US: Democrat or Republican

[Nephilim]

they're all the same, those dittoheads



does anyone know what dittoheads means anymore?

[comic boy]

Boringly getting back on to topic,does anyone really think that the election is hugely significant given increasing globalisation. The mainly European view would be any democrat is fine simply because their policies would tend to be less confrontational. In Britain now most legislation is purely cosmetic because the big decisions will be made in Brussels, sooner or later the USA will have to recognise that it needs to stop strutting around the World and concentrate on the divisions back home.

[Guiscard]

In Britain now most legislation is purely cosmetic because the big decisions will be made in Brussels

Such as?

[unriggable]

In Britain now most legislation is purely cosmetic because the big decisions will be made in Brussels

Such as?

Transiton to Euros, duh

[Guiscard]

In Britain now most legislation is purely cosmetic because the big decisions will be made in Brussels

Such as?

Transiton to Euros, duh

Exactly.

[comic boy]

In Britain now most legislation is purely cosmetic because the big decisions will be made in Brussels

Such as?

Transiton to Euros, duh

Exactly.

The most notable example would be open borders between member states, not a huge problem in my mind but I doubt the British people would have voted in favour. Would a British government have passed a law allowing French and Spanish trawlermen to fish in our territorial waters whilst imposing strict quotas on our native fishermen ?

[unriggable]

Only people who are rich should be against the open borders policy, it's a great addition to the modern world.

[got tonkaed]

Boringly getting back on to topic,does anyone really think that the election is hugely significant given increasing globalisation. The mainly European view would be any democrat is fine simply because their policies would tend to be less confrontational. In Britain now most legislation is purely cosmetic because the big decisions will be made in Brussels, sooner or later the USA will have to recognise that it needs to stop strutting around the World and concentrate on the divisions back home.

I think to a degree the answer to the question is yes and no.

On the one hand, because of the interconnectivity of the world we live in, increasingly every election is important, especially ones in key nations, the US being among them. Frankly, if someone like Guilani were to be elected, he has some ideas about fighting global terrorism, which could have long term significance on many different groups. In other cases, if a democrat is elected, there are some fears that a vaccum of power may be created in the middle east, which could affect a lot of different nations.

At the same time the answer may very well be no, it doesnt matter as much. In a lot of ways, the fact that everyone is so invested into everyone else, creates an incredible moderating effect on each individual nation over the long run. This figures to increase even in areas where there is opposition to some of the US politics. As one social theorist hypothesised, no two nations with mcdonalds in their countries have fought a large scale war against each other. Mcdonalds incredible peace keeping efforts aside, the more we globalize, the more its in everyones best interest to not destroy markets via conflict.

[got tonkaed]

Only people who are rich should be against the open borders policy, it's a great addition to the modern world.

i dont really think i agree with this so much. While in many cases the rich are affected adversly by open borders, in many cases they benefit from it as well. As barriers are broken down, individual countries have less control over how they can govern transnationals (See chapter 11 of nafta for further evidence - or it might be 9, im a little rusty). Likewise, as labor forces migrate, those who have means can always stay one step ahead by pressuring governments to keep attractive policies for their business, with the threat of leaving otherwise.

Why it might not be so great for people who arent so well off....It has the potential to create a severe brain drain, which is a killer of middle income and lower income countries. When its easy to leave, you dont keep the people who make your country more palatable for investment and long term growth. Essentially labor moves to where it will be able to best benefit and your country may end up getting stuck in a rut. Likewise in a lot of cases there is tension as govs. are put pressure on to limit some social programs as a result of an influx of a new population who taxpayers dont care much for (as is often the case with widespread immigration) and this can have adverse affects.

Im not saying we should close up the borders by any stretch of the imagination, but its not always all its cracked up to be.

[Guiscard]

In Britain now most legislation is purely cosmetic because the big decisions will be made in Brussels

Such as?

Transiton to Euros, duh

Exactly.

The most notable example would be open borders between member states, not a huge problem in my mind but I doubt the British people would have voted in favour. Would a British government have passed a law allowing French and Spanish trawlermen to fish in our territorial waters whilst imposing strict quotas on our native fishermen ?

As far as I knew we didn't actually sign up to the Schengen agreement, so the whole land borders thing is safe.

As for the fishing issue, I believe you're referring to the Factortame case? I believe in 1990 the House of Lords, and subsequently the ECJ, ruled that the national courts COULD overrule any EU laws. UK law is always superior to EU law...

Either way, does that really count as a 'big decision'?

[got tonkaed]

As for the fishing issue, I believe you're referring to the Factortame case? I believe in 1990 the House of Lords, and subsequently the ECJ, ruled that the national courts COULD overrule any EU laws. UK law is always superior to EU law...
Either way, does that really count as a 'big decision'?

bolded is a big plus over the sovergnity issues of NAFTA then.