left the EU or... by amending the upcoming Lisbon Treaty in accordance with that (and you don't have the slightest chance in hell of doing that). And well... come on, we all know it would be daft to even think that Belgium would leave the EU lol.

Your only argument seems to be, "This can't happen!"

Feel free to have a look at the treaties: EC Treaty (Essentials of EU law) and something that's more related to the discussion at hand European Convention on Human Rights (I'd suggest reading the protocols that start from page 22 till the end, rather than the actual body of the text)

I don't doubt you on this.

I'll say it again, in order to so something like what you've suggested the country in question will have to dump all these treaties meaning that they drop out from the EU and the European Council as well. Unless the people in power making all such nationalist remarks actually come out and say "We're going to leave the EU and European Council", they're just fooling the blind nationalist voters. And come on... none of us honestly believe France, Belgium, etc. is going to do that, right?

More likely than Flanders going it alone will be that Flanders would take the maximal actions legal under current binding treaties. Denmark's DPP, which merely participates in a coalition, provides some idea of what can be accomplished. Overtime as Europe grows more nationalistic (which is happening all over Europe) treaties will be amended or simply dissolved.

It depended on who you were. The Ustase were a puppet government, established by the Nazis as the regional government of their province of Croatia and Bosnia. There wasn't some charismatic Ustase leader who got elected after wow-ing the Croat electorate and then promising to rid Croatia of the Serb minority and blaming all of the country's problems on them, the country was Germany's bitch.

So how popular was it among Croats outside of Dalmatia? I realize it wasn't the product of an indigenous mass movement of course.

Anyway, none of this is really on topic. Maybe new Flanders will have a strong central government?

Most nationalist movements in Europe seem to blend more democracy (unfortunately) with a stronger state on the traditional functions of the state, so perhaps.

[Aekos]

So how popular was it among Croats outside of Dalmatia? I realize it wasn't the product of an indigenous mass movement of course.

There's still debate about this. If you ask Stipe it wasn't that popular at all, some Serbian and other historians would beg to differ, though.

Most nationalist movements in Europe seem to blend more democracy (unfortunately) with a stronger state on the traditional functions of the state, so perhaps.

Do you not agree that a strong government with strong popular support is much better than a strong government people hate?

[Huntster]

Don't worry, there will always be plenty of pot and less crim than in the US, no matter what

You may very well be correct regarding the crime, but I wonder about the pot thing. You might be surprised at the amount of pot here in Alaska, especially considering the sparce human population here.

[Dave]

Do you not agree that a strong government with strong popular support is much better than a strong government people hate?

Yes, but that doesn't require democracy. I am for a largely non-democratic, small, and strong state.

[Aekos]

Small like Singapore or small like Flanders?

[Dave]

Small like Singapore or small like Flanders?

Small in terms of the size of the state, not the territory it governs. Singapore however has a much more compact state than most nations of the industrialized West, so it is something of a model. Presumably a Flemish state would remain very large given how much Europeans love their welfare, although that would be temporary since the welfare state is headed for collapse.

[joebobby]

@Dave

With all due respect, the only replies that provide an arguement are the ones quoted below. The rest just appears as ranting.

These values are quite recent and not nearly as deeply rooted as older European values were, which were none the less driven out from large swathes of society quickly.

You're right. They're recent. Then again these values weren't bound by law and treaties in the past as things such as human rights and integration (thus leading to interdepence) didn't exist back then. So as far as the "deeply rooted older European values" go, they're all null due to the binding treaties. But you clarify the situation and mention:

More likely than Flanders going it alone will be that Flanders would take the maximal actions legal under current binding treaties. Overtime as Europe grows more nationalistic (which is happening all over Europe) treaties will be amended or simply dissolved.

"Maximal actions" seems like a pretty innocent remark to be honest As you can see from those treaties there is no chance in hell they can even carry out the slightest of what you (and they) suggest even if they try to do their best, as the treaties set explicit boundaries and they have no chance in hell of even kicking 1 citizen out in that context.

As for treaties being amended, you've got 2 different treaties all having a binding effect (EC and ECHR). You need to amend those 2, who each have different members involved which would need the approval of all of them, that's just very unrealistic. The Europe base growing more nationalistic won't have any effect on the decisions made by the ECJ or the ECoHR either unless the Lisbon Treaty is amended (and that can't happen anymore as it's going to be proposed to Ireland this Fall and heck even that doesn't look like it's going to pass).

The only way what they suggest could happen is by what you mention of the treaties dissolving. Do you really think the EU and European Council would just simply dissolve in the near future? That depends on each individual's opinion, but I personally don't see something like that as being realistic.

[Dave]

You're right. They're recent. Then again these values weren't bound by law and treaties in the past as things such as human rights and integration (thus leading to interdepence) didn't exist back then. So as far as the "deeply rooted older European values" go, they're all null due to the binding treaties. But you clarify the situation and mention:

Parchment is a very poor repository of values.

"Maximal actions" seems like a pretty innocent remark to be honest As you can see from those treaties there is no chance in hell they can even carry out the slightest of what you (and they) suggest even if they try to do their best, as the treaties set explicit boundaries and they have no chance in hell of even kicking 1 citizen out in that context.

Kicking out citizens is not necessary from the standpoint of any European nation at present. Only in the United States have things gotten so bad that it might be necessary, although it probably won't here either. Patriotic immigration reform would be more than adequate for national preservation, and some nationalist parties propose paid, voluntary repatriation. All of this is permissible under existing treaties.

As for treaties being amended, you've got 2 different treaties all having a binding effect (EC and ECHR). You need to amend those 2, who each have different members involved which would need the approval of all of them, that's just very unrealistic. The Europe base growing more nationalistic won't have any effect on the decisions made by the ECJ or the ECoHR either unless the Lisbon Treaty is amended (and that can't happen anymore as it's going to be proposed to Ireland this Fall and heck even that doesn't look like it's going to pass).

The only way what they suggest could happen is by what you mention of the treaties dissolving. Do you really think the EU and European Council would just simply dissolve in the near future? That depends on each individual's opinion, but I personally don't see something like that as being realistic.

That rather depends on how this financial crisis plays out. My current prediction is that the EMU will collapse but that the basic architecture of the EU will persist with some modifications. If Europe ends up being dominated by ethno-nationalists, as seems likely, then treaties will most certainly be amended to change the definition of human "rights".

[joebobby]

Kicking out citizens is not necessary from the standpoint of any European nation at present. Only in the United States have things gotten so bad that it might be necessary, although it probably won't here either. Patriotic immigration reform would be more than adequate for national preservation, and some nationalist parties propose paid, voluntary repatriation. All of this is permissible under existing treaties.

and I would love to see Vlaams Belang lead a nationalist government in which all non-Europeans were kicked out.

The 2nd quote being what you said on the first page, though that's just your personal opinion as opposed to what you state about the "standpoint of any European nation at present". Sorry if that's irrelevant but it's nice to see a change of heart in this context

Anyhow, you may have heard of a certain person called Wilders, who's receiving huge support in Holland. He actually has no problems being called a racist (and isn't even allowed entry into the UK). What he proposes is exactly just that, kicking out all non-Europeans yet he's also a supporter of the EU (lol).

While paid and voluntary repatriation might put a smile to the face of nationalists in a peaceful manner it's something that's just very hard to implement. Personally I just see it as wishful thinking. Who would be eligible for it? What would happen to the 3rd and 4th generation "immigrants" who all have citizenship? Keep in mind that you can't base anything on race when implementing such things in a legal context. You don't need to answer all these in accordance with the US but you can already see the complexities that would derive from this situation.

That rather depends on how this financial crisis plays out. My current prediction is that the EMU will collapse but that the basic architecture of the EU will persist with some modifications. If Europe ends up being dominated by ethno-nationalists, as seems likely, then treaties will most certainly be amended to change the definition of human "rights".

You might not be aware of it but in the long run Europe really won't be dominated by "ethno-nationalists" as they just won't have the numbers because of birth rates, etc. You're right about the interpretation of "rights" being different, but in order to alter fundamental rights you need the unanimous approval of all parties. In other words, that's close to impossible as you can see There needs to be a huge event like the EU dissolving or whatever for something like that to happen, so the only thing people who support such thoughts can do is cross their fingers and hope the financial crisis destroys the EU and European Council. I personally would bet all my money that won't happen in the near future.

[Dave]

The 2nd quote being what you said on the first page, though that's just your personal opinion as opposed to what you state about the "standpoint of any European nation at present". Sorry if that's irrelevant but it's nice to see a change of heart in this context

I can certainly distinguish between my personal point of view and what's politically likely and/or possible.

Anyhow, you may have heard of a certain person called Wilders, who's receiving huge support in Holland. He actually has no problems being called a racist (and isn't even allowed entry into the UK because of this). What he proposes is exactly just that, kicking out all non-Europeans yet he's also a supporter of the EU (lol).

Wilders is a buffoon, but a successful and useful one. It seems that he will participate in the next Dutch government.

While paid and voluntary repatriation might put a smile to the face of nationalists in a peaceful manner it's something that's just very hard to implement. Personally I just see it as wishful thinking. Who would be eligible for it? What would happen to the 3rd and 4th generation "immigrants" who all have citizenship? Keep in mind that you can't base anything on race when implementing such things in a legal context. You don't need to answer all these in accordance with the US but you can already see the complexities that would derive from this situation.

You make the program available to ethnic minorities. It's not particularly difficult to sort out. France and Germany have previously had such programs actually, and I do mean postwar.

You might not be aware of it but in the long run Europe really won't be dominated by "ethno-nationalists" as they just won't have the numbers because of birth rates, etc.

The birth rates of the right exceed that of the left, and given the small share of non-Europeans in Europe right now it will take a long time for them to catch up, especially since their birth rates drop the longer they've been in Europe. The greater the number of non-Europeans in Europe the more Europeans who will become nationalistic as well, as the generosity of one's attitudes to ethnic minorities tends to be inversely correlated with one's distance from them. This economic crisis, which will get much worse, is also going to give extremists of right and left a massive shot in the arm.

You're right about the interpretation of "rights" being different, but in order to alter fundamental rights you need the unanimous approval of all parties. In other words, that's close to impossible as you can see There needs to be a huge event like the EU dissolving or whatever for something like that to happen, so the only thing people who support such thoughts can do is cross their fingers and hope the financial crisis destroys the EU and European Council. I personally would bet all my money that won't happen in the near future.

All of these events are possible given that the amount of bad debts in the European banking system currently exceed the entire economic output of Europe. And as noted previously, it's not politically necessary for the definition of "rights" to change though it would be desirable.

You also need to consider the role of the United States. Most of these ideas about "rights" were once conceived in American universities, and that continues to be how social "progress" flows even if Europe tends to progress first due to more grassroots resistance in America. If the USA collapsed or had a reactionary government then this would disappear, which would change the balance of forces.

[joebobby]

Well we sure had a good exchange of views and made our predictions on what might happen. Let's wait and see.

Just one more thing though:

You make the program available to ethnic minorities. It's not particularly difficult to sort out. France and Germany have previously had such programs actually, and I do mean postwar.

Careful with that. European countries especially refrain from calling them "minorities", because if you do admit that they're minorities then you're also implying they "deserve" to have "preferential rights" in addition to the citizenship rights they already possess. In other words you'll be giving some groups exactly what they want, but politicians do a good job refraining from using the term minority when talking about them (I'm all for equality).

[Dave]

Careful with that. European countries especially refrain from calling them "minorities", because if you do admit that they're minorities then you're also implying they "deserve" to have "preferential rights" in addition to the citizenship rights they already possess. In other words you'll be giving some groups exactly what they want, but politicians do a good job refraining from using the term minority when talking about them (I'm all for equality).

Britain already has affirmative action for minorities, and I believe France is planning on implementing it. Every European nation also has laws against "hate speech" which are unequally enforced. The reality you fear is here now. Minority is an American term by the way. Feel free to use a different term if you don't like it.

[joebobby]

I really tried to keep myself from saying affirmative action but I'll have to say it now I suppose Ye I strongly oppose affirmative action of all forms. It's ridiculous, and against the European norms of equality (we even force member states to leave the ILO prior to EU membership because of that). It's a good thing there isn't widespread use of it here currently. Good luck to you guys in dealing with it in the US.

Minority is an American term by the way. Feel free to use a different term if you don't like it.

Well if you look at that then International Relations is an American science, we all study it though . What I meant by European countries refraining from using the term minority to describe their citizens was to avoid precisely the effects of affirmative action.

[Dave]

I really tried to keep myself from saying affirmative action but I'll have to say it now I suppose Ye I strongly oppose affirmative action of all forms. It's ridiculous, and against the European norms of equality (we even force member states to leave the ILO prior to EU membership because of that). It's a good thing there isn't widespread use of it here currently. Good luck to you guys in dealing with it in the US.

Now that we have a black President it's going to be very hard to argue it's still necessary. Of course minorities will fight tooth and nail to keep their privileges, but these are broadly unpopular and cost the economy quite a bit. It's only a matter of time now.

Well if you look at that then International Relations is an American science, we all study it though . What I meant by European countries refraining from using the term minority to describe their citizens was to avoid precisely the effects of affirmative action.

Any group incapable of reaching equal status through its own efforts will demand preferences, whether or not they're called minorities.

[Captain Sam]

Affirmative action itself is racist imo.

[Dave]

Affirmative action itself is racist imo.

Of course it is, but just by attacking it as such concedes more or less the entire debate to the left.

[Nadia Violet]

Well i dont think it will, but i think it might be good if it does dissolve.
When i lived in Belgium, in some areas they would prefere you to speak english then flemish (if you were in a french part) or french the other way around. It just seems pretty tense, I'm not too informed about it which is a shame seeing as i lived there, but perhaps it would be best.