A tough pitch for Blair
You had to pinch yourself today, but make no mistake - Gordon Brown was barnstorming for his old rival Tony Blair.
As soon as the prime minister landed in Brussels he went to a meeting of Socialist leaders. You need to get real, he told them, this was a unique opportunity to get a strong progressive politician into a top job.
Then Gordon Brown went off to a press conference. Tony Blair would make an "excellent" candidate, an "excellent" President of the Council. The weight of the British government was being thrown behind the former Labour prime minister.
At one point Gordon Brown conceded that the job did not yet exist and Blair had not declared himself as a candidate. Someone then said to the prime minister that he wouldn't throw the whole credibility of the government behind this unless Blair wanted the post. The prime minister said he had spoken to his predecessor only this week.
But almost immediately Gordon Brown would have realised that in selling Blair he faces an uphill battle. The Spanish said they were no longer for the former British prime minister. The Socialist group of leaders indicated they wanted a politician from the left not as president but as the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs.
Then today new names began emerging. Certainly Blair - if he stands - will not be the only candidate.
Iraq remains an issue. I asked Gordon Brown what he would say to other leaders when they raised the question of Tony Blair's involvement in the war in Iraq. The prime minister said he would tell them that this job was about the future and not the past.
The key remains the French and the German leaders. They have not declared their hands. Certainly Nicolas Sarkozy was enthusiastic for Blair in the past, but the word coming out of Germany is that Angela Merkel is wary of Blair's flashy style.
None of this will be decided at the summit, but at dinner tonight it may become apparent what kind of president the majority of leaders back. Do they want someone who can get a hearing at the White House or do they want someone who will build consensus within the European Union?
Interestingly the UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said that "you get a different conversation" when you ask the question "what sort of voice" does the EU want in the world.
At this stage opposition to Tony Blair seems, if anything, to be growing and if he stood he'd have a fight on his hands. He needs a big player to come out for him or he may decide this is a battle he can't win.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I didn't vote for any EU President.
If all goes 'to plan' we'll have another unelected leader lording it over us. Isn't the unelected (and never to be elected) Brown enough?
At least we'll be rid of Brown come the General Election.
How do we ever get rid of an unwanted EU El Presidente?
Complain about this comment
Selling Blair is an uphill battle, for sure.
But it is easier when you have a state broadcaster like the BBC and party faithful journalists who assist the cause by banging on and on about it.
Complain about this comment
"…At least we'll be rid of Brown come the General Election…"
We will have the chance. As for President of the European Council - we aren't even allowed into the polling station.
Complain about this comment
Mike Smithson on political betting says
"There’s a new survey out later [tonight] on the views of UK voters towards a 'President Blair'."
Complain about this comment
Peculiar question, really. "Do they want someone who can get a hearing at the White House or do they want someone who will build consensus within the European Union?". As if the one excludes the other. For Blair, yes, given the amount of real work he put into his job as "Middle East Peace Envoy". But somebody less stylish but of more substance could well build consensus within the European Union AND get a hearing at the White House. Given the amount of time a EU leader can spend in Washington, it should not be that difficult.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I'll go away again. I seem to have found another 'fringe' meeting.
Complain about this comment
We have had a clip from the Chairman of the European Parliament on Spanish Television saying that he favoured a woman for the job.
What is needed is someone with to ability to effectively chair the Council meetings - the rest - in my opinion, so much hot air.
The BBC has just reported agreement on opt-outs for the Czech Republic. Hopefully the Lisbon Treaty can at last come into effect. Perhaps we can now all leave Brussels to get on with the job they are paid for, administration and coordination of the European partnership of Sovereign States.
Complain about this comment
#1. At 8:30pm on 29 Oct 2009, MaxSceptic wrote:
"I didn't vote for any EU President."
You haven't voted for any UK Prime Minister either!...
Complain about this comment
Gavin you say:
At this stage opposition to Tony Blair seems, if anything, to be growing and if he stood he'd have a fight on his hands. He needs a big player to come out for him or he may decide this is a battle he can't win.
Good - Toneeee watch you botty on the door, on your way out.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm... depends what we mean by "someone who can get a hearing at the White House."
If we mean "someone who has rich experience of transatlantic sycophancy, even to the extent of bombing an urban civilian population" then Mr. Blair may indeed be the man for the job.
Hurrah!
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't like Blair as EU President. He represents one of the darkest episodes in recent European history over the Iraq war. Blair, go for contemplation or retreat in a ranch!
I would support though David Miliband as EU Foreign Affairs Minister. He is a young and fresh face, and he is a recognized Europhile.
Complain about this comment
"8. At 10:47pm on 29 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#1. At 8:30pm on 29 Oct 2009, MaxSceptic wrote:
"I didn't vote for any EU President."
You haven't voted for any UK Prime Minister either!..."
Or for the Queen...
and something particularly interesting:
"The weight of the British government was being thrown behind the former Labour prime minister."
Which weight? I thought in the EP most MEPs from Britain are now in groups or parties that don't want the EU...
So i doubt anyone will really care a lot what Mr. Brown wants - especially when this thing is making an Eurosceptic president of the EU
Complain about this comment
BBC is continuing its activity as an advertise bureau for the British government. It is surprising. It is also surprising that so many here accept it without a word.
Other media have been told by social democratic sources close to the matter in Bruxelles that the British PM is the only to really wanting Tony Blair as the EU president.
- It is about Blair’s position in the Iraq war, and also that he achieved very little in his period as chairman of the EU. Nothing happened, the source says.
The liberal Danish PM said: This is not the United States of Europe. We do not need a president like the American. It should be someone that can gather people.
In the meantime the social democrats have in reality left the decision to appoint a president to the conservative side. Instead they go the “foreign minister” appointment.
Finally, the sources say that Great Britain is opposing Jean-Claude Juncker. I think everybody can gather from BBC’s articles what it is the British government do not like about Juncker!
Complain about this comment
Here we go again, a country that doesn't want the EU, a country that continiously has only negative thoughts about the EU, a country that is not willing to be part of the EU permanently complaining about EUs policies ideas immigration rules, etc etc all the evil that happens in UK comes because we are part of EU, we have all the worst comments about the French and Germans, we the Greatest Nation in the world that only want to be with the Elite Americans we now fighting and want to have an English war criminal that needs to be in Hague with Milosevich, Bush and Karaditz we are so False and Two faced I feel sick in my guts, common lets stop idolising this horrible murderer and lock him up, not waste our time with comments lets forget the past and look forward with Blair.....IF Blair gets Elected I will vote BNP
Complain about this comment
The EU President is not President of the EU. The EU President is not like the US President. They are the representative of the national governments who meet around the table at the European Council. That is why the national governments choose who it is and we don't get a vote.
I'm all for more democracy in the EU, but this isn't the place for it. Don't let the word "president" (a translation of the French word which also means "Chairman") confuse you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Many have the idea that since the position of EU President is not as important as US President it is OK to elect a war criminal, a man that deceived a whole nation with lies, a man that took us to a war that we cant get out of, we lost so many good men, and the last moment he ditched and left the mess on someone else, my choice then should be Nick Griffin he is also a British Politician liked and voted (right or wrong)by nearly a million voters at least we will know who we sending to EU, Blair is a snake.
Complain about this comment
#16 and thebritisharefunny :
You have two points:
- in the long run, climate change is surely the issue that is far more important
and
- Climate change is about the future of the planet. It is an issue where isolated national action alone is pointless.
You are right about both, but I believe we will have to wait for Copenhagen to see what the decisions are.
Secondly: In mainland Europe the climate question is a key issue in the national discussions about EU politics. Is this not the case in the UK?
Complain about this comment
8. At 10:47pm on 29 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#1. At 8:30pm on 29 Oct 2009, MaxSceptic wrote:
"I didn't vote for any EU President."
You haven't voted for any UK Prime Minister either!...
.....or Head of State! Or just thinking about it Head of The Commonwealth and all it's national representatives.
But Balkenende! He's more of an accountant/nerd than a spokeperson for Europe. Besides his own country voices more discrimination against other nationalities than any other. The Benelux reasoning against Blair has been that no UK politician should be granted the post on the basis that the UK lies on the fringes of the EU since it's not in Schengen or the Euro or has any intention within the near future to do so.
I guess if Balkenende gets the job and is no longer the Prime Minister of Holland it may mean more of an opening for the popularist nutter, Wilders.
Complain about this comment
I hope that Mr Juncker become the EU-President, because among all that candidates, I regard him to be the better and more integrity than the others. Maybe this could bring a balance in that discussion on which even smaller member states would agree with.
No pitty for Mr Blair, because now he gets the bill for his "partnership" with George W. Bush. Since Mr Blair joined and followed him in that "partnership", Mr Blair lost contineously more and more popularity not alone by the British people, but also by the people within the whole EU. Neither would Mr Blair be welcomed if he would get the job of the EU Foreign Minister.
I think that politically, Mr Blair has finished. Reminding him to his policy to change the Labour Party into the "New Labour Party" by abandoning social democratic traditions and so giving up essentialities of the party roots, the Labour Party now has also to struggle with its policy, going back on the settled trend of Mr Blair. Although the British Labour Party isn´t alone in that mess, the other Social Democratic Parties in Europe, which tried to follow Mr Blair´s model, have more or less similary problems. Mr Brown can´t cope, by all efforts he might bring in to change it, these problems until the next general election in the UK.
Despite all that, I would welcome any British politician to take the EU Foreign Minister job, but no Mr Blair. I can´t believe that there wouldn´t be at least one or two capable candidates from the UK for this.
The bitter taste of all that is, that the EU-President will not be elected at least by the European Parliament, because in that case, he or she would have the most democratically entitlement for it. I hope that after the Lisbon treaty is enacted next year, the EU will shift closer to more power of the EP and become more democratic than bureaucratic as she is today, because this would increase the EU´s reputation at least a bit forward on the positive among the European people.
