Cricket changes poll

[Ernest]

Morning Goatman,

You say you dont want to be assimilated,you wont have any say in the matter in a few years,Europe is a mammoth organisation,of course the small East European states want to join,they want freedom.they want prosperity,they will get that for a while.Who will pick up the tag,the larger nations of course,the amount of modernisation that is needed in Europe will cost billions.
You go on to say the people in northern ireland, the Slovenes,and other will not give up their sovereignty,well it does not work like that,as we have seen in Britain sovereignty,is erroded,little by little,just the small things in life,like for instance,what can,or cannot be in food,what the food has to be called,what the label has to say,to name a few,no need for new legislation,it is just decreed by the European commission,even worse we are going to have a written constitution,why?if we are not to be assimilated(only soverein states or countries need a constitution)Britain does not have a writtten constitution,we use the law of precenence.
you use words like (Virtual and forseeable) these are not hard and fast words,and I do not like them,they are the language off polaticians eg when asked if he would like to be prime minister if Mrs Thatcher was not there ,Mr Hestletine replied,I cannot see the job being vacant in the forseeable future,and what happened next is history..

You go on to say ,expansion has numberless bad points,but it makes federalism (Virtually) impossible,it will happen,maybe not in name at first,but with the vetos gone,and they would have to go to make such a club work,laws and decision making making would be done by the will of the majority,no matter what it is called,our sovereinty would have gone,we would be left with the powers of a town hall,these thing dont just happen,it is more subtle than that,it evolves.


How could the above affect sport,to a point it would not.

Football,and I will repeat cannot be touched ,there would be no point,if they tried to merge the coutries to be called a team called Europe,and I said tried,Who would they play?They could not play each other because they would be each other,not an option,but they would be like Scotland,or Wales are in Britain,they would still have there own teams ,within europe.

Boxers would box at international level,for Europe,like they do in the USA,it already happens in golf,what used to be Britain and Ireland playing the USA in the Ryder Cup,the team to play the USA is now called Europe.

There is a reason for this,and the same would apply to cricket,no golfing nation within Europe were strong enough to take on the USA,hence the renaming to Europe,I can see the sence in that.

Cricket is the same on Continental Europe,it is not strong,I dont think they have even got the support,Holland deserves to be helped to become a Testplaying nation.

Your first post if I reccolect envisaged a team called Europe,as a seperate entity,to England,I objected on the grounds that if this happened,sooner or later,England would be assimilated,into such a team,(your possition seems to have moved,you say so what,what is wrong with that),it would have to happen,because Europe does not have the players,and would need the most of Englands players to have a viable team.You then say well the top ministers in Europe would not give a fig about something as small as cricket.

Well in a new Europe,they would have departments for different matters,defence,home affairs,ect and of course they would have a department of sport,so you see,it would not be a matter for the top,it would be delegated down.
I think Snooker would go the same way as cricket.

Governments do interfere in sport,look at sponsership,bans on tobacoco.crowd safety,they dont let the clubs handle this themselves.

To answer a point I am not in favour of other countries players playing for England,,kevin Pieterson should not play for England,it is at the expence of home grown players,I must admit I have changed my tune on this,i was a big fan of Tony greig,and Alan Lamb.
How radical do you think I am,I would reject the whole Australian team, eligable or not.

I would not bother my head over the Queens birthday,she would be redundent anyway,who`s state would she be the head off,and it would be the end of the commonwealth as we know it,if it still existed we would not be eligible.

One more thing about the Idealism of a united Europe.it will be anti Ameriacan,it is now,that feeling will grow,as Europe progresses,with all the consiquences that could bring.The Euro will hit the floor,once all these poor nations are admitted.,it will become unsubstanable.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Goatman, Ernest

I've given up on this discussion I'm afraid.

The idea of a Europe Test Team is a good one and perfectly workable.

The tangents that seem to be going on regarding the politics of the EU are just that - irrelevant tangents, I honestly can't see the relevance of the EU or Politics in any of this.

If half a dozen current ICC Associate EU countries decide to pool resources, and meet the necessary ICC criteria for Test Status to be awarded, what has that got to do with the EU or Politics in any of those member countries? It does not set any precedents, it does not involve EU politics in fact, it doesnt involve politics at all.

