Cameron shuns 'Euro bust-up'
I took one message away from David Cameron's speech today on Europe. If he becomes prime minister he does not want his early months in office dominated by a row with Europe. This was Realpolitik.
He does not want his agenda or his party to be engulfed by Europe in a way that proved so destructive in the past.
If he had insisted on a referendum - despite the fact that the Lisbon Treaty had become law - he would have embarked on a gigantic battle with other European leaders. David Cameron does not want that. He knows first-hand how it almost paralysed John Major's government.
So, for me, the key line was this:
"We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament."
And in case his meaning was not fully understood, the Tory leader said there would be no "Euro bust-up".
This, then, will be a long legal struggle. It is a far cry from threatening to obstruct business unless Britain gets its way.
Some in his party wanted a more general referendum to strengthen the party's hand in negotiating with other European countries. David Cameron has dismissed that. As Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign secretary, observed earlier, it would only have the power of an opinion poll. It would also consume much of the government's energy.
David Cameron's aim is to negotiate an opt-out from social and employment legislation in certain areas and a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is very difficult to bring powers back to Westminster without treaty changes. And that is a tough road to go down. To change a treaty needs the calling of an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). That can only be done if 14 countries want it.
After the eight-year struggle to deliver the Lisbon Treaty it may not be easy to find 14 willing countries. Once a conference starts any country can put on the agenda whatever concerns it. To agree treaty changes requires the signatures of all 27 countries.
This has the feel of the "long grass". The EU knows how to string out negotiations and, as David Cameron said today, his aim would be to bring back some powers within the lifetime of a parliament. Even that may be ambitious.
The promise of "never again" allowing a transfer of powers to the EU without the say of the British people is politically shrewd. "Never again" is an attractive slogan to place in election leaflets. In reality there are no plans for another big treaty like Lisbon. The EU is worn down by the struggle to reform and there is no appetite for further major changes.
The offer of a referendum on this issue sets a benchmark. The Conservatives have opened themselves up to demands for referendums on other contentious issues.
Overall, other European countries will be reassured that David Cameron is not looking for a fight. What the Tories are hoping is that through legislation they will prevent a seepage of powers to Europe.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Again, I am confused. To read Gavin Hewitt's take on the Cameron statement, it takes on the character of a reasonable and consdered position. Contrast this with the 'He said all future treaties would be put to a public vote . . . " quote from elsewhere on the BBC News site and it is easy why it might be confusing. Maybe this is a deliberate attempt at fudging but, if the promise of a referendum on 'all future treaties' is serious, it is totally absurd for reasons I have already given in the previous thread
Complain about this comment
Why?
I'm sorry, but why is the first thing in my mind after reading on David Cameron's speech and his thought on what to do. Why does the UK have to opt-out from Charter of Fundamental Rights? Why does the UK have to opt-out from some areas in social and employment legislation?
If this would be America, the spin would be...
Why does David hate freedom?
Why does David hate workers?
Why does David hate poor?
Probably the answer is that he doesn't, but why does he give this impression with these actions?
There is good reason why we have these legislations in place and that is to prevent European states on competing themselves down in the cutter by cutting rights and benefits. The idea has been that Europe doesn't compete on cheapness of labor or restriction on workforce, but by relying on our wits and intelligence to do things the right way, on doing things the smart way.
If David would really be serious about on concentrating on realpolitiks, then he would be thinking on how to make Britain work more efficiently and more intelligently than on doing cheap politics with common protective and beneficial rights of everybody.
If David wants to really change the UK-EU relationship, there are two things to do, A) hold an vote of either being in or going out, or B) changing the UK political system from FPTP to representational and then enacting a constitution that puts all changes to the constitution behind a referendum. Everything else is just a political play.
Complain about this comment
GH "…This was Realpolitik…"
To me this seems like an admission by the Conservatives that, just like Labour and the Liberal Democrats, it was more important to please the EU than be straight with the UK electorate. This is fine; we know where we stand in the pecking order.
Complain about this comment
So Mr. Cameron proposes a 'referendum lock', e.g. should the UK government wish to join the Euro, it will put the issue to a referendum. Let's look at the fate of a similar proposal in France: Chirac promised a referendum for any enlargement treaty, this as a way to give the French people a say in accepting or rejecting Turkey in the EU. It was even put into the French Constitution. Sarkozy, who knows Chirac's statement that '(electoral) promises engage only those who believe in them' by heart, backpeddled on this rather quickly, and gave parliament the power to decide whether a referendum will be held in such a case. Of course, Britain is not France, since nobody bothered to write up a British constitution, but politicians are politicians. So let's wait and see. In any case, the opt-out policies will continue in case Mr. Cameron is elected, which will hamper the cohesion the EU needs given the international situation.
Complain about this comment
Yes, as we have expected the Tories are now making Realpolitik (and it is ironic that this German expression has been imported into English), - and “there are no plans for another big treaty like Lisbon” among other reasons because most politicians and many citizens find that this procedure has been less than satisfying. The task is now to make the LT working and wait see if minor corrections are needed.
I expect the Swedish presidency to organise a special summit next week. I also expect the new EU president to be a conservative from the centre of the union and the ’foreign minister’ to be a social democrat from a large country, e.g. Great Britain. Let us see.
Complain about this comment
Is David Cameron the Vanilla Ice of Politics?
He is not going to have a referendum, and not not going to have a referendum.
Vanilla Ice Ice baby..
His pronouncement is just so full and so empty - rather than engaging in Europe or having a referendum he wants to seem as if he is going to get the best out of Europe, and oppose it.
White tasteless and melting in the heat ....
No guts, no direction, no backbone not a leader just existing ...
Seeming like he is for real, down with the electorate,
but actually just an empty vessel through which the big machine can gain power.
With a made up credibility facing which ever way will get him popularity
Ice Ice baby Too Cold
Ice Ice baby Too Cold Too cold.........
Complain about this comment
#5 - Mathiasen
It may very well be that “there are no plans for another big treaty like Lisbon” but that is not what Cameron is reported to be saying. He is saying "all future treaties would be put to a public vote . . . "
I ask again, does this include the Croatian accession treaty which will contain important matters relating to Ireland and possibly the Czech Republic? Does anybody out there have an insight into the real Tory thinking? Have the Tories thought this through at all?
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (1): The words Cameron used were "If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum". So it is transfer of power and not treaties that trigger a referendum. One question he got asked after the speech was the threshold above which a referendum becomes necessary and he mentioned things like moving a policy area from being a shared competence to an exclusive competence, which is something that could be done without a new treaty i.e. using the Lisbon "ordinary revision procedure". Another example he gave was joining the euro.
However Cameron was a little ambiguous in the speech itself because he used the phrase "ratchet clauses" which is not a phrase I recognise. He only said he would "change the law so that any use of a so-called ratchet clause would require full approval by Parliament", i.e. these are below his threshold. By ratchet clause he could mean the Lisbon passerelle clauses (my interpretation) or possibly could be referring to the Lisbon revision procedures but the difference is huge. If he regards the "ordinary revision procedure" as one of the ratchet clauses not requiring a referendum then this would be total disaster. But that is not my understanding of what he said.
In terms of reclaiming powers Cameron spoke of 'British guarantees' being attached to the Croatian accession treaty. However he has not laid out how he will bring other European countries to the negotiating table. In my opinion he needs to keep his cards close to his chest before playing them, but clearly he needs some leverage and willpower if he is to be successful. So I think this is why Gavin Hewitt (plus others like Fraser Nelson at the Spectator, and Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home, but writing in the Guardian, are talking about "the long grass". It will be interesting to see if this is received wisdom in tomorrow's newspapers. If so, and if Cameron does not intervene to correct that impression, then today will have been a bad day for EU-sceptics because if the impression spreads now that is not serious it will be hard to act seriously later.
Complain about this comment
I'm just wondering who Threnodio_II is, are you our long time contributor or a new look alike or not even?
Gavin, if you really believe "In reality there are no plans for another big treaty like Lisbon" you have already lost the plot, Lisbon was a smokescreen and that's all, the big agenda continues with or without Lisbon, and those who follow the PC words simply demonstrate the motto that there are none so blind as those who can see.
Complain about this comment
Can't the Tory party just give the in or out referendum?
Complain about this comment
#8 - Freeborn-John
Being overseas, I have not had an opportunity to see the statement in full, hence my confusion. The UK media continuing to convey their agenda as though they are reporting the news does not help.
Your clarification is most helpful. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#9 - Buzet23
Yes, it's me. The reasons are in the mail.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (9):
In a sense, there won't be no new treaty as the Lisbon Treaty finalized the structure of the EU in consolidating its different parts under one pillar and because the Lisbon Treaty also allows opening of new chapters, including common defense, if member states so wish.
No really, the next treaty that there will be, will either be about the EU to becoming a sovereign federation, or a treaty that will allow part of the EU to go into this direction. If the world doesn't change much, I would guess that the kind of treaty that would bring these kind of fundamental change is approx 20 - 30 years off.
Complain about this comment
threnodio when people don't recognise you there is a saying it's a sure sign you will be rich. if this helps the discussion in any way :o)
Complain about this comment
#14 - WebAliceinwonderland
It worries me to death. If I end up extremely rich and with no idea who I am, it would make me a perfect candidate for leader of the Tory party.
Complain about this comment
Hi threnodio_II, that's a relief, I thought the BBC/nu-labour had stooped so low as to start cloning people like us, instead the re-sign on pages are more geared to the education standards inflicted on the UK population since the advent of left wing think tanks, duh.
#8 - Freeborn-John,
Well said, my fear is that Cameron is just another fence sitter, still look on the bright side of life, at least Bliar and Millbrand are unlikely to get their snouts even more in the trough and the EU elite seem to be looking more at our Belgian PM. However being more than a half decent performer most don't want him to go as the Belgian alternatives to replace him are null and he would just be a Franco/German smokescreen/puppet if in power and faced with them.
Complain about this comment
By the way, has anyone else noticed the choice of picture here? I wonder whether choosing an image in which Mr. Cameron appears to have no teeth is deliberate or a Freudian slip.
Complain about this comment
#15 threnodio,
Or even a leader of a Socialist party, but then they never admit to their wealth or how they got it, mostly at our cost, or having been rich kids embarrassed at their fathers wealth and content to keep their riches whilst stitching the rest of us. It's good to try to maintain standards and here goes, lol.
Complain about this comment
#17, threnodio,
Maybe he visited a French dentist, lol.
Complain about this comment
My take on Cameron's speech is that, although not unreasonable, given the position he finds himself in, it is just a confirmation that the UK will, for the foreseeable future, become permafrosted as the sole member of the long vanished EU of the 1980s while the rest of the EU, or virtually all of them, will continue to integrate via the much strengthened Enhanced Cooperation procedures, which already include the Eurogroup, Schengen, Frontex, etc. and will have new additions such as the so called permanent structured cooperation in the context of the 'Provisions On The Common Security And Defence Policy', i.e. the germ of a common EU defence capability from which of course the UK will be self-excluded.
The further opt-outs that Cameron is promising to renegotiate, i.e. the Social Chapter, the Charter of Rights and Criminal Justice, i.e. what he calls as ECJ interference, are raw peanuts compared to the scale of the opt-outs that the UK has already in place, i.e. the – much reiterated by myself (to the annoyance of we know who) – opt-outs from Schengen, de facto a common border, asylum and immigration policy or, in certain aspects, the fundamental basis for the development of such common policies, and the Euro, de facto (and 'de iure' in this case) a common EU economic and monetary policy.
I have this 'vision' (and no, I am not a prophet) that in 15 or 20 years time – just in the same way that the British political elite has realised 20 or 25 years late that they were starting to look slightly idiotic while the whole of continental Europe had been developing a huge network of high speed trains (even lowly Turkey is building one), and Britain, in the meantime, was stuck with an (extortionately overpriced) 1980s railway system – perhaps, and I reiterate perhaps, a new generation of politicians, a lot less dogmatic than the current one, of course, may realise that the UK shot itself in the foot big time by being the only country in the Single Market (that is 30 countries at present) that remained outside both the euro and Schengen, thereby creating long term, and very thick, self-isolation barriers for itself.
There are (very) isolated – some of them authoritative – voices that already call this a crass mistake:
'Rethink joining the euro-club'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5de35b38-35bc-11dd-998d-0000779fd2ac.html
'Foreigners be warned – paranoia rules at the British border'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a395ccd4-9fb1-11dc-8031-0000779fd2ac.html
'The UK's failure to join the Schengen agreement is an example of costly xenophobia.'
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2007/11/isnt-it-time-fo.html
'Making Britain more like North Korea'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72b1ab96-8dea-11de-93df-00144feabdc0.html
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 :o)))) great you are back - and remembered your number :o))))
I only had a problem with the password and where the letters are capital in me :o))) took only a day. I do need you back, what if I say something silly un-timely again - there is only threnodio to stand up for me :o(
And eight to ten gentlemen other ... :o))) While Mavrelius is so thick-skinned he won't even bother!
Complain about this comment
#10. Gunota wrote:
"Can't the Tory party just give the in or out referendum?"
The Liberal Democrats can, along with much needed Electoral reform of both chambers.
Even if they only get enough votes for a coalition with Labour you at least get the Electoral reform so UKIP stand some chance of winning seats in the General Election after.
Complain about this comment
As to the looks of Mr Cameron - he looks very much in this photo like the portrait of the only Cameron Russians know - Charles Cameron, an artist and an architect, who designed beauuutiful interiors of Catherine the II palace and bits and pieces in Pavlovsk museum, master of classisism, half-tones, shades and, how to say, the author of the "Cameron's gallery". Though that other one lived in the 18th century and was from Scotland.
Complain about this comment
For me, as a Romanian, Brussells is just a place, not a threatening capital of a dangerous state, it's
a hope for a better future for our country Romania and for other like it.
UK is very much concerned about possible diminishing of their powers because this country is
accustomed to represent a significant power in the world.
We don't understand who wants Europe to become united. But for countries like Romania looks like
something so positive after being so isolated for so many years in a very unfair way.
So, when we see so much concern and postponing, it's very normal to be afraid that we are not lucky
and a better future is still far at the horizon for us, because the Western countries are the selfish
ones and will never care about our situation.
To be a European in this area called Europe, in my opinion, should be something similar to be a
American in the USA area, with the difference that here each state has a different language, a lot of
specific traditions, a history and a set of mentalities that have to come in harmony with the others
if a common interest is identified. This interest would be a better coordination of resources, a good
knowledge of the local problems and a real will to solve them together in a friendly human community
which Europe seems to be conceived to become. And if the language chosen for all countries in Europe
to talk is English I think that UK should consider it as a huge achievement and not to be concerned
about losing power...UK should already realize that they gained the respect of the world and their
position will never be diminished. It's probably childish for me to comment like this, but it's what
people in our country feel and not only our country.
You noticed the burocracy in Brussells, but the comments and concerns UK is bringing all the time
showing that they are not interested in an unite Europe represent something much more negative and
make us so unhappy...
Complain about this comment
My take on Cameron's speech is that, although not unreasonable, given the position he finds himself in, it is just a confirmation that the UK will, for the foreseeable future, become permafrosted as the sole member of the long vanished EU of the 1980s while the rest of the EU, or virtually all of them, will continue to integrate via the much strengthened Enhanced Cooperation procedures, which already include the Eurogroup, Schengen, Frontex, etc. and will have new additions such as the so called permanent structured cooperation in the context of the 'Provisions On The Common Security And Defence Policy', i.e. the germ of a common EU defence capability from which of course the UK will be self-excluded.
The further opt-outs that Cameron is promising to renegotiate, i.e. the Social Chapter, the Charter of Rights and Criminal Justice, i.e. what he calls as ECJ interference, are raw peanuts compared to the scale of the opt-outs that the UK has already in place, i.e. the – much reiterated by myself (to the annoyance of we know who) – opt-outs from Schengen, de facto a common border, asylum and immigration policy or, in certain aspects, the fundamental basis for the development of such common policies, and the Euro, de facto (and 'de iure' in this case) a common EU economic and monetary policy.
I have this 'vision' (and no, I am not a prophet) that in 15 or 20 years time – just in the same way that the British political elite has realised 20 or 25 years late that they were starting to look slightly silly while the whole of continental Europe had been developing a huge network of high speed trains (even lowly Turkey is building one), and Britain, in the meantime, was stuck with an (extortionately overpriced) 1980s railway system – perhaps, and I reiterate perhaps, a new generation of politicians, a lot less dogmatic than the current one, of course, may realise that the UK shot itself in the foot big time by being the only country in the Single Market (that is 30 countries at present) that remained outside both the euro and Schengen, thereby creating long term, and very thick, self-isolation barriers for itself.
There are (very) isolated – some of them authoritative – voices that already call this a crass mistake:
[CENSORED BY THE MODERATORS, WHY, NOT SURE....]
Complain about this comment
#22 - Benefactor
We are thinking along the same lines. It occurred to me that, if Mr. Cameron's attempts to bring together both wings of his party were only to partly succeed and serious slippage to UKIP continued, we could end up with a situation of a hung parliament next summer. This would force the Lib-Lab pact back on the agenda. This would not only bring forward the prospect of electoral reform but it would also suit the EU to have a less sceptical government in office in London.
Given that to be a possibility, albeit a faint one, would it not make sense (if he were willing) to put Lord Ashdown's name in the frame for either the Council President or High Representative. He is not tainted by Iraq, very experienced and respected on all sides, still only in his sixties and not the divisive figure that Blair is.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio: William Hague was just on Newsnight answering the question about the referendum threshold. In addition to the two revious examples of an increase in eu power that would trigger a referendum, 4.g.(i) changing a shared competence to an exclusive EU power, or (ii) joining euro, he gave a 3rd example of moving a policy area from intergovernmental to supranational decision making.
He also said there would be no need for UK referendum on treaties to let Croatia, Turkey, etc. join EU as these do not increase EU power.
My understanding from these examples is that a UK referendum would be required for a treaty change (which is unlikely to be used in future in my opinion), or for equivalent of a treaty change brought about by use of either the "ordinary revision procedure" or "simplified revision procedure" self-ammending Lisbon articles. The passerelle clauses could however be invoked without a referendum. This would be quite similar to the Irish situation.
Gavin: I do not detect any sense of kicking the EU into the long grass in the tone of Cameron today or Hague tonight. I detect a cool-headed determination that the EU of Lisbon, with its powers that we never consented to, must have those powers reduced. And a party that seems rock solid united behind Cameron and Hague's new policy. And if antenna are reading it right, a country ready to stand behind them too.
Meanwhile in Paris, there seems to be a sudden loss of savoir faire. . .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/04/france-autistic-tories-castrated-uk
WebAlice: Good to see u back :o)
Complain about this comment
#24 - Adriana Negruti
As a Brit living in eastern Europe, I do not think it is "childish for me to comment like this" at all. I understand the frustration it must cause to see the British championing the cause of enlargement then putting barriers n the way of harmonisation. It must be particularly frustrating when you consider that Britain held out for full and unrestricted access for the accession tranche of 2004 but caving in to limits in 2007 for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. I can say only that it is second nature to the western Europeans to jockey for position and play politics with the fortunes of the less powerful members unfortunate though that may be.
#25 - JorgeG1
You three examples are illuminating. The high speed train thing is, of course entirely due to an obsession with the free markets and insistance that public transport shall be run as a business rather than a public service. How the hell the Brits can go to Copenhagen mouthing platitudes about carbon emissions while at the same time forcing people to stay on the roads for lack of full bloodied investment is beyond me. I do, however, have a certain understanding for the reluctance to abandon the pound. It does remain a global reserve currency although the latest disasters in the markets should have served to remind people that it is unlikely to remain so for much longer. Currency union should certainly be on the agenda now. Where I agree entirely is on Schengen and Frontex - but we have had this discussion before - when you analyse the thinking behind this then strip away the technical objections, you are left with nothing more than either blind prejudice or downright ineffectiveness in the use of the technology available. Opting out of Schegen is complete nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Mr Camerons email blog tonight is full of previously loyal conservative voters telling Cameron that they will now vote for UKIP or another party.
I doubt Cameron or his minnows bother to even read the responses to his spin pages but if he doesnt, it may cost him the next election, despite the fact he seems to be smuggly calling No 10 his home allready.
I for one have made up my mind today that I will now vote UKIP after 40 years of voting conservative. This is not just about the EU, this is about our shameless politicians simply ignoring the voters and carying on in the same old manner. Promises Promises and more Promises and NEVER delivering and NEVER having the decency to resign. I wish the BBC reporters would actually report on the growing resentment of the voters instead of quoting "The House Didnt Revolt Against Him" THE VOTERS WILL
Another shameful display by our politicians.
and a sad day again for the UK public.