Complain about this comment
Brown's enthusiastic endorsement of Blair for Generalissimo seems to have had the usual 'Brown effect':
The BBC reports this morning 'Blow to Blair's hopes of EU job'.
I love seeing the anti-Midas touch at work.
Meanwhile freedom-loving people pin their last hopes on the Czech Constitutional Court...
Complain about this comment
21. At 09:54am on 30 Oct 2009, MaxSceptic wrote:
'Meanwhile freedom-loving people pin their last hopes on the Czech Constitutional Court...'
As a matter of fact, the Czech Constitutional court has already ruled on similar challenge of the ratification of the Treaty. And guess what? It ruled that the Treaty was not against the Czech Constitution. This time it would not even take a month to reach the decision- the ruling is expected on the 3 November.
Now that even President Klaus has been reported to have been 'satisfied' with the concessions he demanded, the 'freedom-loving' people should finally realise that they have lost. Funny though, how the 'freedom-loving people' put their hopes with a man whose biggest concern was to extract assurances that any claims by the ethnic Germans dispossessed after the end of WWII in Czechoslovakia, would not be allowed in his democratic country.
********************************
Accidentally, all the hysteria in Britain against the possible candidature of Blair for President is getting even more farcical. On one hand we have all the calls to 'lave the EU, before the French and Germans take over us' and on the other we want to have a say in who is to be a President. It will all end up with the situation where Blair will not be appointed because the EU countries do not like him, but this will be taken by a certain fraction as evidence that they ‘have won’. That would enable them to return to their pints of lager with the feeling of a job well-done, slap each other on the back and say ‘We showed them uppity Europeans once again, aye! It’s Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain all over again’. This will hopefully keep them out of the way while Britain remains in the EU where it belongs.
Complain about this comment
Here we go again! The Lisbon Treaty includes a mechanism for replacing the rotating national presidency with a semi-permanent official doing the same job of chairing council meetings and banging heads together when someone gets out of line. That, in itself, can be quite a powerful position.
The Lisbon Treaty does not create a post of president (of the EU, the Council or the Commission) with executive powers so it represents a further constitutional change which has not been mandated. No sooner have they pushed Lisbon through the Irish at a second attempt and even before the Czechs are on board, they are messing with it again.
It is time to be clear about this. EU enthusiasts such as myself are happy to engage with the sceptics and put are case but we should not be squeamish about being critical when it is appropriate. When EU leaders exceed their mandate, they perpetuate and reinforce the perception of the EU as undemocratic and bureaucratic and make it much more difficult to make the case for the wider project. Indeed, if they push their luck too far, they undermine it.
So if the Council wants to use the provision of Lisbon to replace 6 monthly cycles with permanent chairmanship, so be it - its in the paperwork. But if they are going to create a whole new power structure under the cover of a treaty which does not provide for it, they must seek a mandate.
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair as EU President.....not a chance!
The ex-prime minister of a country that continues to belittle the attempts of the EU; that sends MEPs to Brussels who only appear to use it as a stepping stone to the U.K. parliament; and a country that has rejected the Euro as its currency.
Get real!
Complain about this comment
#21 MaxSceptic
I just love the way the 'fringe' try to usurp that word Freedom. For some bizarre reason you seem to think that if you shout freedom and democracy long enough and loud enough we will actually start believing you.
In fact as far as I can see all you are doing is devaluing the two words by allying them with your, far from democratic or free, cause.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
I totally agree with you about the fact that we should criticise the EU where appropriate. I have a question for you, I am sure I have read somewhere that after this first choosing of the EU president the future choice would reside with a vote of the EP but I can't find confirmation of that.
I hope it is the case, the last thing that I would like to see ever is the kind of three ring circus they have in the US where they effectively take two years to choose a president spend vast sums of money and end up with a system that produces a George Bush twice.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn @22,
I don't like pints of lager (or bitter or ale...), but appreciate your condescending attitude nonetheless.
Now try to argue the issues.
T1m0thy @25,
If you are so confident of your premise then just grant us the 'freedom' of self-determination by way of a referendum on the Lisbon (aka Constitutional) Treaty. (France and the Netherlands were granted one. Ireland as well - twice!).
The Lisbon Treaty is another stretch in the road that leads to a federal, supra-national, super-state. It is self-amending, and does not need the consent of the citizens of the Member States to exceed and expand its powers (aka 'competencies' in EUrospeak).
Where's the democracy in that?
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the Latvian and Polish governments will support Miliband for EU high representative for foreign affairs after he has been accusing them of being homophobic and neo-nazi extremists all summer?
I also wonder why anyone takes Miliband foreign policy speeches of late seriously when he has been predicating his entire EU-centric approach on the need to counter the emergence of a informal "G2" (USA and China) with supposed hegemonic ambitions, when this concept has been rejected by the new US Administration and by Beijing in favour of the G20? And indeed when the UK foreign office also supported the creation of the G20 on the grounds that the old G8 was too exclusive and eurocentric?
Let's hope that everyone realises that Miliband's attacks on friendly governments, and his acute attack of EUrophilia in the dying days of a 13-year Labour government are not the work of a serious statesman, being instead the political equivalent of a death-bed conversion by someone desperately praying for an undeserved afterlife as EU high-representative of foreign affairs.
------------------
"Some say that world affairs will be managed solely by China and the US. I think that view is baseless and wrong. It is impossible for a couple of countries or a group of big powers to resolve all global issues", Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, speaking at China-EU summit, Prague May 20, 2009.
"The proposal by Larry Summers, former Clinton Treasury Secretary and now Obama’s top economic advisor and Director of the White House National Economic Council, of a multilateral approach with a new group (G20) larger than the G-7 rich countries ... moves in the opposite direction of the geopolitical call by Zbigniew Brzezinski for Washington and Beijing to set up a new informal Group of Two", Cui Tiankai (Chinese Ambassador to Japan)
Complain about this comment
How interesting that Germany and France do not support a UK candidate. When is Britian going to get it. The only and only way forward for Britian is to be in the absolute middle of Europe, split the French and German monopoly and gain the active support of many other countries in Europe that would like to see a more active Britian.
Who cares that it is Blair. This particular opportunity will not occur again. Dump the commonwealth, empire, US special relationship. These were relevant about 30 years ago. WW2 is pretty much forgotten.
Europe is by no means perfect but when is the UK going to learn that it is there, there to stay and get on with it.
Complain about this comment
How interesting that Germany and France do not support a UK candidate. When is Britian going to get it. The only and only way forward for Britian is to be in the absolute middle of Europe, split the French and German monopoly and gain the active support of many other countries in Europe that would like to see a more active Britian.
Who cares that it is Blair. This particular opportunity will not occur again. Dump the commonwealth, empire, US special relationship. These were relevant about 30 years ago.
Complain about this comment
29 30 britsineurope spam?
Complain about this comment
28Freeborn-John
"…he has been accusing them of being homophobic and neo-nazi extremists all summer?"
I expect he hopes they'll be bigger than this.
Complain about this comment
I don't suppose our political leaders give two hoots about what we, the ordinary people, think of all this, and they'll make their own minds up for their own reasons.
However, if any of them were curious about what ordinary people think, you can get a pretty good idea by looking at a couple of petitions that have sprung up. There are 2 petitions on the internet, that anyone can sign (you'll find them both easily enough through Google if you're interested), one of which supports Blair's presidency and the other of which opposes it.
The petition opposed to Blair as president has a little over 44,000 signatures.
The petition supporting Blair for president has 38 signatures.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @27,
Actually, the second part of my post #22 was not aimed at you. However, if you believe that it should be, then be my guest. Regarding addressing the issues- I already did. It turned out that the 'Champion of Free Europe' President Claus was nothing more than a local politician, following a rather narrow-minded agenda, completely out of tune with his self-proclaimed strive for democracy.
Freeborn-John @28,
I do not think that when Miliband mentioned G2, he meant that it would become a reality next year. All the rhetoric coming from Washington and Beijing against a China-USA group is just that- words. Who is to say that when the next US administration enters the White House the idea might start to appear not so ridiculous. What is important is the fact that such an idea has now been circulated around and given the right circumstances, it might turn out to be the best option for the nominees. Just because the Obama administration has chosen to put a stop on any discussion about that now, this does not imply that a tentative ground-preparation might not start, to be given a full go-ahead when required. Such an approach is especially evident in the recent decision not to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. The project got stopped, due to ‘reassessment’ of the perceived Iran threat. What did not get cancelled however, was the agreement signed by the Polish and Czechs to host US defence installations. When the US priorities get reassessed in 10 years time, the missiles in Poland might again become necessary. And their installation might just coincide with the first G2 summit.
Complain about this comment
23. At 10:52am on 30 Oct 2009, threnodio wrote:
....So if the Council wants to use the provision of Lisbon to replace 6 monthly cycles with permanent chairmanship, so be it - its in the paperwork. But if they are going to create a whole new power structure under the cover of a treaty which does not provide for it, they must seek a mandate.
*********************
There's the rub. Under Lisbon power is now available to make whatever changes they like without ever needing to seek a mandate. It's what they have been working for.
It's what they've got.
The thing about being a Eurosceptic is one tends to look in greater detail at what is being offered, rather than just accepting the 'It's good because we say its good' philosophy that Europhiles tend to employ.
One didn't need to look too hard at how desperately this Constitution/Treaty was wanted. The way the Earth was promised to those who had doubts. The way the populace of the European Countries were denied any say. The way a ballot for the one Country that had one was ignored because it got the wrong answer. The way the Irish were insulted by being told to go away and exercise your democratic right to come up with the result we tell you to come up with.
Legally binding clauses granting various exceptions or opt-outs to some Nations. But only legally binding under EU law which, with the advent of Lisbon, can now be altered to render those clauses no longer legally binding.