The best example used here by Goatman is the one of the West Indies - each of those Islands are self governing but they come together to select a Test side - governed by the West Indies Cricket Board. Thats no different to what would happen in a EU side - the players would come from different Countries but would be governed by the EU Cricket Board.

Scott

[Goatman]

Morning Ernest,

getting long this!

Originally Posted by ernest

Morning Goatman,

You say you dont want to be assimilated,you wont have any say in the matter in a few years,Europe is a mammoth organisation,of course the small East European states want to join,they want freedom.they want prosperity,they will get that for a while.Who will pick up the tag,the larger nations of course,the amount of modernisation that is needed in Europe will cost billions.

I think I will not need to have a say. The number of states who want a federal Europe is so small (only Germany and Belgium have not said that they can see no circumstance in which this can happen) that I live free of fear on that count. The French are completely commited to thier own constitution and the Code Napolienne, and unless EU adopts that they will not unify. It is no coincidence that La Pen received such support so soon after the Euro-zone formed. Two successive NL governemnts have stated that they wil not join a federal eruope - and they are considered as being right in with the pro-est of the pro's. The merest suggestion of unification causes surges of nationalist voting that would make the BNP's mouths water. Portugal, Greece and Spain have only recently emerged from dictatorship, have strong nationalist and regionalist movements and are are acting to decentralise. They have both stated that they will not join a federal Europe. Not to mention the ex-communist countries. Denmark and Sweden refused the Euro, which is a necessary precursor, and both of thier governemtns have stated they cannot see a time in which they will post another referendum. The only way unification could happen is if no country goes to referendum, and I don't think this is remotely possible frankly. Apart from anything else, several coutnries (like Italy) are bound by thier own consitution to put any consitutional reform to such a referendum. Unless there is some "Them" out there to force it through, and the entire population of Europe go meekly to the slaughter like sheep it can simply not happen. Conspiracy theories about shadowy organisations and "Them" seem to be a constancy of the human nature. I do not ascribe to any. Just saying "it will happen, like it or not" still doesn't really catch me as a good argument when so much is stacked against it. There are not dark forces driving events here - just fat blokes driving desks.

Originally Posted by ernest

You go on to say the people in northern ireland, the Slovenes,and other will not give up their sovereignty,well it does not work like that,as we have seen in Britain sovereignty,is erroded,little by little,just the small things in life,like for instance,what can,or cannot be in food,what the food has to be called,what the label has to say,to name a few,no need for new legislation,it is just decreed by the European commission,even worse we are going to have a written constitution,why?if we are not to be assimilated(only soverein states or countries need a constitution)Britain does not have a writtten constitution,we use the law of precenence.
you use words like (Virtual and forseeable) these are not hard and fast words,and I do not like them,they are the language off polaticians eg when asked if he would like to be prime minister if Mrs Thatcher was not there ,Mr Hestletine replied,I cannot see the job being vacant in the forseeable future,and what happened next is history..

I use the words forseeable and virtual because I have no crystal ball. Do you have one? If so, can I borrow it? I'm not going to pretend I can see beyond the forseeable - there aren't many that can, least of all Tarzan.

I also would vote against a constitution, as it would cause every flavour of chaos for GB which, uniquely, is not bound by a scrap of paper. Sovereignty needs more than a consitution however, and having briefly read the discussion document I can assure you that it is so watered down and patehitc, that it would change exactly bugger all. There is only one issue which enough conssnsus has been reached on so far in the whole thing:- that EU will not be sovereign. They were unanimous on that. As for erosion of internal control, I can see your point entirely. But EU are not gaining sovereignty by it, which is a very different animal. While GB can leave EU its sovereignty remains intact, with the exception of the issue over the consistution. However, if it continues to be watered down, that won't change a thing anyway. Even assuming enough people vote for it. Which they won't.

Originally Posted by ernest

You go on to say ,expansion has numberless bad points,but it makes federalism (Virtually) impossible,it will happen,maybe not in name at first,but with the vetos gone,and they would have to go to make such a club work,laws and decision making making would be done by the will of the majority,no matter what it is called,our sovereinty would have gone,we would be left with the powers of a town hall,these thing dont just happen,it is more subtle than that,it evolves.

The few decisions EU makes will be made by the opinion of the majority, however as figurehead of what the Germans accuse of being a voting cartel in the EU parliament (GB, Denmark, Sweden, NL, Spain, Greece) I think we will not be the losers in this new world of bargaining. Anyway, what has this to do with cricket?

