BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Isenhorn

Listed below are comments made by Isenhorn between Friday, 30th October 2009 and Wednesday, 25th November 2009 (16 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Franco-German power 3:24pm on 25 Nov 2009 At 2:11pm on 25 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote:

'In other words, the EU is specifically designed to undermine democracy, and to establish the rule of the party, and government by appointment. That is the purpose. That is not a side effect, that is the entire point.'
*****************************************

Bravo! The whole post is missing only a mention of the 'Jewish World Domination’ to become perfect.
EU back to the future? 3:34pm on 23 Nov 2009 239. At 2:29pm on 23 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
'I suppose it depends how you define "unanimous approval"!'

Unanimous approval= approval by all of the elected governments of the Member States. The same as the unanimous approval of the Lisbon Treaty by the Member States.

Now you define it. If possible, without using the word referendum. A referendum is not a legal requirement for Acts of the British Parliament, nor it is legally binding.
Which names in the EU hat? 2:13pm on 13 Nov 2009 cool_brush_work @96,

Your arguments about the ‘Good Olde England’ which kept apart from mainland Europe and only interfered at the ‘request’ from Poland and Belgium is laughable. I suggest you read more about the cause of both world wars and not just repeated the old rubbish that England only joined to save the Belgians and the Polish. A good point to start will be the ‘battleship race’ which began well before the Belgians even thought about requesting help from Britain. Another good topic will be the Crimean War. Or the partitioning of Bulgaria in 1878. (Let’s not include the Irish Independence and the Suez Crisis, as I suppose for you that would not count as Europe but as an internal British matter).

You seem to believe that the centuries of the British Empire are somehow a reference which could be applied to all the modern day British politics. Yes, Britain was not part of Europe at the time. But she was also quite adept at stamping out any opposition to its tyrannical rule in all regions of the world-Opium wars, Afghanistan, The Great Mutiny, Anglo-Boer wars, to name but a few. Is that the legacy that you want us to use an example? The evidence which shows that the British are somehow special and different from everybody else? Even if Britain kept out of Europe to some extent, this was not because of some highly moral principles or because of cultural and political differences. British interests at the time lay elsewhere and Britain was not shy of imposing those interests with blood.
Today, however, the Empire is long gone. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. A 40 miles of shallow water do not make us all anything special or different from the rest of the Europeans. Today Britain cannot ‘go it alone’. You argument that the current economic crisis should not be used as an example of the inability of England to stay out of the EU is false. The mere fact that Britain, with its half-hearted membership in the EU, managed to get her economy most severely affected compared to all other EU and world players (France, Germany, USA, Japan have all already seen growth in their economies after the crash) is a proof of how incapable she has become of acting alone. If UK managed to do that despite all the EU rules, just imagine what it would be if she was out. It will be the 70s and 80s all over again.
Which names in the EU hat? 7:11pm on 12 Nov 2009 cool_brush_work,
I tink you have shown a remarkable example of self-contradiction.

46. At 2:55pm on 12 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
'The British Isles evolved very much at arms length from mainland Europe: To pretend otherwise as EU and UK Politicians have tried to do especially since Maastricht is to deny Historical reality.
I submit most of the British Public are aware of these very significant cultural/social-judicial-political-military differences.'

And,

57. At 5:14pm on 12 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
'Sorry, the idea 4.1 million UK Citizens all go out to vote the way the Editor of the Sun newspaper wants is just too fanciful to even consider. Unless you have some sort of evidence that UK Citizens are utterly different from the rest of the EU Citizens I cannot go along with such a nonsensical suggestion.'

So, are the British citizens different from everybody else (thus the only way left for for them is to leave the EU) or are they exactly the same as the rest of the EU citizens (thus all the retoric to the opposite being complete rubbish)?
Which names in the EU hat? 3:00pm on 12 Nov 2009 cool_brush_work,

I think you are not quite correct, when you dismiss the power of newspapers like the Sun to sway public opinion. It is debatable what comes first: whether people begin to read a newspaper because they agree with what is said in it or whether a newspaper begins to publish articles knowing that this is what the people would like to read. Whichever it is, one things is clear- what is written in a newspaper closely reflects the opinion on the people who read it.
Now, the 4.1 million strong Sun readership may have different reasons for choosing it every morning- for some the reason is that it costs 10p, others rank its third page above the third pages of all other newspapers and some buy it because of its football pages. However, I a sure a lot of people would not buy it just for those reasons had it not been for the columns of Littlejohn and his likes (apologies if Littlejohn no longer writes for the Sun; I have not read it for years- he might have left meanwhile).
Now , as you rightly point out, there are other newspapers which are also critical of some issues. Where the Sun differs however is the fact that it does publish articles on certain topics, which are not supported by any facts but rely heavily on references to the Battle of Trafalgar, Battle of Britain and Henry V at Agincourt. Where that becomes serious is the way these same references are used by the Sun readership as foundations of their attitude towards many problems- be it immigration, EU or the war in Iraq. Even if the newspaper is not deliberately trying to sway the public opinion, the net result is the same- certain sizeable proportion of the UK electorate is likely to form an opinion (or find justification of their opinion) in a newspaper which does not present the facts objectively.