The EU is for politicians who are driven purely by power complexes verging on megalomania.
It is not for people. It is for politicians.
By hook or by crook, this had to happen. Nothing was to be allowed to derail it.
Complain about this comment
#29 britsineurope
While I totally agree with the rest of your comment I cannot agree with the Blair part. The man is a sociopath and making him president would give a huge swath of the world totally the wrong impression.
#27 MaxSceptic
I have stated on many of these blogs that I am opposed to the idea of referenda, they are a lousy way to run a country or any other organisation especially when the subject to be voted upon is very complex. Whilst I appreciate that you may want to change things so that you get your own way the constant stream of comments relating to the lack of democracy by you and the rest of your 'fringe' associates are nonsense. The democratically elected members of parliament of the UK voted to accept the Treaty of Lisbon it was a DEMOCRATIC vote. Ok, so you don't like it, but that doesn't make it any less democratic. Now get over it.
There are plenty of things wrong with the EU, that I accept, but your particular brand of Luddite behaviour is doing nothing to put that right. Try being positive for a change and pressuring your MEP about the changes, not trying to set the clock back.
Complain about this comment
Obama won the Nobel peace prize in large measure for just not being George Bush. Tony Blair went to great lengths to support and identify with Bush. He told Bush publicly that he would be able to help the U.S. in its relations with Europe. As everyone else in Europe thought the Iraq war was a rotten idea this was manifestly absurd. Blair's identification with the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East mean he will never be able to help bring peace there, though he can probably help the U.S. and Israel maintain their intransigence.
Blair is the worst possible choice for President of the EU, and Brown's vigorous support of him will reinforce the opposition of most of Western Europe to Britain's assuming a leadership role.
Complain about this comment
#35 Zydeco
'The thing about being a Eurosceptic is one tends to look in greater detail at what is being offered'
I agree, you spend so much time on the detail that you never see the big picture. Try giving us some REALISTIC scenarios for what GB inc is going to do to earn a living outside the EU. If you could avoid mentioning Norway, Iceland, or joining NAFTA it would be appreciated.
Complain about this comment
Tim wrote:
"I have stated on many of these blogs that I am opposed to the idea of referenda, they are a lousy way to run a country or any other organisation especially when the subject to be voted upon is very complex."
What experience have you had of living in a country ruled by referenda, Tim?
I appreciate your frank position. It is refreshing to hear someone come right out and say that they think the pubic should not be politically enfranchised, and that "experts" should make decisions and laws. I suppose a great many people think this, but very few openly say it.
Of course, logic suggests that the view is untenable. After all, you are just "some guy". If your theory that the "some guys" are not to be trusted holds, we must conclude that you probably don't know what you are talking about, and we should go off in search of a suitable expert, and listen to them.
Hence I ask you, what experience do you have of societies ruled by referenda systems?
My other question would be how ordinary stupid folk like myself can recognize an real expert when we encounter one.
Do they have titles such as "Lord" or "Baron"?
Are they appointed by political parties? Are they appointed by newspaper owners? Are the appointed by university staff who are in turn appointed by political parties and newspaper barons?
I suspect your desire for experts in complex matters is merely a show of loyalty to an entrenched class system which pervades all levels British intellectual society, but I stand willing to be corrected.
Complain about this comment
36. T1m0thy
"…The democratically elected members of parliament of the UK voted to accept the Treaty of Lisbon it was a DEMOCRATIC vote…"
They were democratically elected on the basis of a referendum offer on original content included in the Lisbon Treaty. As no referendum was held it beggars belief how anyone can claim, with a straight face, that the UK ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was democratic.
Complain about this comment
Why should the Euro President be a former Prime Minister/President of his/her country?
I would settle for someone with a lot of intelligence, historical knowledge especially about Europe and experienced in war situations and peace keeping.
I nominate Lord Ashdown who has a miltary and an intelligence background. His role in the Balkans was crucial with a finely balanced act between diplomacy and getting things done. A major drawback though, is he will not look the other way when corruption is about - the only reason he did not get the Afghanistan job, as Karzai only saw trouble.
Am a tory voter, not really pro Euroipe but I think he is the best man for the job and as the Americans say "he will kick a**" if it needs to be kicked.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn (34) said "I do not think that when Miliband mentioned G2, he meant that it would become a reality next year. All the rhetoric coming from Washington and Beijing against a China-USA group is just that- words."
It is not just words, because the G20 has actually been setup with full support from both the US and Chinese governments.
It is the G2 that is just words; words from someone (Zbigniew Brzezinski) who has not been part of a government since Jimmy Carter was in the White House, and words from Miliband desperately seeking to make himself look appealing to Continental leaders who can give him a job.
'Le Monde' has an article about Miliband's sudden conversion to feverish EU support with the headline 'too late', which rather suggests he is not convincing anyone in Paris.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"BBC is continuing its activity as an advertise bureau for the British government. It is surprising. It is also surprising that so many here accept it without a word."
It's awful, isn't it? Not just the shockingly partisan journalism, but also the general acceptance of it by the public.
To understand why the brits accept this sort of thing from journalists paid for by state, I think you have to understand the British class system. The british are born into a profoundly rigid class structure. They are taught that monarchy and hereditary political offices are entirely legitimate. Even to become a barrister, one must have connections and be invited to train at the bar by a private firm. There is no path to legal practice base purely on examination results.
So you are talking about a rigid and widespread class system within the legal community. That creates an undercurrent of militancy, which I perceive as present in the UK labour party. There is always an "Us against Them" flavour to british political life.
And as Orwell observed, this class system is not only enforced by the higher ranks. The lower classes also demand to know their place in society, and they defend their traditional territory with viciousness and crude intellectual sophistry.
So in this way, the UK is very different to the USA and to modern states like Germany, France and Russia. The intellectual freedom in the UK is restrained by class loyalties, and there are certain things one simply does not question, because these are part of the fabric of british culture.
You can see examples of both sides of the major class divide on this blog. We have Tim quite openly stating that the common people are not to be trusted and that referenda is a bad process for government. At the same time, you have the author of the blog shamelessly promoting a "working class hero" for higher political office, nevermind that his salary is paid for by the state.
It is a strange society, the UK. I don't mean to denigrate it completely, because there are also a lot of things about UK culture which are admirable and fine.
But at the end of the day, accent is extremely important in British society, and in the Uk you will find a very strange kind of socialist: one who does not believe they need to question the structure of the political economy in order to change the outcomes of the political process. Hence you get "Labour peers", and people like Lord Mendelson.
Is there any country on earth that can produce a specimen as peculiar as Lord Mendelson?
In any other society he would be considered an effeminate and refined snob, a self promoting elitist from a wealthy media family who honestly believes he was born to rule. But in the UK, he is a champion of the working class. He believes himself to be, without a hint of irony, a working class hero.
In the UK, Mathiesen, working class heros come from only the very best families.
Complain about this comment
#39 democracythreat
Try taking a good look at the state that the State of California has got itself into by the use of referenda. I suspect your whole statement is based on a total lack of comprehension of the way in which a Parliamentary Democracy is run. Referendums have never been part of the UK democratic system.
The system that says local people elect a local person who is known to them, whose judgment they respect to make decisions on their behalf has been of great service to the UK for the last couple of centuries. You for some reason, I really can't for the life of me think why, you would want to change that. Or maybe I can.
Referendums are just a populist get out by some elected politicians who don't want to take responsibility for their decisions.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy
I see that not only do you not have any interest that democracy should reflect the will of the people (#36), you also have no interest in asking fair questions (#38) because you asked for a reply only on YOUR OWN TERMS. Is there any end to your arrogance and false sense of superiority?
Zydeco's points in #38 were in fact well made and you dismissed them with one throw away meaningless comment "you spend so much time on the detail that you never see the big picture". Just what is the "big picture" - is it the latest blockbuster? Do enlighten us, if you can.
You demand answers to questions but have no grasp of the subject. The devil is in the detail as Zydeco pointed out but you show no ability to grasp that fact.
Complain about this comment
38. At 2:08pm on 30 Oct 2009, T1m0thy wrote:
#35 Zydeco
'The thing about being a Eurosceptic is one tends to look in greater detail at what is being offered'
I agree, you spend so much time on the detail that you never see the big picture. Try giving us some REALISTIC scenarios for what GB inc is going to do to earn a living outside the EU. If you could avoid mentioning Norway, Iceland, or joining NAFTA it would be appreciated.
***************************
OK, let's start by establishing that I was a supporter of Europe in its early days. It made a lot of sense to have a trading bloc with common ideals and a joint sense of purpose. My support remained until the political/federal element started to creep in.
I could even - at that time - forgive the fact that the books didn't balance and that MEPs were paid vast sums for little work.
Having come from a seafaring background, I was very concious of the effect that EU fishing policy had on the UK fishing industry and thus started my curiosity as to how this was fair. The wine lakes and butter mountains etc. only added to my doubts about the validity of the EU. Money, my money and other taxpayers money, was being wasted on some grand scheme that had no obvious purpose other than to make some rich at the expense of others.
When, over the years, the talk and emphasis seemed to digress from the trading/business element and concentrate more, if not solely, on the political side of things my scepticism kicked in. Suddenly I was hearing not about how to improve our trade, but how to combine our armies and set up a Presidential system in a State that would oversee more people than America and be a big World power. The megalomania was beginning to infect the politicians. It became addictive. It attracted people with 'dodgy' credentials.
Laws and systems were introduced that meant my Countries Government were no longer in charge of running some parts of our administration.
We were no longer masters of our own fate.
Its a shame. Europe in its original concept could and should have been good. If it had stuck to its purpose it would still have my support. In its present format, where National Governments will be subservient to its EU masters, I cannot find anything to recommend it.