Originally Posted by ernest

How could the above affect sport,to a point it would not.

Football,and I will repeat cannot be touched ,there would be no point,if they tried to merge the coutries to be called a team called Europe,and I said tried,Who would they play?They could not play each other because they would be each other,not an option,but they would be like Scotland,or Wales are in Britain,they would still have there own teams ,within europe.

Boxers would box at international level,for Europe,like they do in the USA,it already happens in golf,what used to be Britain and Ireland playing the USA in the Ryder Cup,the team to play the USA is now called Europe.

There is a reason for this,and the same would apply to cricket,no golfing nation within Europe were strong enough to take on the USA,hence the renaming to Europe,I can see the sence in that.

Cricket is the same on Continental Europe,it is not strong,I dont think they have even got the support,Holland deserves to be helped to become a Testplaying nation.

Just glibly saying that "football can't be touched" as if it was the Catholic Church is a bit of a silly argument. As I have said, in law if ENG were to be forced to play with EU this could only happen if the law insisted that a territory had to be sovereign to compete in sport. the law cannot distinguish between sports. I still have seen nothing to change my belief that a change in cricket could do anything but change the sitauion in football, regardless of whether the European team would be really, really strong. Thats completely irrelevent.

Originally Posted by ernest

Your first post if I reccolect envisaged a team called Europe,as a seperate entity,to England,I objected on the grounds that if this happened,sooner or later,England would be assimilated,into such a team,(your possition seems to have moved,you say so what,what is wrong with that),it would have to happen,because Europe does not have the players,and would need the most of Englands players to have a viable team.You then say well the top ministers in Europe would not give a fig about something as small as cricket.

Well in a new Europe,they would have departments for different matters,defence,home affairs,ect and of course they would have a department of sport,so you see,it would not be a matter for the top,it would be delegated down.
I think Snooker would go the same way as cricket.

Governments do interfere in sport,look at sponsership,bans on tobacoco.crowd safety,they dont let the clubs handle this themselves.

My argument has not shifted at all. I still argue that the EU could not cause ENG to become part of a unified european team, and so still see ENG&Wales competing against Europe for many years to come. I am not remotely saying that it wouldn't matter! Good lord man, I'm saying they can't do it and nothing else! And no, the ministers wouldn't give a fig about cricket, even if they did have a department for sport. Why shoudl they?

Originally Posted by ernest

To answer a point I am not in favour of other countries players playing for England,,kevin Pieterson should not play for England,it is at the expence of home grown players,I must admit I have changed my tune on this,i was a big fan of Tony greig,and Alan Lamb.
How radical do you think I am,I would reject the whole Australian team, eligable or not.

Do you really think the Dutch are so very different? 'cos thier not.

Originally Posted by ernest

I would not bother my head over the Queens birthday,she would be redundent anyway,who`s state would she be the head off,and it would be the end of the commonwealth as we know it,if it still existed we would not be eligible.

One more thing about the Idealism of a united Europe.it will be anti Ameriacan,it is now,that feeling will grow,as Europe progresses,with all the consiquences that could bring.The Euro will hit the floor,once all these poor nations are admitted.,it will become unsubstanable.

Wait on, I argue that the Dutch are a very proud nation state by quoting thier support of thier own monarchy, and point out that thier goverment has said they will not join a federal Europe. Your counter argument is that in a Federal Europe they would have no Monarchy. That doesn't make any sense! Surely that just highlights that they would not want to join a federal Europe.

Anti Americanism, the EU idealism and the Euro have nothing to do with cricket.

You still haven't answered if you would support the creation of a Europe team including Switzerland.

[Goatman]

Thanks for your support Scott. Absoultely no disrespect to Ernest at all, but I also fail to see the relvence of his counter arguments and can see no actual barrier to the formation of such a team.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Goatman

Morning Ernest,


I use the words forseeable and virtual because I have no crystal ball. Do you have one? If so, can I borrow it? I'm not going to pretend I can see beyond the forseeable - there aren't many that can, least of all Tarzan.

Goatman

I will keep politics to an absolute minimum,but I have to deal with what is in your quote,you wrote it.

