BBC BLOGS - Gavin Hewitt's Europe
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

The row over the Roma

Gavin Hewitt | 18:21 UK time, Thursday, 16 September 2010

Arguments over the expulsions of the Roma from France have overshadowed a European summit in Brussels. There was a fierce row over lunch between the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso.

The French leader accused the Commission of having wounded France: "I am the head of state, I am the French President and I can't let my country be insulted."

His anger relates to comments made two days ago by the EU's Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, in which she said that the removal of the Roma reminded her of actions taken during World War II.


EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (left) and President Nicolas Sarkozy

The French president described the words as "shameful" and "disrespectful. He said he would not allow his country to be the victim of "outrageous" insults.

He said none of Europe's leaders were prepared to accept such language. Chancellor Merkel had called him to express total solidarity," he said. "Everyone here," he later told a news conference, "was deeply shocked especially given our wartime history. These words were deeply wounding and were insulting to my fellow countrymen."

But afterwards a spokesman for Mr Barroso challenged Mr Sarkozy's version of events. "President Sarkozy," he said, "does have a case to answer. No one supports President Sarkozy on the substance of the issue. There was a huge row over lunch with President Barroso insisting he had a job to do upholding EU laws over the free movement of its peoples."

The EU will continue considering legal action against France. And President Sarkozy will continue dismantling the illegal camps. "We do not accept the existence of shanty-towns which are degrading to those live in them and nearby," he said. He promised that French laws would apply to all and would not target particular ethnic groups.

That has been the main charge of his critics. The head of the European Commission said again today that discrimination against ethnic minorities was "unacceptable."

Mr Barroso did say that he regretted some of the language used but implied that both Viviane Reding and the French president had made inappropriate remarks. This was a reference to a jibe by President Sarkozy who noted that Ms Reding came from Luxembourg and that he would have no objection to that country taking in the Roma.

So where now? The French believe that there is a real problem that has to be handled on a European basis and they are looking forward to proposals from the Commission.

Some say that a European strategy to help the Roma integrate into Romanian society and which was effectively enforced might enable President Sarkozy to say there was enough progress and to stop the expulsions.

But this was a deeply-felt and not a synthetic row. It pits an EU chief determined to fight for Europe's policing of its laws against a French president equally determined to uphold French law as he sees it. The free movement of people within the EU does not in his view entitle people to occupy territory illegally.

French government spokesmen are also hinting that this row "will only widen the gap between the French people and the European institutions".

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 7:35pm on 16 Sep 2010, lacerniagigante wrote:

    Sarkozy has never hidden his right-wing Kärcher-cleaning instincts. Even before becoming president.

    Those who have insulted France are not EU commissioners upholding EU laws on human rights, but the people who support his racist policies.

    Period.

    Whatever he says now to justify his mislead policies is only going to backfire.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:50pm on 16 Sep 2010, shendor wrote:

    Sincerely, if your readers think the problems with largely illiterate and morally dubious Roma are bad, wait until Turkey joins the EU, when millions of uneducated Islamists will earn the legal right to camp anyway in Europe and use public services the vast majority will never pay back into through taxes. This post will doubtless be written off (if even published) as Daily Mail type nastiness, but please realise there really is an inconvenient truth behind it, like it or not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 8:06pm on 16 Sep 2010, BluesBerry wrote:

    Roma or Schengen (Schengen = the border-free European area)?
    Schengen is at the border among
    - Luxembourg,
    - France and
    - Germany.
    On June 14, 1985 an agreement to slowly and uniformally abolish checks at the common borders was signed among the countries listed above + the Netherlands and Belgium.
    In 1995 border controls were abolished between Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.
    Today the Schengen border-free zone consists of 25 Schengen member states: EU countries Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, as well as the three associated non-EU countries, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.
    The UK and Ireland decided to stay outside the Schengen area.
    (Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus only partially apply the Schengen requirements and therefore checks are still carried out at the borders with those three member states.)
    There was a recent headline in the Romanian Daily, Romania Libera: “Romania to stay out of Schengen due to Roma”.
    Lellouche (France) said that Romania cannot be allowed to join the border-less EU area if
    - it benefits from 20B euros from the EU budget for the period 2007-2013, but
    - does nothing for the social inclusion of Roma.
    Pierre Lellouche (French Minister with responsibility for European affairs): "There are two-and-a-half million Roma in Romania and it is Romania's responsibility to integrate them. It's not France that should integrate Romanian Roma."
    (Actually, the officially number is 535,000 Roma in Romania.)
    Apparently, Lellouche has twice been to Romania, where the Romanian PM had assured him that he would appoint a state secretary responsible for the integration of the country's Roma minority, but Romanian PM Emil Boc said Romania already had such a state secretary i.e. responsible for Roma integration - in the Ministry of Labour, namely Valentin Mocanu.
    In any case, there is nothing in the Schengen Agreement regarding Roma integration.
    Indeed, the obligations that Bulgaria and Romania have to undertake to join the Schengen border-less area concern the reliability of land and air borders, & data protection related to the use of a common passenger database known as the Schengen Information System, or SIS.
    Bulgaria remained silent over the Roma expulsions when the first group of 13 expelled Bulgarian Roma arrived in Sofia. It should also be noted that France did not mention postponing Bulgaria's accession to Schengen. Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, who in a previous government was Chief Secretary of the Interior Ministry and holds the rank of police general, is known to attach the utmost importance to his country joining Schengen in early 2011. Last June, coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement, the European Parliament voted to allow Sofia and Bucharest to join SIS.
    Many Roma from Eastern Europe moved to the West following the EU's expansion, creating tensions. An estimated 15,000 Roma from Romania and Bulgaria live in France. The French government is currently expelling large numbers of them in groups. The Bulgarian opposition socialist party BSP said it was unacceptable to link the Roma issue to the country's accession to Schengen. A party spokesperson was quoted as saying that it was still unclear on what grounds the French authorities were repatriating Roma.
    35-40% of the Bulgarian Roma are integrated in a social, economic and cultural manner and their incomes are not lower than the national average, the Bulgarian socialists also said.
    So is the real problem: - Romania benefits from 20B euros from the EU budget for the period 2007-2013, but does nothing for the social inclusion of Roma. Is this the real problem that the French believe has to be handled on a European basis...

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 8:11pm on 16 Sep 2010, Malkava wrote:

    I can't say I understand the reasoning behind these expulsions. It sounds like a short-term solution to a long-standing problem. However, it is their country and how they choose to run their government or policies is their business.

    Though I do find it amusing enough that criticisms are freely given if it applies to other countries and their policies, but rarely is it well received.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 8:12pm on 16 Sep 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:

    Support for Sarkozy by EU member state leaders (they are the elected ones!) seems to have been partially because they have woken up to the Frankenstein's Monster they created by giving powers to a bunch of unelected Commissars.

    The UN provided further good news concerning the EU Commissars' 'overreach' as the EU was rebuffed in its attempts to have its 'President' Rumpey and trumped up 'Foreign Minister' be given speaking rights at the UN General Assembly. Other nations pointed out, quite correctly, that if the EU is given such rights then so should other regional groupings (like, for instance, ASEAN, or the Organisation of African Dictators...).

    When push comes to shove, no leader of a substantial state like France is going to cede their UN seat (or act contrary to their own key interests) just to allow unelected EU pigmy politicians to prance on the world stage.

    (Smaller countries like Luxembourg may be willing, but they are already insignificant anyway).

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 8:34pm on 16 Sep 2010, nyelvmark wrote:

    It's very easy to say "Integrate the Roma into Romanian society". I live in Hungary, which also has a large Roma population, and I guess that the situations are comparable. I was shocked when I came here to discover the depth of the prejudice that the ordinary Hungarian holds against the 'cigány' (gypsies). Even intelligent and liberal Hungarians are wont to casually express the same views: that gypsies are lazy and untrustworthy, they all sponge off the state, they don't send their children to school, and they are responsible for most of the crime.

    Obviously, this means that Roma find it very difficult to find work, and their children are also discriminated against in the education system, leading to precisely the situation that the ordinary Hungarians complain about.

    It is, of course, possible for a diligent Roma to educate himself, to learn to speak unaccented Hungarian, to change his name if necessary, and to succeed in Hungarian society - at the cost of abandoning his cultural heritage. Moreover, such people are not considered to be "real gypsies" for the purposes of generalisation, and the prejudice against their fellows is unaffected. The vicious circle of prejudice -> exclusion -> poverty -> crime -> prejudice continues unabated.

    I wish I could tell you what the solution is, but I can't. Like most people, I find it easier not to think about it, and to change the subject if "the gypsy problem" comes up in conversation. I wish you people luck in finding it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 8:34pm on 16 Sep 2010, sensi wrote:

    I can only laugh at the hypocrite higher moral takers: how many planes of afghan deportees have taken off of UK airports this month? Shame on you for this "discrimination against ethnic minorities" (sic).

    The language spoken by Ms reding, her lamentable example of the godwin's law use, is unforgivable. She should really consider resigning.

    There is no "racist policies" concerning Roma, there is just a fact that shanty-towns are unanimously made of immigrants from Europeans countries which are not fully part of the Schengen agreement. Citizen of these countries have to justify of they way of living, i.e. proof that they have a job and are self-sufficient, otherwise they aren't allowed to stay more than three months on french soil. To ask them on a VOLUNTARY (!) basis if they want to go back to their home countries, while given money and a fly tickets, isn't exactly worth the hypocrite outrage and shameful language hold by some delusional EU officials.

    The recent rift came from a -now corrected- official document giving priority to the evacuation of these shanty-towns, referring them as Roma campsites. Now that this poorly expressed document was corrected there is really no more relevant claim about an hypothetical "discrimination against ethnic minorities" to be made.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 8:39pm on 16 Sep 2010, sensi wrote:

    May I had that the Roma mentioned and allegedly "targeted" would be not because of their ethnicity or origin but well because they are illegals living in outrageous and also illegal shanty-towns. Roma respecting the law being of course unaffected by the rule of law... Speaking of amalgamates, fallacious allegations and gross misrepresentations...

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 9:02pm on 16 Sep 2010, sensi wrote:

    I almost forgot: out of the 500 illegal camps dismantled during August, French nationals represented 80% of the people concerned, again Roma aren't targeted for their ethnicity or origin, only ILLEGALS Roma are deported to their home countries (on a VOLUNTARY basis, given money and fly tickets...), Roma aren't targeted as a whole for what they are but some individuals among them are targeted for what they do: breaking the law in their host country, living in shanty-towns and being unable to proof of a job aor of a legal way to be self-sufficient, as required from citizens from Europeans countries not fully part members of the Schengen agreement, who aren't allowed to stay more than three months on french soil unless they can respect the above mentioned conditions...

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 9:04pm on 16 Sep 2010, dany wrote:

    @BluesBerry
    "So is the real problem: - Romania benefits from 20B euros from the EU budget for the period 2007-2013, but does nothing for the social inclusion of Roma. Is this the real problem that the French believe has to be handled on a European basis..."

    Romania is a net contributor to EU budget for the third year in a row.
    I think that this is the real problem: Romania is the 2nd poorest country in the EU ( and not long ago recived a 20 bl. euros loan from IMF because it's economy contracted with 7%) but is a net contributer to EU budget.
    Lellouche looks to me like a franch clown not like a franch minister..


    from Mediafax
    "Romania, Sole Net Debtor In EU New Members - Fiscal Council

    Romania is the only country out of 10 states that joined the European Union after 2004 who are in the position of net debtor, with a negative balance of EUR455.9 million for the years 2007-2009, the Fiscal Council said Wednesday.

    "Alas, Romania is the only state that joined EU after 2004 in the position of net debtor, excluding pre-accession funds," said Ionut Dumitru, president of the Council.

    Dumitru said Romanian payments to the EU community amounted to EUR3.68 billion in the 2007-2009 period, while the country's revenue from post-accession funds reached EUR3.225 billion." "




    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 9:55pm on 16 Sep 2010, MariaTee wrote:

    BBC today is full of news which make me feel good.

    If I remember correctly, a person living in one of the shantytown ran through a police stop point, running over a policeman. Police tried to catch him. To avenge their friend other people in the shantytown attacked a small town and shot a policeman dead. French authorities decided it was high time to dismantle the breeding grounds of lawlessness.
    To do so, the Romas, since they inhabit those places, and are in France illegally, are taken back to their county with 300 euros.
    This is of course a scandal as viewed by the European authorities. The French, I suppose, should have distributed the 300 euros to everybody who participated in the crimes, replace the bullets they used for free, and apologize for the inconvenience.
    The French authorities are likened to the SS during world war 2.
    I wander what that makes me, since personally I would have confiscated whatever they owned to help defray the cost of repatriation.

    The Pope is assimilating atheists with nazis. There I go again. At least, being an atheist I have no respect for his opinion. Fortunately, the Spanish inquisition is dead.

    When are we (we being the French) going to wake up to the fact that all the foreigners in Brussels hate us, and will do whatever they can to destroy us. I want a secession, I want to be in a real country again. I am sick and tired of the permanent humiliation that we have to put with. I am sick and tired of the insults.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 11:06pm on 16 Sep 2010, R53 wrote:

    Shendor: You obviously live in a different world. Turkey is developing faster than anywhere else in Europe, and alrady have better living standards than many EU countries. Majority of Turkish people do not want to join EU (latest opinion polls show this to be around 70%). Soon it will be difficult to keep ignorant people like you out of Turkey.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 11:09pm on 16 Sep 2010, Rubin Naidu wrote:

    I think many Europeans have forgotten that the Roma were massive victims of Hitler's genocide. Therefore racism towards the Roma seems way more acceptable than towards Jews. Unless right thinking people in Europe do something like boycotting French products, Sarkozy will get away with this and if he can get away with this what else will he think of next when he needs a boost in the polls.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 11:45pm on 16 Sep 2010, prfields wrote:

    @MariaTee: I am sick and tired of the permanent humiliation that we have to put with. I am sick and tired of the insults.

    Maria doesn't appear to be aware that the real issue is the note from the French Interior ministry confirming that their was a policy to remove people based on ethnic origin. This is the scandal because it means that the French government lied to the commission and are clearly guilty of a hidden policy that is both illegal and outrageous in the context of the basic premise of the EU treaty providing freedom of movement of people within the EU. Rather than accept that at least someone in the French Government is guilty, they huff and puff and claim how outrageous it is. To quote Shakespeare: "Methinks they doth protest too much".

    This is not the first time that the French government has tried to avoid or deny EU regulations (many previous examples include illegal subsidies to Air France, illegal attempts to block non-French companies operating in France etc). They also seem to allow their public service workers to hold the EU to ransom at every opportunity (e.g. air-traffic controllers, farmers). These are the real facts.

    Apologies if this is seen as an insult but the French government cannot be allowed to get away with this and the French nation must hold them to account rather than believe nationalist propaganda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 00:27am on 17 Sep 2010, Sarddoc wrote:

    Re. comments from MaxSceptic:
    I have lived and worked in different EU countries, but only in the UK I often read complaints about the personnel and politicians of EU institutions that go like "unelected persons" "petty politicians" etc. It seems that the mortal sin of EU institutions is that of being run by people who are not elected (by the UK citizens, and those of other countries, I would think). In fact, the Members of the European Parliament are elected, but I concede that Commissioners (such as Barroso and Viviane Reading) and EU bureaucrats are not directly elected by the people.

    Now: are the ministers in the UK government elected? Certainly not, and to top it all in the UK they are nominated by the most-unelected person of all, a monarch. And, ministers need not be MPs. But this is presumably OK.

    Are the UK bureaucrats, including its top civil servants, who often have more power than ministers and certainly more than a backbench MP, elected? Of course not.

    Are magistrates elected? But no.

    Ah, I was forgetting, apologies, are members of the most numerous of the two houses of the UK Parliament, the House of Lords, elected by the people?

    So please, MaxSceptic, Daily Mail and others: think twice, before uttering nonsense...

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 01:09am on 17 Sep 2010, ianvantransyl wrote:

    Monsieur Lellouche says that France is a great nation. Well, I say that a nation is only as great as its actions are. And, at the moment, France's actions, at least those of its government, have nothing of their professed greatness. They are petty, mean-spirited and duplicitous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 01:12am on 17 Sep 2010, Noel Tobin wrote:

    It is a European problem. If Germany decided to expel groups of ethnic minorities, we would be saying, "here we go again". Agressive language from Sarkozy does not help the situtation but I suspect it might rescue him in the popularity stakes. At least it gives the pppppppppppppppes an issue to take their minds off the things they should really be doing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 01:18am on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    I posted this on the previous thread. It's a case of he said she said.

    "Did Sarkozy lie when he said that Merkel told him that she was going to throw the Roma out of Germany too or did she actually say it to him and then deny it later. At least one of them is lying."

    So Sarkozy told Barroso that he should send the Roma to Luxembourg. Will he tell Merckel that he's deporting them to Germany? That would cause a row. At least he's smart enough to send them to Romania on airplanes. Could you imagine the TV coverage and ensuing furor if he loaded them on to trains?

    With the economy of the entire EU coming apart at the seams and so many other real problems this is what they spend their time arguing about. What Lilliputians Europeans are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 01:59am on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    MariaT

    "When are we (we being the French) going to wake up to the fact that all the foreigners in Brussels hate us, and will do whatever they can to destroy us. I want a secession, I want to be in a real country again."

    I know that France is superior to all other societies and that others are just jealous but as much as I hate to break the bad news to you Maria, I have to tell you that....Charles DeGaulle is dead and he is never coming back.

    "I am sick and tired of the permanent humiliation that we have to put with. I am sick and tired of the insults."

    It seems to me when taken over time the French are just getting back what they dished out so freely for so long in the past. It will be a long time and many more insults before the balance sheet is even.

    If it's any consolation to you, you might take some small satisfaction that from the perspective of at least one person, an American, me, I view all Europeans as the same, the French being no better but also no worse than the others.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 02:59am on 17 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    The French are ok...maybe France has problems and some French people are overly insecure with criticisms. But, I've always liked your opinions. Now you are French. Good for you for confessing it.

    I loved France when I visited it...I lived with a conservative French family and got to hobnob with a Communist (I went to her high school with her one day and sat with the Communists who totally ignored the teacher and just talked among themselves)
    *****************************************************************

    But, France is the main nation who said NON to the Iraqi-American War...Thank you, thank you, thank you. France, a brave nation, perhaps because of French anti-Americanism, but it was very brave nonetheless and put the onus on G. Bush.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 03:00am on 17 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    Marcus,

    This is the blog where you are treated most ....nicely.. of all the blogs, n'est pas?

    So, why do you not love Europeans?

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 03:33am on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 23. At 04:12am on 17 Sep 2010, burtine wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 24. At 04:15am on 17 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    oops I know, I know..no baiting..sorry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 06:14am on 17 Sep 2010, burtine wrote:

    @ 22 Majeuris Aholis wrote:

    "BTW, the decision by the US government to invade Iraq in 2003 was 100% correct."

    Huh? MA, really. Even for you this is a strange comment. You of course know it is not true, as any report you yourself refer to indicates that there were no WMD's etc, etc. Support for the war among Americans? Haha, no need to discuss that. Of course, thats why you say: "I suggest you look at the news reports at the time it happened". At the time it happened? Of course, because at that time all Americans were still believing Bush! Hahaha, nice try MA.

    For a retired history teacher you really do have a selective view of history. Next nonsensical remark? Let's have it I am actually enjoying it, so do keep it up!) ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 06:28am on 17 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    But, remember, Les Francais,

    That anger is sometimes obviously a feeling of humiliation for 'being found out.' Being overly angry is definitely an indication of being in the wrong.

    That is why people love the French. They get humiliated when they are wrong and everyone knows it.

    They are mostly not wrong, but perhaps, M. Tee, in this case, they were ham handedly ....found wanting.

    Humiliation AND Rage are signs of being WRONG. Being wrong is not a horrible thing.....I mean, there is being wrong, and there is being horribly horribly wrong as in war crimes or atrocities.

    Get over it, France, move on...from this self destructive humilation into practicality...fixing what is wrong.

    :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 06:33am on 17 Sep 2010, marcsh wrote:

    Fortunately Nicolas Sarkozy does not speak for France.
    We are not outraged by Ms Reding's remarks or those of Mr Barosso, the vast majority of the "french people" such as myself are outraged by a President who behaves constantly in an outrageous fashion, uses vulgar language with citizens he considers beneath him.I have seen and feel how our country is turning into a police state, where fear of the state and its abuse of power is rife.
    The allusion to Nazi Germany maybe exagerated however, as a "conservative" french citizen who has always voted for the right, I have often thought the same and fear for the future of France.
    Just yesterday in a business meeting with Norwegian partners, they mentioned that their board in Oslo feared that France was becoming a "Banana Republic"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 08:04am on 17 Sep 2010, Dutch411 wrote:

    Sarkozy is not bein racist, a term far too often used these days, what the Roma are doing in France and other EU countries is illegal and people should support his stand and not be so keen to jump on the PC bandwagon

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 08:21am on 17 Sep 2010, phillipwest wrote:

    Sardoc #15
    "I have lived and worked in different EU countries, but only in the UK I often read complaints about the personnel and politicians of EU institutions that go like "unelected persons" "petty politicians" etc."

    Really, I would suggest you review readers comments in such places as Die Welt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Le Figaro, Le Point among others here in Europe. Many comments, particularly in Germany, are directed against the EU politicans being unelected whenever the topic comes up. Die Welt also has a box where readers can vote up or down on existing comments, a feature BBC could put to use as well.

    As for your inference that the UK government is about as democratic as the EU, such inference is baseless as the PM and members of Parliament are directly accountable to the voters more often than they care to be I'm sure. It's been that way for centuries as Britian is the world standard for democracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 08:44am on 17 Sep 2010, Matt Whaley wrote:

    In Response to Shendors comments -

    Draw a parallel between Turkeys EU Membership bid and the problems France now finds itself in with Roma people is misleading.

    Turkey may have its problems at present, but it is capable of intergrating into the EU and its Terms for Joining are still up for negotiation.

    The notion that the EU will be flooded with "Islamists !" as you put it is pure fantesy. A little know fact about Turkey is that passports are prohibitivly expensive for a large proportion of the population so I doubt were going to be flooded anytime soon with people who will be a burden.

    Nobody is questioning France's right to deal with illegal settlements but Deportation is not the answer and quite ineffective as these people can simply return.

    If people commit an offence under French Law then as EU citizens the roma should be held accountable in France, not simply deported in contrevention of a persons right to free movement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 08:48am on 17 Sep 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:

    @17 NoelTobin

    "It is a European problem. If Germany decided to expel groups of ethnic minorities, we would be saying, "here we go again". Agressive language from Sarkozy does not help the situtation but I suspect it might rescue him in the popularity stakes. At least it gives the pppppppppppppppes an issue to take their minds off the things they should really be doing."

    This attitude is exactly why we have immigration problems in Europe.
    France makes non-citizens of one "ethnic group" go back to their country, because they didn`t really stick out with good behaviour on average and because they overstayed.
    And people really think that they are expelling an ethnic group just because they are of a different ethnicity.
    While, at the same time, the Roma with French citizenship will stay in France.

    Ever been to Asia?
    Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore?
    Those countries wouldn`t have given the Roma money to go back. They would have fined them for overstay.
    And who refused to go would have some nice MP armed with automatic rifles take him to the airpot and push him into the next plane back.

    Hong kong for example is very liberal, multi cultural and open towards visitors. But if you work without permission, conduct crimes and generally behave anti-social, they will have you leave HK by force without a second thought.
    If you don`t want to put up with visitors who don`t play by your rules at your home, you are not necessarily xenophobic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 08:52am on 17 Sep 2010, phillipwest wrote:

    Marcsh #27
    "Fortunately Nicolas Sarkozy does not speak for France."

    Sarkozy as the President of the French Republic does indeed speak "for France" as no one else can. As for public opinion in France, Le Figaro commissioned a poll that returned 56% for 44% against, as I recall, with regard to Sarkozy's position. Imo that may change when the reports of Sarkozy's belligerence in Brussels yesterday toward Barroso and his apparent conflict with Merkel over who said what gets more media coverage today.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 08:54am on 17 Sep 2010, EuroSider wrote:

    This question about the 'Roma' population is not so much about one group of people being expelled from France. It is more about the attitude the French government has that THEY rule Europe.