To those who say accept the status quo and make it work, I say only this. It won't work. There are too many irreconcilable factors at work. Too many different cultures/traditions. Too much imbalance of resources. Too many people who want to be the 'Big I Am'
I do not support leaving the EU but want it to revert to its original trading bloc role and no more. Sadly this option doesn't exist.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat @39,
Ok, agreed. Let us start asking what people think on important issues. Before we go to a referendum on the Lisbon treaty I suggest a few referendums on the licensing of new medications in UK and the fiscal policy of the Bank of England. Those are important issues, which affect everyone of us, so we must be given our say.
Then we can sort out the Lisbon Treaty.
****************************
The whole scenario above was meant to show that although calling for the public to be given the right to express their opinion on certain issues might sound noble, it is not necessarily something which could be applied to practice in every situation. It is clear in the above two hypothetical scenarios who the 'experts' you mention are, and evrybody seems happy to leave the decision-making to them. And rightly so.
Complain about this comment
#41 excellentcatblogger
An excellent suggestion.
Complain about this comment
#41:
Totally agree. I think Ashdown would be very well qualified for the job.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy wrote:
#39 democracythreat
"Try taking a good look at the state that the State of California has got itself into by the use of referenda."
With respect, I did not ask you for things you have "looked at". I asked what experience you have of living under such systems.
I will take it that you have none. Nevertheless, you feel well placed to make judgement on them.
However, putting aside your total lack of practical knowledge (which is curious coming from the man who advocates only expert decision making) if we are to look at the great state of California, what are we to say?
What is the terrible state it has got itself into?
California has the fifth largest economy on earth. California has been creating and exporting the highest levels of technology on the planet for 40 years. California is a world leader in environmentalism, minority rights and human rights activism.
The rest of the world looks to California for its entertainment and news.
However you would have us believe that California is some kind of failed state, just because the GOVERNMENT is being denied tax revenue by the people.
You position is ridiculous, sir. It is untenable, and it is trite. You have taken some recent sound bites from the media, and you have then tried to make the case that California is a model of a failed state.
California, like Switzerland, is a first class example of the power of real democracy pursued through the process of direct referenda on the law. Yes, the media and the government are squealing like mad that California is being "crippled" by the people denying tax revenue to the state. But that is precisely what one would expect to hear from the government and the media who feed so heavily on government contracts.
The Californian model is indeed a terror for party members, because in California the government cannot just keep taking money from the people and spending it as they see fit.
You then go on to tell me:
"I suspect your whole statement is based on a total lack of comprehension of the way in which a Parliamentary Democracy is run. Referendums have never been part of the UK democratic system."
That suspicion is breathtakingly arrogant, and I leave to our peers on this blog to judge the matter.
You continue:
"The system that says local people elect a local person who is known to them, whose judgment they respect to make decisions on their behalf has been of great service to the UK for the last couple of centuries."
What do you mean "whose judgement they respect"? How would you know?
It is a bare faced fact that people who go to the polls in the UK are faced with a choice between party members who they don't know, and who they generally do not trust. If you think the majority of folks "respect" the options they are given by the parties at election time, I feel you are living in complete delusion.
Politicians rank lower than lawyers, taxi drivers and criminals in most surveys of public "respect". You make this claim that people respect politicians based on the fact that they elect them. But the political economy doesn't give them any choice. The people have to choose a party member to represent them, so they choose the least worst option.
This is precisely how the soviet union operated, and your arguments in favour of British "democracy" are just as valid defending Stalin as they are defending the British PM. Or the EU, for that matter.
You conclusion is vapid and nonsensical, and betrays a lack of knowledge that sits in conformity with your lack of respect for your peers:
"Referendums are just a populist get out by some elected politicians who don't want to take responsibility for their decisions."
You would not know, sir, because you have not lived under such a system by your own admission. I suggest you listen more, write less, and exercise some humility. Perhaps some of the "respect" you hold for official party members might be distributed to the common folk on this blog, and thus the shining white light of your intellect might dazzle more and blind less.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad I'm getting to some of the 'fringe' at last because I find your overweaning arrogance unbelievable. You want a referendum because you think you might just manage to blur the edges sufficiently and with the aid of your totally unelected friends in NewsCorp might frighten enough of the British public to vote NO.
I notice that you still haven't answered the question I have repeated time and time again. If you take GB out of the EU how will it's citizens make a living?
As a last question for you since you are so concerned with everyone's democratic rights. This referendum you want so badly. Is it to held UK wide? Is it to be binding all all the elements of the UK? If the Scots all vote Yes to the Treaty will you accept that they can leave the UK and take their oil with them?
The democratic system of the UK is in serious trouble but it's not because of the EU, it's because it has been subverted by party politics, the executive has too much power and the media are totally irresponsible. The UK has needed proportionate representation for years I don't see any of you fighting for that. I note some of you of the 'fringe' attacking the BBC. I also note that you don't mention the works of NewsCorp at all.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn wrote:
"It is clear in the above two hypothetical scenarios who the 'experts' you mention are, and evrybody seems happy to leave the decision-making to them. And rightly so."
Are you joking?
You decide to choose tow areas where the public are bound to do worse than the experts, and you choose medicine and banking??????
I will ask again, are you serious?
Have you been watching the news recently, or living on mars?
It must have escaped your attention, but the banking has been so well managed by the experts that it went completely broke and took the rest of the economy with it. In fact, the public had to pay for the banking system to continue.
And yet you dare to suggest the public are too stupid to understand how to vote on fiscal policy!
Your hubris is breathtaking. Call me old fashioned, but if a chap comes to me and BEGS for money so he can live, I generally take offense at the idea that I am not well placed to advise him on his fiscal policy.
Let us get one thing clear, Isenhorn: The bankers in the UK live by the charity of the taxpayer. That is a fact, not a political position or an expert opinion. As recipients of charity, the banking class should not be held up as experts on anything, much less fiscal policy.
You other example was medicine. Again, I am unable to understand the arrogance required to claim that the medical community in the UK is beyond censure from the public. The NHS may or may not be a good thing, but to suggest that it is run by competent experts who cannot afford to be audited by public opinion is, once more, a case of the beggar telling the rich man how to live.
Your position on both these issues highlights the profound indignity of the class system in the UK, and the growing corporate class system in the USA and elsewhere.
The despised public are treated as fools AT THE SAME TIME as they are being made to pay for the experiments and lifestyles of party members and self proclaimed "experts" from "good families".
If people want to declare themselves experts, fine. If people want to make expert decisions about their own affairs, great.
But don't tell me that I am too stupid to question the decisions of experts when those experts are spending my money AND LOSING IT. If the public must pay for the government, let the public audit the government. Anything less is a fundamental breach of solid fiscal law and reasoning, and a useful explanation of why some states prosper whilst other languish.
Complain about this comment
#50 Democracythreat
I'm not even going to justify that rant with an answer. You clearly have too much time on your hands. Some of us have to make a living.
Or do you make a living being a pollster? You seem to have a very high regard for them.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
#38 T1m0thy
You wrote
"Try giving us some REALISTIC scenarios for what GB inc is going to do to earn a living outside the EU. If you could avoid mentioning Norway, Iceland, or joining NAFTA it would be appreciated."
We exist in a deficit situation so, pray tell me how YOU bleieve we make a living today within the glorious EU?
We are immediately better off out by virtue of the fact that we don't have to pay the annual entry fee, which amounts to some billions each year.
Complain about this comment
Tim, I think you will find a closer reading of the blog entries will repay dividends. You comments at 51. are less than reasonable.
I feel you have some legitimate views on the state of the debate over the EU. I, and others here, share your frustration with folks who denigrate the EU in favour of the current farce of UK politics. When i look at the way government operates in the UK, I hesitate to say the EU is worse.
But just so, the deplorable state of the UK political economy is no justification for an EU that is based on more or less the same model.
You raise the issue of News Corp vs the BBC, and I think you are absolutely correct to do so. It is correct that most people who criticize one do not bother to apply the same standards of criticism to the other.
The effect that the business of the mass media has upon the political process within a state is precisely the study of the political economy, and I congratulate you for giving it some thought. Most people do not bother, and simply choose to support either the state broadcaster OR the private news media, like football teams or religious factions.
Given your interest in the political economy of Europe and the UK, I can only suggest that you take steps to educate yourself further on the way in which direct democracy affects the concentrated power of both socialist political parties AND the same concentrated power that oftentimes falls into the hands of the media barons.
It may interest you to note that Rupert Murdoch had a bust of Lenin on his desk at University, and that he was considered a radical leftist by the establishment for the first twenty years of his professional life.
It may interest you further to know that Lenin himself was in the newspaper business, and if you read the correspondence he wrote whilst living in Switzerland, you will find a man whose prime concern in life was, like Murdochs', making sure the revenue of the newspaper publishing business he ran was properly managed.
The issue is not whether one or two referenda might be a good thing at the present time. It is rather whether the public should have a power of veto over the legislation put forward by the government of the day.
I put it to you that unless the public have this power of veto, via the right to referenda on demand, then the society will inevitably evolve to towards a system of concentrated political power in the hands of the pamphleteers.
I doubt anybody on this blog could tell you how much EU funding goes directly into the hands of which media corporations and their shareholders, despite the fact that the sum of money involved must be truly vast. At the same time, I doubt anybody could tell you which of the private media corporations devote how much column space to which candidates from which political parties.
Whilst that is true, I don't think we have begun to scratch the surface of the real debate over the structure of the political economy of Europe.
Complain about this comment
#43 Democracy Threat
#44 T1m0thy
The German constitution does not allow for referenda. Germany got some bad experiences with referenda during the Nazi period, and that is probably the reason why it is now not possible now, - but the citizens can demand a vote in concrete matters, and we have had such referenda in Berlin a few times.
A referendum is a conservative institution, people are likely to vote no. That is what Ireland, Norway, and Denmark have experienced twice, and France, Holland and perhaps also Sweden once. The problem for Denmark is that any change of the constitution itself must be approved through a referendum, and the politicians are afraid of this institution. The result has been a constitution that is not updated (contrary to Germany), and written in a language of the 19th century many people do not understand now.