No I dont have a crystal ball,and that is why I dont trust the words foreeable,or virtual.that is relevent to cricket in my arguement.
you have used a bad eg there to back your arguement up,Tarzan,said I can not see in the forseeable future Mrs Thaters job becoming vacant,knowing full well he was one of the men in gray suits about stab her in the back.they are often used as political words,and there is no finality about them,that is my opinion.

No I dont want to see an England /Wales playing a team called Europe,what is the point,were are their players going to come from,nice of you to give them Scotland ,and N Ireland,but they dont have the support to raise revenue needed to achieve Test status.

If you could find a crystal ball and ,say to me no way,not ever and no ifs or buts,I may then not be as bothered about England playing Europe,providing that we have,and that we wont get more involved in the EU.

And if that was the case,I would not mind Europe having a loose structure,like the one in place,the West Indies use,but my possition does not alter I would not like to see England become part of a greater European team.

I think this should make things clear were I stand,my conditions met,an EU team not containing England,fair enough,but I still cant see the point.I dont think they they even like cricken in continental Europe.

We will have to agree to disagree on football,There are some very powerfull teams in Europe,and in the UK,by the way I enjoy the European cometitions.

[Goatman]

No one can say never, no way ever. We don't even understand the fundamentals of physics yet. One day the sun will go supernova, and then we will no longer exist. That could happen tonight. Its not very likely to, but it could. I'm not going to pack my arguments with suggestions that I am in some way God-like, and so I am limited to the foreseeable. And that is my opinion. If a politican did claim to have seen the future, I would first look at his CV (Hmmmm, doesn't come from Mecca, never been to Jerusalem......) and then vote for someone else. However, I can promise that until Switzerland and Norway become part of the EU - which they never will -, a test team, including them would be independant of it. So there you have your conditions met.

No one is arguing for ENG to become part of the European team - I can't think why you think we are?

I can see the point of a European team, as they would be stronger than the consituent nations. Do you recommend the WI play as individual islands? No, they are not strong enough and are not big enough ever to be. The same stands for the other european nations.

On the contrary, they love cricket over here in NL - the cricket world cup was even extensively covered in thier media. There are two strong clubs in my city alone, each of which field upwards of 7 teams (1-4, youth, womens and veterans). Its is also similarly popluar in Denmark. I have played with and against numerous Scots and Irish, and it is a minor but never-the-less significant sport over there, and is growing.

And with respect, I still think you are wrong on the football and the strength of the teams is neither here nor there.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Goatman

No one can say never, no way ever. We don't even understand the fundamentals of physics yet. One day the sun will go supernova, and then we will no longer exist. That could happen tonight. Its not very likely to, but it could. I'm not going to pack my arguments with suggestions that I am in some way God-like, and so I am limited to the foreseeable. However, I can promise that until Switzerland and Norway become part of the EU - which they never will -, a test team, including them would be independant of it. So there you have your conditions met.

No one is arguing for ENG to become part of the European team - I can't think why you think we are?

I can see the point of a European team, as they would be stronger than the consituent nations. Do you recommend the WI play as individual islands? No, they are not strong enough and are not big enough ever to be. The same stands for the other european nations.

On the contrary, they love cricket over here in NL - the cricket world cup was even extensively covered in thier media. There are two strong clubs in my city alone,

And with respect, I still think you are wrong on the football and the strength of the teams is neither here nor there.

I have edited very little of your post,because my post is relevent to what you have posted
Before we go to cricket,you say correctly.One day the sun will go supernova,and then we will cease to exist,that could happen tonight you say,its not very likely to ,but it could.
You are making a statement there,with respect,why is it not likely,if no one knows when it is going to happen,it is just as likely to happen tonight,as it would be tomorrow,and so on.
Can you promise that Switserland and norway,will never enter the EU,very Doubtfull but in certain circumstances it could happen.I will however take it ,that my conitions have been met.

Goatman,you are right,at the moment no one is arguing that England become part of an EU team,but if Europe merges into one nation(and you cant say that will never happen)things could change.

Well I respect your view on the State of cricket in Holland,and Denmark,i have always thought Holland should have a better status,and with even greater respect,you are using my argument over the West Indies,the islands are to small to be viable on there own,and there is no political complications=a federation.

I can see the point you are making,saying a European team would be stronger for merging together,but I dont think they will be strong enough to be any better,if as good as Bangladesh you know more about cricket in Europe,so I may have to stand to be corrected on that one.