    The reason why President Sarkozy has erupted so violently is that someone in the EU buildings in Brussels has dared to challenge his right to rule Europe. They have questioned the god-given-right of France to tell the rest of Europe how they should behave, live and which language all Europeans must speak.

    Even his friend and colleage Chancellor Merkel of Germany ('friend' - as long as she agrees with him) has declared that she has been mis-respresented in this argument and that she does not always, automatically, agree with everything the President of France says.

    This is more about France deciding that it can do whatever it likes, because Europe is "its party and it'll cry if it wants to"

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 09:04am on 17 Sep 2010, mustafaselim wrote:

    As an outsider I see this event as a kind of one of the beginnings of the end of EU. At least it is a sign that Europe come to the end of where it can go. It will first stop then will go back. It is inevitable. Considering the developing countries Europe will have more economic problems. The sources will be less, the prosperity will decline. Some may think that it is what I want it to be. But that would not be true. Because if things go badly in Europe it goes badly in Turkey too. Europe is Turkey's main trade partner. We do export mainly to Europe. Only we may need to reevaluate our project to be an EU member. It may be better for us to stay out of it with strong relationship in many aspects.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 09:31am on 17 Sep 2010, Joe wrote:

    You know, when Sarkozy came to power I was happy to see France get a leader who wouldn't immediately blame the US for all of its problems. But if this is the alternative then I say bring back the anti-americanism, no reason these people need to be discriminated against anymore than they already are just because the French need a new scapegoat

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 10:06am on 17 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    Who is so ambitious to integrate the Gipsies? I.e. do what the majority of Roma were not interested to do for the last 1500 years?

    ----------------------------------

    Let me tell land you on the harsh reality:
    Integration for most of the Gipsy means free housing wherever they want, supply of social benefits, particular tolerance from police for example maintaining the right to compliment their benefits with the recycling of your local electricity network - be it so if they let you 10-20 hours without electricity, the repair team will come and replace the cable, hence the market moves a bit, materials are sold, people justify their jobs etc.

    I like Roma, they are funny people, they place nice music, they are not mean people, they are not after you, they do not aim to attack you or change your way of life, however, they won't hesitate to rob you - let us say alleviate you from the weight of your wallet, or re-do the interior design and decoration of your house - sometimes we indeed need to change it afterall.

    Oh oh oh I am racist oh oh oh ... I forgot to mention we have also gipsy doctors, gipsy software engineers and that the percentage of gipsy musicians, gipsy "recyclers" and gipsy petty-thiefs is comparable to the percentage of the indigenous French, Austrians, Romanians or Bulgarians....

    Oh oh oh I think now people will say I am cheap-ironic. Yes I am sorry... indeed I have to admit that Romanians and Bulgarians have all the responsibility since while Gipsies were trying desperately to send their children to school, the bad Romanian and Bulgarian teachers were pushing them violently outside the school doors...

    --------------------------------------------

    You laugh? You cry? You think I am mean? No mates. YOU are mean and extremely racist to 1) Romanians, 2) Bulgarians 3) French. Time to stick to reality.

    PS: Contrary to your cheap pseudohumanist belief, I like the Gipsies and I would rather have 1 million of them than even the 1/10th of that of some "other" particular groups around me.

    PS: Start respecting other people and start learning that all people are not the same, each have their own cultural characteristics, and above all its own aspirations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 10:14am on 17 Sep 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:

    Sarddoc @15

    Nearly all UK government ministers (and, of course, the Prime Minister) are Members of Parliament (House of Commons) and directly elected by their constituents.

    If we don't like them, they get booted out.

    It's called democracy.

    How do I - a so-called 'citizen' of the European Union - boot out 'my' unelected 'President' or Commissars?



    (BTW - as your grasp on the UK political system is so very weak, I suggest you do some research prior to posting further comment on this subject).

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 10:28am on 17 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    """It may be better for us to stay out of it with strong relationship in many aspects."""

    Mustafa, the question lies is "What makes Turks want to enter in Europe, in the first place"? Money? There is not even any guarantee of that.

    Enterring Europe is not just about selling products as we have seen in the last 30 years but demands huge changes that have a wide ranging impact. Why would Turkey, a country with its own particularities (whose own state, in the way it is right now, could be threatened by the very changes that the EU demands), want to enter Europe, especially at a time when Turkey has 10% annual market development while Europe presents 1% at best and often negative figures? Afterall if Turkey produces and sells products to Europe and buys from Europe, it can always find other customers out there: Russia is the 1/3rd of Europe in population and in terms of a market the 1/5th. Add a bit of Pakistan and a bit of Iran and a bit of the rest of Middle East and you complete the number of buyers out there.

    Being Greek and having visited the country 2 times for tourism, and 3 times for job, I know very well the country: Turks never wanted to enter Europe for the money. Some pro-western Turks have still this notion that Europe can be a way out of what they see as a bleak future that may lie ahead for Turkey, no matter its current financial fortunes.

    You have to take into account the undergoing transformation. Demographics have been Turkey's weapon alongside genocide of the non-conforming groups of people (christians 90 years back were still the 40-45% of the population of Minor Asia, yet they were half-genocided, half cleared and now "everyone is happy"). But demographics is also coming back as a boomerang on Turkey, something Turks started realising since the late 1970s. Turkey inside Europe will risk in 20-30 years becoming a state of 1/3 Turks-turks (i.e. sunnite muslims of turkish conscience), 1/3 semi-turks (i.e. Alevi, Bektashi and all other smaller muslim sects as well as other groups) and 1/3 Kurds - all that with the kemalist turks-turks having no more the possibility to fall harsh on the others. As such, the only way out for Turkey is e generic form of islamism combined with a dual islamist/pro-west face. Kemalists will be used for the relations with the west and islamists for the internal consumption as well as for intervening in other peoples' affairs. The only way out for Turkey is yet again the good old way of "Empire", i.e. selling religion internally in a combination with a market-oriented economy while continuing to be aggressive on the outside. Settling down in the way European countries do is not an aspiration of Turkey and risks giving prominence to all centrifugal forces inside the country. US is fully awate and in fact whatever the image sold recently, they are the ones who are behind all what we see: they are the ones that kept Turkey floating, the ones that armed Turkey, that aided it invade other countries, wage war against Kurds, invited investors inside the country, erased from discussions the questions of genocide and Turkey's performance in politico-social issues etc. etc. The whole idea is the same: use, like it always have been, Turkey as a wall between Europe and Asia so they continue to control the international traderoutes. As such Turkey will continue to be a wall between East and West rather than a bridge it tries to sell itself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 11:16am on 17 Sep 2010, MariaTee wrote:

    #14. prfields

    "Maria doesn't appear to be aware that the real issue is the note from the French Interior ministry confirming that their was a policy to remove people based on ethnic origin."
    Well, we can't possibly remove from the country the French who inhabit those camps, can we? And if some German or Belgian lost soul is found in there he is protected be the Schengen treaty. Romas are not.

    "This is not the first time that the French government has tried to avoid or deny EU regulations"
    You are right, and it would be much simpler to secede rather than argue all the time.


    #27. marcsh

    "Fortunately Nicolas Sarkozy does not speak for France."
    He does, he is the president.

    "We are not outraged by Ms Reding's remarks or those of Mr Barosso"
    I am. This is pouring oil on the fire. Some of us are touchy about those things. I was a war orphan, and taking the side of people who are nothing but criminals in those terms is deeply insulting to me.

    "french people" such as myself are outraged by a President who behaves constantly in an outrageous fashion, uses vulgar language with citizens he considers beneath him . . "
    That is another subject, and without being "outraged" I disapprove of his style entirely myself. I wander when all this got started. I think the lack of respect French politicians show for each other and for the rest of the people, the way the women in the government dress, all this kissing and laughing when they meet in public, covers us with ridicule. They certainly lack dignity don't they.

    "their board in Oslo feared that France was becoming a "Banana Republic"!"
    No we are not "becoming" a banana republic, we are already there.
    I think we are going the way Argentina went in the middle of the 20th century, from being the third richest country in the world to a middle of the road ineffective nation. Our government is aware of it, but they have no room to move; all actions they may want to take to save a sinking ship will be barred either by the EU or by the socialists. Just take the case of the so-called Roma camps; it cannot be wrong to dismantle nests of lawlessness, and arrest those who steal or worse. Instead of helping us solve the problem, the EU authorities have only looked at the terms of the document giving local police instructions for doing so. If the document was poorly worded, it could have been corrected quietly, without all this hullaballoo.


    #19. MarcusAureliusII

    "as much as I hate to break the bad news to you Maria, I have to tell you that....Charles DeGaulle is dead and he is never coming back"
    I never liked him, and he is at the root of many of the problems we are facing today. So stay reassured, this is not bad news and does not break my heart.

    I think you often forget that no country can be rich alone, but only richer than the others. The EU is not a pragmatic entity, only a collection of selfish petty unintelligent bureaucrats, who jump up and down in the hope that somebody will notice them. The EU clings to the Freedman economic doctrine like North Korea clings to the communist doctrine, and I am afraid they will do so to the end, and the end is coming. The USA could be dragged down along with it I am afraid, so don't rejoice. And, by the way, your president (Obama) is no better than our president (Sarkozy); he has more class, which is not difficult, but is just as ineffective.



    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 12:09pm on 17 Sep 2010, U14592213 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 41. At 12:28pm on 17 Sep 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    nyelvmark #6.

    spot on.



    philipwx #29.

    "..I would suggest you review readers comments.."

    and I'd suggest you look at public opinion in the UK, many feel disenfranchised.

    "It's been that way for centuries as Britian is the world standard for democracy."

    and you only need to look at the state our world is in to appreciate just how fallacious this view is, British 'democracy' has been instrumental in tearing the world apart.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 12:30pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Burptime;

    "Of course, because at that time all Americans were still believing Bush! Hahaha, nice try MA."

    The entire world believed it. The British government believed it. Based on his own intelligence reports Vladimir Putin believed it. Even Saddam Hussein's own generals believed it. But all that matters is that the American government believed it. It perceived a credible threat to America and it acted to pre-emptively thwart it. That is its number one job and it did it. No outside interference from the UN or anyone else should be allowed or can prevent it. Whether or not it turned out well or not doesn't matter but personally I think the Middle East is a better place today from an American perspective than it was before the invasion. And despite howlig from every corner in Eruope and among the American left, as wars go it was not expensive and there were not many American casualties. Barely 1% of GDP and fewer casualties in 7 years of fighting than in any 7 weeks on America's roads and highways. And that perceived threat real or not is gone. That's one country that is not likely about to attack us. That lesson should be applied to Iran, North Korea, and other countries. Somalia, Yemen, even Pakistan.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 12:36pm on 17 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    So I think it has come down to a question of who each of us would choose to hang around, if given a choice between two groups: Gypsies or flag waving fascist party members.

    Speaking only for myself, I'd rather hang around with gypsies every time. Mayhap they steal with little guilt, mayhap they have an unusual culture that is completely different to mine.

    But the gypsies never created so much hate in Europe that millions of women and children were butchered for sake of a political slogan.

    Fascist party members have done this. Multiple times. It is how they roll.

    Looking at the bulk of the comments of europeans on this blog, it becomes clear that Europeans LIKE fascism. Many here yearn to be associated with bloodthirsty fascists who butcher women and children. Sure, they will say they are not at all like that, but they do so from behind a barricade staffed with party members and adorned with flags.

    This simple minded, vicious, pitiful brutality is the single biggest claim to fame that Europeans have. The idiotic horror of Europe in the 20th century will remain as a testament to the depredation of the human spirit and the miserable weakness of human beings for as long as there are human beings. Vicious European nationalism takes the prize as the single most horrific example of human behaviour on record.

    And yet you will go a long way before you find a European of any flavour who is not busting a gut to wave a flag and preach hate to a minority.

    I am beginning to think Marcus is right. The USA ought never have stopped Stalin, not until he gave the entire continent a complete makeover, and utterly eradicated the old religious institutions and the insane class system of entitlement which blights European politics.

    These things are not just revolting, and not just a smear on the dignity of every European, they are also dangerous.

    Right now the French are beating on their chests and screaming "I'm french!, I'm French!!"

    Civilized people are watching and saying to themselves "I know."

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 12:56pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    MariaTee;

    "The EU is not a pragmatic entity, only a collection of selfish petty unintelligent bureaucrats, who jump up and down in the hope that somebody will notice them."

    Your government was one of the principal architects of it. When it thought it could control all of Europe using it as a mechanism to bludgeaon smaller members into conforming to its will the French embraced it enthusiastically. The dream is over, it's time to wake up to the reality of the monster France helped create which now rules it.

    You seem to have a short memory. Chirac and deVillepin said over and over again the EU existed to create a multipolar world in which the EU could "challenge" America. It was typical irrational megalomanical European talk. When times were good nobody in France cared. But now it's very different. No strikes in the streets when France gave its sovereignty away to Brussels despite having voted against the constitution. France is no democracy. Its government serves only the interests of its wealthiest members. It is corrupt through and through. It is not only financially bankrupt, it is bankrupt in every other way. it does not deal with people fairly or openly. It is no better from my point of view than the Roma you say steal from everyone they encounter.

    France is also a racist country. You forget I lived among you for nearly two years. I saw it first hand almost 40 years ago. It hasn't changed except if anything for the worse. It's a fact France never faced, never admitted. Don't feel I'm picking on France, all of Europe is that way.

    "The USA could be dragged down along with it I am afraid, so don't rejoice. And, by the way, your president (Obama) is no better than our president (Sarkozy); he has more class, which is not difficult, but is just as ineffective."

    Our president is an extremely intelligent man. Far more intelligent than any of his European counterparts. But he doesn't know the first thing about running a government and he doesn't know anything about how the economy works. Hardly surprising since he was trained as a lawyer, not an economist. The people who tell him what to do are only interested in saving their friends who run banks. As a result, America and the world are getting into deeper economic trouble every day. Unless and until money starts pouring out of the one place that can freely manufacture it, the US Treasury, the US and the rest of the world will see an increasing number of bankruptcies. Individuals, companies, American states, entire nations will go into default on debts they owe because they are unable to obtain money through business enterprise, taxes, and by any other means to pay back old debts. The collapse of credit only precipitated what was coming for irresponsible governments eventually anyway. The world's entire financial system is on the verge of collapse. Poverty is higher in the US today than when Obama took office. Yes if America is flooded with money those who get paid back debts will get much cheaper dollars than they loaned out. The alternative is that they will get nothing back at all when their borrowers default. Ironically the Tea Party (whatever that means), the Republicans who likely will gain power in Congress will move in exactly the wrong direction and repeat the same mistake the Hoover administration made when the stock market crashed adn the economy collapsed. Europe is doing the same only it has no choice. Only America controls the world's money supply. You wanted Obama to be our President. You got him. Now live with the consequence of that too. You have no choice just as we haven't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 1:10pm on 17 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    GH: " This was a reference to a jibe by President Sarkozy who noted that Ms Reding came from Luxembourg and that he would have no objection to that country taking in the Roma."




    If Luxembourg is a country what does it make California, Texas or Alaska? :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 1:11pm on 17 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    GH: "Some say that a European strategy to help the Roma integrate into Romanian society and which was effectively enforced might enable President Sarkozy to say there was enough progress and to stop the expulsions."


    Assuming, of course, that any EUSSR strategy in that regard would work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 1:14pm on 17 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    GH: "35-40% of the Bulgarian Roma are integrated in a social, economic and cultural manner and their incomes are not lower than the national average, the Bulgarian socialists also said."


    And other 60-65%?

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 1:20pm on 17 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    Re 'cigany'...

    It is interesting than while all the focus is on France, hardly anybody in EUSSR leadership speaks about Roma's expulsions from Italy, let alone attitude toward them in such countries like Hungary and Slovakia.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 1:24pm on 17 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "I want a secession, I want to be in a real country again. I am sick and tired of the permanent humiliation that we have to put with. I am sick and tired of the insults."



    This comment coming from a French citizen doesn't bode well for a future of EUSSR.

    Let alone its eurozone.

    [check what allegedly staunchly pro-EU Germans are saying about that]

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 1:26pm on 17 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "It seems that the mortal sin of EU institutions is that of being run by people who are not elected (by the UK citizens, and those of other countries, I would think)."




    Even a pope (a leader of an authoritarian dogmatic organization) is elected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 1:31pm on 17 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "It is a European problem. If Germany decided to expel groups of ethnic minorities, we would be saying, "here we go again".




    Not necessarily. I suspect many members of the "Christian Club" would applaud (at least in private) if Germany expelled hundreds of thousands of Turks (being there legally) it had invited in in the first place needing dirt cheap labor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 1:44pm on 17 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    40. At 12:09pm on 17 Sep 2010, RESS wrote... wrote whatever....

    Yes Europeans tend to be white and some are whiter than others, I am on the other side, averaging a yearly darker (variable summer/winter) than the whiter Europeans but that is what makes me so popular among the females of the whiter ones too.

    Live with it. Get mover. Please spare us your pain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 1:47pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    dt;

    "I am beginning to think Marcus is right. The USA ought never have stopped Stalin, not until he gave the entire continent a complete makeover, and utterly eradicated the old religious institutions and the insane class system of entitlement which blights European politics."

    Stalin would have turned all of Europe into a slave labor camp and then a graveyard just the way Hitler tried to. My statement about walking away from Europe after WWII wasn't a matter of wanting to see Europe destroyed, that had happened already. It was one of indifference and not wanting to have to make sacrifices on America's part to rebuild it. It is also a recognition of the fact that Europe as a Soviet slave labor camp would have been no threat to the United States any more than Eastern Europe was except for being a Soviet military base. Not only was rebuilding and defending Europe an enormoust sacrifice and cost to Amricans, Europeans show no gratitude for it, don't even acknowledge the truth of it. Bad mistake on our part.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 1:49pm on 17 Sep 2010, Chris wrote:

    Given that the BBC allows peope to post any racial claims they want. I'll try it also:

    Is it not true that racists are in general dimmer than others?

    What say ye? (What say you all?)

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 1:53pm on 17 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    43. At 12:36pm on 17 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    """But the gypsies never created so much hate in Europe that millions of women and children were butchered for sake of a political slogan."""

    DT, Gipsies are Gipsies, they were like that 1500 years back, 1000 years back, 500 years back, 100 years back, 25 years back, 5 years back, today and there will be so in 5 years time, 25 years time, 100 years time and very much possibly in 500, 1000 and 1500 years time.

    Now they were never particularly hated since living on the fringes of society not giving a lot but also not demanding a lot, they did not pose a direct threat to the host societies. I would say there was more of a resentment and that appearing mainly in those cases of overconcentration of Gipsies in one area combined with lack of law enforcement on the other side.

    Dealing with the issue one must always keep in mind that different socio-cultural groups have different aspirations and Gipsies are a phenomenally amazing lot of humans in these terms as they have their unique aspirations, very important to them, incomprehensible to us. Respect, hats off to them. But respect to the host population too. A little bit of will and one may find the golden section.

    However, you realise that the question is not at all that. Gipsies are mainly used as a side-duscussion to hide away for the moment the main issue of discussion and that is the islamisation of Europe which threatens to pose a problem not just in the distant future but in the forseeable future. Gipsies do not pose a threat. Muslims do pose a direct threat not only just to states but foremost to societies themselves. Those who are not completely illiterate they can take a book and read on the spread and enforcement of the "so called "hunted" and racistically persecuted" poor fellas christians" and count on the predictability of the human nature to calculate what may be the future.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 1:56pm on 17 Sep 2010, Chris wrote:

    #43

    DT, if the argument is as you put it, them I'm with you 100%. But perhaps is not as clear cut as that, unfortunately for me, I don't like the way the French admin is dealing with it, but on the other hand if they don't just target Roma people, but everyone that sets up an illegal camp then they are not realy breaking any rules either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 2:11pm on 17 Sep 2010, Chris wrote:

    #45

    Poor, states??? of the USA:)

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 2:14pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    TiaMaria;

    I think it is rather telling of European hypocricy in general and French hypocricy in particular to compare the absurdly invented threat to France's security by roving bands of Roma who are said to be petty thieves and vagrants justifying France's government taking action in contravention to the EU laws it agreed to submit to under treaties while just 7 years ago it tried its best to deny the US the right to defend itself from what was almost universally perceived as a real threat from Iraq by acting to impose restrictions based on so called international law that by no stretch of the imagination prevented nations from acting in their own self defense.

    BTW this double standerd DavidS is one reason I detest Europe, European civilization, and Europeans. There are many others.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 2:24pm on 17 Sep 2010, frenchtommy wrote:

    At last the world is beginning to realise –a fact the French people have known for years – French, politicians never, ever tell the truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 2:25pm on 17 Sep 2010, Chris wrote:

    #50

    "Even a pope (a leader of an authoritarian dogmatic organization) is elected."

    even more nonsense!

    Who elects him? is it by direct vote or through the party system?

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 2:26pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    GH: "35-40% of the Bulgarian Roma are integrated in a social, economic and cultural manner and their incomes are not lower than the national average, the Bulgarian socialists also said."

    This demonstrates that it can be done and it is not a rare fluke. Now it is up to European governments and societies to convince the Roma that such integration is in their own best interest and to create the conditions that will facillitate that change as quickly, thoroughly, and painlessly as possible. America did it with many minorities including African Americans. Can Europe do the same? Will it do the same? I don't think so. Not if it runs true to form.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 2:29pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Powermeerkat;

    ""It seems that the mortal sin of EU institutions is that of being run by people who are not elected (by the UK citizens, and those of other countries, I would think).""

    Europe is mean, small, petty place of narrow minded short sighted people only worthy of our contempt. Hardly a day goes by when they don't demonstrate it to the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 3:14pm on 17 Sep 2010, Nanuk wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII:

    "The entire world believed it. The British government believed it. Based on his own intelligence reports Vladimir Putin believed it. Even Saddam Hussein's own generals believed it. But all that matters is that the American government believed it. It perceived a credible threat to America and it acted to pre-emptively thwart it."

    Your delusion shows no bounds. Are you saying that the US administration and CIA didn't know that those intel documents referred to by Powell were fakes? What about those memos from early 2003 where it clearly shows Bush didn't care if there were WMDs or not? Weapons inspectors from the US itself stated that there was no WMD threat from Iraq.

    Give your head a shake, man. There were obvious alternative reasons for the invasion that have nothing to do with the threat of WMD. Saddam was no threat to US security. Choose to continue believe all that drummed-up noise leading up to the invasion if you want to, but maybe you should try to look more closely at the information which was known at that time that has since surfaced to the public realm.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 3:15pm on 17 Sep 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:

    The irony is that Barroso, Reding and the other Commissars may just have secured Sarko's re-election.

    Nice! Now can they please pick a fight with the UK government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 3:27pm on 17 Sep 2010, kimmunist wrote:

    What we really need is for the EU (as a whole) to agree on a common immigration policy. You cannot have one country being super-liberal and handing out passports as if they were candy (Spain?), and other countries having a tighter policy.
    It is also important that EU decision makers start listening to their constituencies. If the immigration issue were put to an EU wide referendum, we can all know what the result would be.

    Essentially, thre goals need to be reached:
    1. ILLEGAL immigration should be made impossible.
    Personally I think that the current over-liberal immigration policies (combined with a systematic ignoring of rampant ILLEGAL immigration) is sowing the seeds of racism and fascism. That worries me.

    2. LEGAL immigration should be catered to so that the immigrants accepted are a success stories.
    We need people who are let in legally to be successfully integrated both culturally (eg. adapt to living in Europe, i.e. no veils etc.), and productively (i.e. they must ALL learn to read and write, and they MUST work). We need successfully integrated immigrants to be the motor for a popularly-supported gradual and selective immigration policy.

    3. EU passports must earned!
    If a candidate fits in, shows good will (eg. no crime record) good, welcome to join our community! If the experiments fails (crime, unemployment, does not integrate) then we must accept this a failure, and give this slot to another (hopefully more successful) candidate.

    We CAN achieve a win-win situation for both the EU and a pre-decided number of screened immigrants. To many I know I sound like a fascist. I'm not, I am a realist, and I want to nip fascism off at the bud.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 4:06pm on 17 Sep 2010, Bro_Winky wrote:

    62. At 2:29pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Europe is mean, small, petty place of narrow minded short sighted people only worthy of our contempt. Hardly a day goes by when they don't demonstrate it to the world.

    -------------------------------

    I can think of no better compliment to the people of Europe than disapproval from someone with your personality.