It is not difficult to understand why politicians avoid referenda.
Complain about this comment
"How interesting that Germany and France do not support a UK candidate. When is Britian going to get it. The only and only way forward for Britian is to be in the absolute middle of Europe, split the French and German monopoly and gain the active support of many other countries in Europe that would like to see a more active Britian."
We don't support Blair as he is extremely unpopulare for his war mongering and his anti EU attitude. Does that make us anti Bristish? NO, just anti Blair. You seem to fail seeing the difference between those two.
"This particular opportunity will not occur again."
Wrong again - presidency terms will only be 2.5 years. If there happens to be someone more likeable from Britain applying for the job go ahead.
Complain about this comment
#56 democracythreat
I accept the implied olive branch and will comment early tomorrow I am an hour ahead of you over here and dinner beckons.
Please note my comments about Scotland are all too real many Scots see a referendum as a perfect way to take Scotland out of the UK and to take #their# oil with them.
Complain about this comment
#26 - T1m0thy
My understanding is that the EP elects the president of the Commission but the Council will select its own president.
Complain about this comment
#59 - T1m0thy
". . . I am an hour ahead of you over here . . . "
We are light years ahead over here.
Complain about this comment
#58 Seraphim85
We have already had one very good suggestion Paddy Ashdown. Possibly not very well known in Europe but then ,maybe he is because of his work in Bosnia.
Complain about this comment
Actually, some media are mentioning Mr. Miliband as a possible foreign minister of the EU. You will have to understand what the political play is, but I admit this is not a topic we can read much about here. Miliband goes well into the pattern: A conservative president from a smaller country in the centre of the union, and a social democrat from a large country.
Complain about this comment
mathiesen wrote:
"A referendum is a conservative institution, people are likely to vote no."
This is correct, from my understanding.(Isenhorn is wrong to suggest that I have not lived under a system of direct democracy. In fact I currently live in Switzerland and have done for the past 8 years or so.)
The Swiss have a long history of voting directly on law, and the general trend is that they vote "no" to change. Not always, but generally speaking it is the trend. And certainly with regard schemes that are sponsored by corporations for the sake of enriching or empowering corporations at the expense of the taxpayer.
That function seems to me the great benefit of political emancipation: not that the wise people are empowered to make wise laws, but rather that the fearful people can prevent special business interests concentrating political and fiscal power into the hands of political parties, and thereby prevent the natural evolution of power into more concentrated forms.
If one believes that concentrated power is a bad thing (the cornerstone of the separation of powers doctrine that underlines traditional English constitutional law), then any form of government which prevents the concentration of power is desirable. Hence we applaud an independent judiciary, and an independent press. (Hello gavin, say hi to Tony for me) And we lament the infiltration of these institutions by political parties who, from time to time, operate purely self serving economic models.
This is why the referenda that were held on the Lisbon treaty were so destructive towards good governance. The fact that the people were asked again and again, until they gave the desired answer, completely destroyed the potential useful function of referenda, which is to negate spurious law and policy. And people perceived the cynical and ultimately disgusting process for what it was, without needing to have studied constitutional law. It is inherently unfair and dishonest to keep asking the same question again and again until you get the answer you want. A five year old child can understand that.
It must be acknowledged (by people like me) that referenda have a role to play in governance, but that they are not a magic cure all. There is still a valid role for politicians who draft progressive legislation. There is still a valid role for political parties who encourage and focus meaningful and complex debate.
The question, it seems to me, is whether these powers evolve to suffocate liberty by overbalancing the political system in their own favour, or whether the structure of the political economy is such that the constitutional principles which govern the governors allow the people to veto concentrations of power, and to "reset" the balance of power across the spectrum of political activities.
I find it curious that Obama was elected on a platform of "Change we can believe in." and further that he constantly preached about the evolution of undue influence by corporate lobbyiests in Washington. I find it curious because Obama is and always has been the pet of the financial sector and Wall street, but also because this message resonated widely and heavily, across all party lines.
It is a fact that there are 5 registered financial lobbyiests in Washington for every Senator. That figure is worth some reflection. It is a lot of manpower for a highly questionable purpose, and if one is serious about analyzing the structure of a political economy, it is not something that can be ignored. This is the cancer growing inside the beast, the raw and material evidence of system that has evolved into a completely different form than its purpose demands.
Who here knows how many political lobbyiests haunt Brussells? Or London? Or Berlin?
And to waffle on some more, I would say that this idea that the common people are too stupid to regulate the legislation proposed by their political rulers..... this is another visceral form of the cancer that eats away at the effectiveness of representative democracy.
People only believe this sort of class based nonsense when it is futile and degrading to believe otherwise, or if they are sociopaths. Accepting that the masses are to be denied intellectual dignity and political emancipation from theologically driven caste systems is a form of "Getting over it."
Anyway, the thread continues. Thanks for the debate.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy,
Ever shriller comments and invective are not convincing arguments.
I love the comment "...the [UK] media are totally irresponsible". what do you expect them to do, say "zu Befehl!", click their heels and give a nice EUropean salute?
Complain about this comment
62. At 7:03pm on 30 Oct 2009, T1m0thy wrote:
We have already had one very good suggestion Paddy Ashdown. Possibly not very well known in Europe but then ,maybe he is because of his work in Bosnia.
Then maybe Gordon Brown and the BBC should support him instead of wasting their resosurces on Tony Blair (and no I haven't heard of Ashdown)
Complain about this comment
"Iraq remains an issue. I asked Gordon Brown what he would say to other leaders when they raised the question of Tony Blair's involvement in the war in Iraq. The prime minister said he would tell them that this job was about the future and not the past."
....absolutely pathetic. Cringingly stupid logic.
Can I be EU President? I've done nothing so far but who cares? The past doesn't matter.
Complain about this comment
Europe needs a President that has the qualities of being a consensus person. He/She has to believe in a United Europe no simply an academic believe. The first European President will have at hand a very important task. That is reconverting Europe from a bureaucratic jungle to an effective administration led by a Europe believer President. Simply being a good media performer is not enough. I am afraid Mr Blair is a good media performer but he has little else.
Complain about this comment
67. bgolden
"...The past doesn't matter..."
It has a habit of catching up.
There is an old saying; the Irish remember everything, the British remember nothing.
Complain about this comment
#65 Maxsceptic
"I love the comment "...the [UK] media are totally irresponsible". what do you expect them to do, say "zu Befehl!", click their heels and give a nice EUropean salute?"
Interesting use of racial stereotypes and, I find, very revealing. At least we know now where you are coming from.
Complain about this comment
I cannot imagine anyone in Europe giving support to Blair. However, it is deplorable that his compatriot David Cameron refused this week to endorse the Blair's candidacy. Moreover, the big picture of UK role in the EU, especially over the Lisbon Treaty, is embarrasing. Do not get surprised, dear Brits, if you have no support at all inside the club. You do not even have the ex friends from Scandinavia or the Netherlands. Hang on, you still count with Latvia.
Complain about this comment
"If you take GB out of the EU how will it's citizens make a living?" (T1m0thy, 51)
Please could you expand on this - I don't understand the point you're making. Its citizens would earn a living the same way they do now - by providing goods and services that other people (mainly in the UK itself) wish to buy - everything from retailing to refuse collection to kicking a ball on a football pitch. That's the key to prosperity for a country just as it is for an individual.
It's true that we have a lot of weaknesses in our economy. But as far as I can see many of these are due to cultural attitudes that wouldn't be affected by decisions in either direction (in or out) on the EU. They include things like a shortage of entrepreneurship, a belief that one is owed a living rather than having to work for it, and in many people a lack of enthusiasm for work itself (which shows itself in poor customer service). I can't see how deeper integration of the UK into the EU would solve any of these problems. If anything it would reinforce them, because those cultural attitudes are not too dissimilar to the EU mindset, with its emphasis on "protection" of employment by legislation rather than enhancing the inherent value of the labour itself. Just how well the EU (specifically the Eurozone) is actually protecting employment is shown here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8333841.stm
So those who say that large numbers of jobs are dependent on EU membership need to think very carefully about the implications of what they're saying. The main implication seems to be that those jobs depend on membership of a cosy cartel rather than the inherent value of the resultant goods and services. If so, that's a dangerous position to be in. Sooner or later, market forces will prevail.
Complain about this comment
To CornwallCoastPath (72):
The membership in the EU gives you two very important things, the single market and the single currency. The single market and the single currency both lower transaction costs and decrease risks on doing business in the market of 500 million people. In addition the single currency as it takes the same place as the US dollar as currency of commodity trading and trading in overall, it will remove all currency related risks from European importers and exporters as everything is traded using Euros. In addition to this, Euro countries have the same benefit as the US, in essence ability to externalize inflation, in another words ability to print money with impunity.
Then there is of course benefits on having a single voice against both US and China which don't like to play with straight rule sets. And no, WTO is more or less useless, if US wants to brake WTO rules, and you don't have backing of large block, then you nothing you can do. It doesn't matter if your products and services are best of the breed and wanted if your competitors gets large subsidies or you get hackled by US or Chinese authorities.
Also in case of unemployment, what you don't take in to account is that both UK and USA have too high unemployment, albeit it is lower than in the Eurozone or in the EU is because both countries have subsidized their industries by lowering the external value of their currencies by printing large amounts of money that has been used to fuel local consumption and thus keep the economy going. The thing is that sooner or later that printing of money will come back hounding with higher inflation that will wreck havoc in the economy. The Eurozone and the EU at large have choses instead of inflating their currencies to suffer more now and suffer less later.
Complain about this comment
71. betuli
"...However, it is deplorable that his compatriot David Cameron refused this week to endorse the Blair's candidacy..."
What was the leader of the opposition to do? A one party state is my idea of hell.