Football I am using in an extreme example,how it may change if we become fully integrated into the EU.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Goatman, Ernest

I've given up on this discussion I'm afraid.

The idea of a Europe Test Team is a good one and perfectly workable.


The best example used here by Goatman is the one of the West Indies - each of those Islands are self governing but they come together to select a Test side - governed by the West Indies Cricket Board. Thats no different to what would happen in a EU side - the players would come from different Countries but would be governed by the EU Cricket Board.

Scott

Scott,You are entitled to your opinion,as is Goatman,that a Europe test team is a workable idea,were will they get their players,Europe is not awash with Test standard cricketers,No one in continental Europe plays the game exept Holland,and Goatman says denmark as well.All the big counries in Europe play football,and some rugby,goatman had to rely on Scotland and N Ireland,to make up this team.
The other point between myself and Goatman was political,and they cannot always be kept out of sport,Look at S africa,The Moscow olympics.
If in the event of us being part of a full Europe,I dont want England to become the backbone of a cricket team called Europe.

With respect Scott,it was I not Goatman who cited the West Indies as the correct way for teams to unite in cricket,without any political overtones,they have to unite because by world terms,they are tiny.and could not compete.

Ernest

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by ernest

Scott,You are entitled to your opinion,as is Goatman,that a Europe test team is a workable idea,were will they get their players,Europe is not awash with Test standard cricketers,No one in continental Europe plays the game exept Holland,and Goatman says denmark as well.

Ernest

Thats not true. There are at least half a dozen EU countries currently playing cricket. I've listed them here before. I'm pretty sure combined EU side could be formed from the EU countries playing Cricket. If you don't believe me - look on the ICC Website under (I think) Associate countries - there's quite a lot of them.

Also - no country 'suddenly' gets test quality players - these come about from experience and playing better opposition.

Originally Posted by ernest

The other point between myself and Goatman was political,and they cannot always be kept out of sport,Look at S africa,The Moscow olympics.

Ernest with the greatest respect - the EU is not South Africa, Zimbabwe or Russia.

Originally Posted by ernest

If in the event of us being part of a full Europe,I dont want England to become the backbone of a cricket team called Europe.

It's been repeated within this discussion that England would never relinquish its existing Test Status to become part of an EU Test Team, I don't understand what it is about this you don't understand.

Originally Posted by ernest

With respect Scott,it was I not Goatman who cited the West Indies as the correct way for teams to unite in cricket,without any political overtones,they have to unite because by world terms,they are tiny.and could not compete.

Ernest, well I'm sure Goatman used the example of the West Indies first in this discussion, but apologies if I am incorrect.

Scott

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Ernest

Thats not true. There are at least half a dozen EU countries currently playing cricket. I've listed them here before. I'm pretty sure combined EU side could be formed from the EU countries playing Cricket. If you don't believe me - look on the ICC Website under (I think) Associate countries - there's quite a lot of them.

It's been repeated within this discussion that England would never relinquish its existing Test Status to become part of an EU Test Team, I don't understand what it is about this you don't understand.

Ernest, well I'm sure Goatman used the example of the West Indies first in this discussion, but apologies if I am incorrect.

Scott

Scott,I will take your word for it,there may well be half a dozen EU countries playing cricket,I am no expert on this,but I would doubt if the had the stadiums of the quality needed to stage test matches.

I still think it is a silly idea to have a Europe cricket team (containing Scotland and N Ireland) leaving England and Wales ,to be able to play them,I dont think that is on.

Goatman lives in the Netherlands,I dont no how long he has lived there,but no one cannot have noticed the interference the EU has inflicted on the UK already,petty little things,as well as important changes.

Mr Blair is a crackpot,who is taking us down the European road,who knows public opinion may well change,it will anyway at some stage,we are going to be a full part of Europe,if that were the case a EU sport administerater,may say,whats the point in having two teams,England and Europe,a united team would be better.I cant be sure that will happen,but on the other hand,no one can say it wont.even if you disagree I hope you realise I do understand,i just dont like the idea.

Yes I believe Goatman did cite the West Indies first,but i dont think in the same context as me at the begining.I used the following in my argument,it is also in answer to your post.

The West Indies are not going to merge politicaly,there cricket union,as you know,is out of need,they have to group together,to be able to play Test cricket,no complications like the EU.

Ernest