    They must be doing something right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 4:17pm on 17 Sep 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Everybody has solutions to problems in some other country although they have difficulties with problems in their own. All this posturing when they cared little as the bankers were raping national economies. Appears the Roma will be the target for the anger that should be directed at the bankers..but they can't let the bankers be held accountable. Make no mistake that identified groups that beg on the streets and commit crimes are a matter of concern in every country and criminal activities should never be excused as a human rights issue. There are always groups that operate outside of an existing culture but it is how they interact with that culture that creates the problems, as well as how that culture responds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 4:35pm on 17 Sep 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:

    #61

    America did it with many minorities including African Americans. Can Europe do the same? Will it do the same? I don't think so. Not if it runs true to form.

    God I hope not. By every possible demographic ,black Americans are massively worse off and significantly under-represented than all other ethnic groups. And what about America's own nomadic people who found it hard to fit in to mainstream? I wonder what happened to them? Oh yeah, massacred and then herded into reservations to die from starvation and disease until they were forced to comply. Remind me of the words you use to racially abuse blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Hispanics, Chinese etc etc Even English actors in Hollywood have their own racial slur...White Mexicans.

    Jeez, and you want us to follow your example? Not bloody likely. If I had to pick one country whose example Europe should specifically NOT follow on the issue of race it would be the US. And yet, you think you are the model nation. Laugh? I nearly wet myself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 4:37pm on 17 Sep 2010, Chris wrote:

    #63

    Nanuk, MAII reality has nothing to do logic, he/she simply lives in his own reality :))

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 4:37pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Nanook;

    "Are you saying that the US administration and CIA didn't know that those intel documents referred to by Powell were fakes?"

    No, I'm saying the CIA said it. Perhaps you have conveniently forgotten or hope that I forgot that before the final decision was made, President Bush asked the Director of the CIA George Tenet who was appointed by President Clinton if he was absolutely certain Saddam Hussein had WMDs and Tenet told Bush "It's a slam dunk" which means in American vernacular 100% dead sure. Tenet tried to minimize the importance of that in his book but it can't be. Had Tenet been correct, President Bush not acted, and then the US was attacked, Bush would have been impeached had he not been assassinated first.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 4:37pm on 17 Sep 2010, nordicum wrote:

    This issue is vaguely reminiscent of the problem of indigenous North American Indians. Not in that they are still being expelled, but the issue of integration into society.

    We all, at some point, belonged to a small society, a clan or a tribe. And throughout history, waves of invasions and new societal structures pulled us into a more or less integrated society.

    Some people still belong to such tribes, and are usually unwilling to integrate into what has been proven to be a society that seems to work well enough for the majority of people. It is clear to me that the Roma, the Native North Americans, the Aboriginal Australians will simply find it better to gradually integrate into society than to live on the fringes. And I do believe that this is their choice and has less to do with any lack of rights in society.

    In Canada, for example, native Canadians are entitled to free university education, tax free enterprise and generous home ownership plans. The Roma in Bulgaria or Romania, being citizens of those countries, likewise have the right to free education if they so chose. University education on the Continent is also within reach of anybody.

    They do have a choice and the question is whether they want to remain poor and less educated than the average, or step up and achieve something for themselves and their children. Life is not easy, do something with it.

    Marcus Aurelius, you certainly are passionate. Pity that your passion is not more focused on the topic being discussed. I would not want you to choke on your vitriol, especially as most Europeans are highly entertained by your rudeness and simplistic beliefs. Bravo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 4:47pm on 17 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    61. At 2:26pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
    """GH: "35-40% of the Bulgarian Roma are integrated in a social, economic and cultural manner and their incomes are not lower than the national average, the Bulgarian socialists also said."""

    What you ignore is that for the last 20 years of post-Soviet era, Bulgarians had a very difficult times and their salaries were really on the limit thus even if you sat around all day playing guitar you would earn maybe even more than a Bulgarian doctor in a public hospital.

    That does not make you "well-integrated".

    Evidently.

    At some point, I want to gather all "analysts" around me and start making them dance. Do not worry Marcus, that does not go for you (evidently you do not have a clue of who are the Gipsies, what are their cultural characteristics, and what are their aspirations...) but I always love to embarass "specialists" who think they have found the answer.

    What I know is that the people that want to move on, move no matter what obstacles you put uponthem. No matter the whatever underlying racisms and such, saying that French or any other western or eastern European state puts huge obstacles upon the development of any culture and sub-culture that is for the fairy tales.

    All Gipsies have to do is to go on work as workers in factories doing their job on time and get paid for it or to establish their own businesses trying to do the best they can all while they send their children at school, and tell them off if they don't do well, then pay their higher-education and see them one day moving on to something better.

    I do not know, what do they others? What else do they need to move on wit htheir lifes? Free land (or free movement and establishment on land)? A salary for nothing? Perhaps a "joker-card" to use and get away when a policeman arrests them for an illegal act?

    I do not know, please enlighten me on the subject!

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 5:54pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Nik;

    "At some point, I want to gather all "analysts" around me and start making them dance."

    Please, no dancing in the aisles. That was Olympic Airway's ad in the American media...before it crashed and burned.

    I know Europeans will find every excuse under the sun why the Roma cannot be integrated into their societies...escept for the real one, they will not allow or encourage it. America is far more successful at such tasks because it is the far superior society. Glad to have you guys for competition.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 6:34pm on 17 Sep 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:

    #73

    "I know Europeans will find every excuse under the sun why the Roma cannot be integrated into their societies...escept for the real one, they will not allow or encourage it."

    Absolutely absurd. As usual, your prejudice far exceeds any understanding of the situation. I wager you've never even met a Roma, and if you did, you'd almost certainly cross over to the other side of the street. If you saw one sitting begging in your town or try to sell you some tat, you'd call the cops. If they set up camp on someone else's land near to your house, lived an itinerant lifestyle based around begging, scrounging and petty theft...you'd go for your gun.

    Its quite clear you dont give a tinkers damn about the Roma, they just give you a thin veneer to cover your endemic prejudices. You showed us exactly what you think about other "cultures" when you exclaimed that you "couldn give a...." about the 100,000+ Iraqi people killed. You also couldnt care less about the Palestinians killed in indiscriminate bombing by the Israeli airforce. Who in their right mind would believe that you could care less about the Roma? If they lived in America, not Europe, I admit they wouldnt be deported. Instead, according to you, they'd all be in jail anyway. Superior society my ass. Superior ego more like.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 6:35pm on 17 Sep 2010, Mathiasen wrote:

    The goverment of the Federal Republic has been obliged to say through its spokesman that Germany has no plans to start to expel Romas. President Sarkozy has said the opposite, and it is wrong.
    The spokesman, Steffen Seibert, has also said that this theme was never discussed between the president and chancellor Merkel at their recent meeting.
    Sarkozy has started the election campaing already now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 6:46pm on 17 Sep 2010, phillipwest wrote:

    62. At 2:29pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    "Europe is mean, small, petty place of narrow minded short sighted people only worthy of our contempt. Hardly a day goes by when they don't demonstrate it to the world."

    As a US citizen living in Krakow, Poland, I can testify that your appraisal of the people and cultures here is quite inaccurate. Europe is a beautiful, fascinating place where the people are kind, thoughtful and respectful. They deserve none of the anger you hold for them. Having lived many, many years in the USA, I can say with some confidence such toxic views of Europe by (North) Americans is the rare exception not the rule.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 6:52pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Nonsense offramp;

    "Absolutely absurd. As usual, your prejudice far exceeds any understanding of the situation. I wager you've never even met a Roma, and if you did, you'd almost certainly cross over to the other side of the street."

    I don't know about the Roma but I'd certainly cross the street to avoid a Brit. I can always tell them from a distance because their noses are so high in the air their feet almost leave the ground and they always have an expression on their faces like they just smelled something unpleasant.

    "You showed us exactly what you think about other "cultures" when you exclaimed that you "couldn give a...." about the 100,000+ Iraqi people killed. You also couldnt care less about the Palestinians killed in indiscriminate bombing by the Israeli airforce."

    That's not true. I hope the Israelis use their ammunition wisely trying to kill those who would kill them first. I'd hate to think they waste it like those who fire blindly into the air. Some people are so foolish that the make the mistake of doing that when an American military aircraft is flying overhead. The pilot will often respond not knowing if he's hitting a military target or a wedding party. (Happened in Afghanistan, remember?) Casualties of war. People who start wars and their supporters should not feel angry when those they attacked fight back. Those responding whether bombng Dresden, Hiroshima, or a wedding party have nothing to apologize for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 6:54pm on 17 Sep 2010, nordicum wrote:

    #72

    I completely agree with the comment that if one wants to move on in a Western society, one is able to. No one is preventing anyone from integrating, as per Marcus.

    This may also be true in America. I do not know personally because I have been staying out of that country for some time now. Something about a pervasive fear of everything, which is strange, like a societal agoraphobia. Countless times I was amazed at how so many Americans truly believe they are living in the Land of the Free. Such delicious irony. Still, people seem to move there and get on with their lives.

    Scores of immigrants generally find a way to live, get jobs and educate their children in foreign countries, while certain groups that call the same countries their home refuse to do the same. The obstacles are clearly in their heads. We are given a short amount on time on this planet, what will we do with it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 7:46pm on 17 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    Mathiasen @#75

    Any news of when the Bosnian and Croat Roma are due to be repatriated from Germany to Croatia and Bosnia ... many of the orphans from the Serbia/Bosnia War?

    I understand that, like Italy and France, Germany has a strong contingent of Roma who arrived from the former Yugoslavia. Many of Germany's estimated 105,000 Roma are now long-term residents with protected status.

    Others have "duldung" (tolerated) status, meaning they do not have permanent residency, but instead have to queue frequently to have their status renewed.

    Their access to employment, healthcare and freedom of movement may be restricted. Those who have been "tolerated" for six years or more are eligible to apply for a residency permit.

    In recent years thousands of Roma have been forcibly expelled or expelled under pressure from Germany.

    But many true Roma have remained as they are not welcome in their home nations and as such Germany has been unable to secure conditions for their safe return.

    Any comment?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 7:48pm on 17 Sep 2010, stratsimir618 wrote:

    In тhe EU not only Bulgarian and Romanian gypsies, there is a Czech Gypsies, Slovak Gypsies and Gypsies from many other EU member states. I do not know why only Roma from Bulgaria and Romania are a thorn in the side of France in behalf of President Sarkozy. France should think seriously on this issue because we Gypsies are indignant by their deeds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 8:14pm on 17 Sep 2010, margaret howard wrote:

    77 Homer Simpson

    I don't know why you keep invading countries that displease you. Why don't you just drop a few atom bombs and remove them from the face of the earth in one fell swoop? Why have your own soldiers killed when you could do it the easy way? No doubt Iran will be next - just think how simple it would be. Then perhaps Israel - oh no, oops - Israel is such an (international)law abiding nation!

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 8:25pm on 17 Sep 2010, Derska wrote:

    France is trying to keep the poor in the poor countries, but with open borders that's impossible. Noone wants the Gypsies, but 5 million Bulgarians will integrate 1 million Gypsies a lot harder than 65 million French people. That's the mathematical reality. In fact, if Gypsies don't leave Bulgaria, with their 10 kids they will soon swallow completely those 5 million Bulgarians. A Bulgarian has on average 1-2 kids , a Gypsy has 5-12. EU must help preserve the unique cultural identity of Bulgaria , not just blackmail us on the Gypsy problem. We are going EXTINCT very soon!

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 8:39pm on 17 Sep 2010, Mathiasen wrote:

    #79. At 7:46pm on 17 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    Any news of when the Bosnian and Croat Roma are due to be repatriated from Germany to Croatia and Bosnia ... many of the orphans from the Serbia/Bosnia War?

    Contrary to what Sarcozy has said, he has not spoken with Chancellor Merkel about the expelling of Kosovo Romas from Germany (ZDF).

    Your allegation in bold is without any foundation.
    Interested can hear not only what the plans of the German government are but also an evaluation from the council of German Roma in the ZDF 19:00 tonight to be found on the net (BBC does not allow the link).
    The website of ZDF also has a link to the website of the council of German Roma.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 8:55pm on 17 Sep 2010, Chris2020 wrote:

    Sadly this is what you get when you give up your sovereignty to join a club such as the EU. Hopefully this will be the last straw for the French and they pull out of the corrupt joke that is the EU and stand as Free French once again. A nation that is not allowed to enforce it’s laws can not be a nation for very long. As usual the usual suspects will sling the mud of the over used term ‘racism’ to try an browbeat decent people into abandoning law and order and caving into the wishes of outsiders, criminals, and vagabonds. Europe is the old world for a reason Go France, stay strong, stay free, an do no back down to the fascistic bullying of the EU

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 9:40pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Peg;

    "I don't know why you keep invading countries that displease you. Why don't you just drop a few atom bombs and remove them from the face of the earth in one fell swoop?

    Sounds good to me. Now I know a group of islands off the coast of Europe where they released this guy who....

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 9:42pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    cantcum;

    "This may also be true in America. I do not know personally because I have been staying out of that country for some time now. Something about a pervasive fear of everything, which is strange, like a societal agoraphobia."

    Good idea. Don't ruin a good thing. Keep it just that way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 9:43pm on 17 Sep 2010, DistantTraveller wrote:

    France is clearly in the wrong. Under EU Law, European citizens have the right of free movement within other European states.

    If France doesn't like it, that's too bad. Ethnic cleansing is not allowed.

    The trouble is, France doesn't care about the Law. The French government also ignored the wishes of its own people - and signed up to the Lisbon Treaty after the citizens had voted 'no'.

    The irony is, Sarkozy - an elected President - now finds himself being ticked off by unelected European Commission 'President', Jose Manuel Barroso. Not sure what the other 'President', Herman Van Rompuy has to say about all this.

    How many unelected 'presidents' do we need anyway?

    If France is allowed to get away with rounding up people and deporting them, then there is really no point in continuing with this pretence of a European 'Union'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 9:48pm on 17 Sep 2010, Derska wrote:

    Chris, you are clearly not European , so why comment on such a complex European issue? Gypsies are a COMMON European problem and they will be in Europe whether EU exists or not. In fact Gypsies have been a European problem since they showed up uninvited from India. They are everywhere , but because the Western European policy of castration and expulsion until the 1950s, most of them are concentrated in Eastern European strongholds of hospitality and tolerance. That's what we, Bulgarians, get for being good people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 9:59pm on 17 Sep 2010, Derska wrote:

    Where should the Roma go since noone wants them? I think USA, with their 300M population and a tradition of "melting pot" type of gradual assimmilation will be able to handle a couple million Gypsies. I cannot wait for the borders to open for Bulgaria and Romania. It is very unfair that most EU countries don't need a visa to travel to US but Poland, Bulgaria and Romania do. It is precisely because of higher % of Gypsies. US doesn't want them either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 10:25pm on 17 Sep 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:

    #89

    "Where should the Roma go since noone wants them? I think USA"

    What a great idea, I hear New Jersey is nice, especially between New York and Philadelphia.

    Alternatively...Switzerland.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 10:42pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    So is the most popular song in France an Italian song "Arriverderci Roma?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:04pm on 17 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Questoin for all you Eurons who feel it is okay for the French to deport the Roma. In all honesty, how many of you felt that the State of Arizona had overstepped its bounds when it enacted a law where police were required to ask people their legal status in the course of investigating a crime.

    The two situations are not at all the same. Those who came to the US without a visa are illegal aliens subject to deportation by law. Arizone was merely enforcing the law the Federal government refused to. France is deporting people who have a right to be in France and is trying to supervene EU law it agreed to abide by. If France wants to be and indpendent country then that is what it should be. If it wants to be part of a confederation that votes on laws it must obey then that it what it should be. But in can't switch back and forth at will and only obey the laws it likes. Sometimes when laws are voted on, your views are not in the majority and you must comply anyway. If France doesn't like it, it can work to change the laws or it can leave the EU.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 11:26pm on 17 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    mathiasen @#83

    If you wish, have a read of these various sources (there are many available if you choose to Google the query using "Germany", "Yugoslavia" and "Roma"):

    http://www.globalpolitician.com/21479-gypsy-roma
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11344313
    http://blog.rosalux-europa.info/2010/01/29/a-cold-welcome/

    I am not suggesting that the Germans people are wrong to wish to repatriate the former-Yugoslavian Roma to Kosovo, Bosnia or Croatia, I am merely pointing out the disingenuity of the German Politicians in regard to the EU criticism of the French government.

    The French decision to repatriate Roma who have stayed beyond 3 months and not become employed within the French Economy is an available legal reason (under EU Rules) to expel any EU citizen and require them to leave a member state of which the expelled person is not a citizen.

    The freedom to travel within the EU has time constraints and does not require States to harbour useless mouths who simply wish to migrate and avail themselves of freedoms and benefits elsewhere other than their own nation State. The fact that some EU nations (such as France) choose to avail themselves of this state-right whilst others (such as Spain) do not is not the failure of the EU-wide legal right it is just that some 'peoples' are more tolerant of immigration than other 'peoples'.

    To my mind, that intolerance is a very good reason why the EU will never, ever be a successful pan-European State in its own right. There are too many tribes, ethnic groupings and racial differences for Europe to ever achieve that level of harmony.

    The other thing is that I firmly believe that Diktats from the EU which have been issued by a non-elected Commission can never supersede the decisions of a National Assembly or Parliament that has been elected ... the decisions of that Assembly or Parliament may be good or evil but the Assembly or Parliament has electoral superiority to the Commission and, typically, there is legislative remedy to the electorate (be it an effective Opposition, Upper Senate, House of Lords or a Judicial Supreme Court)to challenge any decisions of their own national sovereign government - as is the case with the French and the Germans and even the British electorates.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 11:49pm on 17 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    DistantTraveller @#87

    Actually the right to freedom of travel within the EU is not as open-ended as you suggest.

    An EU citizen is more than freely able to travel between one EU nation and the next (unless specific opt-outs have been sanctioned (as in the case of Germany and Polish citizens entering Germany or Romanian and Bulgarian citizens entering the UK). There are (or were) time limits on the exclusion opt-out but there are also limits on the time that an EU citizen may stay with in the host other EU nation.

    If an EU citizen travels to another EU state, the assumption is that they do so to avail themselves of employment opportunities. If they fail to obtain gainful employment and thus become 'useless mouths' within the host EU nation then it is presumed that they should either move on or return to the own nation state and not become a burden on the host State through receipt of benefits, welfare and social provisions.

    The time limit to obtain gainful employment is exactly 3 months. After that time the EU citizen is liable to be asked to leave and expelled if they refuse.

    The fact that France has chosen to enact this legal right may be questionable but it is a right they have chosen to implement legally and with precedent.

    Other countries such as Italy have been using this legal right of State for years, Germany has surreptitiously used it for Kosovan refugees, other countries are far more amicable towards the plight of the Roma and choose to not enact the legal right to expel Roma under this state right but then that is merely a difference in approach, tolerance and hospitality.

    This enactment of State privilege does not make the French fascists, war criminals or thugs as far as suggested by the vitriol that has been heaped upon them but then neither does it allow the French to adopt the moral high ground. Nevertheless, it is the French Nation State's right and, if the polls are anything to go by, the French electorate approve and that makes it their government’s duty to prevail against the criticism of the EU and other EU citizens.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 01:23am on 18 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    I realize Mr. CommonSenseExpressway, sir, that you think you are talking to your European friends and no one, else, is listening but please,

    really, isn't writing prejudiced comments about whole nations (the USA) and generalizing... are these not obscene symptoms of the worst limitations on your part.

    Saying, in general, that a *negative group characteristic* is true about every person in a nation, whether it is the USA or ANY other nation does mean

    YOU ARE AT YOUR WITS END, no? AND IRONIC, NO?

    IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT ETHNIC CLEANSING?

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 06:22am on 18 Sep 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:

    #95

    You got the wrong guy dude, Marcus is thaddaway-------->

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 07:55am on 18 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    In other words, he has inspired you, well. He is always inspiring other people to write vicious things. It's all HIS fault.

    A license to slander and to be bigoted:) But, how readily it appears...

    Sorry, you are not the only person inclined to use name calling as an intellectual argument.

    And I'm not the Saint to be handing out jeremiads. Its just bad enough here with the Tea Party resembling the American version of the Hitler youth...... and to then be lumped in with such loud unpleasant Minority opinion.

    I hope people realize that an economic recovery will make Obama seem like a great President...

    and that fully half the USA nation does not vote as they are amazingly apathetic and/or feel too superior to vote.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 08:02am on 18 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    And France is being assertive and basically nice enough to hand out money to get rid of illegals. The EU people shoild be ashamed to compare it to Hitler...the EU strikes again.

    I'm one who does like this Sarkozy person. He should make a show of anger...D. Mann pointed out that other governments aren't nearly as civilized.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 08:56am on 18 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII at#92,

    As it happens I entirely accept the right of Arizona to authorise its law enforcement of anyone within the State of Arizona so as to identify and initiate proceeding to expel illegal immigrants (or Aliens as you put it).

    I make two assumptions: Firstly that this measure is legal within Arizona Legislation and, secondly, that a majority of the people of Arizona wish that this legislation be used.

    I make a presumption that the legal rights of Arizona to create laws and enact them within Arizona is done with the majority permission of Arizona citizens and that this legislation and enactment is legal within the framework of the Constitution of the USA.

    Now ...

    If one reads those two assumptions and one presumption and transposes “France” for “Arizona” one can view the situation of France as a Sovereign State seeking to enact due process of French Law with majority consent and, if people were to understand that France has the EU-wide and agreed legal right to expel any EU citizen after 3 months if they have not become gainfully employed, then the comparison with Arizona and France produces the same issues.

    For interference of Federal Government in Arizona's enactment of a legitimate local and sovereign decision to expel alien immigrants who are not wanted one can compare the EU trying to interfere with the French enactment of a legitimate local and sovereign decision to expel alien immigrants who are not wanted and who are burden on the public purse.

    I can, in those circumstances see that the people of Arizona, must feel that membership of their State in the collegiate of the "United" States of America somewhat confusing as their Federal Government is interfering in their inalienable right to enact local laws and have them enforced by majority consent of the people of Arizona. The French must be feeling the same way about the EU at this time.

    If I were an American citizen of Arizona I would be seeking a referendum for Arizona to leave the USA right about now (if such a remedy exists?)… strangely enough, I suspect many French citizens might be thinking exactly the same thing about the relationship of France with the EU right about now too.

    Of course, neither Arizona nor France will leave the USA or EU because the sum of the whole is greater than the individual state component and both Arizona and France benefit in other ways by being part of the USA and EU - as the cap fits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 09:14am on 18 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "Who elects him? (the pope)" - asks an anti-papist.


    Why? A College of Cardinals.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 09:19am on 18 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    Re #70 "President Bush asked the Director of the CIA George Tenet who was appointed by President Clinton if he was absolutely certain Saddam Hussein had WMDs"



    BTW. That was also an opinion of boys from Pullach (German BND) and quite a few other non-American intellgence organizations.

    [Saddam was a great dis-simulator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 09:39am on 18 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "In тhe EU not only Bulgarian and Romanian gypsies, there is a Czech Gypsies, Slovak Gypsies and Gypsies from many other EU member states. I do not know why only Roma from Bulgaria and Romania are a thorn in the side of France in behalf of President Sarkozy. France should think seriously on this issue because we Gypsies are indignant by their deeds"





    The problem is that because of general pauperization of Bulgaria and to even greater extent Romania -caused by decades of forcefully imposed communist economic model - as well as a large percentage of Roma populus they traditionally have had - much larger number of Gypsies from both those countries try to find a better life in France and Italy (don't forget expulsions from ITALY!) than from other E. European countries.

    [e.g. hardly any Roma emigrate from pretty well doing Poland]



    It should also be pointed out that such EUSSR powerhouses like France and Germany have failed to integrate even bigger minorities: In case of Germany - Gastarbeiters from Turkey and their children; in case of France - Gastarbeiters (and their children) from former French N. African colonies (Algeria, Morocco, Tunesia, etc.).


    [by no means not only because of the discrimination and neglect by governments in Bonn/Berlin and Paris].

    And now, as anybody can see, the chicken have come home to roost.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 09:40am on 18 Sep 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:

    #97

    David, I think you got the wrong end of the stick with both hands. I dont believe in American exceptionalism, so when I read comments about "superior society" and "The USA ought never have stopped Stalin", I am bound to respond. The only way to do that is by reminding these bigots that everything I posted DOES and always DID go on in the US. I, unlike them, do NOT tar every American with the same brush, the situations I refer to are a minority and are clearly in response to specific posters. If i didnt make that clear, I apologise, but you should re-read the utter hate mongering that goes on from certain American posters if you really want to witness the true bigots. I guess, being American, you find that hard to swallow, and I completely understand that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 10:01am on 18 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    Re #99 Menendemus "As it happens I entirely accept the right of Arizona to authorise its law enforcement of anyone within the State of Arizona so as to identify and initiate proceeding to expel illegal immigrants (or Aliens as you put it)."





    No we don't. Under enlightened Obama Administration a use of terms such as 'illegal aliens' has been strongly discouraged.

    Now, the politically correct term is "UNDOCUMENTED -sic- foreigners".


    With 'aliens' being limited to immigrants from Outer Space, forcefully detained in Area 51 since Roswell days :)


    BTW. In view of incoming congressional elections Senate Majority Leader, Honorable Harry Reid (D) proposed and tried to push through a legislation which would grant U.S. citizenship to children of ca 20 million illegal (pardon me!) immigrants in an express way, thus allowing them to vote already in November. Or at least in November of 2012.

    [No, nobody thinks sen. Reid believed they would vote Republican)

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:02am on 18 Sep 2010, U14592213 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 106. At 10:10am on 18 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "If I were an American citizen of Arizona I would be seeking a referendum for Arizona to leave the USA right about now (if such a remedy exists?)"






    No it does not. Some Southern States tried to do so about 150 years ago and it only resulted in Civil War in which they were defeated.

    Of course, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are slightly bigger nad powerful than those states so....


    Particularly that their citizens have about had it with Federal Government not fulfilling its consitutional obligation to protect and defend U.S. borders.

    [New Mexico and Texas consider passing similar state laws as Arizona has]



    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 12:44pm on 18 Sep 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:

    106. At 10:10am on 18 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
    "If I were an American citizen of Arizona I would be seeking a referendum for Arizona to leave the USA right about now (if such a remedy exists?)"






    No it does not. Some Southern States tried to do so about 150 years ago and it only resulted in Civil War in which they were defeated.


    EUpris:

    It must surely be possible and legal in the USA to express a desire to leave the USA and to campaign for a change to the constitution which would allow it.

    It must surely be legal to express this desire in a non-violent way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 2:15pm on 18 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Menedemus;

    I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions;

    "MarcusAureliusII at#92,

    As it happens I entirely accept the right of Arizona to authorise its law enforcement of anyone within the State of Arizona so as to identify and initiate proceeding to expel illegal immigrants (or Aliens as you put it)."

    "I make two assumptions: Firstly that this measure is legal within Arizona Legislation"

    That is not clear at all. It will be tested in the courts. It is not clear that the enforcement of what is federal law is not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. It is not clear whether the constitution under the Division of Powers between the Federal and State governments allows the states to pass and enforce such laws. All that is clear is that being in the United States illegally is a violation of federal law and that the federal government has not enforced that law nearly sufficiently. As a result, this has caused much suffering in some, in fact many regions. The need for a remedy is real, the question for the courts is whether or not the remedy Arizona chose is permitted under our system of constitutional law. We'll just have to wait and see what the courts rule, that is their function. There are other possible remedies including the federal government acting more forcefully, the federal government enlisting the help of the states by deputizing and using their law enforcement agencies to enforce federal law, and a constitutional amendment.

    "and, secondly, that a majority of the people of Arizona wish that this legislation be used."

    If it is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter what they want. They could want killing illegals on sight to be legal, that doesn't mean they can have it.

    "I make a presumption that the legal rights of Arizona to create laws and enact them within Arizona is done with the majority permission of Arizona citizens and that this legislation and enactment is legal within the framework of the Constitution of the USA."

    The law was passed by a legally enacted state legislature and signed by a legally elected governor. They indirectly represent the will of the people of Arizona. But that does not at all mean the law is constitutional. It will have to be tested by the courts. The fractioning of political power by separating them between the branches of government and the divisioning of them between federal and state governments is one of the main bulwarks we have aginst the establishment of tyranny either at a state or national level. It is not to be taken lightly.

    "Now ...

    If one reads those two assumptions and one presumption and transposes “France” for “Arizona” one can view the situation of France as a Sovereign State seeking to enact due process of French Law with majority consent and, if people were to understand that France has the EU-wide and agreed legal right to expel any EU citizen after 3 months if they have not become gainfully employed, then the comparison with Arizona and France produces the same issues."

    Assuming that is even EU law which is not at all clear (that will probably have to be decided by the EU Court which will rule on its interpretation of the treaty France signed), then these individuals would have to be prosecuted as individuals on a case by case basis proving that they violated the law and be deported legally after a judgment by a court. It does not seem to me that they can legally be deported en masse or through intimidation by the French government without due process of law even if their deportations are ultimately determined to be legal.

    "For interference of Federal Government in Arizona's enactment of a legitimate local and sovereign decision to expel alien immigrants who are not wanted one can compare the EU trying to interfere with the French enactment of a legitimate local and sovereign decision to expel alien immigrants who are not wanted and who are burden on the public purse."

    That is not clear at all. Issues of sovereignty in both cases, that is where local authority to enact laws and enforce them ends and that of a goverment having a wider jurisdiction begins is the only similarity. But even under American law, illegal aliens get a hearing and an determination independent of the executive branch by someone or a body of the judicial branch. They can't just drive them out to the border and kick them back across.

    "I can, in those circumstances see that the people of Arizona, must feel that membership of their State in the collegiate of the "United" States of America somewhat confusing as their Federal Government is interfering in their inalienable right to enact local laws and have them enforced by majority consent of the people of Arizona."

    Frustrating, not confusing. The only confusion is what remedies are open to them. That will be made clear in time by a court. You can see that the Obama administration has aleady responded. I'm sure however that many Americans not only in Arizona but around the country feel the Obama administration and many administrations before it have not enforced the laws nearly strenuously enough.

    "The French must be feeling the same way about the EU at this time."

    France by definition is a state of confusion. That is what makes them quintessentially French.

    "If I were an American citizen of Arizona I would be seeking a referendum for Arizona to leave the USA right about now (if such a remedy exists?)…"

    It does exist and it is unthinkable. There are no states in the US who would ever dream of leaving the United States. The affinity the overwhelming majority of Americans have for the Union transcends anything Europeans can imagine. It would be like Manchester or Birmingham leaving England.

    "strangely enough, I suspect many French citizens might be thinking exactly the same thing about the relationship of France with the EU right about now too."

    That's a different matter. France helped create and entered the EU for its own megalomaniacal reasons. Leaving the EU would make it clear to the French that they will forever remain a minor player on the world stage, a prospect that would be crushing to their huge egos.


    Of course, neither Arizona nor France will leave the USA or EU because the sum of the whole is greater than the individual state component and both Arizona and France benefit in other ways by being part of the USA and EU - as the cap fits.

    Arizona will not cecede from the USA. I have no idea what will become of the EU or France. It isn't clear to me that the EU will even exist in the long run. It was not nearly so well conceived or constructed as the USA was. It seems to me that a myriad of fractures is undermining it at its foundations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 2:21pm on 18 Sep 2010, WolfiePeters wrote:

    Play the fear card.

    Play the hatred card.

    Play the nationalism card.

    Then just start over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 4:31pm on 18 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    This article indicates that Germany has already transferred 87 Kosovan Roma back to Kosovo under an agreement with Kosovo signed in April of this year.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    There is no mention of Germany giving each of the repatriated Roma over 300 Euros for their trouble?

    Only 11,913 Roma in Germany to go.

    I fail to see why France is attracting so much vitriol when Germany is and has done exactly the same thing?

    Where is the EU criticism of Germany's approach to the very same problem that France has resolved to alleviate in the same way?

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 4:37pm on 18 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    DavidS

    "And France is being assertive and basically nice enough to hand out money to get rid of illegals. The EU people shoild be ashamed to compare it to Hitler...the EU strikes again."

    I really don't understand you. These people are being deported en masse after intimidation and without due process of law whether that law conforms to their limited sovereignty under the EU treaty or not. Even the most heinous tyrannies use a sham of court hearings or trials to deny people their rights. Have you forgotten everything you learned about the abusive power of government?

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 4:41pm on 18 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    "Where is the EU criticism of Germany's approach to the very same problem that France has resolved to alleviate in the same way?"

    generate he notariety in the press and there will be an outcry.

    "Only 11,913 Roma in Germany to go."

    It seems like a very small number of people to make such a fuss over. It is believed there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 4:47pm on 18 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII @ #108

    Thank you for your insight. As you pointed out, you found my assumptions and presumption wrong but then (as I tried to point out) they were my personal assumptions and presumption regarding Arizona State Law versus Federal Authority and, as I mentioned within an earlier comment, the legitimacy of a sovereign States actions should always be subject to review by an Upper House, an effective Opposition and a Judicial Supreme Court where appropriate.

    I fully accept that the distinct lines of authority between a US State and the Federal Government within the US Constitution are somewhat of an unknown quantity from my perspective and I would always bow to your (or any other American citizen’s) understanding of the US Constitution.

    For me, the main difference between that of Arizona and France in the matter of expulsion of ‘non-documented immigrants’ is that the relationship of Arizona with the Federal Government is better as both Arizona and the Federal Government do have democratic accountability; for France and the EU, I find it somewhat bizarre that France may choose to operate a legal process (that is open to challenge within the French Parliamentary System/Judicial System) yet is being castigated by a totally unelected Commission of the EU which does not have elected officials but Commissioners appointed through nepotism on a basis of one Commissioner per EU Nation (at the moment) as determined by the leading political leader of each EU nation.

    I don't make any judgement of whether the French, Italian or German approach to the repatriation/expulsion of Roma is moral or not, I just make the point that, for France (or Germany or Italy), the EU is NOT accountable to the people of Europe and therefore is making a moral judgement that France is wrong and then castigating France for using its own legal system and processes to expel Roma as if it were a political matter. In this instance, I find the high-handed approach of the EU to be wrong as they do not have the democratic right to interfere politically within French affairs of State. The EU has not yet been accorded control over EU National Sovereignty of Home Affairs, Law and Order and Control of Immigration still remains within the remit of each EU nation.

    Judicially, the European Court of Justice may take a different view to that of France regarding the legitimacy of the repatriation of Romanian and Bulgarian Roma but I don't think France thinks that the ECJ will rule against the French on a strictly legal basis. Even if they do, France will, take their time to consider how they change the process to meet the judicial requirements determined by the ECJ and they will continue to disagree with the EU Commission as to the political authority to do as they wish within their own nation state.

    As much as I dislike the French for their Gallic charm, I have to say my inclination is to say they do have the right to decide what they do within France even if their actions are viewed as being unethical or immoral in the eyes of the rest of the World. But then you can’t please all of the people all of the time and the French have never really cared what the rest of the World thinks about them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 4:57pm on 18 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    The web addrees for the unsuitable URL in #110 is searchable using the term "Deutschland-will-10-000-Roma-ins-Kosovo-abschieben.html".

    I presume it was deemed an unsuitable website because it is a German website? Something which seems bizarre given the multiple nationalities that particiapate in the discussions here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 5:14pm on 18 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII @#112,

    Actually you hit upon a point that is often missed within the vitriol heaped upon France.

    The 300-odd Roma Shanty Towns located within France are being demolished and of the thousands of Roma evicted from those shanty towns only 700 are being selected for voluntary repatriation back to Romania or Bulgaria - the remaining Roma are given leave to stay.

    To my mind this indicates that the publicity of the events far exceeds the reality of what France has been doing.

    Germany has repatriated a mere 87 of 11,000 Kosovan Roma who fled the Bosnian War for safety in Germany.

    However, dare I suggest that the German expulsions of legitimate refugees from war or fear of death is far more serious a worry than the expulsion of 700 Roma economic immigrants who travelled to France for non-asylum reasons from Romania and Bulgaria ...

    Yet France gets the bulk of the criticism for repatriating immigrant Roma? To me that is also somewhat bizarre!

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 6:23pm on 18 Sep 2010, Crumpo23 wrote:

    I, too, saw these poor folk as victims of discrimination & felt that we should shower them gifts & goodies so they can enjoy the good life like those fortunate enough to be able to earn an honest living on a minimum wage.

    I then changed my view when they set up "camp" not far from my house and burgled half the village (I was done twice in 6 months - not bad, hey?). Of course, there is no proof that it was them! For all we know, it could have just been people returning from a hard day in the office & felt like doing a bit of breaking & entering to let off some steam.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 6:59pm on 18 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Menedemus;

    " I would always bow to your (or any other American citizen’s) understanding of the US Constitution."

    The Constitution of the United States of America is a very short document of only about one parchment page written in plain English for anyone to read. However, its precise meaning has been debated by both legal experts and ordinary Americans alike for over 200 years and there is no agreement much of the time. How many questions before the court were decided by a 5 to 4 majority? How many times has the court reversed itself such as about the issue of segregated schools? Legal scholars not only look at the words themselves but their meaning in the context of the time they were written and in the papers of the framers of the Constitution to try to understand what they had in mind when they wrote it. Now imagine trying to interpret a 400 page document, the EU Constitution that was deliberatly constructed to be vague and undecipherable by ordinary citizens.

    The theory of the authority of the EU as I understand it is that elected representatives in each of the member nations voted by a majority to approve whatever powers the EU has over them. It is not at all clear to me that in specific areas authority has been retained, it seems to me and many others that it has been ceded away and not just by the EU treaties. It also seems the plan is for this trend to continue until all national sovereignty is gone and the EU government is the only government that will pass and enforce laws in Europe. But whether or not France or Germany has the legal authority to control its borders, what about the legal process to deport people and the intimidation and circumventing of that process. Surely that is not legal even in the context of that authority if it exists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 8:32pm on 18 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII @#117

    There are certain areas of competency still retained by the individual EU Nation States but I entirely agree with your conjecture that the EU Project is intending to slowly take over all sovereign competencies from the Nation States to be entirely managed by the EU.

    I believe the plan is to create a pan-European Super State that equates in scale of citizenship to that of the USA, China, India and other supranational blocs that might arise in the Pacific Basin, South America and, perhaps, one day in the Middle East.

    I totally agree that hefty document called the Lisbon Treaty was unweildy, difficult to read and I suspect unread by many politicians at Nation State Assemply or Parliament level. The intent of politicians to develop the EU Project to become a Super State is inherent in all they do to avoid asking the people for their consent on the road to the culmination of their politiacl plans.

    In all your wrote at #117, I do not disagree. I feel very aggrieved that I, a citizen of a nation state within the EU organisation cannot be truted to choose my destiny and that politicians are conniving together to create that destiny despite rather than with my consent.

    I suspect that ultimately the only option available to me will be to support revolution much as the American Founding Fathers and their supporters chose to do.

    Going back to your comment at #108: You wrote, "Assuming that is even EU law which is not at all clear (that will probably have to be decided by the EU Court which will rule on its interpretation of the treaty France signed), then these individuals would have to be prosecuted as individuals on a case by case basis proving that they violated the law and be deported legally after a judgment by a court. It does not seem to me that they can legally be deported en masse or through intimidation by the French government without due process of law even if their deportations are ultimately determined to be legal."

    This is the current rule governing the right of EU Nations to manage immigration when it comes to EU Nationals:-

    EU Nationals have a right to live and remain in other EU states

    However, there are two exceptions:

    Firstly, the host country may deport them to their country of origin after 90 days if they do not have a job, sickness insurance or the means to support themselves (and if they have no family member in the host country capable of supporting them).

    This is to prevent people becoming a burden on the host country's social safety net.

    Secondly, they may be deported if they present a threat to public order, public security or public health.

    They must, however, have an opportunity to appeal expulsion, and must be given a month to leave, except in emergencies.


    As I understand it, France has so far sent 137 Romanians home (with a total of 700 planned) and they, to all intents and purposes have left (or will leave) voluntarily and thus given (or will give up) up their right to appeal expulsion and the month's grace to stay pending appeal.

    Other Roma EU Nationals hailing from Bulgaria and Romania not availing themselves of the right to voluntarily leave are going through the Appeals process.

    France has declared that it is dealing with all Romanian and Bulgarian Roma on a case-by-case basis.

    The furore is whether the expulsions are racist, mass expulsion of one ethnic group and/or illegal under the terms of the EU Regulations covering the freedom of movement of people within the EU Area.

    137 Roma voluntarily returning to Romania or Bulgaria with a few Euros in their pockets can hardly be described as a mass expulsion. Whether it is racist and or targetted at an ethnic group is not in doubt but the French have declared that their excuse is that the Roma immigrants are being expelled under the national interest of the second rationale for allowing an EU Host Nation to expel an EU passport holder who is no longer welcome - that is that the person or group of persons deported present a threat to public order, public security or public health.

    I think the residents of many of the French Towns with recently built Roma shanty ghettos would express the view that the Roma most certainly present a threat (real or imagined) to public order, public security or public health.

    That is why I am confident that the European Court of Justice (which may only decide the legality of France's actions not the morality of their actions) will adjudicate in favour of France.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 9:21pm on 18 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #116. At 6:23pm on 18 Sep 2010, Crumpo23,

    No doubt a victim a support counsellor gave you help and reminded you how disadvantaged they were and how if you utter racist comments about who you perceived were the criminals (sorry disadvantaged people) you will be arrested.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 9:21pm on 18 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #115. At 5:14pm on 18 Sep 2010, Menedemus,

    As always, well said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 9:34pm on 18 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #117. At 6:59pm on 18 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII,

    For once I agree with you, however I do pose the question as to how a one page document written in plain English can be debated in a court of law. There is evidently something fatally flawed in the USA legal system if over paid incompetent legal sharks can make a fortune out of arguing what the originators might have thought when they wrote the single page.

    As for the EU's Lisbon treaty and its predecessors, they are as always probably the greatest scams ever perpetrated on the people, and yet the people have not yet consigned their politicians to the dustbin. But then the proportional representation system makes that extremely hard by electing a myriad of obscure party representatives that just want to keep their snouts in the public trough.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 9:42pm on 18 Sep 2010, Derska wrote:

    It's not deportation if they are paid to leave. And why doesn't France want Gypsies?
    1. they build illegal camps in municipal territory
    2. they overstay the 90 day EU tourist visit limit
    3. they engage in illicit activities like prostitution, baby-selling, focing their kids to prostitute and/or pickpocket
    4. those who work ( of course illegally) don't pay taxes...
    It's not just France that is doing this: in fact France only sent 41 Bulgarian Gypsies back, while Belgium sent 43. So why are all eyes on France? I think it's because France declared her motifs, while Belgium has been doing it for years as a routine and noone is protesting. Same goes for Spain and Italy.
    I think if someone has committed a crime, they should be sanctioned where they have committed that crime, not pay them so they can escape the law and do the same somewhere else. It's disappointing that France doesn't even want to arrest them and in fact is REWARDING them financially for breaking the law. NOt only do they feel no remorse, but tomorrow, or even today, they are doing the exact same think-in France or Bulgaria or on Mars. The country doesn't matter-it's their mentality formed for centuries.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 10:58pm on 18 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    #115 - Menedemus

    I am not sure that you can draw a direct parallel. Governments can and do form a judgment about whether or not people seeking political asylum are in danger of persecution if deported. I would tend to take the view that the Germans are to be congratulated for acknowledging that 11,000 Kosovars did face such a risk and that a mere 87 were found no to be at risk. I suggest that British repatriation of Zimbabwean asylum seekers is far less sensitive.

    The French case is entirely different. You are right to point to the fact that these are economic migrants, not refugees. However, they are EU citizens and therefore not, de facto, illegal immigrants unless they have willfully circumvented the restrictions put in place in the accession treaties. France has a case in the sense that many do not have means of support, jobs or lawful housing and may constitute a risk to law and order. The problem, it seems to me, is that the original statement from the Interior Ministry - from which the government has now distanced itself - certainly suggested in no uncertain terms that Roma were to be specifically targeted. This would certainly be racist. We all understand that, in the modern age, the selective leaking of internal documents is part of the weaponry of politics and that officials do occasionally drive the keyboard without first engaging the brain and appear to be 'shooting from the hip'. Nevertheless, whoever wrote the original document is the person who dug the big hole in which the French now find themselves and no amount of self righteous preaching from Sarkozy will correct this now. He has to rethink this or endure the wrath of his partners in the EU and possibly an adverse legal judgment. After all, voluntary repatriation aided by financial incentives would certainly not be controversial if it applied equally to other immigrant communities, illegal or otherwise.

    #102 - powermeerkat

    Actually, it is far more prosaic than that. The Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary etc. are not subject to the same quota regulations as Romania and Bulgaria and it is therefore far less likely that you could define Roma immigrants from those countries as illegal.

    MAII

    "BTW this double standard . . . is one reason I detest Europe, European civilization, and Europeans".

    If you detest us so much, I assume your constant lambasting of us in these columns is your attempt - in the absence of the financial muscle to buy us or the military or political will to conquer us - to bore us all to death.

    Marcus, you are obviously an intelligent and well informed man. Why, oh why, to you have to resort to this BS?

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 11:57pm on 18 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    Anyway...isnt all this supposed to make Sarkozy more popular in France...isnt this what all this spat is?

    Use the EU to bolster your team support for ones administration?

    That is what they do in basketball games when the coach gets kicked out of the game by the umpire for swearing...etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 00:30am on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    threnodious, why would an American want to conquer Europe. We'd only have to feed you and rebuild you again. There's nothing there worth having. It's not like you have oil or something worth taking.

    I've made it plain, I think Europeans should get a taste of their own medicine, you know the one they dished out to Americans for so long. If my postings were merely boring people they would just pass over it. I tell them things about themselves that they don't want to hear and they resent it because deep down they know it is true even if some of the trivial details are sometimes incorrect.

    BTW did you check out the Deutche Welle report on the Roma in Hungary in general and in Budapest District 8 in particular? How timely it was.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 02:14am on 19 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    threnodio_II @#123

    I deliberately and assiduously didn't use the phrase 'illegal immigrants' for the very fact that the Romanian and Bulgarian Roma migrants to France are (a) legitimate migrants as citizens of EU Member States although they are (b) economic migrants.

    The difference between the 87 Kosovan Roma refugees and the France-hosted Roma is that the 87 Kosovan Roma did not want to return to Kosovo (unfortunately my URL Link to the article was stripped out by the Moderators which kind of screws the source information but you can search and find the link if you read Post #114).

    As far as I can understand the French position is that the Romanian and Bulgarian Roma who have returned home have done so voluntarily with Dane geld in their pockets. Other Roma who wish to remain are being given leave to appeal expulsion/deportation but ultimately, France (and indeed any EU Member State) has the right to expel EU Migrants after 90 days if they are a burden on the welfare safety net of the host nation or they are considered a risk to public order, public security or public health.

    I entirely concur that the targeting of the Roma by France might be seen as racist and immoral but I do find it somewhat bizarre that the unelected Luxembourg Commissioner representing the undemocratic EU should resort to language describing the French actions as a return to the dark days of WWII Germany, fascist and other similar descriptive terms in her tirade against the 'actually legitimate' activities of France in regards to the Roma. Especially so when France is taking action under EU rules that allow deportation of single or groups of EU Migrants who are not gainfully employed (and thus a burden on the State Welfare System) and have set up many shanty ghetto sites on municipal grounds where their living conditions are visibly unhealthy and potentially hazardous to their health and the health of the French citizens with whom they come into contact.

    The Germans on the other hand have simply had enough of housing the Kosovan Roma war refugees and are sending them back to Kosovo ... Kosovo not yet being in the EU and their refugee status not yet ended. The other thing is that the article to which I linked at #110 and #114 indicates that the Germans do intend to repatriate all 10,000+ Kosovan Roma and many of them are children who have lived in Germany for several years and consider Germany their new home even if they have not integrated.

    As another reason why I find the whole saga of criticism heaped upon France as being so bizarre is that other EU Nations have quietly been deporting Roma for years now and the deportations have extended to Albanians, Libyans, Moroccans, Algerians et al.

    All of sudden, when it is France who decides to clamp down on the Roma Shanty Towns it seems the news reporting and media decries the behaviour of France and they, the French Government are suddenly the big bad wolves?

    I find it quite odd and find myself oddly sympathetic towards the French position when it is ME with an ardent dislike of the Gallic people for being the diametric opposite of the Anglo-Saxons. That sympathy is not because I find the treatment of the Roma particularly acceptable or morally justifiable but I find the recriminations emanating from the undemocratic EU somewhat bizarre if not downright offensive towards the French State and the French people who are perfectly legitimately entitled to sanction action against the Roma or any EU migrants that have become a social burden or threat to French public order, public security or public health.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 06:09am on 19 Sep 2010, Reaper_of_Souls wrote:

    Is it France's actions that are wrong or the concept of the EU and open borders?

    Why should a country be forced to tolerate and support those from elsewhere? (either directly or through begging or more illegal activity).

    This is the problem with treating such a region with such widely varying levels of wealth as one entity; the enlargement of the EU to include poorer nations (both Mediterranean and Eastern Europe) was always going to reduce in a flow of revenue from the richer countries to the poorer ones and people moving in search of a better standard of living that neither they or their ancestors had contributed to.

    ..and then people are pushing for us to admit Turkey to the EU, when that happens, how much is it going to cost us in grants and subsidies?

    If a country wants free trade, great, that's fair, if it joins for hand outs why would we want to accept them?
    Greece hasn't exactly worked out well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 08:57am on 19 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    It's not only France and Italy (recently also Germany) which expell 'undesirables'.

    SPAIN is doing that as well (while media look the other way).

    E.G. : in recent weeks Spain has closed dozens of Gypsy shantytowns on its soil and intend to close the rest as well.

    [vide.e.g. pertinent video report on EuroNews channel]

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 09:53am on 19 Sep 2010, MariaTee wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 130. At 11:01am on 19 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    There is a lot of discussion here about what "the nation" ought to be able to do, with regard the treatment of "illegal" individuals.

    Menendemus earlier showed his continental legal education by supposing that democratic mandate could authorize any kind of horror, with reference to Arizona in the USA, and likewise we saw Marcus casually inform him of certain fundamentals of human rights that those with a common law education take for granted.

    As Marcus said, it doesn't matter if the majority of the population want to shoot illegals on sight. It is fundamentally wrong, and illegal according to a higher law than democratic mandate.

    But when the "nation" is the law, and when that law has no protection or independence from the rulers of that nation, whether they be party members in Brussels or religious leaders in Rome, then what marcus says becomes absurd, and the continental worldview becomes, horrifically, legitimate. The tyranny of the mob becomes a weapon in the hands of the demagogue. And that is not a problem with democracy, because every miserable dictatorship uses the hate and anger of the mob to its advantage as it needs to. The fact that the mob are NEVER allowed to participate in their political economy EXCEPT when they are being set upon some minority is not unusual: it is the hallmark of theocratic and political feudalism and dictatorship. It is the hallmark of continental european political organization.

    This is more logical than it may first appear. Consider, if you have tried to build a functioning democracy, even a representative charade, it must occur to you to build a safety mechanism for circumstances that get out of control. That is simple design philosophy in action. But if you don't really have a democracy, and if you retain the means to control the population by force if required, then of course you don't need to bother about safety mechanisms in the design of your political economy. In short, you can allow unbridled tyranny of the majority for short periods, because you can always send in your stormtroopers to crush skulls until order is restored on the streets.

    And so whether a system of government allows the tyranny of the majority to reign at all, even for limited periods, is actually indicative of the level of real democracy present in the society. Not surprisingly , for anyone who understands how France is ruled by aristocrats married to socialist party members (quite literally), the persecution of minorities in France is a popular sport, much like the circus maximus was in ancient Rome.

    And speaking of ancient rome, it is worth contemplating how "nations" were understood in those times, because it sheds light on their evolution to the modern concept.

    Being a "Roman" did not mean being an italian. Nor did it mean being born in Rome. It meant being a Roman citizen, and that meant being a member of the military class from the locality of Rome. Curiously, it had almost nothing at all to do with geographical borders. If you father was roman, so you were roman. If you were born a slave in Rome, you were a slave. Citizenship was a gift from one class to itself or to its faithful servants. Military service could obtain citizenship.

    So where on earth did this concept of the "nation" come from? And more curiously, when did people start imagining that THEY had some kind of rights due to the place of their birth? Because for the duration of the dark and middle ages, nobody in Europe identified themselves according to their nation of birth. People were identified by social rank, by faith, by tribe and by language. Never by nation, because there was simply no point in doing so.

    It is almost certain that ordinary people did not adopt the fiction of nationalism until the Napoleonic revolutions, and the emergence of the struggle for political emancipation brought about by the literacy of the times, and the rational disgust with the absurdity of noble entitlement and the hocus pocus tricks of the scamming, greedy clergy.

    Now my point here is that nationalism, which seems to be the new mass delusion, has turned 180 degrees away from its origins. It started as a movement FOR human rights. It has now been perverted into a movement AGAINST human rights.

    Curiously, the christian faith can claim the same strange fate. What started as the right to worship became the right to persecute for heresy. Just so, the political rights of man which gave rise to nationalism have been forgotten, and the ideal of the nation has become the stick with which demagogues beat minorities, and abuse human rights for the morbid and hateful satisfaction of idiots.

    In any case, it seems clear to me that European politicians are once again manipulating the anger and hate that pervades the people they farm. The ruling class are using that anger and hate, and turning it upon itself, in an effort to escape that wrath themselves.

    Because this is not about democracy, and french politicians winning elections. Not at all. The people who rule france will rule france regardless of any sham elections. Their concern is not to win elections, but to farm the people, to gather money for themselves. When these party members and noble born socialists create a popular diversion, it is only for the purpose of hiding their plunder of the public treasury.

    And the European people fall for it every time, because the harsh truth is that they are a stupid people, uncivilized in law and unrefined in language. They worship kings and princes, and the fear priests in funny hats. They think they are advanced because 300 hundred years ago they adopted modern technology and habits, and advanced for a time. But time has left continental Europe behind, and the more I see of the law and the simplicity of the languages, and the shameful absurdity of the class system pervading the academic world with impunity, the more I believe that Europe shall never become a modern place unless it adopts either Russian or English as its sole lingua franca.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 11:08am on 19 Sep 2010, natan wrote:

    @MarcusAureliusII #92

    I had opposed to a lot of your US-superior-and-free BS but you are absolutely on the money this time.
    EU has just collapsed on the Roma issue. Just like that. EU is a ghost now. The foundation of EU -- the freedom of movement of EU citizens (after all, this is the most basic freedom imaginable to a human being), EU's very reason to exist is no more. Every EU citizen has got their EU citizenship revoked.
    What is happening next: a long funeral full of postmodern BS, followed by another Balkan style, continent-wide, ever-intellectualized war.
    EU has died in a Gypsy camp somewhere in France. The circle is complete. Let the war begin. (Only this time around, the European war will be no more relevant to the world than the genocide in Congo.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 11:36am on 19 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    The complete evolution of Franco-German philosophy since Kant:

    "I do what I am told, out of fear of power, and so YOU should do what you are told. Otherwise I will tell tales to a policeman."

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 11:50am on 19 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    There seems to be more than just the interpretation of EU law here, it seems to be becoming more and more political. The Communist/Socialists of the world have a strong habit of believing that the people own the land, or rather the party/state, and that this is a cornerstone of their faith. In terms of the EU this explains the professed indignation of left thinking politicians who think that all land should be open to all as a right, but who always conveniently forget that it is also reasonable to expect responsibilities to go with rights. It is also unreasonable to continually call upon the charity of the indigenous residents to fund emigrees who have no intention to work, no funds, and no intention to integrate. Most people are charitable but there comes a point where there patience snaps and unfortunately that is very close now in many EU countries, yet the left/liberal politicians carry on dispensing rights like pills.

    I don't like the French due to their over-large inflated ego but they should have the right to repatriate people from other member states that are not respecting France and the French people. It shows how low the EU has become that it has become a lottery of conflicting EU/French law as to the legality of the repatriation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 12:25pm on 19 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    buzzet23 wrote:
    "Most people are charitable but there comes a point where there patience snaps and unfortunately that is very close now in many EU countries, yet the left/liberal politicians carry on dispensing rights like pills."

    A human right cannot be dispensed by a government. Only a permission can be dispensed or withheld by some goon in a party uniform.

    As soon as you have human rights dispensed by party members, they become human rights for the right humans.

    That's no human rights at all. The worst regimes in history had human rights for the right humans.

    This misconception that governments are fit and proper bodies of power to persecute minorities because THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT is simplistic and shallow. It betrays a childish level of understanding of law and politics.

    The issue which lays bear the insanity and hateful idiocy of this thinking is the right of wealth.

    Every single one of these folks arguing for the right to expel Roma visitors also wants to allow wealthy foreigners to come and invest. Either that, or they advocate closing the borders and cutting off all contact with the outside world completely.

    And so you have to ask, why do these folks want to allow the rich foreigners, but retain the right to reject poor foreigners? Clearly it has nothing to do with foreigners, and everything to do with social perceptions of who is where in the overall pecking order. That is hardly surprising in a class based society where noble families parade around titles like "Baron", "Duke", "Prince" and "Queen", and where the media respect such absurdities.

    And all these fascists want foreigners to come and clean the streets for a bare subsistence wage, and to do the horrible jobs. They just want to be able to kick them out and say they didn't integrate when it suits them to get their hate on.

    Switzerland is a classic example of this human rights abuse. Switzerland imports foreign works for the worst jobs, polices them like slaves while they are here, and then kicks them out as required.

    There is no middle path on this issue. You either have human rights for all humans, or you have an ordered set of classes, with special privileges for those born into the right families. And that second option means slavery for those at the bottom, no matter how nice the word you choose to describe it. It means people being bought and sold by other people, and the justifications for that will come thick and fast from those who fawn before power, and who believe others must obey power because they are too cowardly and fearful to challenge power themselves.

    Europe is perverted in its treatment of human rights and political rights. Instead of calling for Sarkozy and his kind to be stripped of their power and titles for gross human rights abuses, we are debating the extent to which this abuse of power ought to be allowed. And of course, it will be allowed and things will carry on as they always have on the continent.

    Europe is always going to be a backward and embarrassing example of middle age feudalism until it becomes impossible to get around with a feudal title attached top your name.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 1:34pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII

    you seem to have very little if any understanding of Europe and your opinion and comments unfortunately fit the stereotypical American (I hate stereotypes but you seem to fit it). If the U.S. is such a perfect place then please explain how out of all the countries in which racism against blacks occured in the U.S. it was more prolonged and to a far more severe degree than anywhere in western Europe.

    I have a complete dislike for Sarkozy and his rhetoric and to be honest, yes, France is in my view racist at its' heart and this is becoming more and more apparent. However this in no way shape or form represents the rest of the EU and most certainly not the UK which is lauded as one of if not the most ethnically and culturally diverse countries on the planet. In fact in comparison with the U.S. considering out meagre land mass and population we resoundingly thrash you in that area.

    And to reply to this now seemingly age old idea that the U.S. saved Europe in World War 2 that every American seems to hold, yes, you did.
    But up until the moment Pearl Harbour occured America stuck its' head in the sand and took the stance of non-involvement. In a rather twisted way it was not the U.S. that saved Europe it was the folly of Japan that finally kicked you into action. Yes we're all very grateful for what Eisenhower and your boys did in Europe but please bear in mind that was 65 years ago, move on. If not then can all French, Spanish and Brits take credit please for creating the U.S. because if i remember last time i looked the colonialists that rebelled and created the U.S. were a few generations back, all european.

    The U.S. is more tied to Europe than you care to admit.

    And please visit the continent so you can then comment on what MODERN europe is actually like.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 1:36pm on 19 Sep 2010, natan wrote:

    @ #130 democracythreat

    Hands down. As a long term refugee from the darkness of thought of continental Europe, combating my own euro-fatalism, I was taken by your brilliant contribution like by no other. You nailed it good.

    My family went through at least three genocidal wars in Europe (Pogroms and other random persecutions not included). They finally set their roots in what is today known as "Former Yugoslavia" -- another successful anti-nationalistic project (loosely based on the USA model as few know or would care to admit). But Europe is intrinsically incapable of harboring non-nationalist based institutions. The trouble is not in that nations cannot get along, it is in the fact that they EXIST. I realize that models such as Yugoslavia are anachronistic now but they provided, in their time, the alternative to the arbitrarily set identities of groups based on "nations".

    The existence of nation-states is the greatest weakness of Europe. What Greeks could accomplish in their integration of city-states into a great civilization (now known as the West), is becoming a pipe dream for a modern European -- Merkel supported Sarkozy in his resistance to the EU when it came to the most basic right of a citizen: the right to move across "this great land" as Americans would have it. Europeans are like Russian novelists -- they torture themselves and just can't see any other way.

    Incidentally, while the UK opened its labor market to the 2004 EU citizens in, well, 2004, Germany is still using its right on restrictions (till next May); the former has yet to deport an EU citizen (for such crimes as quiting a job [after 3 mo of staying], being unemployed, or being a Roma), the later is congratulating France on its ethnical cleansing.

    Germany became economically stronger because Greeks lowered the Euro (exports boomed). Merkel is more confident today than she was even during the Lisbon treaty saga. But she reminds me of the late president of Croatioa, Tudjman talking to his counterpart in Serbia, Milosevic, when she supports Sarkozy's case and defends him from the EU. If history ever repeats this time it sure seems like it's doing so. If there is no protection from small towns destroying the state above them, then the entire policy of the world will be that of small towns. And that's bloody indeed.

    But the worst will always support the worst.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 2:24pm on 19 Sep 2010, BBCMark wrote:

    The failure of Roma integration policies and actions in Eastern Europe over the last 20 years has led to widespread public frustration and the temptation to resort to inept, destructive, insensitive and counter-productive policies such as Sarkozy’s, which succeed only in displacing the problem from one area to another and undoing years of painstaking, tough and and unrewarding efforts to bring the community out of its marginalisation and build trust between it and the rest of society.

    Considerable amounts of money from various donors including the European Union have been allocated for Roma integration over the years. So why didn't it work? Firstly, because the money was allocated in the form of short-term, piecemeal projects and any attempts to ensure continuity on the part of policymakers have been lamentably ineffective and perfunctory. What is needed is long-term, coherent and consistent policies and action over the course of at least an entire generation.

    The piecemeal project approach has been intensely frustrating for those individuals and organisations who make serious efforts to address the problem, when they see the hard-earned results of their contribution just washed away after the end of their two-year project, either by political intransigence or by the bureaucratic whim or fashionable catchword of the next wave of funding policymakers. The lack of progress in real integration has caused intense public resentment about the money dissipated, which adds insult to injury for NGOs and practitioners who see their thankless efforts rewarded by allegations of misappropriation of funds. Allegations which are enthusiastically propagated by populist and nationalist politicians and media who appeal to the macho and heavy-handed sections of society.

    The other reason for the failure of Roma integration policies is simpler: solving the problem is a matter of INCLUSIVE EDUCATION. But education as a whole, let alone inclusive education, usually lies at the bottom of the list of public policy priorities. Because the possible benefits of a government’s education policies only emerge long after the end of its mandate.


    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 4:48pm on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Fortass Lummox;

    First you say that in a typically American fashion I don't understand Europe and then to prove it you go on a tirade about America. That is in itself is a demonstration not merely of typical European illogic, irrationality, incoherence but in my experience it is virtually universal among them. For example, one moment Europeans will talk about the threat of global warming and how burning fossil fuels is creating so much green house gas we're all going to die (they did this much more frequently before China became the number one producer of CO2) and in the next moment they will talk worry where they will get their own adequate supply of fossil fuels from, and their dependency on outsiders like Russia. Positively an incoherent thought pattern unable to connect even two closely associted ideas.

    But I will entertain your nonsense just to pass the time of day for a few moments amusement;

    " If the U.S. is such a perfect place then please explain how out of all the countries in which racism against blacks occured in the U.S. it was more prolonged and to a far more severe degree than anywhere in western Europe."

    Assuming I accept your proposition (which I have not even bothered to investigate nor have you offered any evidence of its truth) that's an easy one. First Europe brought far more African slaves to America mostly but far from exclusively to work the cotton plantations they buit in the Southern American colonies than they brought to Europe. They became an indespensible part of the South's economy. To understand what happened after slavery was abolished, you'd have to study the tragic period known as Reconstruction of the South and what happened in the Northern cities as the result of migration of ex-slaves and how Northern politicians, predominantly Democrats exploited them during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    However, I've seen evidence that to this day there still remains considerable discrimination against blacks in other parts of the world, Brazil for example, and in France against blacks from North Africa and their French born descendants. Clearly Spain where sports fans make animal noises at visiting African athletes and Italy known for being the most racist nation in Europe loses world soccer cups by racially insulting black athletes on other teams (recall Zinedine Zidane?) America was far from the only country to discriminate against dark skinned people but it was most visible because we talked about it and did something about it. We brought it out into the open rather than sweeping it under the rug like other nations did and still do (Sudan for example.) So are you saying ther are no more signs in Britain that say "No Coloureds?"

    The entire experience that Americans had with blacks throughout most of its history was not only created by Europeans, it was typical of the havoc Europeans left in their wake when they lost their colonial empires. For example, the potential for civil war in Iraq was a European invention, it was after all Britain that invented Iraq by foolishly trying to integrate three cultures Shia, Suni, and Kurds who mutually hated each other into one country. Much of the trouble in Africa was engineered by Eruope in exactly the same way, by drawing borders which took not consideration of tribal boundaries.

    " yes, France is in my view racist at its' heart and this is becoming more and more apparent."

    "And please visit the continent so you can then comment on what MODERN europe is actually like."

    If you'd read my prior postings, you'd know I didn't merely visit Europe, I lived in it for nealy two years. You don't have to sell me, I saw French racism first hand. If anything it's only gotten worse since I was there.

    " However this in no way shape or form represents the rest of the EU and most certainly not the UK which is lauded as one of if not the most ethnically and culturally diverse countries on the planet. In fact in comparison with the U.S. considering out meagre land mass and population we resoundingly thrash you in that area."

    I'd have to disagree with you on all accounts there. While the US has an African American as President, there is a large community of Pakistani's their children, and other Moslems living in the UK. What is the prospect that one of them will ever become Prime Minister? I'd say zero to nil. Isolation and indifference is not the same as tolerance nd integration. Ask the Dutch if you don't believe it. They thought they were tolerant of Moslems too until reality proved to them otherwise. As for the number of differnt racial, ethnic, religious and cultural groups living in one country, there are probaly no other countries that come even remotely close to the US. People from every nation, culture, ethnicity in the world live in the US. There are hundreds of Native American tribes alone. Over 200 languages are spoken in the US according to Al Gore. No cigar for you on that one either.

    "But up until the moment Pearl Harbour occured America stuck its' head in the sand and took the stance of non-involvement."

    You seem confused and bitter. America owes the UK, Europe and the rest of the world absolutely nothing (except for some money which will be paid back.) There is no obilgation for America to defend Europe or anyone else. There wasn't then, there shouldn't be now. You are on your own. You go to war with Argentina and they kick you around again, don't expect any help from us.

    "we're all very grateful for what Eisenhower and your boys did in Europe but please bear in mind that was 65 years ago, move on."

    Oh I see, the question is; what have you done for us lately. How about rebuilding Britain after the war, giving American corporations incentive to invest there and create wealth, opening our markets to UK products, and fighting, paying for and winning the cold war? Small detail that cost Americans a few trillion dollars and took 45 yeas. Another American mistake in my view.

    "The U.S. is more tied to Europe than you care to admit."

    Only by heritage. It doesn't take long for people who arrive from Europe to lose their mental connections with "the old country" and start becoming Americans. The process of assimilation is very effective and usually surprisingly fast. By the first generation born here, it is for all practical intents fully severed. Listen for example to a recent BBC interview with Cuban Americans both emigrees and those born here. Most now say they do not want to go back to Cuba to live there even after the Castro government falls. Mentally and in their hearts they are completely American, fully assimilated.

    " If not then can all French, Spanish and Brits take credit please for creating the U.S. because if i remember last time i looked the colonialists that rebelled and created the U.S. were a few generations back, all european."

    From the moment they got off the boat and set foot on American soil, the transformation began. Most (but not all) of the founding fathers of the United States were born here, generations removed form the European mentality. America invented itself. It was the greatest single invention by far in the history of all human affairs and in less than 200 years after independence it went from being 13 obscure remote coloneis of towns, villages, and farms, to a civilization the likes of which the world has never seen before, far eclipsing all others.

    Hail Britannia, Britannia rules the airwaves and little else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 4:49pm on 19 Sep 2010, Derska wrote:

    BBC Mark, the fall of communism meant the collapse of a major component in a any society: the respect of law and discipline . Enrolling in elementary school was not just complulsory, it was enforced. Which meant all Gypsy kids went to school the first year at least. THere was fear of the government. NOw there is absolutely no respect for the authorities in the Gypsy communities. Very few are integrated, not that they were 20 years ago. I grew up in a mixed neighbourhood, studied at a mixed school and know that all Gypsy girls were married by age 13, after a hefty amount was paid to their parents by the future groom( age 15-17usually). By 7th grade there were no Gypsy girls left at school and this continues today. Marrying the girl at 12-13 is their century long tradition and all your talk of integration without knowing their CULTURE is BS. Try to go to any Gypsy neighbourhood and enforce any law. Many policement have been injured, several killed while trying to stop strange Gypsy rituals. They have their own court and own STATE in the state of Bulgaria. Over 95% of the orphanages hold Gypsy kids. Until the Gypsy mentality changes, we'll be just talking integration and wasting public money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 5:10pm on 19 Sep 2010, Ilah Williamson wrote:

    The thought of Roma sullying Luxembourg's pristine perfect landscape and villages probably made Viviane Reding secretly recoil in horror. Now Luxembourg will probably be targeted for the next Roma invasion because they'll think they will be allowed to stay.

    Notice how PM Juncker was caught on the back foot claiming he has no control over her and as an EU commissioner she doesn't represent Luxembourg. I think he's a bit nervous about Sarkozy's retaliation to her comments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 6:18pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    #137 - BBCMark

    What you say about the position of education in the list of a government's priorities is unquestionably true. Nevertheless, it is also the case that most if not all EU countries require that parents ensure that their children are educated to an acceptable standard and, in order to facilitate this, have measures in place to ensure free education up to secondary school leaving age. This rather begs the question of who is failing to educate the children of Roma and other minority groups. The British experience with travelling people - by no means all of them Roma - seems to have been that the places can be made available if the families are firstly willing to send the children and escondly to remain in one place long enough for continuity of education. My understanding is that most of the Roma in continental Europe are not travelling people so much as economic migrants who have arrived in situations where there is no housing for them and they have resorted to illegal squatting. The problem must therefore be, in part, that many of these parents neither send their children to school where there are places or take adequate steps in partnership with local authorities to provide education within the settlements. It does not seem clear to me that the whole of the blame can be placed on the state and that parents are partially responsible.

    I am also faintly bewildered about this sudden fettish for 'integration' as some kind of holy grail. It does not seem so long ago that we were all being encouraged to clebrate our separate cultural identities and that cultural diversity was something to be encouraged. How much integration is actually desirable? Certainly people should be required to accept the legal framework of the host country and comply with the rule of law. Obviously it is desirable that they should be encouraged to speak the language and absolutely essential that the children should be educated to do so. However, you only need to look at, for example, the vibrant Bangladeshi community in East London to realise that total integration would only harm such a vibrant community. This current trend towards cultural assimilation seems mostly to be about fear. Would the French be so concerned if they were not trying to rein in public sector debt and were not reluctant to invest in housing and education for the minorities? Would the French (yes, them again)be persuing a ban on the burkah were it not for the culture of fear surrounding all things Islamic? On both these issues, the government is playing to the gallery and trying to salvage their flagging fortunes by playing the populist card. In this they are advantaged by tight finacial times which allows them to play on the fears of ordinary people.

    On the specific question of Roma integration, it is dangerous to generalise about Eastern Europe. Here in Hungary, many Roma are persuing integration. A theme of this year's Budapest Spring Festival was 'We are Roma, we are Hungarian'. Sadly, they encounter much prejudice as evidenced by the rise of Jobbik and some of the rhetoric coming from the right. The outcome is that many Roma are underpriviledged, poorly housed and feel excluded. On the other hand, those who do break through the glass ceiling can progress.

    (At this point,I can sense MAII is yet again going to ask me about Budapest District VIII and Roma schoolchildren and Deutschewelle. There are local elections less than a month away. It is what happens then that matters, not what goes on for the next three weeks).

    On the narrower question of the legality of the French action, Vihar Georgiev points out on his web site )http://eulaw.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/expelling-the-roma-is-it-legal/) that there is not one but two legal systems in play here (not to mention French law). It may very well be legal under EU law (Directive 2004/38/EC) but 'the reference to the ethnicity of the persons expelled is a serious breach of the principle of non-discrimination (art. 19, para. 1 TEU)' - in other words, each individal case must be dealt with on its own merits. However, there is also Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which 'explicitly prohibits the collective expulsion of aliens'. (I have explictly quoted Mr. Georgiev here but his conclusions are inescapable).

    We are back to that leaked memo, then!

    (Is BBCMark is our friend Mr. Mardell?)

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 6:18pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    "You seem confused and bitter. America owes the UK, Europe and the rest of the world absolutely nothing (except for some money which will be paid back.) There is no obilgation for America to defend Europe or anyone else. There wasn't then, there shouldn't be now. You are on your own. You go to war with Argentina and they kick you around again, don't expect any help from us."

    Hah! I'm sorry but do you honestly believe Hitler was not already eyeing America by that point. If we had fallen America would have stood alone and ok yes for a while you would done admirably but the Nazi warmachine as Europe found was a tenacious and destructive force little could stand in its way.


    "Oh I see, the question is; what have you done for us lately. How about rebuilding Britain after the war, giving American corporations incentive to invest there and create wealth, opening our markets to UK products, and fighting, paying for and winning the cold war? Small detail that cost Americans a few trillion dollars and took 45 yeas. Another American mistake in my view."

    Actually we spent alot of time and effort concentrating on paying off the war debt. The Cold War was between America and the USSR, the rest of the world simply took sides so in that respect we aided you by siding with you. More recentely what have we got America to thank for...hmmm the Iraq War, tensions with "the axis of evil", and most importantly the global recession (like it or not the world economy does revolve around you guys).

    "Only by heritage. It doesn't take long for people who arrive from Europe to lose their mental connections with "the old country" and start becoming Americans. The process of assimilation is very effective and usually surprisingly fast. By the first generation born here, it is for all practical intents fully severed. Listen for example to a recent BBC interview with Cuban Americans both emigrees and those born here. Most now say they do not want to go back to Cuba to live there even after the Castro government falls. Mentally and in their hearts they are completely American, fully assimilated."

    The same happened here with Jamaicans, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Africans, etc. We have communities from pretty much every country on the planet residing in the UK (most diverse of course is London).

    "I'd have to disagree with you on all accounts there. While the US has an African American as President, there is a large community of Pakistani's their children, and other Moslems living in the UK. What is the prospect that one of them will ever become Prime Minister? I'd say zero to nil. Isolation and indifference is not the same as tolerance nd integration."

    You are joking right? Look already at how many ethnic minority MPs we have and several them are climbing the ranks. If a black man stood for PM here there would not be the national split of opinions on whether he had a right to because he was black (how many american born and bred groups made attempts on Obama's life or made death threats exactly?").

    "If you'd read my prior postings, you'd know I didn't merely visit Europe, I lived in it for nealy two years. You don't have to sell me, I saw French racism first hand. If anything it's only gotten worse since I was there."

    Well here is you quote about that: "France is also a racist country. You forget I lived among you for nearly two years. I saw it first hand almost 40 years ago. "

    so your basing on Europe at this current time is from your experience 4 decades ago? living in the past much?

    As for your little piece in response to my racism claim for America. I will concede there are countries with worse problems in this particular area but for a country that prides itself on freedom suppression of black Americans to that degree was alarming. Segregation if i remember my history right, was not active within Britain during the post war years.

    "First you say that in a typically American fashion I don't understand Europe and then to prove it you go on a tirade about America."

    Well actually if you read a bit closer I was drawing comparisons between Europe and America so as to give you a better understanding.


    And Zidane was not black. But there is an increasingly recurrent problem in French football now of racism against ethnic minorities. I'll concede that point.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 6:33pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    Sorry that was to Marcus.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 7:19pm on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Fortass Lummox;

    "Hah! I'm sorry but do you honestly believe Hitler was not already eyeing America by that point."

    It always comes down to that doesn't it. America should have come to Britain's rescue sooner because it was in America's own best interest. Well I suppose Americans are not smart enough to know what's in their best interest themselves, they need the wisdom of the Mother Country to tell them what they should do. How typically patronizing. Got any more leaders you want America to assassinate for you like Mossedagh. We really fell for that one didn't we. Was taht in our best interest too? Ask the Americans who were held hostage in Iran in 1979.

    "If a black man stood for PM here..." ...it would be political suicide for the party he was running in. That's why it could never happen.

    "Actually we spent alot of time and effort concentrating on paying off the war debt."

    After the war, it was illegal for the American government to keep shoveling money at Britain. So we gave Britain a loan for 60 years at 2% interest. Nobody knew how long it would take Europe to recover. As the loan was being paid off, the money lost almost all of its value through inflation. And Britain didn't pay it back even one day sooner than those rediculously generous terms allowed.

    "As for your little piece in response to my racism claim for America. I will concede.."

    When it comes to widespread racism as a part of the mainstream culture, the operative word for American is "was", the operative word for Europe is "is."

    "Well actually if you read a bit closer I was drawing comparisons between Europe and America so as to give you a better understanding."

    No, you were just looking for an excuse for gratuitious America bashing. Europeans don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot...and I find when I put it there that it fits so well too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 7:34pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    "Well I suppose Americans are not smart enough to know what's in their best interest themselves, they need the wisdom of the Mother Country to tell them what they should do. How typically patronizing. "

    Not patronising at all. We were not the only country calling for America's intervention against Germany. As soon as things got desperate other Allied nations followed suite. The free world came to America for help and got very little.

    "it would be political suicide for the party he was running in. That's why it could never happen."

    My god have you ever actually set foot in the UK???

    "When it comes to widespread racism as a part of the mainstream culture, the operative word for American is "was", the operative word for Europe is "is." "

    Racism is a problem everywhere but in western Europe the hotspots are the mediterranean. In the U.S. you also have problems... its called the Deep South.

    "No, you were just looking for an excuse for gratuitious America bashing. Europeans don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot...and I find when I put it there that it fits so well too."

    Actually I am simply replying to some Euro-bashing commenced by yourself. America considers itself aloof and in cases such as this I will nearly always side with Europe, it's called 'unity', something your Koran buring Pastors and the anti 'Ground Zero Mosque' protestors would not understand.

    I have many friends in the states and I have nothing against your country (no country is perfect just look at us we've got the Tories in power) and I'm actually visiting it next year but I will not sit by when Americans come swaggering on to here to start kicking lumps out Europe uninvited.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 7:34pm on 19 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #134. At 12:25pm on 19 Sep 2010, democracythreat

    Thank you for confirming what I wrote in #133, it seems you are one of those who believes everybody owns everything and nobody has any responsibilities, no doubt your house is open to all comers and you freely distribute your possessions and property to all, if not, why not, as I'm waiting to receive something of yours.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 7:51pm on 19 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #145. At 7:34pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex,

    "I have many friends in the states and I have nothing against your country (no country is perfect just look at us we've got the Tories in power)",

    In the case of the UK it could have been a lot worse with yet another five years of incompetent Scottish fools running almost every one of the multitude of bizarrely named ministries that Brown and Bliar created for their cronies. As far as the US goes I surprised they did not elect one of the Muppet's, but then they did didn't they.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 8:00pm on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Fortass Lummox;

    "Not patronising at all. We were not the only country calling for America's intervention against Germany. As soon as things got desperate other Allied nations followed suite. The free world came to America for help and got very little."

    Oh, then European should have taken a vote among themselves before they told America what it should do in its own best interest. You still don't get it, America is not a European colony. Not only can't Europeans tell America what to do, they don't have any credibility or influence with it anymore. And I remind you America was not a military ally of Britain or any other European nation at that time of the outbreak of WWII. Actually with lend lease, you got much more than you deserved. In fact President Roosevelt broke American law by leasing warships to Britain to defend itself he could not sell them or lend them outright. Public sentiment towards entering WWII ran 80% to 20% against prior to Pearl Harbor.

    "My god have you ever actually set foot in the UK???"

    Mercifully no, I've never been in a position where I'd have to, never been so deluded that I'd want to. I'll bet when you get to Heathrow you feel like you are entering a third world country (it would probably be on strike anyway as Brits may want to challenge the French for who goes on strike the most.)

    "In the U.S. you also have problems... its called the Deep South."

    Your information is long outdated. The Southern states are as fully integrated as is the rest of the country.

    "I'm actually visiting it next year but I will not sit by when Americans come swaggering on to here to start kicking lumps out Europe uninvited."

    I don't think you have much to worry about. Most Americans rarely think about other countries including Britain or the rest of Europe. And when they do, they usually are too polite to insult them directly to their faces like I do, they only insult Europe behind their backs. There is no great love of Europe among most Americans here today. It's not even a cheap vacation anymore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 8:05pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    Buzet thats a tad harsh. Look at all the good Blair did. Freedom of Information Act, Human Rights in this country, Northern Ireland peace process, education and health service improvements, as an envoy to the middle-east he has contributed vastly to the fact Palestine and Israel are now once again negotiating.

    Brown gave out economy a huge boost and caused the golden years, what dragged what the world economy down was the American housing markets, lets not pin it on the Scots now shall we ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 8:13pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    "Oh, then European should have taken a vote among themselves before they told America what it should do in its own best interest. You still don't get it, America is not a European colony. Not only can't Europeans tell America what to do, they don't have any credibility or influence with it anymore."

    I'm not saying we can order you around what i'm saying is that America cannot stick its head in the sand. It is an integral part of the world, come on your Presidents have in many cases being labelled "Leader of the Free World".

    "Mercifully no, I've never been in a position where I'd have to, never been so deluded that I'd want to. I'll bet when you get to Heathrow you feel like you are entering a third world country (it would probably be on strike anyway as Brits may want to challenge the French for who goes on strike the most.)"

    Wow how lacking in creativity was that??? Come on please say something original.

    "I don't think you have much to worry about. Most Americans rarely think about other countries including Britain or the rest of Europe."

    Whereabouts in the U.S. are you from??? Every American i've ever even briefly spoken to or been in contact with have spoken politely and praised Europe and the UK, they are more than aware of other countries.

    You do your self no favours but painting America has some petulant child who is constantly wrapped in itself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 8:13pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    Marcus.

    I have to hand it to you Marcus, you get 10 out of 10 for sheer bare faced hypocracy. You complain bitterly in an earlier post about an anti-American 'tirade' then post something as stupid as -

    "I'll bet when you get to Heathrow you feel like you are entering a third world country"

    You ever been to Baltimore or Detroit, Marcus. If there is a fourth world, that's where it's at!

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 8:35pm on 19 Sep 2010, MariaTee wrote:

    #130. democracythreat:

    "So where .. did this concept of the "nation" come from? .. Because for the duration of the dark and middle ages, nobody in Europe identified themselves according to their nation of birth. People were identified by social rank, by faith, by tribe and by language....
    It is almost certain that ordinary people did not adopt the fiction of nationalism until the Napoleonic revolutions, ...
    Now my point here is that nationalism, which seems to be the new mass delusion, has turned 180 degrees away from its origins. It started as a movement FOR human rights. It has now been perverted into a movement AGAINST human rights."

    Everybody during the middle ages knew who the king and queen were, and understood that they wielded the ultimate power. If the English attacked France, or if the French attacked England, which happened a lot, ordinary people knew about it and understood what was happening, especially when their taxes went up or if they lived near a battle ground. Marie-Antoinette, the last French queen, was called "the Austrian" by common people, with all the contempt they could put in that word.
    Nationalism is just an extension of the feeling of belonging to a tribe. Human rights have nothing to do with it.

    "And the European people fall for it every time, because the harsh truth is that they are a stupid people, uncivilized in law and unrefined in language. They worship kings and princes, and the fear priests in funny hats. They think they are advanced because 300 hundred years ago they adopted modern technology and habits, and advanced for a time. But time has left continental Europe behind, and the more I see of the law and the simplicity of the languages, and the shameful absurdity of the class system pervading the academic world with impunity, the more I believe that Europe shall never become a modern place unless it adopts either Russian or English as its sole lingua franca."

    Are for real, or are you a provocateur?
    I certainly hope you are not comparing us to the US, that would be a farce.

    #134. democracythreat (again!)

    "Every single one of these folks arguing for the right to expel Roma visitors also wants to allow wealthy foreigners to come and invest."

    Europeans have become much poorer in the last twenty years, and, rightly or wrongly, they perceive the EU to be the cause of this.
    Roma visitors who are being expelled leave the area they have moved in completely dilapidated (that's why they are expelled). We can't afford them.
    There is a hope that wealthy foreigners might help turn things around.
    It's called self preservation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 8:41pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    #149 - Fortress Lamex

    "You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it."

    No, not you FL. Tony Blair's own words about himself for promoting the FOI Act (from the new autobiography).

    Northern Ireland - John Major made the breakthrough by agreeing to talk with Sinn Fein, Patrick Mayhew did the donkey work, Bill Clinton did the diplomacy, de Billiere did the decommissioning deals, Mo Molem took the big risks and Tony Blair? That's right, took all the credit.

    As for the Middle East Peace Envoy jaunt, every ex-PM needs a nice littler earner on the wold stage just in case the after dinner speech market dries up, the memoirs don't live up to the 6 million advance and, of course to feed the ego. I'll believe it when there is peace in the Middle East.

    A tad harsh? Just wait until I start in on him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 8:55pm on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Fortass Lummox

    "I'm not saying we can order you around what i'm saying is that America cannot stick its head in the sand. It is an integral part of the world, come on your Presidents have in many cases being labelled "Leader of the Free World"."

    President Washington warned America in his farewell address not to get mixed up in any entangling alliances with Europe. It was sound advice every American President heeded until Woodrow Wilson, the worst president America ever had. In truth it didn't add up to a hill of beans to America who would have won WWI. Until WWII, that engagement of hardly one year was the only time America had been mixed up in European intrigues. After WWII America got itself hopelessly entangled with it and we've been paying a bitter price for it ever since. Time to cut the aprons strings and let Europe drift away on its own IMO. America should disengage itself from the world and act exclusively on its own interests without considering the consequences to anyone else. In that regard it has the same right and obligation to its people all other nations have.

    "Whereabouts in the U.S. are you from???"

    Right now I live in New Jersey. I've lived in five states and been in around 20 of them. I've also been to over 40 foreign countries.

    "Every American i've ever even briefly spoken to or been in contact with have spoken politely and praised Europe and the UK"

    They are either ignorant or lying out of politeness. Deep down we don't like Europe or think much of it. If you don't belive it, just refresh your memory by reading about the debate in the US surrounding health care insurance reform. If there is one thing Americans agreed on at the time it's that we don't want our own version of the UK's NHS here. We don't want to replace a broken medical insurance system with a broken medical delivery system.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 8:58pm on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    threnodious;

    ""I'll bet when you get to Heathrow you feel like you are entering a third world country""

    I was just repeating what the Pope's right hand man who came down with a bad case of foot in mouth disease and couldn't accompany the Pope on his visit to Britain said just before the visit. I thought that irony would not be lost on you. Don't they get news reports in Hungary? Don't you listen to the BBC?

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 9:02pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    threnodio fair enough can't argue with that.

    oh and i've started reading his poor excuse for a book and dear god he talks like he's the second coming... blimey, people voted for him!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 9:05pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    Marcus I cannot say what i want to on here but you are a disgrace to America.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 9:11pm on 19 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    """And all these fascists want foreigners to come and clean the streets for a bare subsistence wage, and to do the horrible jobs. They just want to be able to kick them out and say they didn't integrate when it suits them to get their hate on."""

    DT yes, but the fascists you refer are not the so called "right wing nationalists" but the capitalists and their gauche-caviar left clamp. That is the truth.

    """Now my point here is that nationalism, which seems to be the new mass delusion, has turned 180 degrees away from its origins. It started as a movement FOR human rights. It has now been perverted into a movement AGAINST human rights."""

    No MariaTee, nationalism has little to do with the Napoleonic wars (payed by the Brito-franco-germanic family of the Ruthchilds...) which are prime examples of Imperialism. It is rather the physical extension of tribalism and as such it is a normal expression by itself. It is not linked to either any support for human rights but also it does not opposes what you think as human rights either. Nationalism brings forward the idea that the country does not belong to a few rich (and most often foreign) capitalists but to the total number of citizens making clear distinction on who is citizen and who is not a citizen (no matter what basis for that distinction, be it tribal, religious or just any other).

    Nationalism in combination with the most easily related economic dogma to it, i.e. mercantilism, are the one and only main opponent of imperial capitalism. That is the main reason they are so much fought by capitalists especially within targeted countries. However on other occasions, capitalists will play along with them to promote their plans (eg. Jugoslavia, Caucasus etc.). A bit like spending millions of dollars to fight "white racism" while supporting and even promoting the so called "black" and muslim nationalisms/tribalisms on every occasion. That is how it goes, but none has the balls to admit reality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 9:14pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    Marcus.

    I guess that one passed me by. Anyway, I don't take great interest in Vatican politics, especially over Yom Kippur.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 9:32pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    threnodio i applaud you. that is the best response i have ever heard! :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 9:34pm on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Fortass Lummox;

    "Marcus I cannot say what i want to on here but you are a disgrace to America."

    I'm devastated, absolutely crushed by your heartless cruel comment. I don't know if I should jump off a bridge and drown myself in the river or drink poison.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 9:51pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    Do you need a hug?

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 10:01pm on 19 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #156. At 9:02pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex,

    I'm pleased to see that you can begin to see how Bliar misled everyone with his words and flashy smiles, but we haven't even started on the damage he and Brown have done to the NHS. For a long time now it seems there is a concerted program to reduce waiting times and improve statistics (yes, statistics was Bliars one of greatest achievement) by infecting the patients with diseases like MRI and CDIF. Two members of my family, the only two, who have been in hospital in the last two years both contracted such diseases and one of them died.

    As for "Brown gave out economy a huge boost and caused the golden years, what dragged what the world economy down was the American housing markets, lets not pin it on the Scots now shall we ;)"

    Need I say no more than RBS and Brown twisting the arms of LLoyds to almost bankrupt themselves so as to save Labour votes. As for the golden years, my great great grand children will be still paying off the debts he ran up, canny Scot my foot.

    As for Brown, well at least the English never voted for him, he was simply a Scottish implant courtesy of Bliar.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 10:06pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    Marcus

    "I don't know if I should jump off a bridge and drown myself in the river or drink poison".

    Unlike you to be so indecisive. Fortunately, help is at hand. You can do both. Take a good deep breath of Hydrogen Cyanide before jumping and you will be dead before you hit the water.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 10:09pm on 19 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #161. At 9:34pm on 19 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII,

    I hope you're not near a river that has alligators, you'll give them indigestion, rofl, and it's probably against their animal rights, rofl.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 10:11pm on 19 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    States exist because they have borders and borders exist to permit the existence of States - the sole purpose of States is to protect those borders.

    I entirely agree that States have suborned the right to make laws to control, coerce, and pacify the citizens of those States. That is the fault of citizens being led to believe that States exist for their benefit when, in fact, citizens are merely there as cannon fodder if the borders need to be protected.

    We now have the EU project which is creating borders along the northern Mediterranean shore, the Atlantic Coast of Spain up to the top of the Artic Circle and westwards as far as the border with Russia and the Ukraine and Turkey. The EU State is now creating laws that are there to control, coerce and pacify the citizens of this planned supranational State.

    Meanwhile, the original constituent Nation States are being expunged of the rights to have borders and their laws used to control, coerce and pacify their citizens are being replaced by EU Laws. The problem for the Roma and the EU is that the Nation States have not yet been made obsolete.

    The Roma, who hold no allegiance to any European Nation State, are being given rights of freedom to travel anywhere in Europe and it is seemingly okay by the EU for them to create shanty towns and then beg, steal and borrow at will because that is their way of life!

    The problem is that it is like the Local Authorities issuing tramps with party initiations to come into my house, defecate in my kitchen sink, tear the wallpaper off my walls, slash the leather of my 3-piece suite and then have the Local Authority say I must not be beastly and tell the tramps, in biblical terms, to go forth and multiply!

    I think that so long as the Nation States have not yet become obsolete and they can still tell the Roma to go forth and multiply on behalf of the tax-contributing citizens then good luck to them.

    It is a matter of weighing up the benefits of allowing the Roma complete rights to go wherever they wish as a human right compared to the effect of the Roma's presence on the public order, public security or public health of the citizens who abide by the rules of the still-existing Nation States and whether it is right that the Roma be allowed to set up their shanty towns in the living spaces of the law-abiding Nation States citizens despite the existence of law that exist to make undesirables to move on.

    Human Rights is a double-edged sword and should not just be used to coerce, control and pacify the law-abiding, docile people who are affronted by the spectacle of Roma living the life they choose to lead in the backyards of the local citizens.

    If the Roma are able to go where they please, create shanty towns and then harass the local people by begging, thieving and stealing and that is considered a legitimate activity allowed under the State Laws of the EU and the individual Nation States do become obsolete then the EU will be a great State to live within … but only for the Roma.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 10:13pm on 19 Sep 2010, Derska wrote:

    Can the moderator delete any comments not pertaining to the Roma issue? Looks like Americans have kidnapped this forum and discuss their own American problems here instead of somewhere else. Stick to the subject!

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 10:19pm on 19 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    I think he needed a hug. ah well life goes on...

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 10:30pm on 19 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #166. At 10:11pm on 19 Sep 2010, Menedemus,

    Here's a thought Menedemus, your post is very accurate and begs the question that I'm sure a lot of English would wonder about. If the EU law protects shanty towns and traveller camps then it is eliminating the need for planning permission on an European level, and since EU law supersedes member state law we can build whatever we like, wherever we like and use whatever building regulations we so wish, since under EU cornerstone law we are all equal!

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 10:30pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    #168 - Fortress Lamex

    ". . . ah well life goes on... "

    And there was I thinking he wanted to end it all:-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 11:05pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    #169 - Buzet23
    #166 - Menedemus

    "If the EU law protects shanty towns and traveller camps . . ."

    Absolutely it does not. Directive 2004/38/EC is specific. 'The resident should be a worker or self-employed person in the host Member State or should have sufficient resources for himself and the family members in order not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State'§. People who are unemployed and technically of no fixed abode claerly do not all into that category. And again '. . . Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health'§. By public scurity, I take this to mean that the people concerned represent a danger to the safety of other citizens. The people concerned may not be in themselves public health risks but the conditions in which they are living certainly might be. 'Public policy' seems to me a bit of a 'get out of jail free card' since it would appear to cover all other contingencies.

    So plainly European Law is not giving people carte blanche to go where they like when they like with impunity. Neither is it, in this instance, undermining the law of the nation states. On the contrary, it appears in this context to reinforce it.

    There are two problems here. One is that, if you are going to repatriate EU citizens, the problem is not going away. It is simply being relocated. This does not really help anyone (and is quite different from Kosovars who are not EU citzens). The second is the problem that, at some stage, the French appear to have decided to specifically target the Roma and that plainly is illegal.

    (§ qoutes from Mr.Georgiev. See #141 above)

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 00:07am on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    threnodious;

    "Unlike you to be so indecisive. Fortunately, help is at hand. You can do both. Take a good deep breath of Hydrogen Cyanide before jumping and you will be dead before you hit the water."

    How remarkable for you to be so helpful with advice...and this time you didn't even want to charge a fee for it. You must be getting soft in your old age.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 00:35am on 20 Sep 2010, McTain wrote:

    We have recently moved to rural France. We live in a smallish community, not far from a small town (population 2000). All year round we are able to leave our home unlocked without fear of anyone taking anything, there is virtually no crime at all - that is until late June when a group of gypsies come and camp down by the river about a mile outside town. No one knows how long they will stay (usually somewhere between six weeks and two months), but the day and night before they depart there is always a spate of break-ins and stuff being stolen from gardens (anything from kids toys, building materials, garden furniture, tools etc).
    Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that all gypsies are thieves,nor am I saying that only gypsies are thieves, and I do not know if the gypsies who come here are Roma or Manouche (which I believe is the name for the indigenous French gypsy people). However, what I can say for certain is that this sort of problem creates mistrust amongst the none-gypsy population (everyone, not just 'conservative white people'), and a tangible communal 'groan' when the gypsys first arrive, and a sense of relief when they finally leave. Where does the fault lie here? Is it with the gypsys, or is it with everyone else who lives in and contributes to this community on a daily basis who are generally intolerant of having their stuff stolen?
    The unfortunate effect of this is that it does lead to racial stereotyping - but I have come to understand that this can sometimes be based on experience rather than simple prejudice. Would sub-saharan africans in the 18th century have been right to assume that most white people were slave-traders? Off course not, but you cannot deny that their limited experience of white people would have made that a fair assumption.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 01:23am on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    " Where does the fault lie here? Is it with the gypsys, or is it with everyone else who lives in and contributes to this community on a daily basis who are generally intolerant of having their stuff stolen?"

    How about with the police? You say you know where and when the Gypsies will strike. Where are the police at that time, stone drunk on wine at the police station? On brie break? In the US we have the right to shoot to kill people who break into our homes. That is a right denied Europeans. They are not allowed to protect themeselves and the police won't do it either. And Europeans passively accept that. Where are the politicians promising a crackdown on all crime? Stop trying to scapegoat a minority for a complete failure in government and total indifference by the population to do something about it. That kind of talk always leads inevitably to a strongman bringing fascism to Europe. BTW, in the US in high crime neighborhoods we organized neighborhood watch groups who patrol the streets and keep an eye out for burglars and other criminals. They work with the police to make arrests, recover stolen merchandise, and put criminals behind bars. Where are your neighborhood watch groups? Where are citizen's involvement in government? You get the government you deserve.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 06:40am on 20 Sep 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:

    #174

    Only you would have the hubris to castigate the French for wanting to deport the Roma, then deem the solution to the problem is locking them up or shooting them. Only you could, on the one hand, criticise governments for inaction on Roma criminality, then scream "racists!" and "stop targetting minorities" when they do. I appreciate you've been accused of crass hypocrisy many,many times and that it goes in one ear and out the other.

    Nobody wants US gun culture here. 30,000 firearm deaths and 100,000 firearm injuries annually. Keep it, shove it. I dont know what the knife crime rate is in the US, but if Britains is higher its only because y'all shoot each other instead.

    There are 170,000 Neighbourhood watch schemes in the UK, ranging from a couple of houses upwards. I doubt if its any different in France or anywhere else in Europe. Do you have any evidence that citizens participate more in the US or is it just what you think must be the case? I wager that I, and dozens of my neighbours participate more via our Parish council, Neighbourhood watch and other non-governmental community groups than you EVER will. A litter picking group is a case in point. Your participation undoubtedly starts and stops with writing letters to your congressman and bitching on the internet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 08:39am on 20 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    threnodio_II @#171

    I think that the EU and perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse?

    All along I have tried to stress that the French are using legitimate EU rules to expel the Roma from France. I also stress that although this is legal eviction it may not be the most moral of actions available to the French.

    The French authorities have moved in and closed down the Shanty Towns built by the Roma on municipal land of various towns and cities throughout France. That is not illegal action either. It is sometimes necessary to stop people of any ethnic group from living in conditions that are a threat to their health and the health/welfare of society in general.

    The problem of declaring the French activities as immoral is that the Roma created these shanty towns, the Roma are begging, stealing and borrowing form the local inhabitants and it is the Roma who are no longer welcome to stay in France as EU immigrants - the Roma (and their supporters) can declare they are being unfairly targetted but, if it IS just one ethnic group responsible for the Shanty Towns or the begging, stealing and thieving then, in a way, is it not impossible NOT to target the Roma?

    If there were a mix of ethnic groups living in the shanty towns being closed down, would that make the French activities more palatable?

    The EU Commissioner for Luxembourg is calling the French action brutal, harkening back to the days of WWII and immoral, etceteras, etceteras but the truth of the matter is that the French are targeting the cause of the shanty towns and illegal squatting NOT because it IS the Roma who have brought this upon their own heads. The Roma from Bulgaria and Romania chose to come to France, they choose to owe no allegiance to any European Country, they choose to live a lifestyle that does not conform or contribute to the welfare society that they choose to live off but when it comes to the local inhabitants taking action to move them on, it seems to me that to liberal elite immediately declare the French as racist when it is simply a matter of fact that the Roma are the Roma and the French (or indeed other EU States) are simply taking action because of the threat to public order, public security or public health NOT because they are Roma per se.

    One must not forget that the French have dismantled multi-nationality shanty towns/illegal camps on the North Coast of France - much to the consternation of the socialist do-gooders and liberal elites as well - and they did so tackling the camps not because of the various ethnic groups that inhabited the shanty towns or camps but because the shanty towns/camps and inhabitants were a risk to public order, public security or public health and the local inhabitants were fed up to the back teeth that they felt inundated and besieged - it was racism it was pragmatism.

    At least the few Roma who have left France have done so freely albeit (perhaps?) begrudgingly. The few inhabitants from the French "English Channel Coast" refugee/asylum seeking camps that were evicted are probably all now in the UK where they are now very helpfully assisting the British to create a Third World country within Europe. Oh joy!

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 09:09am on 20 Sep 2010, semsem wrote:

    The EU leadership are hypocrites. A few weeks ago the EU Trade Commissioner Ravel de Gucht made strongly insulting racist antisemitic comments about Jews and Israel. He should have been fired immediately. Instead all we got were silly excuses and silence from the EU leadership.
    However when it comes to the Roma, the EU leaders bash Sarkozy and the French Government.
    The French Government have valid reasons to say enough is enough. What is happening cannot be compared to the deportations of Jews in WW2 which some EU leaders are trying to describe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 09:16am on 20 Sep 2010, U14592213 wrote:


    NORDIC BLOOD POWER FOR EUROPE?

    BBC - Swedish far right wins first seats in parliament
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11367622


    Is it not true that the dark eyed, dark haired, racially inferior Roma, Gypsies and Turks are all 'White'and all welcome just as soon as the Superior Nordic North sort out their Race Management strategy for Europe?

    What say ye? (What say you all?)




    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 10:37am on 20 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #178. At 09:16am on 20 Sep 2010, RESS,

    Interesting news link indeed, yet another group of electors in a member state voice their disapproval at Socialist EU policy, in this case primarily immigration, and it is a country famed for its liberal and tolerant views. When will the unelected, noses in the trough, undemocratic EU leaders finally get the point that their time is ending, their concept of a federal European superstate that is Socialist in all aspects is unwanted and fatally flawed. The message has been spoken several times now, the people like a social Europe but not a Socialist Europe as the two are poles apart in concept.

    But then of course I've no doubt that these very same EU leaders will will criticising the Swedes that voted for the new party and gave them 20 seats, saying that they were misguided, fooled by the media and generally so stupid that they don't deserve the vote. After all that's been their reaction after the three failed Lisbon referendum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 10:49am on 20 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    173. At 00:35am on 20 Sep 2010, McTain,

    Near where I live in Belgium there are indigenous Manouche but they seem to live here permanently and even have an annual music festival, to-date I've never heard of any crime problems concerning them as they control their own and the one's I've met were well integrated. However where I lived in the UK some 20 years back was not like that, the small West Sussex village was almost in a state of lock down when the travellers were a few miles away. The jungle telegraph was sounding warnings about anyone walking the streets looking into gardens, selling rubbish tarmac etc.

    Where do my sympathies lie, certainly not with the Roma and travellers who consider themselves above the law and impervious to local council laws and by-laws.

    #171. At 11:05pm on 19 Sep 2010, threnodio_II,

    My point was not so much that they can go where they liked but that certainly in the UK the travellers are setting up camps on both public and privately owned land without planning authority and erecting unauthorised structures, and there is little under the law the authorities can do about it as the media, left wing activists, and UK and EU law protects them under a number of banners including human rights. Whereas if you or me were to do that we would be castigated by the law very quickly and the media would say absolutely squat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 11:40am on 20 Sep 2010, I am not a number wrote:

    #176. Menedemus

    Actually the Roma expulsion isn't happening under legal rules because there is a procedure that must be followed when it comes to repatriating a person.
    1. Expulsion should happen on an individual case-by-case basis not on a collective basis.
    2. Every individual has a right to be informed of the expulsion and challenge it before a court.

    Point 1 is obviously not happening because the internal memo revealed that the French government is specifically targeting and repatriating a group of people based on their ethnic background (which coincidentally is also against French law I believe)
    Point 2 is probably not happening based on the speed of the expulsion.

    Ms.Reding should have pointed this out, instead she Godwin'd the entire discussion making every thing much worse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 12:24pm on 20 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #181. At 11:40am on 20 Sep 2010, I am not a number,

    It is precisely your point 2 that has made such a farce of the various contradictory EU and National laws and has annoyed so many ordinary people. The greedy, fat cats, of the legal profession, aided by left wing activists have used every quirky law they can to defend the indefensible, it is why the UK has found it pretty well impossible to repatriate even proven terrorists. Whether it's the EU freedom of movement law or the human rights legislation the law is to put it bluntly 'an ass' in Socialist EU Europe. In the case of the Roma it's why so many here who are not fans of the French are supporting their actions in principle if not in method, if it goes through the courts they will still be there in ten years, the legal profession will be multi millionaires and the French state will have paid for it.

    The faults of the current EU are what has caused this and the Roma have exploited these faults. The trendy lefties, HR activists, lawyers etc may not like this but the people are speaking up now and voicing their disapproval with Roma's, traveller's etc who show no respect to the indigenous peoples they camp near to or their laws etc but are content to reap the social benefits and be lawless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 12:27pm on 20 Sep 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:



    Mr Hewitt paraphrases a French President a stating, "..The free movement of people within the EU does not in his (Pres Sarkozy) view entitle people to occupy territory illegally."

    Schengen!

    It is sooooooooooooooooooooo very funny to read how 'Schengen' isn't at all what all its defenders have been telling me for the last few years: I.e. According to the President of France!

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 12:58pm on 20 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    181. At 11:40am on 20 Sep 2010, I am not a number wrote:

    """1. Expulsion should happen on an individual case-by-case basis not on a collective basis."""

    65 people last week, 34 yesterday, 13 today (kind of saying) is not any "collective basis" but individual case-by-case. However as these people camp altogether and they all come from the same background it seems like a collective basis. I guess if I want to go to say Finland and make house robberies, I have to take with me some 700-800 of Greeks along with me so we can rob freely and when the police arrests us we talk about collective punishment of a racist basis. Quite convenient.

    """2. Every individual has a right to be informed of the expulsion and challenge it before a court."""

    Where did you hear that? There is a law that deals with expulsions. The information might be a simple paper that comes from the authorities. The camp is anyway illegal and can (and should be) dissolved with brief procedures.

    """Point 1 is obviously not happening because the internal memo revealed that the French government is specifically targeting and repatriating a group of people based on their ethnic background (which coincidentally is also against French law I believe)"""

    The memo did not target: it gave a priority to this issue. I guess it is forbidden to memos to give priorities and things should be done orally. Oh no! We have journalists and hidden microphones. I guess the prioritisation has to be passes with hand gestures - oh no! there are also hidden cameras... well prioritisation will then have to be communicated by secret agents using a code system particularly difficult for the average journalist to decipher. At least in a case of "escape of information over this prioritisation" France will know that it has been made by a foreign service.

    """Point 2 is probably not happening based on the speed of the expulsion."""

    Yes. But note that even from the French side, the whole issue is a stunt. It occupies the public opinion so as to make it cover the real issue which is the "banlieu", i.e. the massively populated by muslims suburbs of major French cities including Paris (whose 2/4th of the region are already extremely hostile to the installation of an average middle class French or even any other European family - much to the satisfaction of real estate business that sees prices fly sky high).

    What people ignore and what I know best of you and what even French people will not openly tell you is that the issue of the gipsies and the problems they create is not so much an issue among the ethnic French and the gipsies but in fact an issue among the banlieu ethnicoreligious groups and the gipsies. Statistically gipsies reside more close to immigrants than native French. The maximum contact among Gipsies and French are in central places where gipsy women and children beg for money. Occasionally they rob a wallet or two.

    But the bulk of the issue is not there, it is mostly in the suburbs where the gipsies and immigrants reside. Muslim immigrants treat the "infidel" immigrants as a sub-human race and they see them as a competitive group in a region they consider their own feud. They especially target their women, often assaulting and raping them. Gipsys are not any european culture and they fight back, taking revenge. Gang wars open at such issues more often than they really open for "commercial issues" (drugs, illegal products, prostitution etc.) in which gipsies are not really so active as they are said to be. Therefore in reality the real issue of "integration" of gipsies is not so much towards the French (upon which gipsies are clearly a burden) but of integration between gipsies and immigrants - where the issue has already been inflammed to proper war of clans. Several people have died in south France in such feuds and both muslims and gipsies have repeatedly smashed city centers and suburbs each in protests of the other's wrong doings and both in the failure of the police to do the "right thing" - of course police is not allowed to do anything, since the correct thing would be to hit upon both and imprison 200-300 from each side to call it a lesson.

    """Ms.Reding should have pointed this out, instead she Godwin'd the entire discussion making every thing much worse."""

    You understand that the whole issue is fabricated. Each one's words are carefully spoken. The motives behind the rhetorics are different.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 1:03pm on 20 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    threnodio asks: Is BBCMark is our friend Mr. Mardell?



    Nope. Mardell is concentrating, predictably, on possible candidates in 2012 U.S. presidential election, perhaps unaware that there are Congressional and gubernatorial elections in about 6 weeks, whose outcome may significantly change American political landscape.

    Or even U.S. laws.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 1:12pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    All over Europe, Europeans are at each others throats again over ethnicity, race, religion, national identity. So it has always been, so it is, so it will forever be. How nice to know that there are some things in life that never change. I wonder if it will escalate to pogroms, mass deportations, mass murder, and wars the way it has in the past.

    Nonsense offramp;

    "Only you would have the hubris to castigate the French for wanting to deport the Roma, then deem the solution to the problem is locking them up or shooting them."

    I'm not clear on European law. Is it first the execution and then the trial or is it the other way around there? I've forgotten.

    Menedemus;

    "The problem of declaring the French activities as immoral is that the Roma created these shanty towns"

    Since when have issues of morality ever concerned the French?

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 1:36pm on 20 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    178. At 09:16am on 20 Sep 2010, RESS wrote:

    Dedicated to RESS that none wants to comment here:

    """NORDIC BLOOD POWER FOR EUROPE?
    BBC - Swedish far right wins first seats in parliament
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11367622"""

    ... you should be able to see that for some mysterious reason the people in particularly "blond" countries like Germany, Sweden or Norway who speak of the Nordic race (usually associated with blond - though the blondest tribes are the Baltics) happen to be of dark hair. Hitler looked like an ugly north Italian and this Swedish leader you hail so much with his dark brown hair and blue eyes could be a mafia chied at Caucasus.

    RESS, if again you mention all that crap about Nordic blood I will start reminding you about your "Nordic blood race" being reality half-European half-Asiatic due to the high mix of Mongolians who had the "bad" habbit of passing from the steppes into central and northern Europe. Real Europeans are the Mediterraneans and Celtics (i.e. south and western Europe) and that is what anthropology knows very well. Eastern, northern and by proxy central Europe is essentially a Euro-asiatic mix. Your Nordic blood is a Euro-asiatic blood and better start accepting it.

    From there one if you continue to play the "Nordic blood superiority" I will start playing on the Mediterranean anthropologic superiority since they are clearly at the basis of the western human civilisation, having real cultures since time immemorial at a times when your Nordics were living up on the trees and going down only to gather mushrooms or attack and eat their oppnents, quickly enough before the wolfs came to eat them. They remembered 200-300 years back to built a culture and in no time presented jumped up to present themselves as "superior". Let alone the Greeks (who are not at all related to your nordic blood), the modern civilisation is based on Italians, Spanish and Portuguese who discovered the world and then the command taken by the French (largely non Nordic) and British (maximum at 1/3rd Nordic) which only came of course out of a transfer of wealth and knowledge from Mediterranean to North that funnily did not even come out of any initiative of your "Nordic blood" but came out as the result of huge international political games involving an impressive transfer of funds and number of influential people (from royalties to bankers and investors, political & scientific figures, even artists) from Italy and Spain to France, Holland and Britain. Speaking of culture... you know afterall, Sheakspear did not write about Scot and Rosemary of Sheffield... but about Romeo and Julliet of Verona quite exemplary of how much of all that amazing "Renaissance" (a false term, there was nothingt there before to have died and get reborn) was not any of his own "nordic inspiration". Never saw any of your Nordics leading any civilisation but rather always beeing followers, a kind of mid-range bank clerks of a small town bank.

    You understand that if one should have to search for superior and inferior tribes, everything in history would cry out about classifying your "nordic race" among the inferior ones. So leave the crap, review your beliefs.

    I ignore which one you come from but I do feel you have to express yourself and you are intitled to have your own political views, feel free to think, feel free to wish what you want for your country - I am with you on that freedom of yours to define yourself but getting occupied with all that crap, trust me it will lead you nowhere: you have to be ready to listen to the backlash and trust me there is nothing much out there to support your personal views. You may continue to believe "you are the best", but keep it for yourself. The best is the best, he needs not shout about it. It is the inferior that shouts. If you keep shouting then you should be able to hear the backlash answer (which can be even more denigrating for you than the above answer of mine which might be funny enough but contains 100% hard facts that either you are not aware, lack of proper education, or you are aware but prefer not to look at). If anything you should know that with your current views you serve obediently and slavishly the ones (eg. the nebula of imperialist globalisationists) you think you fight against.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 2:14pm on 20 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    186. At 1:12pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    """All over Europe, Europeans are at each others throats again over ethnicity, race, religion, national identity. So it has always been, so it is, so it will forever be. How nice to know that there are some things in life that never change. I wonder if it will escalate to pogroms, mass deportations, mass murder, and wars the way it has in the past. """

    Wouam bam thank you Pam!

    MAII, all I have to say to you is Alabama-mama...

    Why are you tiring yourself occupied with European feuds you do not seem to comprehend, while you have so much ground to research your own inner feuds? I guess it is easier to scratch other peoples' feuds than your own...

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 2:34pm on 20 Sep 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    I am not a number @#181

    You wrote:

    "1. Expulsion should happen on an individual case-by-case basis not on a collective basis.
    2. Every individual has a right to be informed of the expulsion and challenge it before a court.
    "

    As I understand the 137 Roma (of which 47 went to Bulgaria and the rest went to Romania) are EU Immigrants and have accepted money and returned voluntarily on a case-by-case basis. They have not been forced to go and they have gone of their own free will although I am sure they would have liked to stay and continue their new lives in France living in poverty and claiming French welfare benefits far greater than they will get back in Bulgaria or Romania.

    The remaining 550 or so Roma are being allowed the right of appeal and are being dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

    I thus find your statement at odds with the facts on the ground or are you just reiterating the propaganda that you have read, heard and believe with all your soul?

    This part-voluntary deportation is rewarded by the deportees being given French Euros so it is arguable that the 137 Roma so far deported are willing deportees but then they could have been detained and have their case for deportation appealed but I suspect that you and I both know that the reality is that they would all be deported anyway.

    The so-called memo to which you refer is a memo that order the Gendarmerie to close down ALL shanty towns but the argument is whether they were directed or chose to target the Roma shanty towns first.

    From my perspective if France is hosting a number of Shanty Towns that ALL need to be closed for the purpose of removing the threat to public order, public security or public health but one camp had to be first when there are so many. The immediate castigation of the French for mistreating the Roma would have been just as bizarre if the Roma had been left until last would it not?

    To my mind the EU MPs, the EU Commission and the many, many hypocrites who have crept out of the woodwork to castigate the French for removing useless mouths form the streets of France and sending them back to whence they came with Euros in their pockets and no criminal record just speaks of the cant that is blighting the discussion as to whether Europe can tolerate the free movement of all people or whether it should have been the free movement of workers right from the outset.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 2:54pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    "you have so much ground to research your own inner feuds

    Nik, you know I think the Hatfields and the McCoys have finally burried the hatchet. I even met one of them once but I can't remember which side they were on. I'm sure there are always fueds between celebs. I know Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump have a fued going. Can't tell though if it's for real or just good television. I guess I just have to read more of the tabloids if I want to take your advice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 3:03pm on 20 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    Menedemus

    The curious thing, as often happens in this column, is that I agree with you but may have been misunderstood. Remember that I am an EU alien living in another EU country. So, for that matter, is Buzet. The difference is that we do not live in shanty towns (well, leaving aside Buzet's reconstruction nightmare), we earn our keep and most of us are net contributors to the host system.

    I do not say that the French action is illegal. I do not say that it is unjustified. But it has been badly handled both in terms of that 'leaked' document which appears to suggest deliberate targetting and in terms of seeking to export a problem rather than dealing with it. I think Mr. Sarkozy is trying to reverse his political fortunes and, failing that, to secure his legacy. It appears to me to be a cynical exercise in politics which fails to address the issues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 3:19pm on 20 Sep 2010, nordicum wrote:

    Marcus AreYouReallyAssII,

    "All over Europe, Europeans are at each others throats again over ethnicity, race, religion, national identity. So it has always been, so it is, so it will forever be."

    Umm. Nope. I have lived in several European countries, and in none did I see the wealth gaps and divisions I see in America. Like the city of New York, Europe is full of people that mix, travel, bring their experiences and generally get along with their neighbours very well. You have not many neighbours in America, so you do not understand. You do not travel much beyond your monolithic country, so you cannot understand.

    I know that every post you contribute exists only to spew hatred. You really should go see a professional about this deep rooted hatred, it cannnot be good for you. They have some great spas in Europe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 3:52pm on 20 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:

    #189 - Menedemus

    " . . . as to whether Europe can tolerate the free movement of all people or whether it should have been the free movement of workers right from the outset".

    I have read you correctly? You meant to say workers? So mwhat about the millions of retirees from northern Europe who relocate - perfectly lawfully - to the Med. coast. The issue here is not about the mobility of labour but the right of individuals to migrate within the EU subject always to the precondition that they have the ability and means to sustain themselves without recourse to the social support system of the host country.

    To the extent that the shanty town inhabitants cannot do so, I agree with you completely - but there is a real danger here of taking a group of people, tarring them with the same brush and simply 'scapegoating' them. Within the last day or so, I have been talking to one such who is about to embark on an international tour as a member of a music ensemble, another who has built a very sucessful business in the horticultural industry and a third who was shamelessly begging in a very aggresive way. I find it interesting that, when 'useful' to the tourist industry or the 'cultural well being of the nation', they are called 'gypsy' but when they are considered 'thieves, beggars and vagabonds', they become Roma.

    This whole debate is in danger of descending into a kind of collective hysteria which has little to do with the reality on the ground and completely disregards the fact that we are who we are and are under no obligation to wear the badge of office we inherited. In the meantime, the remorseless rise of those who find it easier to slot people into boxes than engage in intelligent debate contines unabated. The physically impoverished suffer and the intellectually impoverished thrive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 3:57pm on 20 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    190. At 2:54pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    """...."""

    Marcus, where were you during the earthquake of Los Angeles and the flood of New Orleans? Doing vacations in the Carribean or something?

    I guess you did not understand the word feuds. If I mention the tribal wars among the "ghettoblaster blacks", the "white whitetrash", the "loslobos latinos" perhaps it might remind you of anything? Or maybe for you it is not at all tribal but financial, a matter of business. Alright. Let us use the word "feudal" for old Europe, in US we will speak about a "financial friction" among the ghettoblasting loslobos whitetrash.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 5:44pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Nik, I'd feel a lot safer on the streets of Athens Georgia USA, or Athens New York USA than I would on the streets of Athens Greece.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 6:12pm on 20 Sep 2010, McTain wrote:

    Marcus AureliusII - #172

    I think you misunderstood my question sir - I was not asking whose fault it is that some Roma people are thieves, I was asking (rhetorically) whose fault it is that the perceptions held by none Roma people of Roma people are largely negative.

    However, I find your contention that theft undertaken by Roma people is largely the fault of the police really rather bizarre. On the same basis I assume that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of the US intelligence services?

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 6:51pm on 20 Sep 2010, ptsa wrote:

    MAII:

    "Nik, I'd feel a lot safer on the streets of Athens Georgia USA, or Athens New York USA than I would on the streets of Athens Greece."