Complain about this comment
73. Jukka_Rohila
"...The membership in the EU gives you two very important things, the single market and the single currency..."
And the EU is the only possible way to deliver this?
Complain about this comment
To rg (75):
Be my guest and propose a better way to deliver these than the EU, but please also do back up you proposition and take into account its effects and working login on the market of 500 million people and on how Europe interacts with the global economy and other global economic entities.
Complain about this comment
#72 CornwallCoastPath
At the risk of upsetting my host country I have to take issue with your comments about standards of service in the UK. Compared to France UK service standards are sky high, the French do not know how to deal with a complaint, they firstly try to bluster then all hide behind each other. If you are dealing with a civil servant (a functionnaire) on the phone they will never give you their name or a reference. Britain is heaven by comparison.
I also think you are very derogatory with regard to British entrepreneurial achievements. There are plenty of good businesses in the UK and many of them trade in Europe.
With regard to loss of jobs, the UK is still a major motor manufacturer the only thing being of course that all those car plants are owned by Japanese or Indian companies and they are there for one reason, Britain being a member of the EU. Pull Britain out of the EU and wave good bye to those jobs. I wonder how many of those unemployed will thank you for your efforts in protecting your so called democracy. There are many other based foreign owned operations that would suffer the same fate,
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy@70
It's a 'political' stereotype, actually. And a very appropriate one to the kind of regimented and deferential society that our political elites would like us to become.
It will all end in tears. Or worse.
Complain about this comment
# 75
- and a foreign policy, if I may say it, but the member states are of course quite ambivalent towards this. Not the member states but the rest of the world is therefore the driving force behind a coordinated EU foreign policy.
That is clear to everybody except those, who prefer to close their eyes.
Complain about this comment
Other models are available e.g. the Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium-Luxembourg_Economic_Union "Under the terms of the treaty [25 July 1921], the economic frontier was lifted and the Belgian franc and Luxembourgian franc were set at a fixed parity (though revised in 1935 and 1944)."
I could go on, the wonderful world of the Internet is open to all to explore possible alternative means of achieving "the single market and the single currency".
As for "a better way" – that would depend on what sort of 'union' we wanted. All I'm saying is that the EU is not the only possible way of achieving the above aim.
Complain about this comment
This faith in the benefits of a single currency is curious.
Today Ron Paul is reported as advocating a repeal of the laws which allow central banks to operate.
He wants to repeal the law which demands that merchants accept "legal tender", thus allowing them to reject it if they feel it has been devalued by government.
He also wants to repeal laws which prohibit private mints. That is to say, he sees no reason why privately minted coins of silver and gold should not compete with central bank currency in the marketplace.
His reasoning is that the laws of currency control that allow central banking to operate have driven a false debt culture to thrive, to the point of imperiling the entire US economy.
He argues that the USA became a superpower on the back of the ... well, the greenback. NOT the US dollar issued by the federal reserve. I would suggest he has an historical point.
Arguably Europe also became a center of world economic power due to decentralized banking and fiscal policy.
But these days the conventional wisdom is that "WE MUST BE CENTRALIZED TO COMPETE WITH OTHER HIGHLY CENTRALIZED POWERS".
I feel this truism is based more in faith than in reason, but I am interested in what others think about it.
Why can't we have private mints? Why must a central bank control everyone's fiscal future?
Most especially, why is it that the economic laws linking competition and quality of production seem to apply to all service industries except the provision of currency within highly centralized regimes?
Complain about this comment
To rg (80):
So in essence you propose to form a deeper EU to replace the EU? You see the Belgium-Luxembour Economic Union spanned the union of Benelux which resembles much what the EU is but in many points goes deeper than the EU does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux
You might also want to note that when Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union was created the world was still using Gold standard and not fiat currencies as we have been doing since the brake up of the Bretton-Woods. Trade was also much more restricted with high tariffs and straightforward bans in imports.
The situation has changed much from the 20s, you can't in any seriousness propose something that barely worked in a small setting in totally different conditions.
And to the better way, better way is that way which gives more economic growth, higher GDP per capita in both medium and in long period. If you make a proposal, start to count on how it will show and why it will show in the GDP per capita figures.
Complain about this comment
To democracythreat (81):
Economy isn't the strong point of Ron Paul.
The US became a superpower and the US dollar took the place of the leading reserve currency of in the world because of two reasons:
1) After WW2 US was the leading producer of virtually anything. By exchanging goods imported to the USA to US dollars, you could buy anything that was in offer. As everybody was trading with the US, and taking US dollars, that were changeable to US manufactured goods, it became beneficial to all to trade in US dollars.
2) Before the WW2 US was already the single biggest producer of oil in the world. That oil was priced in US dollars, if you wanted to buy oil, you had to have US dollars, and the only way to get them would be to exchange goods to dollars.
After the fall of Bretton Woods and fall of relative share of US manufacturing output in the world, the reason for US dollar being the leading reserve currency has been that oil has been priced in US dollars thanks to the alliance of USA and Saudi-Arabia, i.e. Saudis trade oil in dollars and US gives security to the regime in power. In time the Saudis became prisoners of this alliance and are now prisoners of their golden cage: moving away from the US dollar will cause the collapse of not only their regime but also their financial assets witch largely are US treasury bonds.
What is happening in the USA right now is the market going back into equilibrium. For almost 50 years European countries haven't had the share of reserve currencies that according to their productive output would have belonged to them. What we are in essence are saying is the fixing of markets and after markets have fixed, the two world currencies will be the US dollar and the Euro. In essence, markets are working as markets should do.
Now you asked why can't we have private mints? Well of course you can, but the problem is that why should anybody exchange their assets against money issued by you? Now if you say that you are going to say that you will be offering gold, then the problem is that economy and exchange based gold can only increase the amount of new gold that is introduced in markets. In essence you shackle markets. Also if there would be no single currency, the transaction costs would go up to the roof and transaction risks would also increase and these two would both decrease amount of economic exchanges taking place. Then there is of course the last thing, states have monopoly to organized violence, thus any other currency issued by private holders would always have risk on authorities taking it over and it becoming worthless in overnight.
To your last question, on why there is no competition and quality of production in provision of currency, I have to just say that there is. You can choose between USd, Euro, Yen, Yuan, different commodities etc... The thing is that instead of private companies we hate USA Inc. and EU AG doing it.
Complain about this comment
79. Mathiasen
"...and a foreign policy..."
Now we lurch towards a UK model which delivers one foreign policy. Are the peoples of Europe ready (and more importantly willing) for this?
I could be wrong, though I doubt that this is the case. Should they be dragooned down such a road 'for their own good'?
Complain about this comment
82. Jukka_Rohila
"...If you make a proposal, start to count on how it will show and why it will show in the GDP per capita figures..."
If you remember the original postulation was that the EU delivered "the single market and the single currency".
As for "show in the GDP per capita figures" I'll be honest with you I'm not sure what you mean yet alone how to demonstrate this. The only point I have tried to make is that there are alternatives to the EU way of doing things.
If GDP growth is your objective then perhaps look to the Chinese model. Is that what we want? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8319706.stm Always keep an open mind. Just because we have the EU today doesn't mean we have to live with it tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
To rg (85):
The GDP growth rate decreases as more higher GDP per capita you have. In essence, when you have nothing and start just working, you have incredible high growth rates, but when you already work very hard and efficiently it becomes more and more harder to find new ways to work harder and more efficiently. I would also add that GDP per capita growth rate is the figure you want to concentrate, as simple increase of population fuels GDP growth, which has been the driving force around US for quite some time: the GDP goes up, but the GDP per capita stays put or goes down.
In case of showing it in the GDP per capita figures, that is simple. You have a proposition, then just start to think on how it impacts production and exchanges taking in place. For example having an EU wide competition authority increases economic output as it prevents cartels, monopolies and anti-competitive actions thus increasing competition and thus increasing productive output. Another example could be the single currency that decreases costs of doing business, as you don't have to exchange currencies and you don't have to take insurances against currency risks, thus lowering overhead in economy, thus having more resources to invest into production. Remember everybody not doing productive work is overhead.
In case of alternatives, you didn't offer an alternative model. If there are alternatives then you bring them forward and apply them to the setting of 500 million people, to the leading economy of the world and to the current socio political and geopolitical situation in the world.
Complain about this comment
#81 democracythreat
I will answer your #56 a little later. in the meantime I now understand where you are coming from. You quote Ron Paul no less, ultra right wing 'so called' Libertarian from the good old state of Texas and George W Bush. You live in Switzerland and you approve of wealthy Californians setting up referenda (propositions) to limit how much tax they pay.
That's fine, now we all have a clear view on where you are coming from. For the record I live in California for about two months of the year and although it is still a good place to live for the wealthy it's not so much fun for those on lower incomes, and I'm not talking about those on welfare. As a small point it is not the world's fifth largest economy it's either 7th or 8th depending whether you rate the EU as an economy. Still impressive though for 40 million people.
Complain about this comment
86. At 1:28pm on 31 Oct 2009, Jukka_Rohila
"...In case of alternatives, you didn't offer an alternative model..."
I've offered three; Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union, UK and China.
All of these offer a "single market and single currency". Clearly this is not an EU USP.
Complain about this comment
To rg (88):
You haven't really...
China and UK are highly unified states. What you are suggesting that we will form is an European super state where all power is to be centralized, and language and cultural minorities are purged and assimilated into the majority.
Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union spanned Benelux union, thus you are suggesting replacing EU with even deeper Union.
Complain about this comment
I heard good Swiss joke today:
A french child, an Italian child and a Swiss child are in the playground, discussing the likely origin of babies.
The french child suggests proudly "Babies in France are delivered by storks."
The Italian child turns his palms upwards and shrugs "In Italy, the parents go to the hospital and buy the child they like."
