BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Freakontheguitar

Listed below are comments made by Freakontheguitar between Wednesday, 26th August 2009 and Thursday, 29th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Changing Britain's relationship with Europe 6:01pm on 29 Oct 2009 To Breakfast Maker #130

I would like to ‘pick up’ on Norway and Switzerland as you suggest. I don’t think that the fact that there are European countries outside the EU proves that they are better off outside the EU.

I don’t know much about Norway, but I have lived in Switzerland, and things there are not always as great as people think.

First of all the Swiss economy is actually being hurt by being outside of the EU. For example: the Swiss produce excellent wines, but you never see them outside Switzerland. That has a lot to do with the EU support for the French, Italian and even British wine industry that the Swiss don’t get.

Secondly, Switzerland has practically no say in global affairs. It is a member of the UN, but it has about as much influence there as Zambia. Whilst the views of even the smaller EU members are represented in forums like the G20, Switzerland is always on its own.

And finally, Switzerland is not as sovereign as it seems. In practice it has much of its policies imposed upon it by the EU. The Swiss banking sector has had to give up much of its famous secrecy due to pressure from the EU. But unlike much smaller countries like Luxembourg, Switzerland does not have a vote in EU policies.

For all those reasons successive Swiss governments have been keen on joining the EU. It is only because of the result of various referendums that they have not joined, and you can argue that all those no voters have shot themselves in the foot.

So, short of joining the EU, the Swiss have crept up as closelyto it as they can. A bilateral treaty effectively (although not officially) makes it part of the European Economic Area. Most EU regulations are extended to Switzerland. It has even joined the Schengen agreement which abolishes border controls.
Changing Britain's relationship with Europe 12:20pm on 29 Oct 2009 The ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty itself shows how much the treaty is needed. If every key decision in Europe can be vetoed by every one of the 27 member states, the process will always take long enough for some countries to change government and change their mind, and everything will forever be on hold.

If David Cameron was indeed a realist, he would understand that Europeans can only influence global issues if they pool their resources. On its own Britain would be a small player at the table with giants like China, Russia and the US. Outside the EU I don’t think that Gordon Brown or indeed David Cameron would get much access to the global corridors of power.

And if David Cameron was indeed a realist, he would understand that you cannot cooperate without compromising. In other words, the price to pay for influence is loss of sovereignty. But the alternative is full freedom to change nothing.

If David Cameron was indeed a realist he would therefore understand that Britain needs the EU, and that Lisbon is badly needed to break the continuous deadlocks whereby a grumpy Czech president can determine the fate of hundreds of millions of Europeans, most of whom have not elected him.
Does Australia deserve its boozy reputation? 7:14pm on 08 Oct 2009 I have recently moved back from Australia to the UK, and the Brits definitely drink a lot more.

I think it has a lot to do with the standard beer glass size. 'A beer' in Sydney is usually a schooner which is smaller than an imperial pint. In other cities it is an even smaller glass called a 'pot' or a 'middy'. Only Adelaide the pint is pretty much standard, but the word refers to a glass the size of a Sydney schooner.

In fact, Nick, the study of Australian beer glasses (schooners, pots, middies and pints, but also ponies, handles, bobbies, eights, shetlands and butchers) might be worth a blog in itself.
Cameron's very personal plea 6:51pm on 08 Oct 2009 I noted three things from Cameron's speech (and in fact the whole Tory conference).

The rhetoric (like the 'big government' stuff). Nothing new there.

The detail. This is where, for the first time since 1997, the Tories came up with some viable ideas to govern the country. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) their detailed plans are not that far removed from Labour's plans.

What they tried to keep quiet on. Especially the Conservative stance on Europe and the Lisbon Treaty. Because there isn't one.

Overall, by Tory standards, it was a great speech, and a great conference. But only by Tory standards.
Pressure for a UK vote 10:59am on 07 Oct 2009 Assuming that Lisbon will be done and dusted by the time the Tories will form the government, the only sensible choice in a referendum is to either go ahead whole-heartedly with the EU, or bail out of it completely.

Much of the criticism towards the EU is justified, but the main reason for all the bureaucracy is that it is currently a union of 27 nations, all trying to have influence whilst maintaining full sovereignty. A union with extensive powers, but with poor democratic controls.

Lisbon goes a long way to address those issues, but it does necessarily reduce the sovereignty of each member state. The choice for Britain is to accept that in order to keep a say in the EU, or to choose full sovereignty but little influence on global affairs. I don't think there is a middle ground.

That is the only sensible choice in a referendum, and I would support David Cameron (or indeed Gordon Brown) asking that question to the people of Britain.
Australia's 'Iron Lady'? 04:44am on 14 Sep 2009 Julia Gillard would make a fine Prime Minister of Australia, but there is one fly in the ointment, and that fly is Kevin Rudd. He is not leaving as far as I know, and he doesn't seem to be under any serious pressure to do so either.

I am sure that Mr Rudd will leave the scene at some stage, but for most political leaders that moment comes when they have fallen from grace with the voters or with their own party. Either way, it is likely that Rudd will take Julia Gillard with him when he falls.

So unless Kevin Rudd leaves for non-political reasons (Australian Prime Ministers have been known to go swimming and never return), Julia Gillard might become the Peter Costello of the Labor Party: a great Prime Minister that never was.
The Curious Case of Senator Fielding 05:27am on 11 Sep 2009 To Petesyc #10

I agree with you, and my comments were not aimed against the current Labor Government, but more against the Australian system in general.

And it is correct that, even during the Howard years, Labor was usually the biggest party in terms of number of votes. Except in 2004 when the Liberals really 'won' the election.
The Curious Case of Senator Fielding 03:25am on 10 Sep 2009 Senator Fielding may have a degree of power that is disproportionate with the number of voters that elected him, but so does the Labor government.

Just like in Britain, under the Australian system it is possible (and likely) that the Government is formed by a party who do not have a majority of the popular vote. Labor may have a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives, but it was based on 43% of the vote in the 2007 elections. In other words: 57% of Australians did not vote for Labor.

It is very good that the Senate can counter balance the disproportionate power held by the Government. The system may give Mr Fielding a very big say in how the country is run, but I believe his existence forces the Labor Government to make decisions that have wider support. They have a choice whether they want to compromise with the Liberal/National coalition, or with the Greens+Fielding+Xenophon but compromise they must.

And what is great about the current Senate is that the coalition does not have a majority either. They cannot block decisions just for the sake of being obnoxious, but have to get someone Like Senator Fielding on their side.

In that sense, whilst I usually disagree with Mr Fielding, I am glad he is there.
After the Ashes 04:39am on 27 Aug 2009 To paulcrossleyiii #6:

I am neither Australian or British, but have lived 6 years in Britain and 3 in Australia. I love both places, but that makes neither of them perfect.

And yes, you can accuse me of cherry picking, and Australia has its issues too.

But there are a lot of cherries to pick in Britain. None of them is a huge problem in itself. Of course the use of miles instead of kilometers is not going to bring Britain to its knees. But the general resistance to adopt practical innovations (especially those that come from abroad) may very well do so.
After the Ashes 09:05am on 26 Aug 2009 I love Britain, but for many years I have found it a remarkably unsophisticated country.

It is a place that keeps hanging on to useless traditions at the expense of practical solutions. A country that still uses a mile that is 1760 yards, and 5280 feet, rather than a kilometer that is 1000 meters and 100,000 centimeters. A country where the picture on the driving licence was only introduced in 1998. A country where the Tesco staff in London have to check with the manager whether Scottish pounds are legal tender.

Many British people think that they are still being seen as the shining example they were in the Victorian age, but in most areas of competence they are just about managing to make it into the top 20. The UK is not a world leader in anything at all, except, since this week, cricket.

The Australian society is much better organised, because the Aussies are practical people. In my three years in Sydney I have had two train delays due to signal failures. In London I used to have two per week. And the Australian banking sector is so well organised compared to other countries that it is the only 1st world nation that avoided a recent recession.

But sophisticated as they are, and independent as they have been for more than a century, many Aussies still see the UK as the 'motherland', and much of its culture is derived from Britain. Look at the ABC, which blindly buys every single series the BBC produces. And look at the sports Australia competes in, which are all derived from Britain. Having a Queen who resides in London doesn't help either. And because many Australians still feel they are in a parent-child relationship, they are rebelling against the UK like a bunch of problematic teenagers.

So I think both countries have their psychological problems. Britain because it is no good at anything anymore, and Australia because it is still trying to find its own identity. No wonder that the Ashes are so hotly contested, and that both parties are so eager to humiliate the other.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Freakontheguitar