    Well yeah if all you know about Athens is what you see on the news then maybe. Compared to other cities of its size, Athens is one of the safest you can be.

    Athens GA, I know it is a "town" at best so not much going on there. Athens NY I am not familiar with so I cannot comment. How'bout Athens in LA?

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 7:00pm on 20 Sep 2010, ptsa wrote:

    196. At 6:12pm on 20 Sep 2010, McTain wrote:

    " On the same basis I assume that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of the US intelligence services?"

    I think you can safely say that, it has been said by numerous people. The terrorists behind 9/11 were given visas and had all background checks that everyone goes through to get a visa. So it was an intelligence problem, or lack of intelligence. Plus, it perfectly fits MAII's logic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 8:14pm on 20 Sep 2010, David wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 200. At 8:32pm on 20 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    threnodio wrote:
    "I think Mr. Sarkozy is trying to reverse his political fortunes and, failing that, to secure his legacy. It appears to me to be a cynical exercise in politics which fails to address the issues."

    This is the English penchant for adopting the wisdom of a wet sponge.

    I mean, exactly the same middle of the road-nothing-waffle could have been said for Hitler or Stalin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 8:32pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    McTain;

    "I find your contention that theft undertaken by Roma people is largely the fault of the police really rather bizarre"

    Why is that? If the police are not going to enforce the laws, why would most people obey them? I do not know one person who obeys the posted speed limit on American highways when traffic isn't too heavy to prevent speeding. If you obey it, people will be passing you every second and you will be more of a hazard than if you kept up with traffic.

    So where is the problem in Europe? Do victims of crimes fail to report them to the police? Do the police fail to respond, investigate and apprehend criminals? Do the prosecutors fail to prosecute lawbreakers who are caught? Do the courts fail to impose sentences to convicts? In effect the choice seems to be between anarchy which is what you have when you have a non functioning legal system as you do now and fascism which is a police state. Europe does not have a history or culture of functioning real democracy where ordinary citizens get involved even in local affairs. It therefore doesn't surprise me that nothing works. For example British soccer hooligans would have been very surprised had they tried their stunts in the US and gotten 90 days in jail for the first offense and paid not only for all the damages they did by hit with fines as well. In Europe they seemed to get a slap on the wrist and sent home only to come back and do it again and again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 10:19pm on 20 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    Buzet23 wrote:
    #134. At 12:25pm on 19 Sep 2010, democracythreat
    "Thank you for confirming what I wrote in #133, it seems you are one of those who believes everybody owns everything and nobody has any responsibilities, no doubt your house is open to all comers and you freely distribute your possessions and property to all, if not, why not, as I'm waiting to receive something of yours."

    I have no doubt you are eager to avail yourself of my possessions. After all, you are the one who is claiming to OWN a whole country, and to speak for a whole tribe of nationalists like yourself.

    This is not a trite point. Consider the following irony carefully: The Roma are routinely accused of being thieves, of wanting property which does not belong to them. And yet, the Roma have such disdain for property that they are content to be nomadic and to travel from camp to camp, with what they can carry in personal vehicles.

    In truth, what disturbs the angry middle class European is not that the Roma crave their property, but rather that the Roma have no respect for the absurd farce of middle class property fantasies.

    Just now the corporate media tell us that gold has skyrocketed in value to well over a thousand whatevers an ounce. That's absurd. Gold is just gold. It hasn't gone anywhere. It is money, and specifically middle class wages, which has plummeted in value. Gold has simply been an inert spectator to the massive fall in wage earnings for the idiot and slavish middle class drones who go to work for less and less each passing month.

    And not only do the middle class earn less each month, in material terms, they get taxed more as well. Not content to print money and drive the value of middle class wages down, the party members sponsored by the corporate elite also want to take what little is left over from the politically isolated middle class of Europe.

    Consider the fate of the Dutch or German wage earner. They go to work and pay 50% of their income in tax, beyond the subsistence level of income. So anything they can save from their work, they government takes half. And then, what shall they do with it? Build a new garden for their home? Build a new extension on their home? Buy a car for their wife? All these things cause the government to come grabatizing once more. In germany, with VAT at 22%, every 5 euros you spend on improving your life costs you another euro to the party members and their racket. And that is AFTER they took half of your saving capacity directly from your employer. And in fact, the tax is far greater, because you pay taxes when you use your phone, you pay taxes when you drive to work, you pay taxes when you buy food, you pay taxes when you purchase anything imported and you pay taxes when you buy things which are home built and sponsored by government.

    The middle class in Europe is being robbed blind by the aristocracy of europe, and the mechanism is taxation through the party system.

    THAT is why the Roma are hated. It is not because they steal things. It is because they do not suffer the outrageous slavery of the middle class drone who goes to work to do what he or she is told to do, and then comes home to do what he or she can afford to do, after taxation from the party. And that constitutes watching the free-vee, which isn't free anymore because , haha!, it is TAXED! by the party.

    And on the TV the middle class worker drone gets to examine the lifestyles of the European aristocracy. they get to watch the way banking families choose to holiday, and how they choose to fly private jets, and how they like to buy clothes worth tens of thousands of dollars.

    And there is nothing the European worker drone can do, because the political system on offer is an outrageous farce. People with titles parade around claiming to be men and women of the people, and the canned laughter does not play. Deals worth billions of taxpayers money are done in back rooms, and the media cut to an add for cheap soap powder. The middle class drone is asked to choose between Hereditary Party Member A and Hereditary Party Member B, and told to choose wisely by a guy in a five thousand dollar suit whose children drive brand new sports cars and who is, of course, a party member. And a stock holder, of course, in large corporations with lucrative state contracts.

    We are all talking about the anger being directed towards the Roma, being focused upon the Roma by the very worst grade of folks in the political parties who own and rule Europe. But the story is not the Roma. They are the background. They have been the reliable background for the story of European hate for centuries.

    The real story is the hate, and the anger. And the incredible shrinking wages, and the incredible rising taxes. And, of course, the incredibly powerful party members.

    Most of all the story is about the hate. European persecution of minorities is a common historical theme, but it is the by product of the political system. Everyone hates being farmed and used like a pack animal by other human beings. Nobody likes feudal slavery. It's enough to make anyone rebel, and of course it has done so repeatedly over the centuries. But the church and the aristocracy of europe have been farming worker drones for centuries, and they have become highly skilled at the art.

    The hate in Europe is going to keep rising and keep festering until being a party member means being spat on in the street, and until having a title before your name is the cultural equivalent of being convicted of larceny, and being a member of the catholic church is the seen the same way as being on a sex offenders register.

    Europe is a farm, and until it becomes politically emancipated it will always resemble a farmyard, full of unhappy animals waiting to be fleeced or sent to work in the fields in return for nearly enough food to survive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 11:06pm on 20 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #202. At 10:19pm on 20 Sep 2010, democracythreat,

    You and your ilk are sad sad figures, riddled with hatred, driven by envy and consumed by jealousy, it is appalling that if you have any sort of legal qualification you are allowed to practice.

    I would suggest you start sending messages to aliens and ask them to abduct you to a better life, after all your views seem to be more in line with those of wannabe extraterrestrials.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 11:41pm on 20 Sep 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:

    MA II

    "I'm not clear on European law. Is it first the execution and then the trial or is it the other way around there? I've forgotten."

    Does you ignorance no bounds? If I'm wrong please stop me but there are two things that the U.S. could learn from Europe in respect to this statement:

    1. In Europe there is not death sentence.
    2. In Europe every single country is a signatory of the Universal Charter of Human Rights.

    We put people on trial in europe then lock them up if they're guilty. They then in 99% of cases have the right to appeal and there is never the threat of impending execution hanging over their head. And before you begin to defend the death sentence... The wrong man has been executed many times throughout history that's why Europe abolished the death sentencem, you can't let a dead man off. And Human Rights prevents a government from doing what it likes... for example, a high ranking General who for some reason or another knows you through family or friends takes a disliking to you (the dislike is purely hypothetical of course). What would then stop that General from having you arrested as terroist suspect and waterboarded as part of the interrogation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 00:46am on 21 Sep 2010, Sarddoc wrote:

    MaxSceptic wrote:

    “Nearly all UK government ministers (and, of course, the Prime Minister) are Members of Parliament (House of Commons) and directly elected by their constituents.”

    True, in practice; but they are elected as MPs, not as ministers. They are nominated ministers by the Queen, a fact you cannot deny, and she certainly is NOT elected!

    “If we don't like them, they get booted out.”.

    False. They may be booted out, after many years, as MPs, but their chances of losing the ministerial role are more often due to internal squabbles and reshuffles, than to any imaginary power of the electorate.

    You ask:
    “How do I - a so-called 'citizen' of the European Union - boot out 'my' unelected 'President' or Commissars?”

    I ask: how do you, as a citizen of the UK, boot out “your” very unelected Prince Charles, the refined gentleman who once said he wanted to be his lover’s Tampax, when his mom is not with us anymore and it will be his turn to become Head of State and nominate premiers and ministers?
    For a more detailed answer though, read below.


    powermeerkat wrote:
    “Even a pope (a leader of an authoritarian dogmatic organization) is elected.”

    Indeed, but by whom? By cardinals, a group of electors who were nominated cardinals by his predecessor(s)… not very democratic, is it?

    In any case, there is a lot of ignorance about how the EU works. Here’s a primer:

    In the EU most of the powers are vested in the European Council, which is made up by the Prime Ministers or Presidents of member States (presumably elected, albeit perhaps indirectly exactly as for the UK Prime Minister), and in the Council(s) of Ministers, made by the ministers of national governments for specific areas (again, presumably elected indirectly as above).

    Legislation goes through the European Parliament, whose members are directly elected by the citizens of the EU member states.

    And finally, the Commissioners of the European Commission are nominated by the Member States, so they are too elected, albeit indirectly (as it happens in many countries for the Head of State, not directly elected by the voters). And by the way, the President of the EU Commission (currently, Mr Barroso) is nominated by the European Council as above described.

    The Commissioners however are bound to act independently – neutral from other influences such as those governments which appointed them. And I guess that this what bothers some people: a group of politicians that, for a change, do not think about their petty little backyard, be it Greece, France or the UK, but in grander terms for the citizens of the whole of Europe (or at least the EU). But all politics is local, someone once said…


    Marcus Aurelius II wrote:

    “If France doesn't like it, it can work to change the laws or it can leave the EU.”.

    This is very well said, and is the crux of the matter. But the situation is more complicated… for citizens of Romania and Bulgaria (Roma or not) the right to free movement or residence within the EU is for now restricted. Whereas a citizen of, say, Hungary or Slovakia can freely go to France and stay as long as he/she pleases, this does not apply to Romanians and Bulgarians, who have special status. This of course was done to prevent situations like the present one… but Joe Public does not know the intricacies of EU law, which can be daunting. And I suspect that the Luxemburgish Commissioner who started the fray also didn’t know the law very well…

    “We don't want to replace a broken medical insurance system with a broken medical delivery system.”

    Well you probably should, because the UK’s “broken medical delivery system” costs half of the US’s “broken medical insurance system”, with much better results in terms of public health, infant mortality, disease burden, and any possible health indicator, you name it. Same goes for the health systems of France, Italy and Germany: all of them obtain much better results than the USA at much lower costs. Not to mention the fact that they cover 100% of the population, including the Roma Gypsies from other countries (just to remain in topic). Try that in the US. Of course, there are drawbacks: doctors are paid much less here in the EU than in the US (I know, I am an M.D.), and EU systems cannot feed all those insurance companies and admin staff. And yes, sometimes in Europe you might have to wait a few months for that MRI scan of your knee – which may save you from an unneeded, ineffective knee operation (but, oh so profitable for the hospital).

    Menedemus wrote:
    “The other thing is that I firmly believe that Diktats from the EU which have been issued by a non-elected Commission can never supersede the decisions of a National Assembly or Parliament that has been elected “

    Sorry, but you are plainly wrong. The whole point of a supranational organization (not just the EU, NATO is the same for some aspects) is that the members agree to delegate sovereignty on certain defined topics, in name of the greater good. Some (not all) types of EU legislation, namely the Regulations of the European Council and the Parliament, are immediately effective in all Member States. And finally, they have been approved by elected representatives of the people (see above), not by bureaucrats. So please, get informed before confusing your wishes with the legal reality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 02:56am on 21 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 207. At 09:52am on 21 Sep 2010, Buzet23 wrote:

    #205. At 00:46am on 21 Sep 2010, Sarddoc,

    Your description of the UK system of voting left some important bits out, firstly the Prime Minister is elected since he is the head of the party you voted for, true you vote for an MP but in doing that you also vote for the Prime Minister. Secondly it is the Prime Minister who decides on appointments as ministers etc and not the queen, who is simply a ceremonial figurehead who for ceremonial reasons only accepts the new government as her government as head of state.

    In terms of getting rid of a minister, it is the media who are expert at that, either that or if the PM is so unpopular they will go and the ministers mostly replaced. You will note that one of the reasons Brown was so disliked is that he was never elected as an MP and PM, just as an MP who was implanted into the highest office by the parliamentary Labour party.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 11:47am on 21 Sep 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:

    #205

    "True, in practice; but they are elected as MPs, not as ministers. They are nominated ministers by the Queen, a fact you cannot deny"

    So, let me get this straight. You think that the Queen decides who the Prime Minister is going to be and which MPs are appointed to which cabinet roles?




    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 3:55pm on 21 Sep 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:

    @201 MAII

    "So where is the problem in Europe? Do victims of crimes fail to report them to the police? Do the police fail to respond, investigate and apprehend criminals? Do the prosecutors fail to prosecute lawbreakers who are caught? Do the courts fail to impose sentences to convicts? "

    The problem lies in system which has some rapists and child molesters run around free again after as much as 1-2 years of prison.

    In Germany we even had some people imprisoned who acted in self-defense. The court found they went overboard. In one case, a guy used a knife to defend himself against 5 or 6 guys who already beat down his friend.

    He even has to pay reparation to the guy he stabbed.

    Prison is no threat to criminals as well over here. They get food, shelter, satelitw TV, sports facilities. Everything nice and clean.


    Don´t think it`s much different in France.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 4:56pm on 21 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Drugstore Man;

    "Prison is no threat to criminals as well over here. They get food, shelter, satelitw TV, sports facilities. Everything nice and clean."

    Prison is supposed to be a very unpleasant experience which is why people will avoid being sent there for breaking the law. Does it really take much in the way of brains to figure that out when you devise a criminal justice system?

    "The problem lies in system which has some rapists and child molesters run around free again after as much as 1-2 years of prison."

    It seems to me most of Europe's most heinous criminals who made the news in recent years were all indigenous to Europe in the very countries where the crimes were commited. Whether it was men who kept young girls prisoners for decades or sex offenders who worked for the Catholic Church including priests, or people who comitted mass murder shooting up schools in Scotland or knifing people in Germany. Then the petty theft and vagrancy among some Europeans to justify deporting the Roma is just a canard to scapegoat them for much larger and wider failings of European societies. Getting rid of them will not make France or any other country any better or safer. But this seems to be the way Europeans think. Just one of the many reasons I find Europe so detestable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 5:23pm on 21 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    Buzzet, it lifts me up to share dialogue with you.

    Marcus, please respect our moderators. Control yourself, sir.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 5:48pm on 21 Sep 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:

    @210 MAII

    "Prison is supposed to be a very unpleasant experience which is why people will avoid being sent there for breaking the law. Does it really take much in the way of brains to figure that out when you devise a criminal justice system?"

    No it doesn`t.
    It also doesn`t take much brain power to realize that such a way of handling criminals is detrimental to integration of migrants.
    They get their tax payed street workers, tax payed lawyers and the judge will try to teach them about their future. Something he doesn`t bother to talk about with the victim.

    But here the authorities are still under the false belief that all people would listen to reason.
    We even had a judge excusing an honour killing with the cultural background and handed out not more than a couple of years for it. Happened 06 or 07 if memory serves right. The murderer should be free again soon.

    In school those who think that they can talk reason into bullies and appease them are usually those who get bullied constantly no matter where they go.
    Well, maybe it`s just the big revenge of the bullied.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 6:00pm on 21 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    dt, I didn't know that giving a definition of PPP or capitalizing the phrase "per capita" was against the rules. I'll keep that in mind for next time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 6:58pm on 21 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:

    Buzet23 wrote:
    "#202. At 10:19pm on 20 Sep 2010, democracythreat,
    You and your ilk are sad sad figures, riddled with hatred, driven by envy and consumed by jealousy, it is appalling that if you have any sort of legal qualification you are allowed to practice.
    I would suggest you start sending messages to aliens and ask them to abduct you to a better life, after all your views seem to be more in line with those of wannabe extraterrestrials."

    Well, because you are slow on the uptake, let me reassure you about one thing: I am not a lawyer who "practices" at the whim of any state. I don't take money from any government, and I bow before no bogus law society. You might say I'm not even a lawyer at all, for these reasons, and certainly that wouldn't bother me. Most lawyers are useless thieving scumbags with their hands in the public till. I have no wish to be associated with them. I live in a country where I hold no native qualifications, and thus i must support myself at the mercy of the market.

    So you see, living in Switzerland, I am forced to prostitute myself on the free market of international trade. People don't hire me because I have a relative in the civil law courts, or because the government will pay my fees in the common law courts, for processing criminals through the system or organizing divorces for folks with no money. Nor does the government pay me to belong to a party, granting me fat contracts with tax payer funded money dispensed by the party elite. The only time I ever see money is when business people think I know enough to handle their contractual difficulties or legal problems, and they ask me to help them. And they pay the market rate. Which, as I have said, is not supported by government handouts.

    You can imagine, buzzsaw, that I am struggling on the bread line. I am such a poor version of a lawyer, without the aid of the all powerful and all bountiful state. I am forced to scrounge and beg on the margins of official power, wondering where my next franc will come from, and wishing desperately for the day when the party will grant me a seat at their sacred table.

    Nobody wants a lawyer like me, who has no respect for the state and who thinks party members are a bunch of self important clowns who were not smart enough to make it in the business world. Everyone thinks I'm no good, because I think privacy and human rights are more important than state power. And so, I struggle and starve in the shadows of the Swiss Alps.

    I'm just grateful that the Swiss allow degenerate no hopers like me to live in their fine country without paying anything into the community. They support me because I am destitute foreigner, you see. It is one of the things they like to do, as everybody knows.

    Anyway, I have to go and do some work that you don't even know exists, but i look forward to your next happy greeting and to reading about your emotional opinion regarding the quality of my life, the standard of my "qualifications", and most of all what I ought to be "allowed" to do.

    You can't even imagine what I can do, buzzsaw, and yet you think you are fit to tell me what I ought to be allowed to do. You make me smile, I must admit. I can see you clutching your soup spoon in your fist as you hunker down at a small wooden table, waiting angrily for a meal someone else paid for, with your napkin tied in a hard knot around your throat, the veins in your forehead bulging and straining with the rage of thousand suns.

    But I am not your enemy. I am just the guy who is ruining your fantasies of power by showing you how ridiculous a person would need to be, to believe what you believe. Talk about shooting the messenger!

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 10:46pm on 21 Sep 2010, McTain wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 216. At 11:31pm on 21 Sep 2010, McTain wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 217. At 5:35pm on 22 Sep 2010, Nik wrote:

    """It seems to me most of Europe's most heinous criminals who made the news in recent years were all indigenous to Europe"""

    Absolutely not. It is a given strategy in many European countries to avoid mentioning the rates and severity of crimes perpetrated by non-indigenous groups and to emphasise on the ones perpetrated by the indigenous.

    A study of real statistics on both frequency per population and severity will largely inform you of the reality and this is the inverse of what you pretend to think above.

    """In the very countries where the crimes were commited. Whether it was men who kept young girls prisoners for decades or sex offenders who worked for the Catholic Church including priests, or people who comitted mass murder shooting up schools in Scotland or knifing people in Germany. """

    ...not to mention that these crimes are extremely rare and highly condamnable and that is why they take such an extensive coverage in western societies all while the violation of children in other cultures is everyday (eg. muslims are evidently not paedophiles, they marry children - remember Palestinian leader Mahmut Abas, as-if serious, being present and wishing well in the marriage of about 20 adult men in their 20s with little girls in their 10s???). A muslim father who raped his daughter for years would never make it the news and in case he would be a recent immigrant, especially an illegal, the police would not even bother to let their coffee go cold and be occupied with the case.

    Sorry to put it so cold but more or less that is how it goes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 9:26pm on 22 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Nik, perhaps if I spoke Greek and could post in that language I could explain it to you better. Give me one example (not statistics) of a heinous crime committed in Europe by a non European in recent years or by an immigrant from within Europe for that matter. Perhaps the murders of Van Gouch and of Foteyn come to mind but I can't think of any others.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 10:20am on 23 Sep 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:

    You could google for "honour kills".
    Lots of non Europeans there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 05:43am on 28 Sep 2010, neonomad wrote:

    Apparently In Denmark first they were accused of criminality and them deported using an administrative procedure by the Police, all done without being brought to a court of law or having the possibility of defending themselves individually from the accusations. Shameful at so many levels.

    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1033647.ece
    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1030464.ece
    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1011653.ece
    http://jp.dk/uknews/article2143126.ece
    http://cphpost.dk/news/137-eu-news/49638-expelled-romani-to-sue-state-.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 7:11pm on 01 Oct 2010, neonomad wrote:

    A question to the panel.????

    Lets suppose some Roma EU citizens are accused of some crime in Denmark.
    Lets then suppose that because they have been accused of a crime the Danish Police uses an administrative procedure to deport them from Denmark.
    lets also assume that they were not brought before a court of law or convicted of any crime under Danish law and not given the possibility to defend themselves against the accusations before a judge. Just accused, applied the administrative procedure and deported.
    Lets then assume that the Danish Police carries out the deportations and puts the Roma EU citizens inside buses. I would like to remind at this point that they are not convicted of any crime, nor they were given the possibility to defend themselves against the accusations.
    So the Danish Police drive the Roma EU citizens all the way from Copenhagen across Denmark on their way to Romania or Bulgaria....does not matter.
    The bus with the Danish Police inside controlling the deportations of Roma EU citizens crosses the Danish border and enters Germany....
    The Roma EU citizens free from any conviction of any crime in Denmark or any where in the EU, kept inside a bus guarded by the Danish Police in German territory, decide they want to leave the bus.... The Danish Police keeps them inside the bus using force to carry out the deportation all the way to Romania....or Bulgaria. does not matter.
    If they are free Roma EU citizens kept against their will inside a bus by the Danish Police in Germany, Is that not kidnapping?????
    And if it is kidnapping and kidnapping is a crime in Germany, shouldn't the German Police free the hostages and arrest the kidnappers....????
    After all they are free Roma EU citizens not convicted of any crime, nor wanted for any crime any were in the EU, kept inside a bus against their will, by the authorities of another country...????
    Does it not mean that the authorities of one country have the duty to act inside their country against the authorities of another country that are keeping free citizens in their power against their will, using force.?????

    This of course is all hypothetical???

    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1033647.ece
    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1030464.ece
    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1011653.ece
    http://jp.dk/uknews/article2143126.ece
    http://cphpost.dk/news/137-eu-news/49638-expelled-romani-to-sue-state-.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 5:16pm on 13 Oct 2010, MAPES3 wrote:

    If we part from the point that the Roma where illegally in France, where could or should the line be drawn between a states sovereignty and European values; and why do they collide if the latter are supposed to be valid for the whole of Europe?
    It would seem as the European conscience , channeled through Viviane Redings critique, still is very much positioned and entrapped a political rhetoric that brings up issues both of previous conflicts, censorship and what is considered commonly politically and morally correct.
    It is evident that the Roma people are seen as a social problem for many countries, they might be nationals of different countries, but they are seen as holding a common ethnic identity. However, they are in fact Europeans as they have settled in European territories for centuries. So why are they not seen as such? As Hewitt previously brought up when discussing European policies toward immigrants, the Roma-debate can be one of several signs of a general rise in less acceptance of diversity of the "multicultural" society.
    The EU tries to have a moral stand while nations struggles while sometimes having to take sides between the ideology and the daily problems that arise in the territory and among people who live within it. In this matter, it is the majority they want to content.

    There is a rupture within the agency of the EU and its members in matters like these. Not all members hold a common stance, as they do not have the same social problematic and experiences.
    It is hard to grasp the EU real scope as a controlling agent of national decisions.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.