The Swiss child pauses for a moment, frowns, and then says "I would like to tell you how it is done, but in Switzerland every canton has different rules."
It is funny if you live here, anyways.
Complain about this comment
Thank for the comments at 83, Jukka. Very interesting.
So... do you think central banks are desirable or not?
I find it curious that the left are out in force claiming that deregulated markets caused the latest economic crisis, whereas the right tend to argue the opposite: That it is precisely the phoney market established by the central banks which has brought us to ruin. Had the market been left to operate without the bankers interfering, it would not have crashed. Or if it would have crashed, it would not have been so bad.
For myself, I guess I don't really understand it. I am more concerned with rights and liberty than with efficiency and profit. I would rather see a free man with a cow and a mud hut than a slave driving a mercedes and an air conditioner.
Hey tim, that is where "I AM COMING FROM". Got it?
Now you can preen yourself with that secret intelligence, and make snide comments that hint at petty pschoanalyses.
Complain about this comment
# 91 democracythreat
Oh and I suppose throwing in the name Ron Paul as some sort of divine authority was supposed to impress us all. The rights and liberty that you espouse, if they are the same as those of Mr Paul, are the rights of the very rich to get much richer and not to pay taxes.
He and the rest of the US right are probably laughing their collective head off at the attempts by Obama to put right the years of lunacy created by GWB who was very much the creation of Ron Paul and his cohorts. They, the very rich, won't pay a penny, they have lots of lawyers and accountants to ensure that. We, that's the tax paying part of the population, will of course be paying for about the next three generations.
Complain about this comment
To democracythreat (91):
Central banks and fiat money are mandatory for our modern economy to work, so yes, they both are desirable.
In my honest opinion this current crisis isn't really about economy so much as mistaken political and societal decisions largely in the USA.
1) George W. Bush entered the office and made huge tax cuts that largely benefited wealthy and were made in basis of Trickle down economics. These cuts were funded not by decreasing costs of the government, but by just taking more debt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
2) After 9/11 both the Federal government and the Federal Reserve panicked and flooded the markets with cheap money. Do remember that US and the globe just had boom years of dot.com and mobile technology booms. While in 2000 the economy was still going, 2001 it was already starting to slow down, and 2002 and 2003 were not so happy times. By flooding the markets with cheap money the Fed and the US government tried to prevent the markets going into a deep recession.
3) The US started wars in both Afghanistan and later in Iraq which all took money away from the coffers, but again increase in spending was not handled by increasing taxes or decreasing other state spending, but by taking more debt.
4) All this time the Fed kept interest rates very low to both keep the economy going but also to support the political goals of the state.
5) In these times, the rate of pressing money went all overboard of what would have been the normal rate of externalizing inflation. The thing is that Feds not only printed money, but printed money by issuing US treasury bonds that the Saudis and Chinese bought and this money went to buying both oil and goods from all over the globe.
What we are now seeing is that the means to prolong on having a recession have went to and end. The deprecation of assets inside the USA have been a one thing and the other thing been the deprecation of the external value of the US dollar.
So, in short, this current depression is the fault of having false policies in the USA for far too long. Central bank is only a one part of this equation, the bigger problem in the USA has been that the political and economical elite have for long been drifting into extremes regarding economy and economic policies because they just don't anymore have any view to the real production and to the real workings of the economy.
PS. I neither have cow nor Mercedes, I neither am free man nor a slave. Reality blows.
I can understand that for you and many others rights and freedoms come first, that is respectable, but the thing is that our production and manufacturing infrastructure is what makes our lives comfortable and livable. You see, the more we produce, and the more efficient we are, the more food, housing, medicine, education, opportunities, entertainment, etc... that we all have.
Complain about this comment
#56 Democracythreat
"When i look at the way government operates in the UK, I hesitate to say the EU is worse."
This is my feeling completely and my frustration with the die hard members of the 'fringe' is that they are completely negative in their actions. They cannnot be positive only negative. However much they protest the Lisbon Treaty is here and we have to get on with our lives. The UK political scene needs some urgent reform. I would suggest the principal of having lived in an area for more than 10 years before you can be an MP for that area would be a start. Decreasing or removing the power of the whips to allow free voting. Proportionate representation for the election of MP's and some sort of right of a local electorate to hold mid term referendums to remove a poorly performing MP. There you go I even suggest a referendum.
I have read what you say about Rupert Murdoch's early political leanings but feel that his current apolitical 'what's in it for Rupert' views are of more real concern. It would be simple to stop him. All we need is a piece of legislation that states that you can't own any form of Media within the EU if you are not an EU national.
You return to referenda and your view that they put power into the hands of the people. I'm a cynic, I'm afraid, I think they put power into the hands of the people framing the questions, and people like Rupert Murdoch.
I have come in for a fair amount of 'populist attack' with regard to referenda on this blog. Sneering comments about 'experts' and Lords and Barons come to mind. I'm sure these same persons would not let a non expert attempt surgery upon them, nor would they attempt to repair their own car, computer, or in the main, conduct the sale or purchase of their house on their own. These people do, it would seem think that they are fit to pass judgment upon a document of no less than 274 pages
If we take the use of referenda to it's logical conclusion we will be asking for the UK national budget to be subjected to one each year. What is the point of having elected politicians. There is the point about having a dog and barking oneself.
The people I call the 'fringe' are as near as I can make out mainly English in origin as am I. I am very proud of what the UK achieved, amazing stuff for a tiny island and such a small population. I'm also very proud of the those who fought the 'Battle of Britain' my father was one of them. I was brought up in North Norfolk two miles from Burnham Thorpe which for the benefit of all those reading is the birthplace and boyhood home of Lord Nelson. All good stuff, but it's over, it is history and we have to move one. This strange conviction the the EU is some massive conspiracy against free Englishmen is bizarre.
The arrogance of the 'fringe' is that they and only they have recognised this threat. Never mind the fact that the massed ranks of the mainly anti EU press in the UK haven't managed to find the undemocratic core of the treaty they 'the fringe' have. Equally arrogant is the conception that the other peoples of Europe are either all stupid or so uninformed that they can't see the threat it's left to the 'fringe' like some glorious latter day spitfire pilots to defend the freedom of all of Europe.
The non stop complaint about moving the goalposts France and Holland having turned the constitution down and it being then replaced by a treaty. I live in France I took part in that referendum I watched and listened to the people of France and will say now quite categorically that the constitution was never an issue. They voted NO because they were very angry with their government and it gave them a chance to complain. If you read the French media there has been little no adverse comment about the Treaty. It's worth remembering that France still has very healthy political debate on prime time TV not just sound bites. As I understand it from my Dutch friends the same thing can be repeated for the Dutch experience.
I agree that the impression given by this change from constitution was, to say the least, unfortunate but what are the people responsible for ruling Europe supposed to do. We urgently need a streamlined more responsive form of governance for the EU given that it now has 26 members as opposed to 9. Once you start to work out the means of doing this you will come up with legislation that will be substantially the same be it a treaty or a constitution. Form follows function and vice versa.
My belief that referenda are a bad idea is most certainly not 'class based' as you put it. I do not belive that very complex legislation can be approved by popular vote. It's not elitist to say that I want a brain surgeon to carry out an operation not the man who does my gardening. I do think referenda are valid where the answer is a simple yes or know. For example should we elect Mr/Ms for this role, no problem after all that is what a general election is in essence, it is a constituency by constituency referendum.
This is now quite long enough I'll leave you all to tear it to pieces.
Complain about this comment
89. Jukka_Rohila
"…You haven't really..."
I haven't really what? Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union, UK and China; all of these systems offered a "single market and single currency".
"…What you are suggesting that we will form is an European super state where all power is to be centralized, and language and cultural minorities are purged and assimilated into the majority…"
There are many languages spoken in the UK (and China). Have you ever driven to Wales? Did you notice anything different to England? As a rule we in the UK are quite tolerant of cultural minorities I think, more so than other parts of the EU.
Complain about this comment
94. T1m0thy
"…but what are the people responsible for ruling Europe supposed to do…"
They could try being faithful to the manifesto they were elected on.
This isn't hiding behind a name change and cut and paste job.
Complain about this comment
#96 rg
"They could try being faithful to the manifesto they were elected on.
This isn't hiding behind a name change and cut and paste job."
Who could try to be faithful and to what manifesto?
And as for your next sentence as I said previously function defines form. The EU you needs to be able to function more efficiently and there are only a few possible ways that this could be done. Hence very little difference between constitution and treaty.
Complain about this comment
97. T1m0thy
"… what manifesto?.."
The one that contained these words "It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe." (Available in all good libraries).
"…very little difference between constitution and treaty…"
All credit to you, one of the few to admit this.
Complain about this comment
#84. and rg
You changed „a foreign policy” to “one foreign policy”. There is quite a difference.
The member states of the union insist on making the decisions concerning for instance taxes and foreign affairs, and it is easy to see how different the foreign policies of the member states in fact are. The Middle East policy is probably the premium example. However, the member states have slowly and reluctantly realised that in the latter they have more impact together than as individual states. I therefore called it a coordinated foreign policy.
It is impossible to say what the peoples of Europe are prepared for, but since it is a borderline crossing matter I believe that many in the centre of the Union actually think that a foreign policy in the EU is quite relevant, not least because some of us remember that the EU began as a peace project, and we have not had a war between France and Germany since WW2. The EU has also had a very positive impact on the democratic development in many European countries for instance by my friends in Spain.
Britons, who are dissatisfied with the British participation in this development, have the chance of their life by the general election next year.
Complain about this comment
To rg (95):
There is only one language in the UK, that is the English. Other languages have been in time of centuries been driven to death. Originally in Wales, Scotland and in Ireland people spoke most Gaelic originated languages, now thanks to the union, all these languages have become minorities and been almost forgotten. In China the Chinese state has been driving the country to adopt Mandarin China as the sole language.