The availability of other newspapers and media is not a remedy. It is not supported by any evidence but I would venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of people who read the Sun do not read the Times, thus the Times’ s objectivity in presenting the facts does not matter. Nor does it matter that the modern British society is quite diverse- I for one fail to see why you seem to think that any of the ethnic groups you chose to mention does not read the Sun.
Cameron shuns 'Euro bust-up' 4:02pm on 05 Nov 2009 So, David Cameron has promised that there will be no transfer of power to the EU, without a referendum. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I think I have spotted a very large loop-hole, through which a Tory party-size object could slip through. There will be no transfer of powers, without a referendum. Not as we might imagine, transfer of powers only if the referendum result is ‘yes’.
Thus a situation where indeed a referendum is called, then the results conveniently ignored, seems entirely plausible. First because it allows the Tories to keep their promises. Second, because a UK referendum is not legally binding even for the British Government, yet a lone for the rest of the EU members, who would have to agree to any changes in the British EU membership. Thus it will not serve any purpose at all when it comes to the real negotiations, but would allow the Conservative party to claim that it acts on people’s behalf. After all, the Tories do not want do in Europe what Johnny Public wants them to do. They just want everybody else to think that way. Even if there is no repatriating of powers back to UK, this could always be blamed on the French and the Germans.
Obama and Europe 08:57am on 03 Nov 2009 democracythreat,

I really should have expected a response such as yours. I long suspected that behind your beautiful writings there was no substance. Yet again you failed to bring forward any constructive ideas about how Europe could address the important issues it faces today, without moving to even closer union. It seems to me that my request (and it was a request, you could check the wording again) to you not to use Switzerland as an example was well placed, as you indeed could not find anything else to say to support your ideas. I have been following this blog precisely because I want to better understand where I stand regarding Unified Europe. You appear to be one of the most vocal writers here, with apparent strong feelings on the issue, and I merely invited you to actually describe your ideas for the future of Europe. What I did not try however, was to convince you in anything, despite what you claim. May be ‘the reason that underlies your own position’ will ‘eat away at my thoughts’, may be. However, so far you have not shown this reason and it appears my thoughts are quite safe at present. This blog is open to everyone, if all you want to do here is practice you literary skills, fine, but then perhaps you should come clear on that and not disguise your writings as a constructive discussion on the topic at hand .
Obama and Europe 9:19pm on 02 Nov 2009 democracythreat,

Your use of sarcasm to support your line against 'homogenous' Europe is getting tiresome. I believe you know it yourself that the membership in the EU is in no way comparable to the republics which used to make the USSR, nor to the state of Tibet within PR of China. Instead of bringing more 'examples' like that, why don't you instead describe what your vision of the future of Europe should be? So far you have not proposed anything, which is not a 'more of the same' policy, disguised behind noble words such as 'independent states' and 'democracy'. It is my opinion that you do realise the current state of affairs, with Europe's great number of independent states, only leads to the situation where Europe cannot exercise its befitting role in the world. Despite all the words to the contrary, Europeans have a lot in common culturally and all the European countries together have got the economical and political muscle to be a real world player. Something, which they in their current disjointed state they are unable to do.

So I would encourage you to put forward you proposals about how that could be achieved, without moving towards even greater union. I would like to know how the current situation, where despite having the second largest GDP in the world and 1/10 of the world's population, Europe lags behind not only the USA but also China in terms of space exploration, and political clout with both North Korea and Iran, could be reversed. If you could avoid mentioning Switzerland and direct democracy that would be a bonus. I must say that I fail to be impressed with Switzerland and its democracy, knowing full well that the Swiss have in the past consistently refused to take a stand on any issue, both good and bad, which is not connected somehow to their cuckoo-clocks, chocolate or pocket knifes with toenail clipper appliances. Or the fact that many of the world-famous Swiss banks would not be here today had it not been for the gold teeth and diamond rings of Nazi concentration camp victims.
Obama and Europe 4:16pm on 02 Nov 2009 'Europe to develop their own strategy for Russia, for the Middle East, for Afghanistan if they want to be taken seriously.'

Translated into the US way of thinking, this would mean: Start thinking how to sort out the fine mess we created, because we do not know what to do anymore. Just do not mess with our military 'strategy' in Afghanistan, our 'defence' plans in Eastern Europe and for everybody's sake, do not ask us to stop our unquestioning support of Israel'.
A tough pitch for Blair 4:20pm on 30 Oct 2009 democracythreat,

You write interesting posts, but sometimes you use polemics as a substitute for valid arguments.

Example:

'You would not know, sir, because you have not lived under such a system by your own admission.'

Tim has not lived under a Nazi regime eaither, however I am sure that he knows whether it is right or wrong. If we use your own argumwent, we will have to disregard your proposals for refrendums, since you have not lived in a country where they are used regularly and would not know how useful they are. Disregarding someone's opinion because they lack personal experience of the matter does not invalidate their arguments. That is why we have judges presiding over courts who pass sentences on rapists, without having personal expereince of rape theselves.

«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

Isenhorn