BBC Blog Network

User Profile

EverCloserUnion

Listed below are comments made by EverCloserUnion between Tuesday, 24th June 2008 and Tuesday, 9th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

The prime minister is safe - for now 08:25am on 09 Jun 2009 Brown must now raise the political stakes. He must bring forward radical proposals to clean up parliamentary finances, a fundamental shakeup of the Constitution -for example a written Constitution which is then put to the electorate for acceptance or rejection that would makesParliament subject to constitutional law rather than above the law as is presently the case -they call it parliamentary sovereignty and we have seen the consequences. There must also be a serious attempt to lead on the EU debate and connect with the concertns of those most badly affected or at risk from the economic crisis that is likely to get worse, still, before it gets better. His only chance of avoid a massive political defeat at the next election is to outflank the Conservatives on these questions and quickly.
Starting gun fired on leadership contest 2:55pm on 03 Jun 2009 Blears should have resigned weeks ago or should have been sacked as should have Smith. Any member of the Government who has made a "mistake" should also resign or be sacked. The idea that Brown should be replaced without the immediate holding of General Election is simply politically insane and unsustainable. Conclusion: Brown should not and will not be forced out. Brown must act immediately to assert his authority over the Cabinet and not wait until Monday of next week. Those who want, or are tempted, to strike against him should have their hand forced. The end of Brown would almost certainly result in their political demise and consign Labour to not only opposition but also very possibly to political irrelevance for a generation if not indefinitely. Changing Prime Minister without an election twice is simply unthinkable in the present circumstances.
Ring out the old 11:38am on 31 Dec 2008 Mark

I agree that asking the Irish to vote again is a high risk option to keep them on board. I think I have said this in a number of my previous postings on the subject. If Ireland votes no again it will be the end of the EU as we know it. Ireland with one or two other Member States may leave the organisation or be left behind. However, I think that the sheer scale of the economic downturn might make people realize -with enlightened political leaders, that on balance the EU offers some protection that has its advantages. To be out might be a worse evil. There is a cue of States seeking membership.

Love him or hate him I think the high point of the year was having an all action political leader at the helm of the EU. The successes you list were in no small part due to Sarko's political leadership. For the first time since the Mitterrand/Kohl and despite Thatcher the EU appeared to have a sense of purpose and acted responded reasonably well to world events. Brown should get some credit on the banking crisis front. The guy who made it possible however, was Sarko. He created the decisional arenas, focused minds and was not afraid of leading from the front.

People may remember that in 2009 especially if the upcoming presidency reverts back to low key, low public impact, low visibilibility politics.

Sarko demonstrated that the EU needs stable, highly visible and effective leadership. It can help shape the future and bring a degree of reassurance in a very unstable but open world in the mutual interest of citizens and States.

For my part I hope the Irish vote yes. I see no problem people being asked to vote again. They can confirm their previous vote if that is their view. It is also perfectly legitimate to change ones mind. We should not forget it is the sovereign decision of the Irish government to ask for second vote.
Perhaps this time they may inform the Irish electorate of exactly what the pros and cons of the Treaty and membership are all about.

Anyway.

I hope you have a happy new year Mark.
PS. Your thoughts on Fortisgate would be good. I am sure that the saga could not have escaped your attention over the last few weeks.
Lisbon deal taking shape 7:39pm on 11 Dec 2008 Mark

The Irish Government is taking a big gamble. Should the vote be negative again the breakup of the Union is almost inevitable. The signature of a legally binding document confirming that the Irish can retain what they already had under Lisbon is smart politics. The real victory is they can keep a Commissioner but then no Member State really wanted to lose one anyway. A win-win outcome. Let us hope that my turkeys and christmas analogy of the other day is wide of the mark. If the Irish say no yet again then those who want to proceed will quite legitmately say the EU as presently constituted no longer meets the needs of the 21st century. Their will to continue with ever closer union, minus those who never subscribed to the idea, will put put to the test. Late 2009 will be interesting. Perhaps all those who hate the Union will get the opportunity to experience sum-zero sovereignty in the modern world. Iceland appears to have realized the limits of 19th century sovereignty in the contemproary world for small European States.
Lisbon charm offensive 11:50am on 05 Dec 2008 Mark

As always you have a great capacity to provoke a number of interesting "opinions " on the Treaty of Lisbon. I am greatly surprised it is being suggested that the Irish Government wants to "perhaps" hold a second vote sometime in 2009. Somewhow I doubt it. Turkeys and votes for Christmas spring to mind. This is an Irish leak to test Irish reactions. The political and economic situation in late 2009 would almost certainly cloud the issue the electorate would be called to pronounce on. The popularity of the Irish Government is hardly going to improve in such a short time frame and under the prevailing circumstances. The decision of the Irish electorate should be respected as should the views of the elected Irish Government. Whatever happens regarding the Iriosh the remaining 25 or 26 Member States should proceed by a Decision of the Council to implement the Treaty minus the Irish. The Irish could seek EEA status for example and remain part of the Eurozone. This could be done without insurmountable legal difficulties. The EU needs to move on. Global events require effective internal and external EU action. The Lisbon Treaty is designed precisely to facilitate this process.
EU's financial reform plan 6:44pm on 08 Nov 2008 Other than living on Mars I would like somebody to explain how sovereignty and being out of the EU would have saved us from the consequences of the global financial crisis. Perhaps Ireland outside of the Euro zone would have been a good test case. Hungary is a good example of the value of the irrelevance of zero-sum sovereignty. We live in an open and inter-connected world that needs common rules and generally agreed solutions.
EU's financial reform plan 6:35pm on 08 Nov 2008 I imagine Iceland is a nice place right now... Globalisation without the rule of law is the global financial system we have at the present time.

Sarko is doing a great job. Markets need regulating at the level they operate. He, at least, has the courage to shape the future in a way that departs from the speculative nonsense that has dominanted thinking since the late 1970s. Those who prefer to delude themselves that sovereignty means anything in the contemparary world should look to Iceland for an answer. Ask the Icelandic people what price sovereignty. Mr Brown knows that as well as Sarko. We live in a world of faceless forces that can destroy lives on the basis of a an emotion 'confidence' or greed 'speculation'. Enough please.
A serious summit 2:44pm on 01 Sep 2008 Hi Mark

Fellow bloggers should not forget the reaction of the United States to Cuba or Chile and other latin American States that tried to escape its sphere of interests. Comparing Russia with the actions of Nazi Germany is simply incorrect. Russia is not driven my ideological desires to invade and dominate Europe. It would be a mistake to inadvertently strengthen the hand of those in Russia who favour a policy of isolation from the rest of Europe. Russia is no longer the closed society it was during the Soviet years. We should try and avoid anything that legitimates the actions of those who would like Russia to turn in on itself again. Russian history has many examples of this happening. The EU would be best advised to remain very firm and united in articulating its vital political and economic interests and make clear how it will defend them. Linking NATO membership with the EU was and is a mistake as a political strategy to support the UKraine and Georgia. There are States in the EU who are not in NATO so why push that agenda in frontier States that have historically been integral parts of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. The UKraine cannot be compared to the Baltics States, Poland and the other States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. EU membership for States like the Ukraine and Georgia should be the medium to long term priority not NATO membership. The Ukraine and Georgia should be supported by the EU. But national sovereignty and territorial sovereignty should not be a mask for one -the dominant ethno-linguistic group disregarding the rights and aspirations of minority groups. This rule applies in the rest of Europe notwithstanding the right of States to organise there own constitutional formula. It is painful for most dominant groups to accept that minority groups to not share the same sense of identity and loyality but the way to deal with the problem is not through war but by democratic means and years of discussion, even in the face of the use of violence by some groups. That may require a fundamental revision of the constitutional rules in those States. When Georgia decided to attack on August the 7th did its government inform anyone in NATO or the EU? Flying the EU flag is fine but it is not a licence to use force regardless of the consequences and then expect the EU to ride to the rescue. The idea that Russia was simply not going to react or react in a more measured way -whatever that means under the circumstances- is not realistic under the circumstances and historical context. This is a European problem that has to be solved by the EU and Russia with each acknowledging the others vital interests and fundamental values. The EU would make a serious mistake if it allowed its vital interests to be defined by the United States on this matter. As a matter of interest was the US informed of Georgian intentions prior to August 7 ?
Treaty puzzle not yet solved 11:18pm on 24 Jun 2008 The EU is a mechanism for managing our diversity. If the argument is about how best to do that. Then fine. But if you seriously believe that the EU is about taking your freedoms away then we do not live on the same planet. As I have repeatedly said nobody is forced to stay in. If you have an argument on that score vote for parties that want to take you out of the EU. Incidently why did Mrs Thatcher not leave the EU. I imagine you think she was duped by somebody or other. I have yet to meet anyone who supports the process of ever close runion who does not celebrate our diversity. There is no conspiracy to crush our freedoms. And yes, keep things simple so that people understand what the arguments are really about. There are no tanks ready to role in if we do not obey. The EU is imperfect. No doubt. But I prefer to argue about how to make it work better rather than indulge my fantasy by returning to a time when nationalism and deluded notions of sovereignty, which is not the same thing as wanting to preserve local decision making a close as possible to those it affects most directly, that I and others like me fully believe in. I am not disrespectful of our common history nor of the rights of people to voice their opinions but it is time that those who do not see the EU as the evil empire spoke up in its defence, warts and all. That is what I mean by leap of imagination. The problem in this country in particular is that our politicasl class has always lacked the imagination or courage to tell the truth. The EU does not threaten our freedoms and we are not the chosen people anymore. We can be proud of our history and achiuevements weout remaining stuck in the past. The world has changed. Get real my dear anti-EU bloggers. The EU is simply a symptom of your dislike of the glogal village we live in. The paradox of your argument is that if your vision came to pass we would be even less free -or sovereign to us your language -than we are now. Pride in being distinct, which we all value, is not the same as regarding ourselves as superior and so powerful that we can ignore, indeed impose our will on the world, or escape it.
Treaty puzzle not yet solved 9:35pm on 24 Jun 2008 Re 140

You prove my point. I invoked all those who died, without distinction, for our tragic, yes tragic, common history. We can distinguish between those who died for freedom anf those who did not. Incapable of seeing beyond the tribe is the problem Europhobes have. That is what the EU is all about, attempting to look beyond the tribe. How can you imagine for an instant that those who support the EU cannot distinguish between those who died to save freedom and those who died to extinguish it. The EU was and is about going beyond that. It takes a leap of imagination. I am proud of my culture and nationality. I do not see it as threatened by being a citizen of the EU. We have multiple identities. The town, the county, the region, the State. There is no conflict unless threatened by those who are not from the place you identify with. The beauty of Europe is its diversity. The challenge is to not allow those who fear diversity win the argument.

«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

EverCloserUnion