You said:
"As a rule we in the UK are quite tolerant of cultural minorities I think"
Yeah sure. Compare 1700 Scotland to 2000 Scotland and see a drastic difference, in essence majority becoming minority.
Complain about this comment
The about Mandarin, Jukka, is that you must remember not to compare Apples to Oranges.
HA!
Oh dear. Anyway...
That was an interesting entry at 94, Tim. Thanks for taking the time.
But this was why I asked you if you had ever lived under a system of referenda upon demand. The problems you postulate are purely theoretical, and they show a lack of understanding of how referenda actually works to improve society.
The logical flaw is best highlighted by continuing your dog analogy. It's true, you don't own a dog and then do the barking yourself. But at the same time, you don't hire a dog to bark at your and put you on a leash, and lock you inside a kennel. You get a dog as your servant, not as your master. Unless you are exceedingly strange.
And that is entirely the point about referenda. As Mathiesen noted earlier, people nearly always use the referenda to vote NO. It is, in truth, a tool of veto, and not progressive thought.
So politicians have their place in a system of direct democracy. The experts draft the laws, and the people then vote on them. Of course, in Switzerland one can always push for a direct vote on law drafted by non experts, but I think these nearly always fail, and very few are even attempted.
So to use your analogy of the surgeon, sure, you want the expert doing the operation. But you don't want the surgeon deciding whether or not to do the operation. Unless you are extremely odd, you want the legal power to decide for yourself whether you are sick and need treatment.
Imagine living in a society where you were not able to refuse treatment from any doctor who wanted to earn money by hacking away at you, or stuffing you with drugs that is paid on commission to sell. So you don;t want to be operated on by a hack, but you certainly don't want doctors to have the right to force you to undergo the treatment they proscribe. You want your freedom to say "Hang on! That is not good for me!"
And it is the same with law. Sure, you don't want law drafted by a hack. But at the same time, if you let those who draft laws and those who profit from laws make the laws without your say so.... you end up with soviet style representation. You end up with a population who watch laws being made, which they pay for, and which generally serve to enrich the law makers and their friends.
Now as to your comments about Murdoch and the EU, I think we agree far more than we disagree. Indeed, there is a sweet irony for me reading your views on what is wrong with the UK and the EU, because I live in a country that does not have these problems, and it is purely the result of the system of direct democracy that we do not have them.
You should read some more about the Swiss system of law making and referenda. I think you will be amazed to learn how it works. I was, and I was a fully trained common law lawyer when I first learned of it.
The arrogance of the English speaking legal community is the most puzzling thing for me, these days. The English law is the absolute definition of everything that is perfect in the world, and all other cultures are merely playing catch up. That was how I once thought, and now that I live amongst the Swiss, that is how the English speaking world appears to me. Rational, friendly, reasonable. But absolutely captivated by its own brilliance, and 100% blind to the possibility that the common law and the westminster system might not be the absolute epitome of social and political evolution.
I think you can't really know unless you have tried something, and would get down on my hands and knees and beg to be allowed to stay living in Switzerland, rather than be exiled to live in the English speaking world I have come from. They have a saying here that in Switzerland the people do not trust the government, and that in the UK the government does not trust the people.
It is the difference between having a dog that barks for you, and having a dog that keeps you locked up and on the leash.
Complain about this comment
99. Mathiasen
"…Britons, who are dissatisfied with the British participation in this development, have the chance of their life by the general election next year…"
Britons will have a chance to vote in a General Election before June 2010. My only hope is that they remember what they were offered in 2005. How they vote is up to them. If we get honest politics, I don't mind who wins, because I'm happy.
Please oh please no more referendum offers unless you mean to go through with it.
Complain about this comment
100. Jukka_Rohila
"…There is only one language in the UK, that is the English…"
Sorry Jukka_Rohila this is simply untrue.
Complain about this comment
No. 94 - T1m0thy. Strange to read that you think the French political debate is 'healthy'. These days it is more about being for or against Sarkozy, and there has lately been a wave of 'fringe issues' claiming the headlines ('affaires Clearstream, Polanski, Fredo Mitterrand, Jean Sarkozy', etc.), and not much real debate about serious issues, since the opposition is not in good shape.
I also disagree about the referenda : having followed closely the French and the Dutch ones, part of the NO vote was against the whole system of 'elites' trying to dictate to the people what was good for them, which is so characteristic of the way the European project has been defended. The map of the vote in the Netherlands brought out clearly the well-to-do areas (they voted YES). In fact, the way the Blair candidacy has been defended reminded me of the same way some of the YES camp in France defended the EU constitution (just stigmatizing your opponent as being small minded - i.e. not seeing the 'big picture' - if you don't agree with them).
Anyway, you did well to ask the UK Eurosceptics what will happen if the UK leaves the EU. The responses are not very convincing. Look at the proud GBP (the pound), which was at 1.5 Euro and stable five years ago, and now is at 1.1 Euro roughly, and unstable. Unfortunately, size matters here, and the one thing the Euro brought is a more stable economic environment, where currency speculators such as George Soros in the early 1990s cannot now disturb the markets in individual Euro countries.
As for the Swiss, well, Orson Welles's statement in the 'Third Man' is still somewhat valid. If you like to relax, it is a nice place, but their way of doing things cannot be easily transported to the larger countries in Europe.
Complain about this comment
#104 smroet
That's very interesting I'll come back to you in the morning. It's good to have input not just mud slinging. I live in Aquitaine, which could only be described as wealthy, and they voted yes to the constitution.
Complain about this comment
104. smroet
"…Look at the proud GBP (the pound), which was at 1.5 Euro and stable five years ago, and now is at 1.1 Euro roughly, and unstable…"
The Pound could have tracked the Euro like e.g. the Estonian Kroon; it would however have been painful to watch. Brown preferred instead to 'lead the world out of recession'.
Complain about this comment
On the EU-presendecy:
Most member nations prefer a candidate from the Euro zone. Period.
-----------------------------------------------
On the UK class discussion:
Comming from a basicly class-less society I cannot understand it.
(Yes we have a Queen here, and yes I don't understand that either.
But that is all the class structure their is, the people and the Royal family. There is nothing inbetween. Napolean invented it after he crushed "The Republic" which had existed for about 250 years before the French revolution and US revolt)
Competence should determine your place in society, not the family from which you are born. This is in the interest of society as a whole, as the best of the best get in the best positions. Rather than giving jobs to incompetent people who hapen to be born from other incompetent people with some sort of "title" given to their family generations ago by an unelected tyrant/dictator/king/emperor/tsar/ceasar/tribal-leader.
-----------------------------------------------
On the EU project:
Here is the EU dilemma for the smaller nations as I see it:
"By giving up part of our sovereignty, we gain more of it."
How would a small nations like the Netherlands compete on a world stage with big players, without having the playbook being shuffed down our trhoats? We have been crussed by the big regional powers all throughout history.
By shifitng power to Brussels we at least have a say in the matter.
Lets face it. The UK is a small player nowadays as well. Without the enslavement of India the UK is just another Island in the North-sea. Do you really think the UK could force the hand of China, Russia, or the USA? Not even Germany is able to do it. And since I'm Dutch and able to see French, Brittish, German, Belgian, US, and Dutch political talk shows, I know that at least in Germany they are aware that they do not control their own destiny when being allone. Rather they would be controled by the big boys as they were by the USA and the USSR for over 40 years.
Do you really think the UK can muster the muscle to conduct an entire Afghan or Iraqi operation on their own nowadays? Answering this question gives you the place of the UK in the world power ranking today.
The members of the EU are in it out of pure self interest.
When it looses it function it will seaze to exist.
Such is it in the interest of brittish politicians to blaim their own incompetence on Brussels as well, rather than admitting their own short commings.
Complain about this comment
"However much they protest the Lisbon Treaty is here and we have to get on with our lives." (T1m0thy, 94)
I'm sorry, but that's a complete negation of democracy. In a democracy, the criterion for whether something should remain in place is not whether it is "here" (i.e. entrenched), but whether it has public support. Did we decide to ignore apartheid in South Africa because it was entrenched, and just get on with our lives? No, we campaigned against it, because we knew that apartheid was only supported by a minority in that country.
"I do not belive that very complex legislation can be approved by popular vote." (ditto)
Taken as it stands, that's a reasonable statement. But there's a huge elephant in the room (or at least in the room of many pro-Treatiers). And it's this: the Treaty is ultimately not a thing of significance in its own right. It's only a document. What's important is the broad objective that the Treaty is an instrument for, namely a more integrated EU. People should have a right to say whether they agree with that objective.
An analogy might help. Suppose my car mechanic is very environmentally sound and thinks that my car should be converted to make it only run on bio-fuel. That may be good for the environment, but it would also have practical implications for me in that it would make re-fuelling more difficult. Would I expect the mechanic to present me with a detailed plan of all the individual steps required to carry out the conversion, and ask for my approval of that plan as workable and cost-effective? Probably not, as I wouldn't consider it within my expertise to give that informed consent. But would I wish the mechanic to seek my consent to going ahead with the conversion? Yes, absolutely yes!
"... the 'fringe' ...." (ditto again)
May I refer you to my entry 87 in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2009/10/blair_and_the_nonpresidential.html
Complain about this comment
democracythreat: On post 81, the sticking point here in the States is that the term coin has a specific meaning under US federal law, and that coins (in this specific sense) made of gold or silver are subject to federal monopoly. There is no restriction here against people using privately minted gold or silver discs of convenient size and weight in non-governmental transactions; but those discs cannot be called coins, and they must be readily distinguishable from government coins (and thus the discs should probably not be called eagles, dollars, or dimes).
For post 91, I for one would like to see a slave driving an air conditioner. ;*)
T1m0thy: On post 92, please note that Ron Paul was one of six Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote against the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Judging from your post, my guess is that you’re not familiar with many of his views: this article from 2003 might be a good introduction to some of them.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS