Thatcher was an anarchist??? Huh...wild...

@krellin - Did you actually read the article? He was making a joke because the builduo was of Marines (part of the navy) and was estimated that it could overtax the islands infrastructure, so he referred to the island like a ship that would capsize. Seriosuly, dude, I'm with you overall, but this representative actually isn't as stupid as an out of context quote makes it seem. He is still stupid (he is a dummycrat after all) but just not that stupid.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" - Winston Churchhill

Maybe he should have considered the bombs falling from the Luftwaffe bombers at night as something to actually be feared too.

Draug....no I didn't read the article...I'm an American using American media and I took a quote out of context to make a cheap point! It wasn't a serious thread...just for fun...but come on, it's a hilarious quote when abused by the press!

Did you just misspell OEI?

"Too many Tweets make a twat" -Prime Minister David Cameron

What a guy!

"Who are you? I'd never heard of you, nobody in Europe had ever heard of you. You seem to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states... Perhaps that's because you come from Belgium, which is pretty much a non-country."

- Nigel Farage on European Council president, Herman Van Rompuy

"Farage was reprimanded and had his right to ten days' allowance (expenses) rescinded.[42] [43]" (wikipedia)

In Europe you can be reprimanded for saying what is true, what everybody knows and what few dare to acknowledge. That is embarrassing.

Wait a minute, Draug, Winston Churchill?

It was meant to be funny. I mean the English did need to fear thr night bombings. And I've always hated that quotr because fear is something that keeps us alive. There is no courage without fear. For the courageous overcome their fear to do what is right and what is necessary.

You do realize the quote is not Churchill's but Roosevelt's right? Is that the joke?

No, that was a brain fart.

Redhouse, about the Farage incident, don't say stupid things that do not befit someone of your intelligence; attributing the supposed loathing for the concept of the nation state (something which is a fine thing to loathe incidentally) to the country that a person originates from is offensive. Moreover to call Belgium a non-country is offensive and factually incorrect.

It is possible to have a coherent set of criteria to be a "real" (western European) country - not in the legal, but the philosophical sense of the word - and then to see that Belgium is one of few countries that doesn't fit these criteria.

1. Country has stood the test of time
-Fail. Belgium was invaded during *both* world wars, the first time only 75 years after its birth.

2. Country has one single language that all inhabitants speak well.
-Fail. In Belgium, three different languages are spoken.

3. Country has a language of its own.
-Fail. All languages spoken in Belgium are the languages of their neighbors.

4. Country's politics are a traditional left to right discussion on division of goods and power of government.
-Fail. The main issue of Belgium politics is to define Belgium, to decide which subdivision of the country gets to determine what, etc..

5. Country has a clear geographically isolated position.
-Fail. If you look at countries like the UK, Ireland, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, you can clearly see the way the separation between land and seas, mountain ranges etc. naturally define certain areas. Not Belgium. It's simply one of the low countries.

I disagree with Farage that Belgium is a non-country. I don't disagree that it is impossible for someone else to think so based on very coherent arguments.

It is common knowledge, *common knowledge*, that Belgian politicians are (rightly!) enthusiastic supporters of the European Union, *because they feel that the more powerful the Union becomes, the more easily the Belgians' national problems will dissolve within this union, and the more prominence their country gains within the Union, as its most important institutions are located there.*

Then Van Rompuy himself.
It's essentially true what Farage said about him. The guy has no charisma. His tenure as Prime Minister was an *internship* in terms of time, and he was appointed to his position because he was easily controllable by Merkel and Sarkozy, who belong to his political family, which is a deep disgrace to the Union. The Brits and the Dutch have had no serious say in his appointment and that gives us the right slander the man whenever and wherever we **** please. Which I *will*.

This professional weakling, puppet of powerful nations, deserves to be ferociously criticized, protested against and dragged through the mud every damn day of his tenure and his country deserves to be ridiculed in pretty much the same fashion as long as they don't resolve their petty problems.

So my section "It is common knowledge ... localized there." serves as a defense for Farage to find him having a loathing for nation states, at least, in this man's *actions*, not in his heart. His actions correspond to wanting to break down nation states and replace them with Europe, in his heart, he'd probably wish Belgium was a real nation state like all the others.

I was not talking about Van Rompuy, only his charges on Belgium, and attributing his accused faults to his nationality (a point you didn't respond to).

1. France was invaded in both world wars, it is a real country, Italy saw fighting too AND a 'new' country.

2.Maybe in western europe it is common but throughout the world there are many countries that don't fit this, and overall throughout everywhere in the UK there is more than 1 official language, and some are not spoken well at all. in terms of like the uk where english is spoke well throughout, belgium doesn't do too badly with french as relatively wide spoken. and although not european canada has the problem too.

3. canada, america, not sure but andorra? vatican? san marino? luxembourg? liechenstein? austria?

4. that cannot be a real definition of what a country is? political conversations focusing on left/right distribution of goods? and they do talk about that too...

5.france vs the lowlands as defined? portugal vs spain? italy and its neighbours to some degree, there are other instantiations.

most things can be coherently argued to some degree.

SocDis,

France and Spain, for example, have a clear frontier with the Pyrenees. France and Germany have the Rhine, one of the largest rivers in the world. France and Switzerland have the alps. France and Luxembourg have the Ardennes separating them, etc. etc. They're also separated clearly in terms of language with the Italians, Spanish, Germans and Luxemburgeois, when they were invaded in the world wars their country wasn't under complete but only partial German occupation both times, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying that once you fail one of these criteria you should be considered not to be a real country, but Belgium fails them *all*.

Vatican? Religious enclave in Italy, and also not a real actual country. Etc.

Portugal v. Spain? Language of course! And Portugal lies somewhat lower than the Spanish plateau. Italy? Clearly language separates it from its neighbors, the alps from the Swiss, the seas from France and former Yugoslavia etc. etc.

None of the above *none* of the above applies to Belgium. Farage calling it "not a real country" is rather rude, rather insulting, but it is true.

Canada and the US are not in Europe, we're talking about the public statements of a member of the European Parliament, discussing European affairs. I don't see why in the world you'd bring that into it.

"Belgium doesn't do too badly with french as relatively wide spoken."
-True, you can understand that the majority of Belgians that speak Dutch (not Flemish, it's Dutch with a funny accent that is much easier comprehensible to me than the Dutch of Limburg and Zeeland) are a little annoyed that they have to speak French instead of the other way around.

The end.

Each of my points was just referring to the individual point, not all the points together. And you still don't respond to his attributing the person's belief to his nationality, and whether right or wrong a politician cannot act in that way. And you agreed a moment ago that Belgium is a real country.... and as i said at the end most things can be argued relatively coherently. I reckon that for at least a majority of the countries in the world I could make a case for them not being a 'real' country (perhaps using different criteria, but still valid criteria), the point is what defines a country in this philosophical sense is not really defined... regardless i'm just defending him being reprimanded.

Alright.

"Each of my points was just referring to the individual point, not all the points together."
-I know, you seemed however to suggest that my thesis was that a nation failing one of these criteria could be considered not to be a nation, I think that thesis wouldn't hold. The thesis I think would hold is the one where you start to put a nation's nationhood into doubt (like Farage did) if it failed all these criteria simultaneously.

"And you still don't respond to his attributing the person's belief to his nationality, and whether right or wrong a politician cannot act in that way."
-I don't know what you're asking here? I believe, like Farage does, that Rompuy being from Belgium is a problem for the union, because it is in his, and his country's, direct interest if the European Union becomes stronger simply for the sake of being stronger. I'd prefer to have a leader in his place who'd make the union stronger when a power analysis suggests that it should be, independent of the question whether his country would benefit immediately. A Finnish or Dutch person could be interesting for his job.

"And you agreed a moment ago that Belgium is a real country.... and as i said at the end most things can be argued relatively coherently."

-Well, like I said, I think Belgium is a country, but I can understand perfectly well somebody else just finding it a rather random terrain with rather randomly assembled people and, by the logic above, not the ideal country to supply the President of the Union and in fact, a very bad one to do so.
About most things being able to be argued relatively coherently, no, I don't think so. I don't think you can really say that Italy, for example, shouldn't be considered a country. That would be nonsense I don't have time for. They clearly have their own identity and very distinct geographical boarders, particularly the seas surrounding it and the alps to it north, and the language and historical barriers to NW and NE. Italy is in every sense of the world a real country. Belgium simply isn't. And Van Rompuy simply isn't a leader. Having run Belgium for one year does not a leader make.

Tut tut, prejudice is bad dear redhouse! I'm going out for now, but I will later make a reasoned case for why Italy is not a 'real' country, even though, so you know, I believe it is.

Good luck :S

"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got… an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[…] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."-Ted Stevens