Complain about this comment
What I think is fascinating about the Eurosceptic position--and I think this will only be confirmed over time--is this continued insistence with, and inference of, British political 'subservience' to 'Europe' (see, as an example, rg @ #3. It's just one of those things that makes no sense: on the one hand because every decision-making council at the European level has British involvement--and often leadership. And this is most apparent in the two bodies in which it matters most: the Council of Ministers and the European Council. Lisbon won't really change this; if anything, Lisbon confirms the rather unsatisfactory trend towards 'soft' intergovernmentalism--that is, through the institutionialisation of processes by which heads of government/state basically lead the ship. Eurosceptics will impale themselves on this position if need be: just look at Daniel Hannan's announcement this night that he'll be quitting the Tory front bench at the European Parliament--despite all the magnificent 'importance' he claims his party now has thanks to its decision to cut itself off from the EPP, Europe's bloc of centre-right parties.
What's most silly about all of this, of course, is that the British electorate--even if naturally sceptical of the Brussels machinery--doesn't care all that much. Neither The Sun nor The Daily Express may bay all they wish: it does nothing to change the fact that, aside from a hardcore 1/4 of Britons who swear by their Euroscepticism, most Britons just don't care enough to be all that bothered.
On the LEGAL issues--and I am, after all, a lawyer by training--I find Cameron's new proposals as interesting as they are baffling. 'Sovereignty Bill'? But that will only, it seems, confirm the common law view that Parliament is legally supreme, and remains so despite EU membership. And as for that 'constitutional court' does he really know what can of worms he's opening up? I'm actually all for such a court, though it seems to me investing proposed powers in the extant Supreme Court make more sense. But surely this is contradictory if he wishes to 'enhance'--or at least 'enshrine'--parliamentary supremacy by beefing up the courts, which can only embolden them in future?
Complain about this comment
@ 27 Freeborn John
Adopting a literal interpretation - as the courts no doubt will - the Croatian accession treaty would constitute a "transfer of power" in the sense that the EU's competencies would be enlarged to include another country. In any event, you can be sure that someone like Rees-Mogg (who tried to force a referendum on Lisbon via the courts) will try this line, knowing that the British electorate would vote no.
Btw, the "cool headed determination" to effectively turn back the clock to 1985 means diddley squat in the absence of unanimous agreement by all other Member States including those currently funding the rebate. As that Guardian article shows, France is giving public voice to what others have been saying for some time now. It's no coincidence that Merkel has scaled back her EP involvement with the Tories, nor that the US have raised questions about their new friends in the Parliament.
@ 29 Grumpy Bob
Cameron's promise became legally impossible once all 27 states ratified the Treaty. Any attempt to welch on the agreement post-ratification would be wholly ineffective and simply lead to calls from other EU states for Britain to use the withdrawal procedure.
Complain about this comment
* Buzet23 @16: '...still look on the bright side of life, at least Bliar and Millbrand are unlikely to get their snouts even more in the trough...'
Pardon me, but since when have either one of these been in the 'trough'? I assume you mean the 'EU trough'--as you'll probably put it. If so, are you implying euros are somehow being paid into a secretive Swiss bank account we don't know about? (Quelle horreur, I may well have started another Euromyth for the rabid sceptics...)
* Adriana Negruti @ 24: Thoughtful remarks, Adriana. And I very much agree and respect this view that Europe represents a window to the outside world for many smaller European states. But even larger states have had diverging views about what Europe represents. Many in Britain's ruling classes long ago convinced themselves that Europe was only of utility in the trade/economic sphere, but that otherwise it was dangerous because it could impinge on Britain's magnificent power. (Tongue very much in cheek.) France at least ASPIRED to power; it realised it was too small to go it alone and so constructed Europe in its image to, EVENTUALLY, enhance its voice. In my opinion France's view has always been more convincing, at least as an aspiration (as it's remained: remember, it was France who first torpedoed proposals for a REAL European army in the 1950s, not the sham 'Eu army' the tabloid press harps on about)--especially since it always seemed internally coherent. Britain's position is a mix of face-saving ('puffing oneself up'; punching above one's weight; trying to look/act powerful), more than a bit of arrogance (at least since Thatcher--an arrogance totally unmatched to its capabilities even relative to its neighbours France and Germany), historical longing (look at the fools who swear 'the Commonwealth' will make ideal trading partners--despite the volume of trade between the UK and the Commonwealth steadily eroding many years before the UK joined the EEC) and an embarrassing subservience to the United States (or, that's right, the 'special' relationship--one apparently also given to Japan, to Germany, to Israel...very special indeed.)
And then there's Germany's position, which since 1991 has tried to cut a third path--one in which it gets to spread its wings as the powerful nation it is (richer and larger than both France and Britain) but within an extra-European framework of relative 'smallness', so to speak. Germany's position is as historically contingent as are Britain's and France's, of course--but at least, again, it is more consistent and coherent than Britain's.
Complain about this comment
* JorgeG1 @ 25: Spot on analysis, as usual. I also didn't understand your censuring by the moderators @ 20. What had you posted?? (I would add, btw, that the Schengen opt-out has always been particularly odd; surely Britons, big promoters of the free market and all, would support the free movement of people--a pre-condition for the 'freest' markets, after all?)
* Freeborn-John @ 27: '...the EU of Lisbon, with its powers that we never consented to...'
Erm, do you mean to say that Parliament's voice isn't authoritative? Or that its vote was fraudulent? Given that there's only ever been one NATIONWIDE referendum in British history you can't really justify this statement by saying Britons should have a referendum for every treaty--that's not much of a precedent. If Parliament remains the supreme law-making body in the land--and it remains so, as every court in the land has claimed ad nauseum--then this statement can be safely tucked away.
* Ravenseft @ 31: 'Adopting a literal interpretation - as the courts no doubt will - the Croatian accession treaty would constitute a "transfer of power" in the sense that the EU's competencies would be enlarged to include another country.'
Well, no. On the one hand we don't know what the text of any proposed legislation will say...literally. ;-)
On the other courts would probably not find an accession treaty--one stripped of extra-accession provisions--to be a 'transfer of power'. That's probably not how any court could--or should--read such a provision. And in the event, a literal reading of statute law probably wouldn't help much in the event; judges, armed as they are with other interperative tools when scrutinising legislation, would probably not read it that way at all.
Anyway, spot on about French and German objections to future constitutional tinkering. Maybe Cameron intends a bust-up in the long term--'don't give us what we want, and we'll slow down EU mechanisms like de Gaulle did', that sort of thing. In the event the United States will probably remain extra vigilent here: Republican and Democrat alike will make it plain to a future Cameron Ministry that the US frowns upon unnecessary intra-European bickering over relatively nothing.
Complain about this comment
RCMoya612 wrote::
"On the LEGAL issues--and I am, after all, a lawyer by training--I find Cameron's new proposals as interesting as they are baffling. 'Sovereignty Bill'? But that will only, it seems, confirm the common law view that Parliament is legally supreme, and remains so despite EU membership. And as for that 'constitutional court' does he really know what can of worms he's opening up? I'm actually all for such a court, though it seems to me investing proposed powers in the extant Supreme Court make more sense. But surely this is contradictory if he wishes to 'enhance'--or at least 'enshrine'--parliamentary supremacy by beefing up the courts, which can only embolden them in future?"
This is what caught my eye, too. As a lawyer by default, I am curious to understand how Cameron seeks to bind the will of future pro-EU governments, or indeed the political will of the upper judiciary, to his own flimsy and ill defined position on Europe.
I think Cameron is "labouring" under a delusion: that the UK judiciary instigated the current status of EU as supreme in Europe, according to UK legislation passed by the Uk parliament. The history of events does not support such a delusion.
It was the ECJ, and NOT the UK courts, who first made the claim that European law must be given supremacy in the UK. The UK eventually agreed, and indeed their reasoning continued to maintain the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, but anybody who thinks the UK judiciary acted first, and without reference to the will of the government of the day, has simply not read the chronology of the law as it evolved.
The point is that the UK judiciary will likely follow the will of a strong government, as it has done in the past, simply because the judiciary in the UK long since lost independence from government. Thus, it doesn't matter what Cameron decides, the judiciary knows that "the party" on the continent will strongly disapprove of judicial rulings that seek to remove power from Brussels, and further the UK judiciary knows that "the party" on the continent has a profound influence on the political welfare of British politicians.
If Cameron's party in the UK had real independence from retribution and economic pressure issued by the party on the continent, he would not be backpedalling on the referenda issue. His party has party business to get done, and he knows it.
Those who perceive multiple political parties in the Uk and Europe, please forgive my wanton stupidity. I can no longer tell the difference between the supposed variations on the party uniform and party policy, so I feel utterly foolish claiming to know where one party ends and another begins. So I prefer to think of the multiple parties as "factions" within the one overall party. It seem to me we vote for factional leaders of the suit and tie party, just as in the soviet union i understand folks voted for various factional leaders from the one communist party.
And that doesn't mean I am saying Europe is not completely democratic. Oh no. Of course Europe is democratic. All the signs say so. Everyone goes out and votes, and makes real choices about the future of their own lives.
Just like in the former soviet union, where the best people were elected every year, where all the factions seemed to be in the same business of feathering their own nests, and where member states had glorious democratic namers like "The German Democratic Republik".
Complain about this comment
* democracythreat @ 32:
It was the ECJ, and NOT the UK courts, who first made the claim that European law must be given supremacy in the UK.
Well maybe, but I would add that this position was taken years before the UK even joined the EEC. British courts and politicians knew from the onset of EEC membership that in practice British power to legislate on CERTAIN matters (i.e. EU-led matters) would be limited.
I would, however, caution against the view that the judiciary will in future refrain from outright confronting future governments--even statutes. There have been very open discussions by some judges--even in court decisions--about the very nature of parliamentary supremacy. We may find that in future courts won't be so keen to take a back seat to parliament's every whim--and good riddance, in my view, given the more disturbing aspects of this Labour government vis-a-vis civil liberties.
And I have not truck with your populist fear-mongering at the end of your post. I'm sorry, but your comparing the current state of European democracy(-cies) with life under Soviet domination is too unpalatably crass for my taste.
Complain about this comment
Whilst we are the prisoners of the "EU"-Dictatorship, freedom-loving British citizens should seek to cause as much trouble as possible, all within the law of course.
We wouldn't want to break "EU" - "law", would we?
Complain about this comment
Firstly, I would like to recommend the article in the Guardian with the title:
France: Autistic Tories castrated UK in Europe.
France seems ready to a confrontation with UK, and it is articulated in a language Berlin would never use.
We are going from a period where everything moved very, very slowly to the opposite. The Danes have an opt-out from the chapter on policing and war on terror, but the ratification of the LT will leave Denmark isolated in this matter. Therefore less than 24 hours after the ratification by the Czech president a vast parliamentary majority has declared that it wants a referendum in order to remove the opt-out. Contrary to UK, Denmark will be looking for integration and participation.
To those in favour of European integration it is time to draw up the balance sheet. The anti EU position in the GB is a curiosity, and it took the Tories less than 24 hours to realise it. One by one the obstacles of the LT, which is a treaty that regulates the cooperation within a union of 27 very different countries, have been removed, and we can now start discussing what our common future looks like.
I am delighted to take part in this, and I invite everybody to join in the celebration when we here in Berlin on Monday the 9th celebrate the Fall of the Berlin Wall.
Complain about this comment
The following pre-supposes the spineless Tories do indeed sometime in May-June 2010 replace the enfeebled NuLab in No.10 and with some sort of majority in the Commons.
Which will come first: The 'Referendum Bill' or the 'Sovereignty Bill'?
Having seen David 'whats my policy today' Cameron evolve into even more of a cringing political pigmy than I had first feared I believe this is a fairly vital UK Constitution time-frame issue.
If it is an Act guaranteeing 'referendum' on any EU Treaty then there is a chance the British Citizens may still be able to effect significant changes and break the stranglehold of Brussels-Europe.
If any so-called 'Sovereignty' Act is placed on the Statute book first then the independence of the British peoples is lost to Brussels-Europe for any foreseeable future.
It seems clear after Lisbon's ratification a Sovereignty Act must inevitably include reference to the supreme authority of the European Union over the National Parliament.
With a Referendum Act already in place the Sovereignty Act if it is to mean anything at all to the British will have to be put to a Referendum as inclusion of the EU powers within it is a formal recognition of the Treaty changes made to the UK Constitution. According to Cameron's even more gibberish than usual policy-on-the-hoof declaration yesterday that sort of Sovereignty Act will require a Referendum.
No prizes for guessing that Cameron some 18 to 24 months from now will be answering PMQs and stiffly denying that it is not a climbdown to withhold a Referendum on the proposed Sovereignty Bill as it will not be a defined new Treaty with the EU! No, it will only be an Act confirming the sale of Britain's entire heritage to big-business-big-government commanded from Brussels is a fait accompli.
The wholesale departure of indigenous Britons to other areas of the world will therefore continue at an accelerating rate as the crumbling independent ediface of the UK welcomes Brussels stultifying legislation. However, the last laugh will be on those wealthy UK business backers of Cameron as within 10 years of Lisbon's ratification the City of London will have had its main services/facilities transferred to Frankfurt! No Sovereignty Act will save the UK from Brussels' greedy paws.
Passing a Referendum Act first would allow a defence of the realm.
Complain about this comment
Which countries excactly have an interest in more opt-outs for the UK being created? Obviously there may be the UK but I thought thanks to the LT being more democratic than the treaties we had before, it is now no longer possible for a single country to blackmail the rest of the EU just to get its selfish own interests.
Complain about this comment
i think the key question is what on earth does cameron have to offer the other 26 european eu leaders in order to get them to agree to even consider negotiating opt outs? vaclav klaus was able to threaten to veto the entire lisbon treaty in order to win his opt out. cameron does not enjoy that luxury.
if i were sarkozy, i would just remind cameron that the new treaty creates a formal mechanism for countries to exit the eu, and politely suggest he go hold a referendum. i would only entertain any discussions of a british opt out if cameron was willing to offer me something very substantial in return, such as an enormous budget concession.
it will be very interesting to see how any negotiations play out in the british media. will the media focus on the give or on the take, on cameron's totemic opt-outs or on the pound of flesh he has to hand over in return? will he end up winning a pyrrhic victory? or if cameron's plan is only to pursue negotiations half-heartedly (the long grass option), will the media allow him to do this?
on a separate point, i do wonder how the proposed sovereignty law will affect future accession treaties (croatia, iceland?), which will also incidentally contain the additional terms negotiated by the irish government in order to help them win their 2nd referendum on lisbon. i do hope that the law won't require referendums on these treaties, or that could be considered a major breach of good faith by the uk government.
Complain about this comment
He's a pro-european at heart. You could see in his speach that he didn't believe a word he was saying.
If that is indeed the case (and it looked pretty clear to me) then why is he making these anti-europe statements? He knows if he doesn't his party will crumble, just like it did in the 90's. He's completely flamingoed up! He tried to look good to the Euro-sceptics last year and he's now trapped, no matter what he does he's going to either weaken britian and damage the economy or split his party in two.
I for one think its hilarious!
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John@27:
"Gavin: I do not detect any sense of kicking the EU into the long grass in the tone of Cameron today or Hague tonight. I detect a cool-headed determination that the EU of Lisbon, with its powers that we never consented to, must have those powers reduced."
You must be the only one, then. I personally detect cast-iron turning into (surely delicious) fudge and waffle. Most of what Cameron said was either meaningless or trivial.
"And a party that seems rock solid united behind Cameron and Hague's new policy."
Somebody must have forgotten to send Dan Hannan and quite a few others the memo, then.
"Meanwhile in Paris, there seems to be a sudden loss of savoir faire. . ."
Well, Mr. Lellouche briefly summarised what everybody in Europe's centre-right parties is thinking since Cameron took the supremely misguided step of taking the Tories out of the EPP grouping of the European Parliament, just as the European Parliament was about to increase its powers considerably. He weakened the centre-right in the European Parliament, and ensured that all the Conservative votes in the European elections were basically spoiled.
Sure, Lellouche put it in more florid language that the Notting Hill set (though perhaps not the Bullingdon Club) is used to hearing, but then his boss is not known for exquisite politeness in language, so no "sudden loss" there. Also, I'd call this just an appetizer of what awaits Mr. Cameron and the Conservatives in Europe in the next years, in particular from fellow conservative parties. Cameron may not be looking forward to a "EU bust-up", but it isn't so clear that other EU governments share his distaste. Merkel and Sarkozy are certainly quite intent in giving him a torrid time as Tory leader.
It's also quite disingeneous, after all the abuse that has been forthcoming from the Tory lines against fellow European politicians (think of Hannan's infamous "Ermächtigungsgesetz" line) to be outraged when there's such payback. The words pot, kettle, goose and gander come to mind.
Complain about this comment
benagyerek
Re #40.
'If I were Sarkozy I would just remind Cameron...'!
At least you are plainly honest in your expression and assessment of the central control mechanism of the European Union: France's President.
I commend you for that intellectual veracity: It is rare for a supporter of the EU to so brazenly acknowledge one of the main tenets of the complaint we anti-EU have about the organisation.
Couple your admission with the frenzied response of Msr Lallouche (what a gift to the UK's sensationalist tabloid cartoonists!) to Cameron's ignoble retreat from a Referendum on Lisbon, plus recall ex-Pres Chirac's views on the need for 'new members' to 'mind their manners and keep quiet', and, we finally arrive at a realistic summation of who holds the reins of power within the EU.
The EU was a France inspired inception; the EU is a France led organisation; the EU is a France dominated organisation; the EU will forever be France.
If there was still a need to articulate exactly why the EU is bad for the UK the above summarises it.
Complain about this comment
It would appear that the Conservative Party are lying to the British People and betraying all those who died protecting our Nation and Democracy.
New Labour promised the British People a referendum ongiving further powers to Europe and were elected on the back of that promise. Having broken that promise to the nation their ratification of the treaty lacks the necessary authority and is worthless.
The Conservative Party now propose to use their election as a pretext to retro validate the treaty, whilst pretending that they can undo the damage later, this is a disgusting lie.
The Conservative Party should declare Britains validation of the treaty an unconstitutional fraud which puts no obligation on any future British Goverment.
If the Conservative Party do not make clear in their manifesto that they consider Britains ratification of the treaty constitutionally and legally invalid and non binding, then their election will valididate the treaty whatever other hogwash they choose to wrap it up in.
It is doubtful that The Conservative Party could not have beaten New Labour without the support of my letter and the Daily Telegraph, who in effect handed the election on a plate.
Having chosen to collude in the suppression of my letter they are now being openly threatened by the other EU states when they gnomically refer to the Conservatives as been Autistic.
If the Conservatives are determined to betray the will of the people and not state clearly in their manifesto that their election in no way validates Britains ratification of the treaty which they deem to be constitutionally and legally invalid and non binding, they give me no choice but to attack.
PS If the BBC fail to post this blog I will upload snapshots of all blocked blogs to other internet sites outside the reach of the extended DA Notice on myself.
The Gloves are off
Robin Rowlands
Complain about this comment
colonicus42 @ 41
1992 all over again maybe? will cameron turn out to be more neil kinnock, hamstrung by the extremists who still think they still call the shots within his own party, than tony blair, who finally dragged his party into middle ground electability? will we get stuck with another 5 years of recession and drudge under a despised government that didn't even want to be reelected, led by a useless prime minister who only came to power through office politics?
Complain about this comment
I assume here that David Cameron has discussed his current situation with John Major. I seem to remember that John Major suffered such a revolt over Europe from the Conservative Party faithful in the shires.
He may offer a 'discussion' on Europe but I know that he knows; and he knows that the country knows; and the country knows.....that if he is in Downing Street this is not going to happen. He cannot afford to open this particular can-of-worms amongst the Conservative Party and hope to manage an effective government. All you have to do is look back at what happened in the previous Conservative administration before the rise of 'New Labour'
When it comes to Europe, never underestimate the ability of the blue-rinse Conservative Party members in the leafy suburbs of suburbia....to stab themselves in the back!
Complain about this comment
cbw @ 43
you start from a false premise that a single nation is somehow in a position to run the eu. the french don't run the eu any more than any other single nation (or even pair of nations). in fact, it is a big headache for france that since german reunification and eu enlargement, their leadership role in the european project has fallen by the wayside (hence chirac's loss of savoir faire in the quote you gave).
the very reason the lisbon treaty was conceived was because the eu had become too big for the franco-german partnership to provide leadership any more. lisbon won't change that, but it will ensure that when all the big boys (incl italy, spain, poland, and of course the uk) agree something, it cannot be vetoed by estonia.
what sarkozy does enjoy (like all the other eu leaders) is the right to veto cameron's ambition to renegotiate the uk's rights under the eu. a veto is a great thing when you are the one that wields it, but not so great when you have to get 26 other nations to agree to what you want.
Complain about this comment
* cool_brush_work @ 38:
British Citizens may still be able to effect significant changes and break the stranglehold of Brussels-Europe.
Oh right, since Britons currently have no representation in Europe, right? Gotcha.
And of course the average Briton will definitely be pouring over any new treaty--all 200+ pages of it and all--to vote fairly, and not just be lulled into an automatic hatred of any new initiative by an overwhelmingly Eurosceptic British press. (Tell me again, how many newspapers are actually pro-EU--the Guardian, the Indy, and then...?)
...the independence of the British peoples...
Define 'independence'. Oh, and sovereignty. Both are the buzzwords of the Europhobic right--and in my experience they have meant rather little given the passionate response they elicit. And given Britain's strong representation at ALL levels of EU decision-making...well, it's takes a lot of cheek.
It seems clear after Lisbon's ratification a Sovereignty Act must inevitably include reference to the supreme authority of the European Union over the National Parliament.
And WHY has Lisbon substantially changed the nature of the legal relationship between Brussels and Westminster? This is a bold, if baseless claim, despite the blasé tone in which its made.
[The] Sovereignty Act will require a Referendum.
What? What are you talking about? HOW do you come to this conclusion? No Sovereignty Bill would have to say anything at all about the Lisbon Treaty changes: these are already explicit--and therefore a PART of the UK's constitutional settlement--since Parliament passed the Treaty.
The rest of your post is just gibberish.
* RCalvo72 @ 42: Good analysis!
* cool_brush_work @ 43:
The EU was a France inspired inception; the EU is a France led organisation; the EU is a France dominated organisation; the EU will forever be France.
Well that's funny, especially since in all of your examples France DIDN'T get its way. It didn't get a unified European position on Iraq (Britain, Spain and Poland made short work of that); and it couldn't have prevented a referendum of any sort if Cameron wanted.
You're peddling an old-school view of Europe--and one with a distinctly xenophobic take. You COULD just as well mention WHY France initially took the reins in Europe: that is, because Britain was 'too important' to tie its future to Europe. That is not France's fault; that's Britain's. You COULD mention how Britain COULD be a more active and interested member, instead of the aloof, disdainful one. (How do you gain trust, respect and influence in a body you slightly mistrust?) You COULD also mention how it is Germany which makes the biggest contributions to the EU budget. And so on and so forth...
What you DON'T seem to do, or understand, is that NO ONE really controls Europe anymore. Sure, when the Coal and Steel Community was formed France and Germany definitely called the shots: then again, they were the richest and biggest members of a 6-nation club. But that stopped being the case by the time the EU had 12 members, and even more so after 15, 25 and now 27. If France and Germany OFTEN, not always, exercise influence over EU decision-making it is increasingly less likely because of their relative power/size, and most probably because they continue to garner a degree of respect and influence as dedicated members of the EU.
Mind you, that is something John Major was alive to when he came to power in Britain. He wanted to change Britain's self-defeating position and harness its power as one of the Big 3 in the EU to influence decisions. But the Tories in his party demonstrated a remarkable ability to shoot themselves in the foot all out of some misguided battle for 'sovereignty'.
Complain about this comment
Cameron might be a good speaker but under it all he's still a Tory leading a party that has deep divisions over europe.
I wouldn't be supprised if it split clean in two with half going over to UKIP or the BNP.
There's no way out of this without annoying the parties core voters, he's really got it wrong and is going to need a miracle to fix it.
The next election isn't in the bag yet.
Complain about this comment
As an Englishman, who has lived "abroad" for over 40 years, I think the UK should leave the EU once and for all. That would mean we wont have the possibility of Tony Blair or David Miliband being involved in our Europe. And it would save David Cameron from being such an ass. I can't really understand that the British (and yes I am still English, please note not British)want to get involved with us anyway, they don't like us and we seem to irritate the average Brit, perhaps not as much as the average Brit irritates us though.
During all the troubled times when the IRA was at its peak I seem to remember that there was a joke about towing Ireland out into the Atlantic and sinking the whole place. Well at the moment I for one would consider this an option for the whole British Isles, its about time my erstwhile countrymen realised that England is only an ordinary nation just 21 miles off the continent of Europe, with no Empire, some colonies which cost the British Taxpayer money (by the way that's the same here in The Netherlands with the old Dutch Colonies)and probably the worst economy in this part of the world at the moment.
Just to finish I dont envy my countrymen next year when they have to vote for either a Scotish Prime Minister or a party controlled by its right wing element, consisting of little old ladies and retired old foggies.
Opps almost forgot the 3rd party in British politics, but then the British do that all the time.
Complain about this comment
The French are laughing at Cameron and for good reason. Cameron has no intention of of giving the voters of the UK a choice through a legal vote to leave the EU nor can he "negotiate" the UK's way out of obligations it has signed up to. The suggestion that he can obtain exclusive opt outs for the UK at this point is a pipe dream and he knows it. Where was he when that was still possible?
As I've posted in the past, the UK's government like all other European governments for various reaons is no democracy. If democracy means government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the UK is no democracy. If it were, the leaders of all of the major parties would understand that if they didn't give the majority of voters what they wanted, they would be thrown out of office at the earliest opportunity and the voters would send them that message by actually doing it if they didn't get what they wanted every single time without ambiguity. They would jealously guard the power they have over government and there would be mutual understanding that government is the servant of the voters to be fired at will, not their master. That understanding doesn't exist in Europe including the UK because that mentality doesn't exist in the culture, in people's minds. The notion of government as an elitist authority that imposes it will, that may grant a few occasional concessions to popular demand if they don't infringe on government's ultimate maintenance of absolute power over them, that it is a club of elitists who know best and surely better than the voters is the operating power structure all over Europe in one way or another. And the governments gets away with it because the people let them. They are utterly complacent and clueless when it comes to defending their inalienable right to impose their will on those who govern them. That is why David Cameron's suggestion that he would do something to reverse the relinquishing of British sovereignty to Brussels that Lisbon and other EU treaties achieved was coy and insincere. The UK as an independent entity is finished. It is now a province of the newly created EU superstate. All talk of going back is pure hyperbole. The EUSSR exists. Short of armed revolution which won't happen, Brits are in the same boat with the rest of its slaves.
Complain about this comment
48. At 11:51am on 05 Nov 2009, RCMoya612 wrote:
[A very good comment I could hardly agree on more]
However you should not have called cool_brush_work a xenophobic. Frankly not because it is not true - I don't know him well enough to say whether he is or is not, but because he will now say again how rude all of those in favour of the LT are that they are forced to stick to these insults instead of coming up with valid points. (That you did bring up good points obviously won't be mentioned by him, neither will he now comment on those :-( )
43. At 11:07am on 05 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
benagyerek
"Re #40.
'If I were Sarkozy I would just remind Cameron...'!
At least you are plainly honest in your expression and assessment of the central control mechanism of the European Union: France's President."
I guess not only Sarkozy can do that but also all other national leaders - however I must admit that I don't happen to know the names of those for countries like Hungary or Latvia and that Bengyerek's intention probably was to pick a name most people here would actually know instead of saying that France is leading the EU which is claptrap...
Complain about this comment
for the lawyers contributing to this blog: am i right in thinking the idea of a "sovereignty lock" is totally ludicrous, given that the uk does not have any concept of constitutional law. presumably any future govt that wanted to ratify an eu treaty without a referendum could use its majority in parliament either to repeal the "sovereignty lock" altogether, or just to include in the ratification bill an amendment to the "sovereignty lock" that says it does not apply to this bill.
am i right?
Complain about this comment
@44 - wow did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or what!!!
So every single government in the last 30 years then not just today "betraying all those who died protecting our Nation and Democracy" so where have you been hiding all those years? The reality is my friend that no one has betrayed anybody. Your personal fears and insecurities do not automatically qualify as a betrayal. The simple fact is that you have a Europe that:
- We can trade with
- Visit and get visited (hopefully without passports and currency exchanges one day!!)
- Is democratic (no dictators!!!)
- Respects human rights
- Respects workers (Hopefully we will also one day!!)
- Has news diversity (Hopefully we will also one day!!)
- Has a decent public transport system (Hopefully we will also one day!!)
- Hopefully they will copy our NHS and they can also have a decent health system!!
So, let go of your fears and embrace it and enjoy it.
I know we are net contributors to the EU budget but hey, better to pay a small amount to build bridges & roads that our trucks can drive over to delivers UK made goods than to spend even more to build weapons to fight wars.
So its all good and very democratic, so I'm sure after you take a deep breath you'll see the positive side to it all and you'll think Cameron is ok after all, even good old Gordon is not a bad chap, we are all human after all with a very short life span that we should try and enjoy as much as possible, rather than stress about things that are of little significance after all.
Complain about this comment
#28 threnodio_II
As an Eastern European living in UK, I find it rather comical that Britain is still confused about its place between Europe and America… and it’s been so for so long! :)
Complain about this comment
RCMoya612
Re #48
UK representation in the EU!?
The same proportionate representation at the Commission, EU Parliament as every other Nation - - that all significant decisions are actually made in Paris and Berlin may have escaped your notice, but not those of us who dislike that hegemony.
UK newspapers that are pro-EU!?
Independent, Guardian, Financial Times, Daily Mirror and New Statesmen - - which is complemented by the neutral stance of the Times - - they have a readership that can make up its mind as can readers of the Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun etc.
Incidentally, how many more times will the EU supporter trot out this tired old 'tabloid press' stuff? The UK includes a huge number of Newspapers servicing a multi-cultural population from Northern Ireland to Scotland to Wales to Pakistanis, Indians, Nigerians, West Indians, Asians, Arabs, English... Where do you get the nerve to suggest you know what such a wide-ranging readership is influenced by?
Let me guess: In your all-seeing guise you also know the reading and thought habits of the residents of Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, Cadiz etc. as well as the rest of Europe. Ridiculous!
Define independence!?
The right of Citizens to be given a clear choice at the Ballot box as to whether or not they want the Lisbon Treaty or Membership of the Federal EU - - something which 26 of 27 Nations failed to offer any Citizens!
Cheek! The nerve of EU supporters to claim it represents 450million that is what is called cheek!
Sovereignty Act!?
As the UK Constitution has not been written until now this Act will presumably have to include listing all Treaties affecting the British Citizens - - so, I would argue a Referendum is required - - don't worry, we know the very idea of asking the Peoples' opinion leaves you all panic-stricken. My Comment included predicting Cameron will never get round to any Referendum on anything never mind a Referendum Act!
Old school view of Europe and Gibberish!?
Recognising that the UK and especially England have evolved as entirely different cultural-heritage entities from the mainland Europe and have distinctly different historical-political concerns and involvements from Europe whilst sharing with 'west' Europe a common understanding of Democratic values and concluding that an alternative to the Federal EU is the best path for the UK's future is having a different view from your own and not at all nonsensical.
Iraq!?
Not a European Union issue - - it was a NATO wrangle - - hence France as ever backed down from the fight alongside the Allies it seems to rely on at any and every turn to come to its military aid.
Peddling views!?
You may well think you have a new understanding and new school view of Europe: I find that it is you and the EU supporters are 'peddling' an old view.
For 2000 years charlatans of one sort or another have tried to enfiorce unification on mainland Europe and drag in the British Isles. The Federal EU is just the latest Charlemagne fantasy and it is not going to succeed anymore than that ancient dream no matter whether it is done by stealth rather than force.
Like all the previous attempts: It is undemocratic and will come undone.
Complain about this comment
Fighting a lost battle is an exercise in futility !! He's being pragmatic and plans to fight the next battle rather than re-hash an old one and rub sore wounds even more !!
Complain about this comment
@51 marvelous-II. It is good to see that at least there is one person in the USA (that person is you) that is not fooled with the oligarchy over there, that some smart marketering people have sold to the rest of your fellow countrymen/women as democracy. Otherwise I'm sure the Americans would not have voted for elitist clans like the Clinton's, the Bush's or the Kenendy's. With all their rights to have arms and all they would have revolted to defend democracy in a form where every vote counts, not the billions that the special intrest groups pay to get their puper elect to push their particular agenda.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85.
Re #52
According to you: When an EU supporter writes a specific name of an EU Statesman not only do they not actually mean that name but meant it to be a paraphrase for every other leader.
This you 'guess' and then have the nerve to write my opinion is 'claptrap'!
What is it like being omnipotent in the EU-Convenience store of misrepresentation?
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work re your Peddling views!?
I seem to remember, and yes I probably am that old that England at least was part of the Roman Empire, interestingly Latin Hegemony was rejected by the Welsh, Scots and Irish. To my recollection Charlemagne (by the way he wasn't French you know but a Frank (please check Wikipedia for that information)never tried to invade glorious Avalon.
But then again England, yes just England again, was part of the Danish Empire under Canute, and of course we were invaded by those beastly Normans, again they were not French, just Vikings who had got lost, probally like modern Vikings just wanted a little sunshine in winter.
And I presume you are something of a Royalist, at least judging by your rhetoric, I seem to recollect most of our Kings and Queens have been French, Germans, god help us Scots, and of course one Dutchman.
So please explain to your public what an Englishman is, I like most people born in the Heart of the Midlands am dying to know.
Complain about this comment
58. At 1:30pm on 05 Nov 2009, ChrisArta wrote:
@51 marvelous-II. It is good to see that at least there is one person in the USA ..
Or that it only costs 3 quarters of a billion dollar to become President of the United States these days. I am sure we here in Europe are an undemocratic bunch because getting into important offices is far cheaper here aren't we? ;)
Complain about this comment
RCMoya612 (33) wrote:
* Freeborn-John @ 27: '...the EU of Lisbon, with its powers that we never consented to...'
Erm, do you mean to say that Parliament's voice isn't authoritative?
---
I mean what i said, which is that we the British people, the owners of the political power that has been given away, never consented to the EU exercising those powers. I think Cameron said much the same yesterday too, in the early part of his speech.
You are trying to play a word game, to substitute 'democratic legitimacy' for 'authority' and suggest that anything enacted through a legally correct process automatically has legitimacy. For you, it is 'legitimate' for Blair and Brown to lie to win an election, and then do the opposite of what they said they would do, and for the authority of the office they lied to win to give that action democratic legitimacy.
That is a fraudulent argument, which could equally apply to Germany in 1933 where Hitler's election victory gave him the legal authority (with the assistance of that of the German president Hindenburg) to pass the Enabling Act and rule thereafter without any further need for the support of the German parliament.
Yours is indeed the argument of a lawyer, skilled in defending the indefensible through the exploitation of whatever constitutional or legal loopholes you can find. But whatever your legal training, i would suggest you skipped Class 101 in the basics of democratic legitimacy.
-------------
"The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others." John Locke (2nd treatise of government)
Complain about this comment
@56 Cool_brush_work - you sound like the EU "united in diversity" that's the EU dream and slogan! Not a super state, just a closer union based on diversity! Are you sure you are not a europhile posting as a europhobe? :)
Complain about this comment
#19 Buzet23
That's way too deep for me but taking it at face value it would mean that he had the benefit of excellent dental care at a reasonable price. Unlike the UK where it's almost impossible to find a dentist who practises within the NHS.
Complain about this comment
RCMoya612, @ 35
I apologise you addressed democracythreat and I will take liberty to comment. "comparing the current state of European democracy(-cies) with life under Soviet domination is too unpalatably crass for my taste"
I think dt meant that using yardsticks when designing something is not a bad idea even if it's only "how things are not to be done". If he didn't - I'd advise so any way.
You are so sure that 70 years later, in fact, 90 nevermind - not a country will say "Oh how wonderfully we would have developed, would be a total charmer now - if only we haven't spent the 21st century in the EU!"
Blessed are the innocent. For theirs will be the god's tsardom.
To which you say - "Excuse me, but it was your decision. Nobody made you to. Your people wanted themselves - see - look up the dusty papers. Your elected parliament elected by you decided so."
As far as I remember only 3 out of 15 USSR countries voted "in" having Red Army on the ground. The Baltics, later than the rest, pre-war. And even in these there was a lot of bonnet throwing up into the air and "general cheer" because these parliaments at the time had the majority of "Reds", socialists - while the "whites" - in the societies - retreated and took deep echeloned eh, defence lines, :o) a tactical retreat - until better times.
So, 70 years later in Europe there won't be heard , say, a dozen of million of voices "but we didn't want in - no one asked us!"
Blessed are the ones who have Faith. For theirs will be God's divine kingdom.
I understand the idea of even comparing - ugh - to the USSR - is abrasive and total ugh. How can you compare uncomparable, nothing to think about.
Well, in 1917 we lived under the slogan on all roofs and billboards - "The Book of the History - to the garbage lot!"
For we are doing here a thing that no one did before, building a new type of a society, a qualitatively different thing - so what can all the old dusty silly papers of the past have to do in common with us? No yardsticks, in the previous humanity experience, no looking back.
We are the champions! (hello, Jukks :o)))
And proved out what. A banal dictatorship. Boring.
The hell with USSR, so revolting by your cultural shape-up. Surely there are other? examples? of unification? on those shelves, some place?
A Russian historian forgot which said "History - she is nay, no Teacher. No friendly Guru. Why all presume her to be? I spent 70 years, in the books. To me it seems - She is a strict school master; punishes, for the un-learned lessons".
Having said that I'll clarify my position - I wish Europe best as an ordinary Russian, and most here do. From personal, skin-saving considerations - a successful example nearby - why, we can pester Kremlin with it - they can - why can't we? The more good things around - it raises the benchmark level, raises the plank, to jump over. Improves general atmosphere we live in - what things are possible these days, what is out of the question, what you do these days - and what only clinical idiots do. Sets benchmarking, as I said, raises standards, and puts some practices out of practice - otherwise you are a wild Siberian grey felt boot and aren't "in vogue" :o)))
Likewise, when you do wrongly - wrong things are picked up first! as you know. such is the humanity, don't know why. Wild grass grows quicker, and takes up the whole orchard in no time at all.
Anyway.
Hello, FreeBorn John.
Complain about this comment
Sarah Phlegm;
"Or that it only costs 3 quarters of a billion dollar to become President of the United States these days."
That only happens once every four years and that money is paid from voluntary contributions. It costs EU taxpayers over a billion dollars a year just to translate the EU's jibberish from one language into another. If the books were open, they'd probably reveal that MEPs spend more than that on expensive lunches and dinners at Europe's finest restaurants every year at taxpayer expense too.
Yes Europe has deliuded itself that this time it will be different. This time absolute power will not corrupt absolutely.
Complain about this comment
#43 cool_brush_work
"The EU was a France inspired inception; the EU is a France led organisation; the EU is a France dominated organisation; the EU will forever be France."
Funny that, in France the French would substitute the word German for France.
Complain about this comment
#58 Mark Brandist
Amen to that. I think the Irish version was 'cut it off float it out to sea and let the British Navy sink it' I first heard that in Southern Ireland in 1968 from an old man who claimed he had been in the '16' but thought the South would definitely be well rid of the North.
Complain about this comment
59. At 1:38pm on 05 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
"According to you: When an EU supporter writes a specific name of an EU Statesman not only do they not actually mean that name but meant it to be a paraphrase for every other leader."
So if you interpret that he means Sarkozy is ruling the EU (which he never said) that is in your opinion beyond all doubt, but when I assume that he just picked a random name rather than saying what you interpret from his comment, you talk about an EU Convenience store?
I know it is a bit OT but has the layout of this blogg changed or is it just a glitch? Personally I prefer how it looks now as the old one required a lot more scrolling up and down!
Complain about this comment
Some, earlier in this blog mentioned proportional representation. No of course not, it's a nasty European idea, it would give people too much democracy.
I have just had a look at the "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" and can see why the Tories don't like it. They wouldn't would they? After all it gives rights to the average person and the Tory right wouldn't want that. So this is the democracy that the sceptic fringe want us to espouse, the right to have less rights than the other citizens of Europe. Of course it's a big conspiracy, all those devious Europeans getting together to force the sad democratic Brits to have more human rights.
I see that has the power to reduce the working week so that the Brits would have to work less hours and again the right wouldn't want that. This is in spite of the fact that to any rational mind the attraction of overtime to Britain's bosses and employees is just insane. Why pay people more money to work when they are tired? Try looking at the statistics there are 65 million French they produce $2.13 trillion by working 1453 hours each per year. There are 61.7 million British they produce $2.23 which looks good but they do it by working 1673 hours each per year which is 15% more hours. Possibly working all these hours isn't quite as productive as it looks.
So remember what the sceptic fringe really want is to drag Britain out of the EU in order to democratically reduce the rights of Brits and have them work longer hours. You know it makes sense.
Complain about this comment
@66 USA elitist your if & if & if do not disproof it:) I'd like to see you receive a billion "voluntary contributions" and then I'd shut up and admit that yes the USA is a democracy not run by elites. Until then elitist!!! If you don't like, as long as you know it you are still a step ahead of the rest of your countryfolk.
Complain about this comment
I think some clarification on where the EU started is called for:
First Benelux;
A Benelux Parliament (originally referred to as Interparliamentary Consultative Council) was created in 1955. This parliamentary assembly is composed of 21 members of the Dutch parliament, 21 members of the Belgian national and regional parliaments, and 7 members of the Luxembourgish parliament.
In 1944, the three countries signed the London Customs Convention, the treaty that established the Benelux Customs Union. Ratified in 1947, the treaty was in force from 1948 until being supplanted by the Benelux Economic Union. The treaty establishing the Benelux Economic Union (Benelux Economische Unie/Union Économique Benelux) was signed on February 3, 1958 and came into force in 1960 to promote the free movement of workers, capital, services, and goods in the region. Its secretariat-general is located in Brussels. The unification of the law of the three Benelux countries is mainly achieved by regulations of its Council of Ministers, that only bind the three states, but are not directly applicable in their internal legal orders.
Then came; ECSC
The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a six-nation international organisation serving to unify Western Europe during the Cold War and create the foundation for European democracy and the modern-day developments of the European Union. The ECSC was the first organisation to be based on the principles of supranationalism.[1]
The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.' The means to do so, Europe's first supranational community, was formally established by the Treaty of Paris (1951), signed not only by France and West Germany, but also by Italy and the three Benelux states: Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Between these states the ECSC would create a common market for coal and steel. The ECSC was governed by a 'High Authority', checked by bodies representing governments, MPs and an independent judiciary.
The ECSC was joined by two other similar communities in 1957, with whom it shared its membership and some institutions. In 1967 all its institutions were merged with that of the European Economic Community (EEC, which later became part of the European Union), but it retained its own independent identity. However in 2002 the Treaty of Paris expired, and with no desire to renew the treaty, all the ECSC activities and resources were absorbed by the European Community. During its existence, the ECSC had succeeded in creating a common market but could not prevent the decline of the coal and steel industries. It did however set the ground for the future European Union.
Complain about this comment
#66 MarcusAureliusII
Good to see you Marcus. Grabbing numbers out of the air as usual, No change there then.
With regard to superior electoral systems the US model is obviously, as with everything, far superior to anything found in Europe. This is why George W Bush got elected twice.
The American system uses voting machines, the French do a manual count. The low tech French system declares the result in less than one hour of the voting booths closing and in the US with all those machines?
The other thought comes to mind of course is, that given all that US technical superiority, which MAII assures us is the case, just how safe are those voting machines? After all if an inferior British 'hacker' with mental problems can hack the Pentagon no less than eight times how long will it take a superior American hacker to crack those voting machines?
PS. Marcus is the Dreamliner flying yet?
Complain about this comment
Marcus Idioticus 2 wrote:
"That only happens once every four years and that money is paid from voluntary contributions."
Yet every day in office costs Barrack Obama half a million dollars if you breack it down. I don't think there are a lot of billionaires who spent such an amount of money on a daily basis just to retain their position. Oh and those "volutary contributions" are usually called "lobbying" here in Europe. But that must be one of the few cases in which British English differs from American right?
Also you mention that the taxpayers here have to pay for translation services. How is that money in anyway spent worse than the money only to promote elites to retain the most important jobs while the broad mass won't ever get those positions? Implementing German, French, English, Italian or Spanish as Europe's only language won't happen in this century, guess why that is - the population doesn't want it. I would almost say it is democratic ;-)
I also find it quite amusing that there are still more people (percentwise as total numbers would be unfair) in favour of the EU and willing to give it it's vote than there are in the US in favour of the democrats despite their extrem habit of wasting money to buy votes, because Americans obviously tend to forget whom to vote for unless they have 5 "Barrack Obama" or 7 "John McCaine" buttons/stickers on all their clothes.
Complain about this comment
benagyerek wrote
"on a separate point, i do wonder how the proposed sovereignty law will affect future accession treaties (croatia, iceland?), which will also incidentally contain the additional terms negotiated by the irish government in order to help them win their 2nd referendum on lisbon. i do hope that the law won't require referendums on these treaties, or that could be considered a major breach of good faith by the uk government."
Oh really! The Irish,despite promising not to,ratified the treaty exactly as written and ratified by everyone else. Ditto the Czechs.
If I am to suffer the Lisbon Treaty as written then I will have no hesitation in voting down anything that stops them suffering the same fate.If you want to talk about a breach of good faith ask Brown where our referendum is.
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work (56):
Oh no you don't! Iraq was about reserve currencies.
Saddam started to trade oil with Euros and Euros alone.
The US didn't like it, jeopardized their position as leading reserve currency.
Invented bogus reasons to invade Iraq.
Invaded Iraq with the assistance of few fools.
In Baghdad, the Iraqi oil ministry was the first building to be occupied.
France, Germany and many other old EU countries who use Euro as currency knew what this was all about and refused to shot themselves in the foot.
Now whether or not UK leadership and intelligence knew about the US conspiracy to attack Euros position as oil trading currency is irrelevant, the harm was done and UK took a major part in this act of sabotage. From that act alone there are few scores to settle between the Eurozone and the UK, for clearance the one who owes reparations is UK to its European allies in the EU.
Complain about this comment
During a previous bout of posting on one of Gavin's blogs I was assailed by members of the 'fringe' called a snob, told that I was motivated by class and suffered various abuse for suggesting that referenda were the wrong route to take when approving complex legislation. I stand by that position and find it very amusing that David Cameron an Eton old boy, ably backed by George Osborne another public school boy and with other public school boys in his shadow cabinet is the preferred choice of the sceptic classless fringe.
I find it even more amusing that many on the 'fringe' are up in arms about the 'spineless' behaviour of Cameron post Klaus. The brilliant tactical move of leaving the EPP is of course going to make it certain that, even if elected, the Tories will not be able to deliver their renegotiation promises, because they have cut themselves off from all their 'friends' in Europe. I wonder at their tactical 'nous' when ,knowing as they must have known, there was no possibility of them having to make good on the referendum promise and that they would need lots of friends in Europe they left the EPP.
Or maybe they aren't quite so foolish after all, because now when, if elected, they fail to deliver all those opt outs they can, as usual, blame it on the nasty Europeans. The benefits of a public school and Oxford education.
Complain about this comment
WA;
" apologise you addressed democracythreat and I will take liberty to comment. "comparing the current state of European democracy(-cies) with life under Soviet domination is too unpalatably crass for my taste""
""The Book of the History - to the garbage lot!""
Not just for what the EU is but for what it inevitably will become. It wasn't that the Soviets didn't want history books, they wanted to write and teach from their own. Books which would omit among other things a lesson of history that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is because they inteneded exactly what the EU intends, to exercise absolute power from a single central authority. All of the rest are the destiny, the consequences we know will occur. The details change from one instance to another, the exact manner in which this corruption and brutal subjugation is manifest but the substance of it remains the same. Santyana said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. This would appear to be Europe's fate.
Europe has many inherent self contradictions, dilemmas which seem to have no resolution. One is nationalism. The goal of Europe is to challenge and defeat a political, economic, and cultural entity that is not defined by shared history, shared affinity to a particular plot of land the way European and other nations are but only of shared values. Thus anyone can become an American if they adopt American values. But not everyone can become British or French or German no matter what they believe. Here's the problem in a nutshell;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/7469232.stm
and;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8343702.stm
The affinity of European cultures for their land and common heritage goes back over a thousand years. China tried to rewrite history, staged a cultural revolution, end "old thinking" by replacing a mercantile culture with one of communism. It didn't work. 25 or 35 years of communism could not supplant 5000 years of cultural heritage. The USSR tried to end national and religious loyalties by extreme coercion, Soviet history is filled with it. It didn't work either. Its legacy is a mess, for example the relatively recently arrived Russian nationals stranded in the Baltic states and Ukraine where they are hated by those with deeper more ancient roots. You can see it happening again already by the ruling of the EU Court banning crucifixes in public schools in Italy. It doesn't have the force of law...yet. The attempt to homogenize European culture creating people who have little or no loyalty to the region they were born in is one of the EU's goals in its path to achieve the ultimate goal of a cohesive superstate. Therefore someone whose ancestors were Spanish, Roumanian, Italian, and Swiss will have no more particular loyalty when they were born and live in Scotland to Scotland than someone whose ancestors were English, German, French, and Slovenian and was born and lives in Poland will have to Poland. There is to be only one loyalty and that is to the EU. They wanted their own flag and anthem but the Constitution went too far too fast so they took it out when they wrote Lisbon.
What irony that the orchestral part of the last movement of Beethoven's ninth symphony without the choral accompanyment is the EU's chosen anthem. Without both parts it is of course not really Beethoven's ninth symphony at all since he conceived of it as a combined choral and orchestral work. And the words they ironically took out? Schiller's poem "Ode to Joy." I'm sure they will write their own verses to replace it. Ode to Eurocracy or something.
Complain about this comment
Sarah Phlegm, Barack Obama got most of his money from small contributions of a hunderd dollars or less from individual contributors. What is wrong with lobbying? Here we call that freedom of speech and it is protected by our constitution. Even if a Corporation gives a political party lots of money, the CEO still gets only one vote.
Complain about this comment
#44 - mrrobinrowlands
"If the Conservatives are determined to betray the will of the people and not state clearly in their manifesto that their election in no way validates Britains ratification of the treaty which they deem to be constitutionally and legally invalid and non binding, they give me no choice but to attack".
You see, this is precisely where the eurosceptic argument comes unstuck. You proclaim that your democratic rights have been betrayed because you were denied your referendum but then you proclaim that the 'will of the people has been betrayed'. How can you possibly know that if nobody has asked them?
It's make your mind up time. Either you already know what the British people want or you want to ask them - in which case you don't already know. Which is it?
Complain about this comment
So, David Cameron has promised that there will be no transfer of power to the EU, without a referendum. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I think I have spotted a very large loop-hole, through which a Tory party-size object could slip through. There will be no transfer of powers, without a referendum. Not as we might imagine, transfer of powers only if the referendum result is ‘yes’.
Thus a situation where indeed a referendum is called, then the results conveniently ignored, seems entirely plausible. First because it allows the Tories to keep their promises. Second, because a UK referendum is not legally binding even for the British Government, yet a lone for the rest of the EU members, who would have to agree to any changes in the British EU membership. Thus it will not serve any purpose at all when it comes to the real negotiations, but would allow the Conservative party to claim that it acts on people’s behalf. After all, the Tories do not want do in Europe what Johnny Public wants them to do. They just want everybody else to think that way. Even if there is no repatriating of powers back to UK, this could always be blamed on the French and the Germans.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, since you are here. Today's news is Polish Foreign Affairs minister Radoslaw Sikorsky address the USA with a request to - literally :
"We ask the United States to locate American Army in Poland as a shield against Russian aggression. At present there are only 6 American soldiers located in Poland and they are holding against 900 Russian tanks on the other side of the border."
Mavrelius, since you are the only American at hand about to who I can convey this information - we don't want them. Poland in my view, by this clever announcement, has a combintion of mania of chasing together with a mania of superiority.
Think yourself - if we invade them there will be a world war. At that, not that world war that began 70 yrs ago but how to say, this time a very final count down LOL world war. What's so wonderful about Poland that we'd want them? Not even FOC! Not even if someone pays us to do it! For no money Russia would want Poland.
This is very touching of course, only 6 men holding against a whole tank army, but please don't start crying over there the pond and run to save the world. If you can - hold yourself. May be I am mad, but I don't think we border with Poland any more. ? Do we? how they "hold against" our "900 tanks" - beyond me. But it seems to them they do, clearly.
BTW, what's the Polish army doing? Only 6 Americans hold the last bastion poor chaps? When we heard - WE we about to run help them!
With such "memeber states" life won't be boring between Russia and the EU for a long time, granted :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Must be Poland counts that in the US they won't know, if they border Russia or not. No wonder because even I began doubting now. Will go ask mum. But it strongly seems to me we don't. Though the message sounds very desperate convincing, one wants to go help somehow :o)))))))
Complain about this comment
#75 - invictager
"The Irish,despite promising not to,ratified the treaty exactly as written and ratified by everyone else. Ditto the Czechs".
Fundamentally and totally untrue. The Irish government agreed to the second referendum only on the basis of assurances that changes that were required would be incorporated at the next available treaty opportunity. That opportunity arises with the accession treaty for Croatia. The same is probably true - although we do not actually know this yet - of the Czech opt-out.
What you appear to be suggesting then is that the Tories should promise a referendum on a spoiling mechanism to undermine the democratic rights of the Irish, Czech and Croatian people. Are you really suggesting that this was Cameron's intention - because if you are, it is an outrage to anyone who believes in democracy.
Complain about this comment
#78 MarcusAureliusII
Wow what a rant. Only one area of disagreement really, we don't see you as much of a challenge. We do, in common with most adults, have problems with children throwing tantrums or ranting.
Marcus I have to tell you that my girlfriend, who is, as I have told you before, Californian thinks that you are an anti US spoof. In her opinion no one in the US could be quite as OTT as you.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla
Re #76
Oh yes I do!
Iraq was an issue within NATO so far as mine and RCMoya612's comments are in relation to the EU.
Your 'its all an international money-traders conspiracy' is about as realistic and useful as all that guff conspiracy theorists come out with about the origins of 9/11. You dwell on those intricate plots, sub-plots, counter-plots, sub-counter-deterrent-plots...
Me, I'm off to watch Brazil, the movie, for about the 20th time - - now there's a a good solid plot about a plot to undermine a plot that...
Complain about this comment
The game is over and he wants to discuss the rules. The banks herded all the countries into groups so that taking their money would be easier for them and it worked. When people do not have the organizational structures or personnel with the skills to operate such structures they should be very concerned about such organizations. It is ovious that each country struggles with operating it's own country much less clouding all the issues with some comparative goals set by compromises. This is an organization by and for the bankers and all have seen where that can lead. Let the bankers and busineeses set up their own organizations so at least people will understand who is making the decisions. Playing tunes for the politicians to dance too is an embarassement for those who gather under the tent of democracy.
Complain about this comment
@78 Maverlous! I see that now we agree on the USA elitist political establishment you moved on to telling the future. While on the future telling business can you please also guess for me how the Lotto numbers will pan out next week?
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85
Re #69
My Web page for this Blog has altered its 'look' 3 times today!
Also, this morning it refused to show all the Comments and kept sticking: Later, I got Comments displayed horizontally that simply disappeared off the side of the page, and later still, it reverted to what I have now 1 Comment following another down the page.
None of these do I like compared to a year or so ago when if I signed-in and selected 1 of my Comments the Blog page would open at that Comment whereas now I have to scroll down to find each one.
BBC Technical Dept is legendary for 'glitches' particularly when the Comment content is diametrically opposed to its Political Correctness policies: Then it usually just freezes and we get the standard 'it'll be restored' shortly blurb - - it usually is and usually when a whole lot of inconvenient Comments have disappeared into the 'technical I.T. stratosphere'!
Complain about this comment
Arta-factless
"It is good to see that at least there is one person in the USA (that person is you) that is not fooled with the oligarchy over there, that some smart marketering people have sold to the rest of your fellow countrymen/women as democracy."
Here's the bio of the new Governor of NJ, Christi;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_J._Christie
Yeah, born to the purple...in Newark New Jersey, grew up in Livingston, became a lawyer. Some elite, we've got around 2 million lawyers in the US. Or the Governator of our most populous state, Schwartznegger in California. Born an Austrian who became a bodybuilder, got a break in Hollywood as an actor. How did he miss out on Eton?
Complain about this comment
WA;
Let the British defend Poland. They did such a fine job of it in WWII. Two London bobbies on bicycles with batons, two by two just as the song says. England swing like a pendulum do. This time I think it swung once too far. Strike three England, yer out! Back in the EUSSR! No trident submarines but lots of batons and bicycles. I'm sure the Poles would prefer a half a dozen American cruise missiles armed with neutron bombs to stop the Russian tanks. They won't get it though. Obama needs to send whatever troops he has to Afghanistan to clean up the mess the USSR made.
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work (86):
First of all, NATO has nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq didn't attack any NATO country and Iraq didn't organize or assist 9/11 attacks, there was no reason to invoke NATO fifth article. The Afghanistan war, that is a NATO operation, where other NATO countries have taken part because of the fifth article.
Secondly, you might want to take a look on modern economics before shouting your opinions.
The Iraq war was all about stopping the usage of Euro as oil trading currency. You see US dollar has from the 70s been the only currency used in oil trading, in essence this has lead into a situation where US prints money and other countries buy that money with their goods and services to buy oil. Now if the world would no longer need to buy US dollars to buy oil, US just couldn't print money to pay for its expenses, thus couldn't keep up its current standards of living and it couldn't keep up its global military supremacy. The Eurozone on the other hand as its currency would get the position of the US dollar, could now print money and get the same benefits that the US did, in essence allowing higher standards of living and setting up of more powerful military force.
Now you may deny this, but let me just point into a one little fact. When Saddam started to trade oil with Euro, the USA started immediately to threaten it, and when the USA had occupied Iraq, the occupation authority made the change from Euro back to US dollars even when the oil trade with Euro had benefited Iraq financially. It is the exactly same deal with Iran.
You may not like the fact that Euro is the second reserve currency and taking over the US dollar, but that is fact of life and that is what is going to happen. It would have happened even sooner if it wasn't for the USA invasion assisted by UK.
To WebAliceinwonderland (82):
The Polish are a little bit angered on Russia having simulated an nuclear attack on Poland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6480227/Russia-simulates-nuclear-attack-on-Poland.html
Just imagine what your reaction would be if NATO countries would be having a military exercises where they would make an air, land and sea attack with nuclear weapons against Russia.
Complain about this comment
79. At 3:59pm on 05 Nov 2009, MarcusIdioticusII wrote:
"What is wrong with lobbying? Here we call that freedom of speech and it is protected by our constitution. Even if a Corporation gives a political party lots of money, the CEO still gets only one vote."
Marcus I thought even you would not be THAT narrow minded. Of course the CEO gets only one vote however if he is lucky and the politician he gave the money to might return the favour by - say keep a health care system in which individual has to pay 2 to 3 times the money to get a service that is not any better than the one in other industrialzied countries - not to forget that more than 20% of the population get far inferior treatment. Or he will be happy to start a war so that the companies that sponsored him the most can get cheap oil to sell it and so that the weapon producing companies always can sell their products. Or he will keep the law to bear arms which is outdated for about a century bye now. It is so much more convenient to send armed guards near schools so that they can babysit the kids to prevent other massacres as instead forbidding the pupils to possess arms in the first place isn't it? Now you may say that there have been massacres in Europe too with which you even would be right and we have this problem for the same reasons as you - too much lobbyism (though comparing lobbys here and lobbys in the US, European lobbys must look like Kindergardens in comparison).
That has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech at all. Freedom of speech is when all voices are heard and not only those that pay most to be heard. If that was the case there wouldn't be 5 lobbyists from the health complex cooperations alone in Washington DC per Senator. If the value those represent to the coresponding companies wasn't higher than their salaries then they wouldn't exist so the maths to say that they must actually be paid by the american tax payers is not a very hard one even for you is it?
btw. Cool_brush_work... where are you from? Because if i remember correctly then an "ö" doesn't exist on a default english keyboard does it? Still you have one in one of your recent posts
Complain about this comment
There is definitely something wrong with this blog. I just got back to check progress and found the text below still sitting in the Post comment box even though it has been accepted and shows as post #85. Over to you IT dept.
#78 MarcusAureliusII
Wow what a rant. Only one area of disagreement really, we don't see you as much of a challenge. We do, in common with most adults, have problems with children throwing tantrums or ranting.
Marcus I have to tell you that my girlfriend, who is, as I have told you before, Californian thinks that you are an anti US spoof. In her opinion no one in the US could be quite as OTT as you.
Complain about this comment
MA @78 "the affinity of the European people to their place (approx.) "goes back 5,000 years" ... China tried, Russia tried...
"not everyone can become a German or a French one"
"while any one can become an American who shares American values".
Let me think. First of all, you suggest European folks are cats. They say that cats get affinity ? to the place, while dogs - to the owners. Thus a dog moves where the master goes but the cat returns stubbornly to the house from miles and thousands of miles away (as many did).
(and who ever happens to live in that house by then ought to feed the poor stubborn kitty on return :o) - and then the world arrangement seems to the cat to be alright again :o))))
Well may be, 5000 yrs and all.
And yes, it is not always possible "to become a German" or a French. or -whoever. While much easier to become "an American". Modern Russian have a saying - "don't go abroad (may be meaning Europe, BTW) - "you'll be tajik forever" Meaning, whatever you do - 30 yrs later the locals will remember and see on first sight - like the Russians see in the old-comers from the "regions" - "A Tajik".
So far so good, true. Ability to recognise another issue pattern on the first glance, LOL, you can't take away from the Europeans, probably.
As we say - "You can't drink talant away" :o))) (Many - tried.:o) Impossible. You can "drink away" brains, money, wife, family, job, health, but the in-born talent - there isn't so much vodka in the world. :o)))
So, we recognise aliens. But if you recognise an alien but treat it nicely - may be - alright? Like, another approach.
US approach (1) - not to recognise aliens. all the same no diff.
European approach (2) - to recognise aliens. knowing it's alright to be aliens to one another, what to do.
About "values" that the American can share and Europeans somehow technically defective folk - "can't". Seems to be one blogger some place above here had listed a list of values, that many Europeans and even us, extra-terreneous Russians :o)0 are eager to share - value of an individual's life, like, human life value.
Forgot what else, but even one such - already not bad grounds, eh? for a future common values' ring, identifying "a Euro land product"
Don't know. Thoughts for starters.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work (89): Look on the bright side; there is no boilerplated spam to have to scroll past ;-)
Alice (65): Great post!
Complain about this comment
@ cool_brush_work:
Mine changed only from this to one with very tiny letters and more space to post in then to "not available to unknown reasons" and back to this - so i guess it was more a glitch than an improvement I would have liked to see :)
I havent seen those glitches that often on other webpages with bloggs or forums but then those pages are coded in php and not html, i don't know if it has anything to do with that or if possibly al quaida tries to sabotage the BBC ;)
Complain about this comment
BTW MAII, the Soviet experiment to create "Homo Sovieticus" nearly worked. I guess, "nearly" - does not count. :o)
But then it did work for a quite a time, which means it worked.
For example, I thought and knew nil of my friends' nationalities until the USSR collapsed and all began remembering who they are. Anybody knows? May be grandma knows? :o))) Somebody - tell me! :o))))
Imagine my surprise! when I discovered that instead of "all are Soviet and before the Revolution - were Russian" my friends are:
2 Jewish
2 Polish
1 Chechen
1 Mongol-Tatar
1 Lithuanian
and so forth and so on.
I remember I thought like, Jesus Christ! a nighmare :o)))) How did I survive, all these years, surrounded by Russian enemies on all sides?!!!
Live an learn, like - wow! :o))))))
(at that, only 1 (one) friend - of all! for birthdays! from school! from university! from amateur theatre! from every- where - was - Russian. And I quarreled with her and disliked her - most of all! (didn't know she is "our folk" :o)))))
I remember when a friend told me he is going to immigrate to Israel I like sat down where I stood. ????? But you are Russian! But Alice, come back to senses, I am - Katsnelson. And so - what? You're mad. Don't go there. You will die there. What will you do there? It's hot in Israel, and you burn, at the first suntan! They'll grabatise you to the Israeli army! A Soviet army - it wasn't enough for you?! etc.
Yes, Mavrelius, it is possible to create a "Homo Sovieticus". And a "Homo European", I suppose.
By the way, what does your government add into the Big Macs that you can't see who is who :o))))) lost the ability - simply - curious
:o)))))
Complain about this comment
Mark Brandist
Re #60
'Peddling views' and 'What an Englishman is'?
First off, I did not originate the term 'peddling' for this particular debate and used it in response to RCMoya612 and his #48.
As to the 'English' - - I am not sure what it is you are getting at - - according to the last census the English in the present England are a population of approximately 49,000,000 men, women children of whom 84+% were born in England but of whom some 8* million (*I believe this figure actually refers to the UK population) had parents/grandparents whose first language was not English. The largest active (presumably attending services) religious grouping was still CofE but Muslims were a very close second. Approx 1 in 7 described themselves by selective response as not being 'white-British'.
The Royal House of Windsor: Again, not sure what you are getting at? Their name has changed with their ancestry's lineage - - the relevance to everyday and the EU/ECJ is something for you to worry about - - as a symbol of England and the United Kingdom they would appear despite all the oddities to be doing a fair job judging by the tourists who can still tell the English when Changing of the Guard occurs!
Personally I am neither for nor against: They are a unique institution with almost nil genuine constitutional relevance, but I would not replace them as the thought of Pres Blair, Thatcher etc. is just too gruesome even for my hardy soul to contemplate!
The History of the British Isles or England: It is in my view very different from the experience of mainland Europe in many respects - - somebody else (Calvo?) was claiming I am xenophobic but born to white english parents and living in Belgium with a Morrocan wife I'm not so sure he's right - - as it seems to me all those wars on the Continent over centuries (not least the Reformation and counter-Reformation, Russo-Scandinavian wars, the Prussian expansionist campaigns, the 2 general European wars that became worldwide, countless Balkan conflicts and so on), have naturally affected the European psyche in favour of unity at almost any cost so long as they don't have to suffer such misery ever again.
The British have had numerous military encounters but the experience of 'conquest' rather than 'conquered' (admittedly through the accident of Geography as much as anything else): It has had a not insignificant effect on the psyche of the 4 Union Peoples. Some parts/peoples always resisting London's domination, others resisting at times and still others becoming reconciled to a sort of English dominance. Though the number of Scots, Welsh and Irish who contributed to the 'english' control is immense, e.g. Wellington was Irish, Lloyd-George Welsh, MacDonald Scottish and of course all those 'refugee'/'immigrant' groups which led to as wide-ranging influences on the 'english' experience from a Jewish Prime Minister (Disraeli) to Churchill (American mother), best-seller Roald Dahl (Norwegian) through to Van Dyck the painter (Dutch).
I am sure many nations would have a similar list of acclaimed 'fellows' who help to make up the National archive - - how 'english' we make them is not so important as the fact they primarily lived and worked in England and in the main used the 'english' language.
So, the point about the 'english' is that being 'english' is about being the Individual in an individualistic Nation of Britons drawn from across the world but identifying with those Isles.
I readily submit such People will be increasingly hard to find in the strait-jacket of EU and ECJ domination as Lisbon takes hold.
Complain about this comment
#91 MarcusAureliusII
Cool 'half a dozen neutron bomb tipped cruise missiles'. Considering that the US military coined the phrase 'collateral damage' and their proven capability for 'friendly fire' incidents if I were a Polish citizen I would now be asking my leaders to either request two bobby's with batons or to open surrender talks right away.
Complain about this comment
#84
It was completely true. The Irish prime minister said they would not put the same text to the electorate again. They then did exactly that, as confirmed by Glynis Kinnock, the minister for Europe in a speech to the Lords.
The assurances given currently have no legal force and were NOT in the Lisbon treaty as the Europhiles knew that to include them could mean re-ratification by all 27 states which they deperately wanted to avoid. Therefore as I stated they ratified exactly the treaty they initially rejected.
That is an affront to democracy as was Brown's betrayal of the UK people. Where was the democracy for the Irish people when their government and the EU pressured them into voting again on the same document, because if that is democratic I assume you have no problem with sceptics demanding a third vote on the same text.
Complain about this comment
just to set the record straight for anyone who cares, my comment about sarkozy could indeed equally apply to any other leader (because, as a matter of legal fact, they all have a veto over cameron's declared intent to negotiate opt-outs). the only reason i named sarkozy is because he's the kind of person i could imagine seizing the opportunity to tell cameron where to get off.
btw, why is it that eurosceptics seem congenitally incapable of seeing other european countries as our friends?
Complain about this comment
#93 - Seraphim85
Oh, that's all we need - a debate about where Cool_brush_work found an accent to go over his 'o'. I nearly typed umlaut but of course we learn from one of his earlier posts that the French are the evil geniuses of the EU so I would guess it's a diaeresis. Either way, check out 'Character Map' - it's a piece of cake!
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla
Re #92.
Didn't you write very similar stuff some months ago?
It was totally unrealistic then and it still is now.
PS: Nobody is shouting at you or shouting their opinion - - my Comments were all in lower-case - - and just because I disagree does not make you or I wrong, only an alternative opinion.
Complain about this comment
#99 - cool_brush_work
" . . .born to white english parents and living in Belgium with a Morrocan wife . . . "
Without actually doing a head count, it is amazing to me just how many EUsceptics post from mainland Europe. One might have been tempted to think that taking advantage of the freedom of movement that EU membership allows then lambasting the institution comes close to biting the hand that feeds it.
Complain about this comment
This will sound very simplistic, but if Cameron calls a referendum on Europe, his predicament would worsen if England and NI voted sceptically, while Scotland and Wales were predominantly pro-Europe. Technically, it would pass, but the result could then hasten the break-up of the UK.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85
Re #93
As you asked:
Parents were English born and bred but I was born in Cologne, Germany (Father in BAOR); educated in Germany (to 12) and England (to Univ). My wife is Morrocan although we met and married in Antwerp, Belgium. We currently live in Brussels.
The C(ö)mputer came with me from Norway some 3 years ago now - - it's too reliable to be recycled!
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II
Re #103
'It a piece of cake.'
Well, I am partial to a nice layered slice of 'dobostorte', aren't you?
Complain about this comment
#101 - invictager
Nobody is saying that the text is not the same. Of course nobody was going to rewrite the entire treaty and resubmit it to all 27 countries. What was agreed - as I said - is that the variations required would be incorporated at the next available opportunity which happens to be the Croatian accession treaty.
My point is therefore completely valid. If Cameron proposes a referendum on each and every treaty, that would include the accession treaty and if that were the case, he would in effect, be gifting the British people a spoiling mechanism to deny the Irish, Czechs and Croatians their rights on the basis of little more than sour grapes.
I raised this earlier and Freeborn John clarified the situation. My understanding is that this is not what Cameron proposes but, if it was, as you appear to be suggesting, it would be an affront to the rights of those people.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, the Russian military exercise you refer to, a simulation of a nuclear attack on Poland (and not Poland only but ww) is part 2. Part 1 in that exercise was "Russian army is kicked away off from Belorussia, from Kalingrad enclave, from up to Moscow". It was an exercise in "how to retreat in an organised manner" - literally. Presuming that the "adversary" ordinary non-nuclear troops are better able and better equipped (as things are you won't deny) than the Russian army in its present state.
In Russian media the exercise got a label "Why do they train how to retreat? Why won't they cut things short and train instead "how to surrender on the spot" ????
And, yes, you do know that if we are kicked away by normal means - from our territory - be it by China or Europe or whatever we go nuclear as Step 2.
Complain about this comment
I suppose Russian army was "retreating" to Moscow so many times in the "dis-organised manner" - in fact every time, be it Mongol-Tatars or Napoleon or Hitler - regular army was smashed every time to nothing, right in the beg. - that they finally decided to train how to do nice and clean :o))))
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work (104):
How so? How so is it so unrealistic that the reason for the Iraq war was the Euro?
The facts support my view on the issue. I have given you background, working logic and motivation on why USA invaded because of the Euro. The fact is, Iraq traded oil with Euro, USA invaded and Iraq stopped using Euro in oil trade - again, that is fact.
Now if you don't agree, then you better come up with an better alternate explanation to the Iraq war, and let me start of by saying that it wasn't the alleged WMDs nor they were the alleged Saddam's ties with the Al-Quida, those were all fabricated.
So please, if you think my explanation to the events is so unrealistic, then tell me why and give an better explanation to what happened and back it up, otherwise your opinion is worthless.
Complain about this comment
#101. invictager wrote:
"It was completely true. The Irish prime minister said they would not put the same text to the electorate again. They then did exactly that, as confirmed by Glynis Kinnock, the minister for Europe in a speech to the Lords."
Can you find the quote for me? Google doesn't appear to bring it up. Although even if he did say that the Irish Government changed its mind, just like it's citizens it has the right to.
"The assurances given currently have no legal force and were NOT in the Lisbon treaty as the Europhiles knew that to include them could mean re-ratification by all 27 states which they deperately wanted to avoid. Therefore as I stated they ratified exactly the treaty they initially rejected."
They will have legal force once the Croatian Ascension treaty comes on-line. Not that the Lisbon Treaty actually allows the EU to start forcing abortions and declaring war on Ireland's behalf. They are assurances for the Irish because they where worried about these issues and it contributed to the No vote.
"That is an affront to democracy as was Brown's betrayal of the UK people. Where was the democracy for the Irish people when their government and the EU pressured them into voting again on the same document, because if that is democratic I assume you have no problem with sceptics demanding a third vote on the same text."
There was a second referendum because Ireland's fears where addressed. If, in opinion polling after the referendum the Irish had by and large said that they opposed the treaty because it streamlines the EU and say, creates a proper President of the council then the treaty would have had to be rejected and started from scratch.
Complain about this comment
As to the "simulation of the nuclear attack on Poland" - haven't heard nil here, that "Poland" all of a sudden, in particular. That they are training non-stop in "nuclear attacks" about every one else - I don't doubt a sec. Nuclear stuff is our only real "army", I do hope they "train". Such trainings are described in Russia thus:
Step 1: "Fire!"
Step 2: Cover up with a white sheet and crawl to the cemetery.
But sure. "Repetition - mother of teaching." Let them drill. :o)))
Seriously, we are of the old opinion that if anything saves us (with such neighbours as voracious Poland! :o))))) - it is neither army nor nuclear but the distance. We are not even afraid of the Chinese very much, because by the time they get to Moscow, they will be LOL, how to say :o)))) - tired. All were. :o)))))
As Putin said "will get exhausted on the way to swallow the dust!"
In fact he said it on another occasion, describing difficulties of the foreign businesses to break through the Russian bureaucracy... OOps. what did I say
Complain about this comment
#109
Then why did you say my statement was fundamentally and totally untrue. All I said was they voted on exactly the same treaty as before which was basically true.
You may have a point about the Irish and Czechs but why should I place their so called rights above mine. I consider I had the right to the vote I was promised and if the UK has to use "spoiling methods" to get concessions then so be it. It is hardly a new tactic,just ask the French.
PS
When did the Croatians, or any others for that matter, acquire the "right" to enter the EU.
On another point raised by you at#105 I have spent the majority of the last 6 years living and working in France but it does not mean I have to believe in the modern version of the EU. I had the right to live and work in France long long before Lisbon or Nice. What I detest is the continual power grab from Brussels over the last 10 or 15 years. Any entity which requires a president,currency,army,control of borders etc is a country in all but name.
Just what is wrong with the concept of the EU only legislating on the most important matters that are required to ensure free trade. Was it really necessary to criminalise people for selling a pound of bananas or such like or to tell people what hours they can or cannot work.
Do you really think changing a few paragraphs to get round defeats in a referendum is actually democratic eg France and Netherlands.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (110):
Alice, no offense but the explanation given that it was just an part 2 of an exercise is a little bit unbelievable. It would be the same as if the Finnish army would be first exercising on defending against, well, attack of an Russian army, and then practicing on taking over the Moscow. There is this thing called the fog of war, in essence the more further you try to see, the less clear it comes. In this case, after the retreat to the gates of Moscow, the fog becomes so heavy that there is no practical reason to practice on what happens next.
A better explanation to all this is that the Russian army is practicing two cases: 1) were the enemy makes the first strike and troops are used in defense and 2) were the Russian army makes the first strike and troops are used in offense. By practicing these two cases in the same exercise the army gets detailed information on how its training and equipment can deal with these two cases and see were it must invest, on what training and on what equipment.
Now of course, from the point of view of the army, this is all very rational, but from the point of view of political relationships and mutual truest, this operation is deadly poison. You just can't practice on making an offense into your neighbor without getting your neighbor very afraid and very angry. Again what would be your reaction if for example Finnish army would be practicing the take over of St. Petersburg? You know when I was in the Finnish army the only thing that we practiced was defense, defense and defense, nothing more, nothing else. So really, this exercise wasn't a good thing, not at all.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla
Re #112.
Haven't we all done this 'reasons' for Iraq just once too often already?
Those poor, tragically abused Iraqis deserve better than you or I rehearsing all that stuff yet again that has brought them so much misery.
From my point of view the reasons for invading Iraq were eminently sensible at the time it all went off - - the debacle that followed is one of the biggest crimes since WW2 - - now, you hold to your views and I will respect them and decline to dispute them.
It seems somehow disgraceful to discuss Euros/Dollars/Oil/WMDs etc. knowing what we now know about the fate of the unfortunate 'cradle of civilisation'.
Complain about this comment
#106 hibernian82
I made exactly that point on a previous blog to be given the usual round of sceptic abuse. Don't try to be logical don't try to say anything that even slightly differs from their paranoid view of the world or, if you do,be prepared for the brickbats.
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work (117):
I don't think that having a discussion on the reasons for war is disgraceful, the going into the war for all the wrong reasons was disgraceful.
And I do know that saying, that the war was just because of oil trading currencies, might cheapen the things that have happened, the sacrifices of the people, the civilians, the soldiers etc..
However, there is relevance in discussions of the reasons to the war.
For example I'm not the only one having the view that it was all about reserve currency status, this view was presented before and after the war. I would also say that anyone with even a short clue on modern economics and on how the global economy works, would come to this same conclusion. Paris, Berlin, Brussels or Frankfurt haven't said it aloud, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't think so, and this has real political effects. In essence, if the war was about currencies, then why did the UK go to war well knowing that it would hurt the Euro currency project? Was Blair just an idiot, or an ruthless leader, and the same question goes too to the British civil service. I can accept Blair being idiot, but British civil services, especially foreign, have usually been quite talented.
Then there is of course the reflection thing, in essence if US goes to war because of currencies, then how do we in Europe, in the EU, make sure that we don't someday go to war because the position of Euro is endangered by a competing reserve currency?
And maybe it wasn't because of currencies, who knows, we don't know nothing for sure before US and UK release minute details on their leaders thoughts and talks. Maybe G.W.B just wanted to make one right for his dad, or maybe he got a message from God, or at least thought so. However, I would say we have to use logic and reason to explain these things, to better manage what future brings.
Complain about this comment
#117 cool_brush_work
While I agree that we have probably done the reasons for the Iraq Invasion a few too may times I feel that your statement
"From my point of view the reasons for invading Iraq were eminently sensible at the time it all went off "
Is without doubt a serious provocation to starting that debate once again. I'm just going to manage to resist the temptation but only just.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, I look up the exercise since you say and all, all I heard here honestly is those accusations "retreat the whole way to Moscow - charming!"
I'll look up in the Echo of Moscow; suppose you trust them. I don't! :o))) But if there is a thing possible to be said critical about Kremlin policies, and it doesn't squeeze into the 24 hr political broadcasting - the Echo will extend the day to 26!
When I listened to them in the long cold dacha evenings I often thought - oh, how much old Jukks would love this passage! :o))))
Like, when Obama said something, that the US won't be taking care of the whole world any more, but only of their own interests, thatthey won't focus any longer on the old mantra to save the world or something? Approximately? - poor Echo of Moscow couldn't quiet down several hours.
But that's a treason! Of the core American interests! How could he! Every nation has their idee fix that keeps them afloat - and what are Americans about - if they don't have this dream and passion to save the world! The editor in Chief despaired about the loss of American orientation and core values for quite some time. :o))))
While normal media granted said "Long due their brains got dispalced about this world saving mission long time ago :o))))
Anyway. You know we've got a new military doctrine? Medvedev announced recently. That allows Russian army to act abroad. In catch up of Georgia, because as they found out later, we violated approximately everything (allowed at home) and it is no good, and I don't remember exactly - but seems to be even own Constitution. That says something - only defence and only of ourselves.
So Medvedev issued a new doctrine apoproved by the State Duma by now.
Otherwise accountants were even unable to pay army for the Georgian affair period, bullets are stolen and can't be written off or whatever, and all Abkhasia troops are illegal. Now we are allowed "to help friends in need". :o)))))
About nuclear as I understood, that you so much worry about, it's like this: you can defeat Russian army "helping friends abroad", this is allowed :o)))) we won't go nuclear nuts. Only when we are defeated at home - this is not allowed. A total no-no, remember.
As to "what would you feel if NATO would arrange a massive air, landm, sea nuclear training how to attack Russia" I assure you not a wink of an eye. Since NATO in Russia is such eh, LOL :o))))) how to say, such a brand! that this is what every single Russian presumes they are doing any way, day and night, 24/7. This doesn't prevent us, though, to look at the current Russia/NATO lay-out with a certain degree of humour, and, how to say, we are used to it as a normal layout.
No hysterics.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the key take-away line from Gavin's post is "This, then, will be a long legal struggle. It is a far cry from threatening to obstruct business unless Britain gets its way."
Of the press articles prior to Cameron's speech, this one from Danny Finkelstein stands out in retrospect as being the most accurate in its predictions:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6901637.ece
It describes at a high level the various policy strands that were to be outlined by Cameron in his speech, but it also sheds some light on the tactics to be used to stop the 'European ratchet'. Finkelstein says: "This means, as Mr Osborne has being particularly strong in arguing, that the policy has to be negotiable, and not one that will turn their first encounters with other European leaders in a shambles. . . They believe that they can put a stop to what they term 'the European ratchet'. Their policy will insist upon it. But they want to avoid issuing ultimatums with immediate deadlines. There is plenty of time. And many moments where there will be leverage. Europe has to agree a new budget in 2013, for instance".
Based on this, and other articles, and indeed remarks from Cameron on the radio, i would suggest that the Conservatives are drawing up a list of EU decisions where UK agreement is needed over the 2010-2014/5 period, and preparing to negotiate their agreement in return for other governments agreeing to repatriate the shortlist of EU competences that Cameron wants back.
As Gavin points out, the return of powers requires an EU treaty change approved by an Inter-Governmental Conference (or alternatively use of the Lisbon 'ordinary revision procedure', but this would actually complicate matters). However recent IGC, including the one that produced Lisbon, are not the grand and long-drawn out affairs they sound like. They have been 1-day events tacked on to the end of an EU Council meeting to give official treaty status to what has been negotiated by the same government leaders at length during the previous days of the EU Council meeting. So the need for an IGC need not be as complicated as Gavin makes it sound. Should we see a new British government in 2010, one can expect that government to be negotiating its agreement to the items on the rolling EU Council agenda, in return for follow-up mini-IGCs to rubber-stamp the opt-outs the UK is seeking as EU treaty changes.
Since the list of powers the UK wants back is finite, and the list of items where UK agreement is needed on the never-ending series of EU Council meetings is infinite, there is every prospect that the UK will be successful in its negotiations given sufficient time.
Of course there will be pieces of silver to pay for each step in throwing of the chains that the Blair/Brown stitch-up has left us in. We will doubtless have to send ships of on useless vainglorious missions that the French want, or have some EU foreign policy rep droning on from our UN Security Council seat; but freedom was never free, and getting it back will have such costs.
Complain about this comment
106 - hibernian82
This thought has come up previously on a number occasions and I think not only that you are right but that you may have struck a nerve. Increasingly, I have noticed especially EU sceptics referring to 'GB/England' which, depending on your point of view, might suggest either that they do not see a distinction or that they are claiming a God given right to speak for the whole of the UK.
I suspect that beneath all this lies a fear on the part of these English sceptics that the whole concept of a United Kingdom may have run its course. For example, the Tories describe themselves as the Conservative and Unionist Party but there is precious little indication that they have any serious support north of the border. If it were to transpire that they were forced to choose between betraying their EU sceptic English supporters or their unionist credentials, there is little doubt which way they would go. Paradoxically, this leaves Scotland exactly where the UK was in the run-up to the 1992 election when no political party of note came out against Masstricht. There would in effect be no meaningful voice for Scots EU sceptics.
A rise in English nationalism now seems inevitable and increased power to the EU would mean that the very notion of Britain as a unified entity will decline. This may be one of the reasons why EU scepticism seems to have become so English a preoccupation.
Complain about this comment
T1mOthy
Re #120
Good.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla
Re #119
I appreciate that you are as aware as all of us of the tragedy that has unfolded. You go ahead and 'debate' if you feel you must.
You can do it without me.
There is a time and place: A Blog Article on the feeble Cameron policy on the EU is in my opinion not that place.
Complain about this comment
invictager
Re 3115
Well said: Do not let their (EU supporters) attitude of superiority put you off the key points that they are never able to respond to with any genuine reality.
The EU is a power-grab by a few interested groups (e.g. big-business and petty bureaucrats) led by power-hungry France and Germany; the EU can be dressed up any way it sees fit but 'Democratic' it isn't; the supporters can wax lyrical about the deficiencies of the Nation State, but that does not justify a corrupt supra-national state in its place.
Keep sticking it on their EU-chins.
Complain about this comment
#115 - invictager
"Then why did you say my statement was fundamentally and totally untrue. All I said was they voted on exactly the same treaty as before which was basically true".
Because it is. If the required conditions had not been undertaken by the other members there is every chance Ireland would have said 'no' again and certainly Klaus would not have signed.
" . . . why should I place their so called rights above mine".
Indeed but putting their rights ahead of theirs is quite different from using them as a punchbag for something over which they have no control.
"Do you really think changing a few paragraphs to get round defeats in a referendum is actually democratic eg France and Netherlands".
No - and I have said so in the threads repeatedly. But just because the end does not justify the means does not make the end undesirable in itself.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (121):
I have actually read about the new military doctrine, and let me tell you there are people that have more vivid imagination than I have. Namely, many people think that the Russian new military doctrine is preparation to take over the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine, the east and south Ukraine. I myself only think that the new military doctrine is just for practicality, and just maybe for 5 - 8% for the takeover of parts of Ukraine as that kind of incursion would put west into war path.
In the case of the military exercise, and in the case of the new military doctrine, I can and should give some benefit of doubt as there clearly is a division between the western view and the Russian view. However the thing is that I would be a politician, and seeing these things happen, the exercise, the new military doctrine, my reaction and rational decision would be to... "Hello? EADS? I would like to make an order for new jet fighters! ASAP! ... Hello? NATO? I would like to join your club! ASAP!". These incidents and policies just make the European states that border Russia go into the state of alarm and turn into any place where they can get security which of course Russia sees as an threat to itself.
Now going back to mentalities, I haven't ever listened to Echo Moscow, but from your description they sound like an Russian radio station, concentrating to the soul or idea of a nation is very much a Russian thing to do when the cold reality is more about who gets the cash and how much. Then again, the view on what the idea of America isn't shared between us, or at least with me an Echo Moscow. By the way, the American idea is somewhere along in the road of 'my home, my money, my religion/way of life'. The projection of America into the world after WW1 and WW2 is just because of the money involved.
Oh and as we are talking about mentalities. I have to make an complaint about Russian mentality, or at least the mentality of Russian football funs. In summer there was a Finland vs. Russia football match and the Russians fans were sprouting in lines of "The Finns are now going to try to get a retribution for the lost war!", which to me and probably to many other just brought thoughts like "Dudes, you couldn't take over our country, we stayed as democracy and you stayed dictatorship, you lost.", and of course "What has war to do with football?" and "Finland isn't really famous for our level in football, so what is this boasting?". Granted, football idiots are idiots always, but usually these kinds of things aren't shouted by the fans.
You may say that, no hysterics, but I just have to say that there is doubt, very much doubt, and doubt isn't a good thing.
Complain about this comment
#122 Freeborn-John
I will never ever get to the point where I can understand the sheer unbelievable arrogance of the sceptic 'fringe'. When are you going to understand that the way out agenda of the 'English' sceptics is just a joke?
The rest of the EU is going to get on with business and if the UK starts playing games it will be ignored, politely but still ignored. Your pathetic whinging about hypothetical loss of democracy is driving the UK further and further out into the cold.
I, as an individual, have nothing to lose from this but I do have two children and two grandchildren who stand to lose a lot if this misguided pursuit of English independence continues. Get over it and start to engage with the EU. If you think it's so wrong become an MEP and start to put it right, not this endless shouting from the touchlines, accept the rules, become a player not a sore loser.
Complain about this comment
#113
Re point 1.
It seems I had a poor memory of what I had read. It should have read the Irish government said so rather than Brian Cowen personally.
Source House of Commons research paper 09/75
"This seemed to contradict the Irish Government’s pledge not to ask the electorate to vote on the same text they had rejected earlier. Micheál Martin had said in January 2009: "We will not be asking people to vote on the same proposition”92 and in May, the Europe Minister, Dick Roche, said “Our partners understand, I believe, that we cannot and will not put the same package to our people later this year”
Re point 2
You have merely confirmed what I said. Pointing out they will be in force at the next treaty hardly contradicts my assertion they are not currently in force.
Re point 3
We will have to agre to disagree. it is my opinion that the treaty would have been forced through whatever the Irish people thought.
Complain about this comment
#127
No. You are still trying to place a condition on something I never said.
My exact words were
""The Irish,despite promising not to,ratified the treaty exactly as written and ratified by everyone else. Ditto the Czechs".
You replied by saying that was untrue because they only voted again after getting the "assurances". Strictly speaking you are explaining "why" they voted again rather than on what text. I based my assertion on the quotes from the research paper quoted above and also on the passage from our Minister for Europe in the same paper ie
"In an exchange in the House of Lords on 1 July 2009, the Minister for Europe, Glenys Kinnock, confirmed the Government’s view that Ireland would be voting on the same Treaty text the second time around:
Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October. […] Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it."
Therefore you must concede that what I said was factually correct because I made no mention of the motive for doing so but adhered to the actual text of the treaty voted upon.
As for the others I do not see it as using them as a punchbag regarding something they had no control over but more as asserting my rights in a legal, if less than gentlemanly,fashion. Furthermore they had the right not to vote yes on a treaty that did not include the required text so it was actually fully in their control.The fact that they caved in to pressure to accept a less binding guarantee was entirely their own perogative.
Complain about this comment
#126 cool_brush_work
Yet another 'fringe' problem I see. The complaint that those in favour of the EU never answer your oh so simple questions which usually run into half the blog and quote vast swathes of, claimed to be EU legislation. That's a typical of the 'fringe' really isn't it.
My post today #70 where I asked why you disliked the European Charter of Human rights was ignored. Lots of banging on about presumed but unprovable loss of democracy but no answers as to why Brits should have less rights than the rest of Europe.
Complain about this comment
#129
How terribly arrogant to think we deserve an opinion that meits equal consideration to yours. How dare we.
If we are "the sceptic fringe" why were the government so scared to hold a referendum that they reduced themselves to lying about the context of the treaty. I think it was universally acknowledged that they would have lost heavily.The sceptic fringe, I would wager, is in fact the sceptic majority.
Get used to it. You are the minority in the UK.
And just so we understand each other I am not even English so don't give me that English independence claptrap.
Complain about this comment
#132
can I answer that question using a point you raised at 70. I believe the EU would like to enforce a maximum week of 48 hours on everyone.
While I have no real problem with a law that prohibits an employer from forcing someone to work long hours I find it a gross invasion of my right to self determination to TELL me I cannot work long hours if I choose to do so. Who is showing the arrogance there.
Please correct me if I misunderstood the concept but if I am right can you give me one good reason why I should not tell them to go pluck themselves.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy
Re #132
Well, as my #126 ran to 8 lines I thought you would be grateful!
As for your #70 - - unless I am mistaken you did not address it to me and at no point does it include specific query as to my attitude to the European Charter of Human Rights - - apart from which I defy you to point to 1 Comment by me in which I criticise the European Charter of Human Rights!?
I did once refer to a Human Rights Court decision about a rapist - - perhaps, and so typical of the EU supporter, you mistook that content for a broader opinion which was convenient to your version of the 'anti-EU' Commentator!?
Now, as to the lengthy Blog Questions by me: Well again, I would suggest that they are only in response to Me_rijn, Gunota, Jukka_Rohilla, Jorge1 etc. who are past masters at quoting from the EU Treaties in order to disguise their lack of interest and understanding it is individual Citizens that are affected by the grandiose blatherings of the EU.
Okay, feel free to shoot me down! I'll never burn but oh those sparks of International Political combat! Don't you just feel the blood pulsing in the veins?
No?
Oh well, unfortunately for you and other EU supporters, I do!
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy
Re #129
You have 2 chidren and 2 grandchildren: A very concerning fact of life.
From your point of view the statement, "I, as an individual, have nothing to lose from this..", would seem a reasonable stance.
Until and unless it is those 2 children and grandchildren whom you cite come to discover by harsh experience and learn to regret the passing of Individual Freedoms you have given away in pursuit of some fictional European Union for Citizens that in actuality is for those who would control and rule those off-springs' every day!
Will they blandly accept the loss as you term it and just "get over it"? Or will they pay the ultimate price that your misguided affection and adherence to a bunch of administrators in Brussels will require in order to once more know and enjoy that Freedom?
Complain about this comment
"You see, this is precisely where the eurosceptic argument comes unstuck. You proclaim that your democratic rights have been betrayed because you were denied your referendum but then you proclaim that the 'will of the people has been betrayed'. How can you possibly know that if nobody has asked them?
It's make your mind up time. Either you already know what the British people want or you want to ask them - in which case you don't already know. Which is it?" (threnodio_II, 80)
Actually, threnodio, it's your argument that is a sandwich or two short of a picnic. You clearly haven't given much thought to what a referendum actually is. If it were merely an opinion research exercise, it would be much more cost-effectively carried out by MORI or whoever (and indeed I've already provided references in this blog to opinion polls on the Lisbon Treaty and EU membership). But it is of course much more than that: it's a public event, preceded by a campaign allowing a wide variety of people to express their views to a large audience. The referendum result would (unlike a mere opinion poll) receive a large amount of media coverage, and become an undeniable item of public knowledge. Politicians (and contributors to this blog) may be able to avoid mentioning opinion poll results they don't like, but doing the same with an unfavourable referendum result would be much more difficult - hence the opposition to referendums from certain quarters!
Complain about this comment
Jukka Rohila @128
I see after a week of kisses and embraces after separation we are back to normal :o)))
I forgot you will have "doubts" standing in front of the Malevich square - re the colour - because it is "Russian".
And I'm losing time trying to upload Echo's site for you! too full of video interviews changing in caleidoscopic order for my old computer - while Echo is no good for you, because it's Russian, therefore gives "Russian national point of view." Well if you don't want news from the source - read about Russia and Poland in the Financial Times.
(Very, very interesting military trainings :o))) Lovely details :o)))))
take Lukashenko's ... in exchange for which he might... but surely he as usual won't... But you aren't interested :o))))
About football fans yes no good to remember old wars by the fans during games. don't think Russian fans are the only ones guilty of practice, however nevermind LOL approximately everyone else - but Finland of course. By the way who won? no idea. Yes, I understand that "democracy" has won (and Russia lost of course LOL, even before the game) but who won the game? Can't promise you our fans will behave next time and forget about old wars as inspiration who ever they'll play with, but we are working on it. I know they were scolded for remembering war with Germany in a game with Germany recently by their disciplinary football committee (and btw it didn't help we lost) - if it's national team - they are normally agreeable and will give way to the committee.
Should it be Zenith St.Petersburg fans - no committee will help LOL, a very opinionated fan club, with who even the very Zenith team can't do anything. Last time they disliked what their fan club did they got into a total clinch together, - the team refused to continue the game - and to go after the break to the field! at all! Like - we will lose if you won't stop. But the fan club didn't give way even then. Gazprom their sponsors raged, media raged, disciplinary committee got a combined heart break. But then there are good sides to a fan club with a position, when the Dutch coach of Zenith was leaving - because Gazprom stopped the contract earleir - St. Petersburg didn't like it - and there was such a good bye arranged for the coach at the airport in the opposition that he cried, all wept, airplanes wept :o))) orange carpets were laid under his feet and basically his way was paved with roses and things and half a crowd learned Dutch (for the occasion) to sing him self-composed songs.
How very
Any way
Complain about this comment
CornwallCoastPath wrote:
"Actually, threnodio, it's your argument that is a sandwich or two short of a picnic. You clearly haven't given much thought to what a referendum actually is."
I don't think that is reasonable. Threnodio's logic seems pretty sound to me. Either folks want a referendum on the issue because they want a majority opinion, or they simply dislike the EU as see a referendum as one possible means of defeating its encroachment on UK independence. And, as he suggests, they presume to know the out of such a referenda, which is precisely the sort of arrogant presumption of the will of the demos that they proclaim to despise. And thus, it is also entirely hypocritical and insincere.
I think this fundamental logic is also what drives Tim to call the anti-EU brigade a "fringe" group. If these phonies can declare that they are a majority without bothering to measure the facts, why should he refrain from doing the same, and declare them a "fringe" group? (I could be wrong here: it is entirely possible that Tim is a fool and presumes to know what he hasn't measured, also. But I give him the benefit of the doubt, as his reasoning is generally pretty sound, even though we disagree on quite a few points.)
So this is why I refuse to get emotionally animated and distraught about the rise of the EU. Yes, it is corrupt. Yes, it is undemocratic. Yes, it is lamentable to be governed by such people without the means to influence the laws under which one lives, and to be forced to choose between liars and liars for representation.
All that is true, and you will not find a harsher critic of the EU than myself. I despise it, and I do not have a shred of faith in the goodwill of those who manipulate it for their own personal gain.
Having said that, I recognize that these arguments could be made against any member state government, and that taken all around the argument is even more compelling when made against the political structure of the UK. If the EU is rotten, the UK is poison. As a concrete example, take human rights. The EU, after much prodding, has included a charter of human rights into its constitutional DNA. Show me the same thing in the UK. There is none. There is only the common law. Another obvious example is the path to political office. Nobody in the EU is born into office. The UK retains nepotistic practices that predate golf.
And so I reflect that the progression to the EU is perhaps a small step forward towards a better Europe, even though I have no love for it. I am not saying "we ought not throw away the good in search of the perfect", for I do not believe the EU is good. But I do agree with those on this blog who are sick and tired of the mind numbing anti-EU hysteria that is redundant because it is fundamentally hypocritical.
I think that if we want to have a serious debate about what is good for Europe, we need to look forward with clear minds, and not backwards with self serving emotional nostalgia.
Complain about this comment
WA;
"About "values" that the American can share and Europeans somehow technically defective folk - "can't". Seems to be one blogger some place above here had listed a list of values, that many Europeans and even us, extra-terreneous Russians :o)0 are eager to share - value of an individual's life, like, human life value."
Yes I noticed...Russian sympathies for all those victims of Serbian genocide who lost their lives and for their families. Especially in Srebrenica.
Sarah Phlegm, You know as little about American politics as you know about anything else. It isn't just insurance companies and the National Rifle Association that has paid lobbyists in Washinton DC. Everyone does. For example, the AARP (American Association of Retired People) every ethinic minority, many professions like the UFT (United Federation of Teachers) womens rights groups, consumer rights groups, environmental activist groups, you name it there is a lobby representing it. That is the difference between nations where people have regular access to ther representatives (weekends they go home most times to see their constituents who can't send someone to Washington DC or come themselves) and nations where nobody except a small elite cadre have exclusive access to them (Europe for example.) Yes we need people to do our talking to our representatives for us to voice our concerns because we are usually too busy to do it ourselves or to do the research that best puts our own arguments succinctly. It doesn't surprise me when Europeans don't understand what real freedom of speech is or what real democracy is about. They've never experienced it first hand.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
" But just because the end does not justify the means does not make the end undesirable in itself."
This is an acceptable position, so long as the ends and the means are not one and the same.
Curiously, in this case, they are.
We are discussing the way Europe is governed, and by whom. Thus, when we discuss the methods and the folks who bring the EU to fruition, we are discussing the ends and the means all at once.
To believe that the means are separate from the ends in this debate is to believe that bad people who lie and deceive are capable of building a governmental structure that promotes honesty and virtue.
This is a slippery slope. It can be used to justify any kind of evil, such as genocide. "We are not mass murderers. But life is intolerable because of that ethnic group, and once they have been got rid off, everything will be peaceful and humane. You'll see. We are not bad people. We just have to do this one thing, then the law and decency will return."
You know the score. First they come for the blacks, then the gays, then the jews. Then they come for you. And always it is good people doing just one more bad thing to bring about perfection.
In politics the means are the ends. That is why representation can never be democracy. A show of democracy to choose representatives is no more democratic than a dictator choosing the representatives on a whim. Either way, representative government results, and you have government by the representatives, and not government by the people.
We call it the party system. If we are in the party, we call it democracy.
Complain about this comment
About the military doctrine Jukks - it was alright btw Yeltsin and recenty, but then we brought it up - a little bit so far - to conform to the best demonstrated Western practices.
Which means before it didn't allow Russian troops to be either stationed - shortly or permanently - or to make war abroad - and now it allows for it.
We don't yet have military bases in, say, 60 countries abroad. LOL. only in Abkhasia. And don't do warfare anywhere, unlike the grown ups. But we are working on it.
So that you could sleep perfectly well tonight -
_________
"State Duma approved our new military doctrine which starts with the words: "A drunk Russian soldier has the right..."
Complain about this comment
Alice, you need to have some things explained to you. Obviously you are confused about the world.
Firstly, the USA is NOT an Empire. Why? Because the USA is not an imperial power. Simple!
You see, when the USA sends it military to a foreign country, they only do so in order to spread FREEDOM. Nobody in the USA makes any money from this. All the weapons needed, the oil for the ships and the tanks, and the reconstruction contracts, these are done for free, by charitable corporations.
But when the Russian army would do the same thing, this would not be to spread FREEDOM. It would be to spread EVIL and OPPRESSION. This is because Russian people are evil, and they oppress people. Simple!
All you have to do to remember how the world works is to repeat the following truth to yourself every night before you go to bed:
The USA is NOT an Empire. The USA is the home of the FREE. The USA is the only perfect nation god ever saw fit to create. After god made the USA, he burned the recipe because he knew he could never make another country as good as this one. Some people say he retired to Florida after making the USA. In any case, nobody has seen him since, outside the USA.
If you can't remember all that, just say "USA! USA! USA!" for about ninety minutes.
Then you can go to sleep, and truth and freedom will be yours. Of course, you will still be an evil Russian, but this is just part of gods' great plan.
You can still buy MacDonald's hamburgers, so don't feel so bad. So you can still participate in FREEDOM, even if you will never really understand it (because you are an evil Russian).
Also, I nearly forgot, after you chant USA! For ninety minutes, you should say a prayer for the Queen of England, and especially for the well being of her share portfolio. That has a lot to do with FREEDOM as well. I think it is the democratic part of it. I am not sure I understand exactly how that works, because I live a long way away from the USA, and the truth doesn't last very long around here. Everything is a bit confused, and unclear.
But anyway, I hope that clears everything up for you.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila: On post 2, my guess is that the UK has an opt-out from the Charter because of certain parts of the solidarity chapter — perhaps the unfettered right to strike in article 28, or the prohibition of child labour in article 32 (I’m thinking about a family farm context for this one). I’m more surprised that Poland has the same opt-out; I would have thought that other chapters (such as the right to marry in article 9) would have been of greater concern to the Kaczyński government.
If it were the US, then the Senate would have rejected it outright, Kyoto-style.
RCMoya612: In post 33, wasn’t there some sort of non-binding referendum in the UK in the 1930s regarding the League of Nations? Or perhaps that wasn’t nationwide?
Mark Brandist: For post 50, I read recently that some of the Dutch possessions in the Caribbean are going to become constituent parts of the Netherlands, in the same way that French Guiana is a constituent part of France. Do you think that making some of the UK’s dependencies a constituent part of the UK could be more cost-effective?
WebAliceinwonderland: In post 82, Kaliningrad oblast' borders Poland. It’s still quite a bit of patrolling for six soldiers. ;*)
T1m0thy: On post 85, I can guarantee that there are people in the States with even more pronounced views on certain topics; one might be able to spot an example in Mardell’s new blog.
threnodio_II: For post 103, diaeresis is spot on. (Umlaut is the vowel shift.) On Windows PCs, a nice alternative to Character Map is BabelMap.
democracythreat: In post 139, isn’t the UK a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights? It might not be constitutional DNA, but it is at least genetic therapy by treaty.
Complain about this comment
jan:
My limited understanding of the common law would lead me to submit that the difference between a legal right conferred by a constitution and a legal right conferred by subscription to an international treaty is that the former has power to over rule conflicting laws made by the parliament of the day, whereas the latter is simply repealed by implication should the government of the day decide to act contrary to that treaty.
Now I submit that human rights are for everybody, and not just for the right humans. Therefore it must not be for the government of the day to determine the scope of human rights by defining who are the right humans for today.
But I suppose it is a matter of semantics to a large extent. Any government can do as it wishes, and nevermind constitutional provision on human rights, so long as it has sufficient political power at home and sufficient military power abroad.
Unless, of course, that government is restrained by judges who follow very strict constitutional provisions that restrain the exercise of deadly force by their own government.
You know what I am going to say next, so I will merely observe that strict neutrality is the negation of the right of government to undertake war for political reasons, and therefore it is the ultimate constitutional protection for fundamental human rights in any society.
I do not think one can have a military industrial complex supporting an Empire and still have fundamental human rights. the grease for the golden gears of Empire is human blood, and it has always been so, as far as I can tell.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat
Re #139
From previous readings of many of your Comments it is not hard to deduce your antipathy toward the 'english speaking peoples'.
I believe it was you once wrote that as a group they were responsible for more cruelty and bloodshed than any other! A comment that woefully disregarded historical oversight.
Although I have also admired your many erudite and thoughtful contributions your occasional blind spot on 'english peoples'/'England' does let you down in my opinion.
Much of what you wrote in #139 was interesting but that anti-English crept out again and ruined the overall content by its unfair disregard for the actual status of HR within the UK.
Quote, "..If the EU is rotten, the UK is poison... concrete example, take Human Rights.. after much prodding.. EU Charter of Human Rights in its Constitutional DNA.. Show me the same thing in UK. There is none... only Common Law...".
Why are you so dismissive of Common Law?
English CL derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practise of the People exercised through the system of Jurisprudence.
What is wrong with that?
The English practise of Common Law evolved from 1066, generally thought to have first been codified in 1215 by Magna Carta, but because of its very nature is constantly under revision. E.g. 1689 Bill of Rights.
Much more recently such revision of CL in the UK included the Human Rights Act 1998 and a sort of addendum Act in 2000.
Those Acts being the latest in a very long line of Human Rights legislation developed and affecting Common Law within England. Of course we are primarily concerned with the more recent episodes: E.g. Race Relations Act 1974, or the Equal Opportunities Act 1976 and 2004. Then there are the 2 Nationally recognised bodies monitoring and responsible for informing Government on this HR issue: British Institute of Human Rights and the Islamic Human Rights Commission.
In addition the UK is a signatory to the UNO Commission on Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is in the UK we can trace the foundation of 'Amnesty' (1956) and an off-shoot called 'Justice' (1957) which is an all-Party Law reform and HR organisation. Justice is the British section of the International Commission of Jurists that links to the International Criminal Court, as well as a key monitor of EU standards of Justice.
At a UK domestic level HR can also be seen in the creation of the Ombudsmen system and the Crown Prosecution Service (separate from the Police and Judiciary).
The prinicples of English Common Law is a substantial contributor to the Legal systems of places as far apart as Australia, USA, Pakistan, Ghana, South Africa, Israel..
That is some sort of very attractive, authoritative, established and powerful "..poison" you would appear to be disregarding on the ground it derives from those 'english'!
As Edmund Burke wrote, "The Law is wiser than cabal or interest." Who can disagree when one views the European Union panoply of Legislative-Judicial control of the Individual Citizen?
If you are suggesting the EU adopting a Charter of HR is somehow more worthy or significant than all that the UK has established through its Common Law approach at National and International level then I fail to see the justification?
I argue it is the Common Law that has more often than not protected the Citizen of the British Isles and in general kept them free of the restraints so 'commonly' used on the mainaland of Europe over many centuries: A Freedom that existed until its gradual subversion and erosion by the encroachment of the EU Treaties.
If you are the 'critic' of the EU you lay claim to then it is an odd set of remarks in which the HR record of and trifling 'nepotism' of the UK should so exercise your outrage and not that of the whole range of continental Europe's political masters!
One of my main objections to the UK and especially England's involvement with the EU is specifically that the evolution and experience of UK Law has set it apart from mainland Europe and I see no good reason or value in abandoning the CL for EU Law. No doubt the 'Charter' is an honourable legal affirmation of fundamental HR, but hardly an example of 'DNA' of concern for others when it merely repeats all that by English Common Law is already accepted as good practise in Human Relations/Rights.
Complain about this comment
CBW, I have found that it is much harder to be humble about something you are good at than to be critical about something of which you know nothing. Harder, and infinitely more rewarding. I speak only of my personal experience here, that is not some kind of clever swipe at you or anybody else.
Pride blinds us, for the emotional rush destroys rational thought. I would therefore submit that in order to grow one must be careful to weed out pride from one's character, and replace it with understanding.
I am not entirely misthanthropic towards the English speaking people and their system of law. In fact I suspect that if I were provoked I could raise a speech that celebrated it beyond all else. But for what gain? the common law is what it is, and it is no better for my eloquence or praise.
You must understand that I live in a complex society, in Switzerland. The history of this nation, and the many languages, and the law, all of these combine to fascinate and confuse me. I could never hope to gain any understanding of the Swiss if I went around thinking about what is spectacular about my own tribe.
Furthermore, I have seen the darkest side of what you describe as the glorious and bountiful British Empire. You may think the law protects those in the British Isles, and perhaps you are correct. But when you speak of the glory in Australia, America, Canada and Africa, I am afraid you are speaking of the most cruel and insane genocides possible, of wholesale slaughter dressed up as business as usual.
Those who have taken the king's shilling and done his dirty work in the remotest part of the Empire do not have the liberty of dreaming dreams of glory and a law that protects all men. We know it isn't so, and we understand how the political economy of empire works. I live in Switzerland as much because it is neutral as because it has the most advanced system of law and human rights that I have ever experienced.
The business of Empire is war, CWB, and the business of war is suffering. I will not take part in Empire any further, not as a taxpayer, not as a soldier and not as a lawyer endorsing a party hopeful. That is a personal decision, and not one I expect anybody else to make for themselves. It is a question of circumstance, and the qualities of memory that one can endure.
Furthermore, I am fascinated by the history of the Germanic people, and of the Russian people. I cannot imagine the world of philosophy or music without the great Germans, nor the world of literature and science without the great Russians. It is not that everything in the field beyond is greener and nicer, it is more that I do not wish to be shut off from so much of what history and literature have to offer because of the meager satisfactions offered by the flag. insofar as I love philosophy, music, science and literature, these are my people. How can the world be any different?
And the longer I have been absent from English speaking society and the common law, the less tolerant I have become of the English arrogance and ignorance towards the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. Yes, there was a time when British folks could not wait to set sail and explore new regions of the world and experience new cultures, and entertain new notions. But that time has passed, and what remains seems to be a sad and pathetic shell of a people, all turned inwards to watch television images of past glory, determined to stay at home on the dole payments of Empire, and to make grand judgements about historical events that have been misrepresented by everybody, until nothing remains of those events but wishful thinking and puerile nationalism.
There is a profound lack of respect shown towards the German people by the English, and toward the Russians. While I live with these people and they are my friends, I cannot ignore that reality, and I ought not condone it.
You speak well of the common law. What else do you know? I know very little else, and it is a fault I wish to redeem. But I know for certain that the Swiss are the most civilized tribe I have encountered on earth, and I should not trade their hospitality for all the gold in China.
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat
Re #147
I can't recall ever speaking of the 'glory'.
You, me and many others have seen and good many more suffered from the nastier side upto and including genocidal policies of the Brits, Americans etc. generally English-speaking peoples.
Not sure why though you select the 'english' atrocities when the rest of Humankind has managed on similar scales - - Switzerland did not get to be a few cantons of enlightenment without some slaughter along the way - - which reminds me of my History Professor asking the rhetorical Q on day 1, "Which is worse the first killing or the 10,000th?"
"..profound lack of respect.. German.. Russian.." by the English.
Aye? Would that be the 'English' of England, the British, the Americans or the general tribe of english-speaking peoples?
Sorry, but that is simply a generalisation of extraordinary improbability to sustain: As an example, there are some 200,000 families of Russian origin living in the UK, and in the USA, Canada, Australasia it runs into millions. Many of whom still have family ties to the 'motherland'.
Of course Government policies may encourage unhelpful/unhealthy attitudes to a 'foreign' community/nation - - I would suggest there is a residue of complete distrust among some Britons (and other nationalities - - see Jukka_Rohilla - - admires Germany and very hostile to Russia) from the Cold War era for Russia and the 2 World Wars for Germany. It is a common thread of Human experience - - afterall, it is hardly surprising after hundreds of years of grim experience many Africans, Asians do not particularly like the 'english-speaking' peoples in general, but they all like trading with them and the 'trust' issue evolves over time.
Human Rights are what they are: It is a very mixed History - - while 1689 Bill of Rights brought succour to the British some of them were off in the American, African and Asian continents extinguishing the 'rights' and 'humans' of those regions - - however, the overall issue gets even more clouded when one considers that Pres Obama could not be in the White House except as a servant unless Common Law over generations had not gradually turned opinion in his favour. And where would Mandela or Ghandi be in the Human Rights History books if they had had Mr Hitler, Mr Stalin, Mr Ghengis Khan, Mr Pol Pot approach to consideration of the individual Citizen's rights under the Law?
It is bit over-the-top to decry the 'english' for all their wrong-doing whilst neglecting to acknowledge it is their version of Human Rights that prevails in Courts, Goverrnments and Nations across the World in the present day.
I find it impossible to believe that the Human Rights of Individuals would have been so well advanced had Sharia or Confucian principles of justice been the dominant intellectual force for good over the more recent centuries.
Complain about this comment
CWB, I find it difficult to disagree with anything in your last post, That all seems very reasonable.
I suppose I prefer the moral position which requires us to look to the faults of our own house, rather than to the faults of those who live elsewhere, because only in this case can we achieve any material improvement to the state of world affairs.
This is a moral principle I take from Prof Chomsky. He is often asked why he criticizes the USA so harshly, instead of other, arguably much worse, regimes. His answer is simply that he is an American, and that he has a responsibility for the way America behaves, as a taxpayer and a member of that society. Sure, he could criticize Russia or whoever, but what would be the point? What good could come of such a choice?
The end game of such a choice, if everyone were to do the same, is that all the moral outrage in Russia would be directed at the USA, and all the moral outrage in the USA would be directed at Russia. And thus nothing could ever hope to improve in either society.
I defer to this reasoning, as I am unable to fault it. i am not in love with Chomsky, or anything like that.
Complain about this comment
Marcus idioticus 2 wrote:
"Sarah Phlegm, You know as little about American politics as you know about anything else."
Considering how often others and me proved here how wrong you are about nearly everything you even write about (starting with the Bronx being "the toughest place on earth" to various inventions you claimed to be American when they actually weren't, I think this is about the greatest compliment I could have received here as it is highly likely if not sure that you are yet again wrong.
Sidenote: Grafic glitch is back :-/
Complain about this comment
Sarah Phlegm, you an other Europeans haven't proved anything except that you don't like it when people throw rocks back at your glass house. Europe is without a doubt the greatest curse that has ever befallen mankind. I know you don't like me pointing that out in so many different ways but that truth is inescapable. Not only is it an historical fact but the consequences of it are found everywhere in the modern world. It hasn't gotten any better, just different. I see it as being finally and mercifully in terminal decline. I will enjoy with great satisfaction as it finally fades to black during my lifetime. How ironic that the UK has tied its fate to Europe's stars through the mechanism that so typifies it, the despotic act of a single individual acting alone unchecked and unstoppable.
Complain about this comment
Jan_Keeskop, @144. So that's where we border! That lost speck, consisting of one big Keningsberg fortress-museum, one Kant's grave to attend and one beach to collect amber after a good storm. Guides in Kaliningrad only tell about medieval German history, they equipped the town with various video panoramas (quite cool) - because there isn't any other history there. No wonder I forgot it's ours. Oh, it's also the major European second hand drowned cars fixing centre, before they get sold to Russia. People there do wonders! :o) cleaning cars from various Europe's floods as if they never saw water.
No wonder Poland got alarmed, German or Russian - all the hell, double trouble :o))) fortress.
Complain about this comment
The history of Europe in the last 1000 years can largely be summed up as a catalog of wars and of the despots who reigned during them. In the rare instances when Europeans made a contributon to civilization, they were almost invariably persecuted. Galileo was shown the instruments of torture forcing him to recant his brilliant insight and proof that the earth was not the center of the universe while Einstein fled Europe for his life. Europe is not the center of the universe either even though it thinks so. It is a collection of plutoids in an outer orbit spinning deeper and deeper into space. It can try to glue itself together to look like a large planet but I think the forces of repulsion are far greater than the weak force of gravity that might hold it together.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, before you get your resources in America for them to do wonders afterwards:o) - you need to get them from somewhere. I think I mentioned a Google founder whose dad was fond of traditional Russian mathematics and instilled the respect into his son, and even Philip Kotler, LOL, both Ukrainian parents. What would you do without Europe in terms of talents production is beyond me. Very un-modest to claim all good "Made in the USA", as an example for you - we in Russia who also thrived on new-comers in Empire times never forget what country "produced one" - be that a fieldmarshal or a composer or an architect - and refer to it even when a chap was in his 2nd generation or in the 3rd one in Russia after his great grand etc. immigrated to us.
And by the time someone got famous internationally he has Russian citizenship and a russified name entirely - because it keeps the web and the network and connections with countries.
Now, of course we aren't spoiled in "keeping connections", that's why may be find it important. Anyway it's a tradition. While the moment someone crosses your treshold - to say nothing of 2 generations after - the ? shlagbaum / the barrier? falls down, like a Giliottine :o)))) - "American".
BTW, how is your tea-bags digging in the garden :o)))) going? that you began in the memory of "now non existant Englishman and no independent England" (Approximately) :o)))))
I still think it's a bit a premature exercise. In fact, I'll always think it's a "pre-mature enterprise" :o))))) Don't you see the day when all finally joined in England began thinking how to get out :o)))) We think it a very ! very! deep-echoloned nation, with many lines of fortified defence - to where you can do a tactical retreat :o))))) - to say nothing there is always an option to ride the wave
Complain about this comment
#153 - MarcusAureliusII
Einstein emigrated in 1933, long before the anti-Semitic nightmare of Nazi Germany. Fled Europe for his life, my Aunt Fanny.
Complain about this comment
Also, MA, that empty vodka bottle you've prepared, to dig in in our memory, in the un-likely event of :o))))))))
You don't do that, don't dig in empty ones, you dig in full vodka bottles, for a rainy day. My grandfather tried all the options, in /around the house, because grandma was hysterical, in finding them.
The best place to hide seems to be the piano. Especially that in case of a rainy day you've got the full package - open the piano's black lid, extract your? fortifying liquid, have a party and start singing songs right there on the place, accompanying your party with various tunes. All in one place, very convenient.
Complain about this comment
151. At 12:14pm on 06 Nov 2009, MarcusIdioticusII wrote:
[some of the useless and idiotic claptrap he always writes]
I am more and more convinced that the French back in the 70s when you last visited Europe must have been rather rude with you for all the blind hatred you spread here. However as arrogant and hypocrtical as you write here, I wonder if I would have treated you any different. You praise America as the paradise on earth and in the same post you dare claiming that it is harder to grow up in the Bronx than in places like Africa or lead mines in South America. This not only shows how little you care or know about the world, but also how you don't see when you could not in any way possible contradict yourself in any more severe way.
To quote a video I recently saw on youtube: "Talking to you is like talking to a dining room table." (the exact words may differ as it has been a few weeks, so any fan of this US senator please forgive me about it.)
Good that the BBC has an American board I must say at this point - if it hadn't I would feel tempted to think that all Americans are as foolish as you, yet the blogg there proves that you are the odd one even among other Americans and in no way at all representative or even close to that for how American citizens think or act in general.
Complain about this comment
I'm prepared to concede that the Americans can teach some of the Europeans a thing or two about customer service culture, but apart from that …… I really don't think we have anything at all to learn from them. I suppose in some ways we need to feel responsible, in the same way that parents should be responsible for their delinquent children.
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill, no, this time has passed long ago, the train is gone.
Taking care would have been the proper thing to do in the beginning, when they had difficulties, I think it was a mad house - imagine all are newcomers and nobody knows anybody and it takes place at once and you have to live together! It's like? like imagine yourself standing in the middle of a large hall of a railway station, glass ceiling high above, all are moving in all directions and kicking you - and you want to get home - but there is no home! This is your home the total mess - and these total kicky strangers are your country and home and family - oh, them? those? (ouch! you've just stepped on my foot!)
A fire in a brothel during a flood.
Now they've got own people and own home, and can refer back to rely upon smth, and it must be already a hundred years or more ? 120 that they are magneted naturally "home". No need for pushy kicky strangers (us :o)))
Complain about this comment
Sarah Phlegm;
Has it ever occurred to you that the crucial difference between Germany losing two world wars and Germany winnig two world wars as well as the difference between most of Germany not becoming a Soviet slave satellite and all of Germany becoming a Soviet slave satellite was the United States of America and only the United States of America? Those are facts of history. You may belittle America's achievements which are as remarkable as it was improbably that America would ever exist at all but America stands unique in all human history. Were it not for the US entry into WWI, it might still be going on. Were it not for its entry into WWII, Britain would have fallen to Nazi Germany and eventually the USSR would have also. Please WebAlice don't tell me again how many Russians or Soviet died placing their rotting corpses in the way blocking the Nazis. When I was young it was 18 million. A few decades ago it was 22 million. The last number I heard was 26 million. By the time I die I wouldn't be surprised if they get it up to 100 million. Europe has been at peace by and large except for the Balkins and the uneasy stand-off in the cold war for these last 64 years for one reason alone and that was the presence of the Armed forces of the United States of America. Except for that there would have been more wars in Europe and the pax Americana has been by far the longest epoch of peace in Europe for the last 1000 years or more. It is rather revealing that one reason given by supporters of a European EU superstate is to prevent another war in Europe. In other words they are saying that their hatreds remain so deep rooted that unless they have an end to all national identity, it is possible that there will be another flare up one day and another war. We almost saw it in the Balkins when Greece and Turkey (which stradles Europe and Asia the way Russia does) almost came to blows. Even arguments over who has the right to call themselves Macedonia became a source of friction. I saw with my own eyes German anti-semitism in Europe nearly 30 years after WWII was over. Reports of how the Roma, Muslims, and other ethnic, racial, and religious minorities are mistreated all over Europe proves that deep down nothing has really changed. It will never change there it seems to me.
Sarah Phlegm, has it ever occurred to you who invented modern China? Most Americans probably don't know. I'd bet few Chinese themselves probably don't know. Well it was President Nixon and Henry Kissinger. That's right, they decided upon visiting it in 1973 that a nation of 1 billion people who could build hydrogen bombs but could not feed themselves even with 90% of their population working in agriculture was far too dangerous for our world. They exploited the fact that 25 years of Communism could not undo a 5000 year tradition of mercantile culture and it worked. Whatever their problems are now, Chinese people do have a stake in the future survival of the world.
WebAlice, I know the Russians invented everything. They say they even invented jazz. I would not be surprised to hear you tell me that they also invented fire and the wheel. Now if they could just invent a way to make their language pronouncable by westerners, there might be some hope of communicating more effectively with them.
Complain about this comment
Mavriusha, what can I do if you can't read Bulgarian alphabet, as I suppose we use it to mark the sounds down.
I don't know why Bulgarian letters were found easier to scribble on a piece of a bark from the tree (by a nail? I suppose. A knife?) but must be they are easier to carve in, when your materials are birch tree bark and a pen-knife. Must try once see if we made a mistake :o)))))
Latin letters are supposed to be easier scribbled when your set is a stone + a? big hammer, or a piece of someone's skin :o))))) + a knife.
A matter of natural resources at hand, really. Here in the North - birch trees are at hand. Stones aren't available in damp forests.
There in the South - for the lack of birch trees - you have to catch someone alive (aj iaj iaj!) and de-skin him/her to write a letter to mum.
(We are peaceful folk :o))) Russian literature never required de-skinning first :o))))
Now, birch tree bark has antiseptics and aseptics and I don't know what built into it. It doesn't rot when accidentally dropped on the ground for a 900 years. Well, still, even better - to have it digged into the ground. Above no good, passers-by, things...
Ergo - I don't have a stone around dating back to 1100 telling me things; neither a piece of a leather dating back likewise; but we do have some birch-tree reading quite a lot.
In the thread where several time concerns were provoked in me somehow type how mommy Russia will deal with the new EU, one? birch-tree-script! :o) of 1100 now came to my mind.
Tra-la-la etc... (in old Russian the endings are funny, I warn you) :
"in front of him stood a monstra... A Monstra - bigg-ar, naught-ia, hundred-mouthed-a and barking-a!
:o))))))
Complain about this comment
I am somewhat scared of impersonal things. Machines, etc.
Why even the question arises, "how will the new, authorised EU deal with Russia - and the other way around?"
I thought we are alright with many key members. France and Germany and Italy and Spain and the Netherlands, and overall, "key" is an un-democratic definition :o) - say, Russia is alright with many EU member states.
Less so with the EU as a whole - but still quite acceptable until a week ago.
So, the new EU may become "naughty"? :o))))) And - "bow-wow"?
Why is the sum more difficult for us than member states individually?
?
Lavrov: - "So, do you accept our offer?
A new EU official: "Regret to say but no."
Lavrov: "May I ask about the reasons?"
- Well, I won't really go into the details, but it is No.
Lavrov: - As a Frenchman, do you think this will be bad for France?
- Since you insist, for France in particular - I think it'll be not bad.
Lavrov ( :o) Since you live in Spain, and your dad is Spanish - do you find our offer unfavourable for Spain?
- For Spain it's quite fine. Moreover (between ourselves :o))), the Russian offer is good for a good other dozen of member states that I can list off top of my head. But we are talking the whole lot - and for the whole it doesn't fit. Nothing personal :o))))) I'm real sorry :o))))))
A totally science fiction of a dialogue; just curious how it will be.
:o)))))
Complain about this comment
WA;
"In the thread where several time concerns were provoked in me somehow type how mommy Russia will deal with the new EU, one? birch-tree-script! :o) of 1100 now came to my mind."
I know how I'd like America to deal with the new EU. Walk out. Leave. Quit. Skadaddle. Scram. Arrevederci Roma. Hasta La Vista Baby! And carve it in stone so we don't forget and come back by mistake one day. Leave them to themselves. They will do the rest. You can rest assured of that, they always have in the past and they will again. It's their nature to "DO" each other.
Complain about this comment
- Continuation -
Lavrov: Well, please acccept our ?condolecenses. And my sympathy. Damn job!
EU official: You bet!
Complain about this comment
WA
"Lavrov: - "So, do you accept our offer?
A new EU official: "Regret to say but no."
Lavrov: "May I ask about the reasons?"
- Well, I won't really go into the details, but it is No.
Lavrov: - As a Frenchman, do you think this will be bad for France?
- Since you insist, for France in particular - I think it'll be not bad.
Lavrov ( :o) Since you live in Spain, and your dad is Spanish - do you find our offer unfavourable for Spain?
- For Spain it's quite fine. Moreover (between ourselves :o))), the Russian offer is good for a good other dozen of member states that I can list off top of my head. But we are talking the whole lot - and for the whole it doesn't fit. Nothing personal :o))))) I'm real sorry"
"So it will not adversely affect France or Spain. Then we will turn off the gas to Germany and Poland. They'll freeze but Spain is warm and the French are used to being cold."
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, how undiplomatic! I was writing before your post got ? transfer-pictured? - and I wrote : Please accept our most sincere condolecenses. :o))))
Complain about this comment
WA;
You must have meant apologies. No offense taken. Apologies are given when something bad was unintended as in; "I apologize for shooting you, I was aiming at your son standing next to you."
Condolence is an expression of sympathy for misfortune as in; at the current rate of population reduction there are one million fewer Russians each year than there were the year before. At the current rate of decline, the last Russian will die off by the year 2160. You have my condolences.
See, English isn't such a hard language, not really. Not so tough even though you might have thought so (cough! cough!)
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (162):
In regards of your question about gas...
EU official:
Scenario A) "Let us form a union, European Gas Trade Union, EGTU! We pool our transit networks under one supranational entity that controls and regulates all of them, thus allowing free and unfettered trade with gas as an fungible commodity under the union area. The gas and gas transits are put into a stock exchange where customers and producers can freely meet up and make trade. All governments take their hands of from the business, producer countries can either tax or sell licenses to their natural resources, transit countries get land taxes, etc.. The market will work at optimal efficiency thanks to market liberation and we will all win!"
Scenario B)
"We will pay the price what you want, but will require you to take payments in Euros. We also require you to take payments from your other customers in Euros and you to invest the Euros that you don't use into our European Treasury Bonds. We also promise to sell our finest and most advanced weapons systems to you, and you also can freely do anything you want in your own country and almost anything in extra-European countries."
Now the scenario A is of course much better, but then again the scenario B could also work. We just have to remember on not building up military bases into Russia so we don't get Russian terrorist hijacking planes and flying them against skyscrapers in Frankfurt so that we have don't have to declare war against terror and invade Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
Joka Booka;
"Scenario A) "Let us form a union, European Gas Trade Union, EGTU! We pool our transit networks under one supranational entity that controls and regulates all of them"
Why would someone who has a quasi monopoly agree to be under the thumb of some supranatonal entity? They are not dummies like the UK or the rest of the EU. They are the controllers, not the controllee. You don't get it.
"Scenario B)
"We will pay the price what you want, but will require you to take payments in Euros. We also require you to take payments from your other customers in Euros and you to invest the Euros that you don't use into our European Treasury Bonds. We also promise to sell our finest and most advanced weapons systems to you, and you also can freely do anything you want in your own country and almost anything in extra-European countries."
Without a UN Security Council Resolution which the US will veto? Fat chance.
Looks like Russia will stick with plan C, it cuts off the supply when it wants to, turns it on when it wants to just to remind the EU who the boss is.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII (169):
No, it is you who don't get it.
Scenario A and C...
Modern Russia, and as a matter of fact post Stalin USSR, resemble both much of the Roman Empire after its glory days were over, in essence rulers stay in power as long as they pay chiefs of the army and intelligent apparatus to be obedient and give bread and circuses to the people. This all is paid by the money coming out of exporting raw materials and commodities. Any interference to this can take the Kremlin rulers out.
Now Gazprom does have monopoly to selling and transiting gas, so why would the Russian state want to give that position up? Simple, if the customers, that is the EU groups as one gas buying and administrating entity, it has enormous collective bargaining power. In a conflict situation, the EU can just shut down gas trade and use its reserves, thus putting the Kremlin in a tight spot, couple this with interferences to trade between EU and Russia and people in Kremlin are willing to make an compromise.
Now both the EU and the Russia can create a conflict and try to hold each others down, the problem is that each other will loose, not to mention that the current situation to both parties is a possible security threat. Thus for both it is beneficial to pool resources and power together to remove that conflict. By pooling together, both parties will have added security and stability and liberation of markets under one union will increase gas trade and increase competition thus leading into more efficient working of the market.
Again, you could have said the same thing about France and Germany before the ECSC, but here we are, the leading economy in the world.
Scenario B...
"We don't need no stinking UN permit. Europe doesn't need a permit of others to defend liberty and freedom! We will get the evildoers and deliver justice! We are going to create a coalition of willing and defeat the terrorists and their terrorist sympathizers all over the world. If you are not with us, you are against us!" -President of the EU, 2031
Complain about this comment
Jukka, you just "have to remember" not to pick up Ukraine with the bags she is still carrying, but, like, that she first leaves her luggage behind - in where it belongs. Otherwise you'll acquire a major headache and won't be able to get Russia out of your hair for a long while. That simple. All the rest is minor technical problems; nothing that Lavrov and whoever is his colleague, won't sort out after a good bottle of vodka sit down held together. that gives people enlighment re what can be done. :o)))
I know it's un-democratic but the vows to Russia to be democratic in this respect is the same that to appeal to a robbed house owner that "stop it, about the thief. it's been these 20 years, during which time he owned your property "openly and without hiding the fact", "and at the time of the unlucky accident he thought it's nobodys - so there was no bad intent initially", plus by the length of the period of that? - the time while it is still considered a crime - it is expired. And so on so forth.
Russia, like, "Yeah... But still... There is something in the air ... :o)
In place of Europe I wouldn't spoil its excellent current fool-proof position when she has nil that Russia can call her own.
Besides, we are prepared to be quite gracious :o)))) Not only Crimea, whole half of main-land Ukraine is Russia ask any local there. We won't focus on it. They know. Nobody said a word save God - but all know. Just Crimea.
As a matter of fact, we'll be gracious even if Ukraine walks into the EU with the full luggage. Except the image, of ?"luggage pick -uppers" - will transfer from Ukraine onto the EU. And we get an own fifth column inside. :o))))))
Jukks, your TV won't show you - that "Mysterious Unity Day" of the 4th of November. Russia celebrated nil, like, "stuff!". Crimea fought with own police, as people stubbornly dragged along the street 30 -metre long Russian flags, various interesting partisan activity "to climb onto the roof decorate it before we are pulled down :o)))), one buzzing bee-house. Must be were embroidering these flags at nights in the cellars :o))) Resistance, you know :o)))) A dissident island, and things.
_____________________
Nevermind, this is exactly what Ukraine, in her blissful wisdom, plans to do - to walk into Europe with the full luggage. We know them :o))) So it's not wrong to think how to manage things with Europe after, do some thinking, in advance, so that not all around are total silly and do silly things, like, something must be figured out peacefully.
__________________
:o)
"Scientists have discovered a new metal, un-heard of before. A precious metal, in tiny quantity, that Mendeleev table doesn't know any thing about. And set up a world-wide competition, for options to name the new discovery. Many names were suggested by various countries. Finally, there won the name: "Ukrainian generosity".
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, big white masta. Thank you for the lesson in English. We are always open for some constructive critic. The good news is I meant condolences, which you know. The bad thing is I didn't mean gas! Honestly, not a thought, until you wrote, and then Jukks and all. :o)))
Even that we shrink at the said rate exactly I don't know how it is but we think too much about ourselves :o))) without gas, and it were exactly them those condolences.
Complain about this comment
Joka Booka, you live in some sort of fantasy dream world. Russia is building pipelines to sell its oil and gas to India and China. They won't need Europe as a customer when it's done. Europe will have to compete for the privilege of buying those fuels with people who have a lot of money and are very hungry for them. Tough luck.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, take a note - if you elect a Milliband for the foreign affairs minister - don't know how about "then we won't have to invade Afghanistan", but at least you might not have to invade Iran.
That brand new 90 year old Russian cousin the Milliband family found when by mistake visiting Russia :o))))) one after another, she is one of the top Russian experts on Iran, though somewhat slightly retired :o)). All consult her. All who want to, that is. :o))))
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII (173):
Oil is fungible commodity, people in Europe and in other parts of the world pay the real market price for it already.
Gas is not fungible commodity as transiting gas needs pipelines for its economical and efficient transit, this excludes some markets out of reach for Russians. Then there are economic conditions too, building a pipeline costs money, a lots of money if you have to cover great distances. While diversifying customer base is good, if it costs too much, other options may and will rise.
In regards of India and China, both of these countries are actually not doing business with Russia but its gas producing neighbors. For Russia actually having Chinese and Indians buying gas directly from Turkmenistan of Kazakhstan is bad in business wise as Russia gets hefty commission on transiting gas to Europe.
Lastly but not least is the fact that Europe has money to pay for gas. Both India and China even if put together are GDP wise smaller than the EU and that isn't going to change for a long time, especially if and when Euro takes or shares the position with the US dollar.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, I will reply you in the words of the Dutch ambassador, asked how did it happen that small quiet Holland is somehow the main Russia's investor. Without any pomp and anyone knowing. No love announcements on either side.
Well, he said - "I will reply you in the words of the German ambassador" :o)))))) -
"While Russian underground coffers are full Mendeleev's table - she will always be interesting for business."
Complain about this comment
Though I agree - we do experience packaging problems.
(China is stamped Jukka, they haven't got any gas yet - but already paid for it - and we took the money stupid greedy mosters and LOL I'm afraid -spent them already! So, China will be getting her gas, no way out. Many here say Kremlin sold us to China down the river, for so large an amount we got committed.)
"Packaging problems" Ukraine and Belorussia you know of. God willing North Stream (and thank you for your Parliament finally approving it. By yesterday - all did along the Baltic sea, so now it's up to us and Germany only, to build. Legal obstacles out of the route, construction time.)
One North Stream, though, won't equal Ukraine and Belorussian transit. Helpful in case they team up and go on strike together :o)))) but we need more.
Belorussian president comes expensively, by the way. He only has 10 mln people, one would think not a problem for us to finance, but he likes expensive military exercises - (BTW you complained about recent training in Belarus and Kaliningrad). That was Russia and Belarus co-ordination training together "in case a potential adversary comes from the West."
Called "West-2009". And this is No 4 or 5 for the past years. We are "co-ordinated" with Belarus to marvellous degrees :o))), what's there to "co-ordinate" with their "partisan war doctrine". But Lukashenko thinks his people would love him more if he arranges expensive military shows for them twice a year, where airplanes circle in the skies, cannons make colourful smoke, tanks roar in the field, and he sits at the command point behind the glass window with his 5 year old son in a military uniform and all Belorussian generals salute to his son as the successor to the President's role. (Lukashenko promised Belorussians that he is in good health and will hold on until his son grows up :o)))) General cheer and applause, as you can guess :o)))))
As if we have nothing else to do in crisis than to spend money on co-ordination training No 100 with Belorussia. For Lukashenko it is cheap, because his partisans are always there, at home, and we have to drag over divisions to Belorussia from hell knows where and burn fuel for airplanes and destroy roads for thousands of kilometres with our tanks.
But it is really the only thing about the "ex-USSR Commonwealth" that Lukashenko agrees to. He doesn't want our rouble, neither common customs', nor to enter the WTO together with us, and only the military part of the "commonwealth" he is ready to back up. Without military content - there is no "Commonwealth" with him, nothing to boast about :o))) Well, pensions, and then education is FOC for both countries' nationals, at each other's places.
So it is not the last time our strategic aviation "trains" together with his partisans "strategically positioned" in the Belorussian forests.
Complain about this comment
Alice, Alice, small and quiet you are when something hide you have.
In the Internet, look for article...
Economic analysis from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Volume 5, Issue 1, 11.01.2008, Foreign investment in Russia.
The document has table listing the biggest origins of the foreign investments...
UK: 24%
Netherlands: 20%
Cyprus: 14%
Luxembourg: 9%
Now let me quote directly the author of the article...
"Who is behind this sudden increase in investment? While hard to quantify precisely,it is likely that a significant part of it is Russian capital returning to the country via tax havens for “tax optimisation” purposes."
Complain about this comment
At least, Ukraine doesn't ask for military trainings :o))))) Rightly suspectng that there will be one and final one :o))))))
Complain about this comment
Joka Booka, that is funny, the EU has money. Even if it did, each one does what is best for itself and only itself. It's a union in name only. The French would sell out their own mothers if there was a sou in it for them. The first question they always ask is "what's in it for us?" If the answer is little or nothing they won't let it happen.
Complain about this comment
The rumour is for the "West-2009" the deal is Lukashenko recognises SO and Abkhasia. But he promises things on schedule, on Tuesdays - rouble, on Wednesdays - customs' union, these 20 yrs. Must be chose a new day to "promise" SO and Abkhasia.
Complain about this comment
Joka Booka;
Between Inda and China they have five times as many people as the EU. Their appetite for oil and gas is insatiable. Russia will not have to deal with Ukraine when it sells to them. It can and will tell Ukraine to go to hell. As for the EU being left without adequate oil and gas, well that's business. They promised to cut down on carbon emissions anyway, here's a way to enforce the cutbacks they say are vital to the survival of humanity. Yes oil is fungible...if you have the port facilities to offload at at an adequate rate and storage capacity with pieplines adequate to move it from where you get it to where you need it. Does Europe? There are lots of heating systems and industrial equipment that run on natural gas that cannot be converted to oil. I know Europe does not have the gas offloading and storage capacity to make up for loss of Russian supplies. WA...oi, oi, oi :0)))))))
Complain about this comment
Jukka, I don't know "volume 5" etc. for January 2008.
May be for 2008 Britain is leading - be it ex Russian national repatriating money or locals - any way pleased to see, because one would think we only quarrell.
I read the interview with the Dutch man this August, and it seems for 2009 then, as much of it has passed until August - The Netherlands were topping the list.
Besides, it seems "cleaner" statistics - what Russian nationals in the Netherlands? Londongrad, yes :o)))))
I can tell un-statistically, there isn't a tulip a narcissus a lily a 6 other rest in my garden which isn't Dutch, and by every subway station the flower kiosks sell Dutch roses, plus various cassettes with seeds other they prepare for us, plus I think it's something with Siberian diamonds. Even the Hermitage opened a branch there in appreciation.
Complain about this comment
#170
"We don't need no stinking UN permit. Europe doesn't need a permit of others to defend liberty and freedom! We will get the evildoers and deliver justice! We are going to create a coalition of willing and defeat the terrorists and their terrorist sympathizers all over the world. If you are not with us, you are against us!" -President of the EU, 2031"
Excellent!
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, by 2031 the EU will be the Eurabian EUSSR and firmly under the control of the Taleban. At that time the terrorists who want to change things he will be talking about will be....us.
Complain about this comment
Tsk tsk Marcy, we've just been through this one elsewhere. Until you have something other than 'this fits the cool little name I made up and I said so' 'evidence', I suggest you keep quiet, unless you want to sound even more foolish than you already do...
Complain about this comment
"Tsk tsk Marcy, we've just been through this one elsewhere."
You do keep cropping up like crabgrass or some other noxious weed don't you. The problem for anyone trying to make the grass greener is that if you are infested with crabgrass, you can't get rid of it unless you pull it out by the roots. I've told you on the other blog site that I understand that your affliction like that of your countrymen is likely the result of exposure to the infernal noise of bagpipes. That is designed to drive any human being crazy and it works. For many evidently the exposure of even one dose of it brings on lifelong mental impairment.
Complain about this comment
gee, I'm blown away by your intelligent response
Complain about this comment
crosseyes my only fear is that the wind will shift and you'll be blown back this way again.
Complain about this comment
"Threnodio's logic seems pretty sound to me. Either folks want a referendum on the issue because they want a majority opinion, or they simply dislike the EU as see a referendum as one possible means of defeating its encroachment on UK independence. And, as he suggests, they presume to know the out of such a referenda, which is precisely the sort of arrogant presumption of the will of the demos that they proclaim to despise. And thus, it is also entirely hypocritical and insincere." (democracythreat, 139)
Threnodio's logic as paraphrased by you isn't any more watertight than in the original. Both of you are making the (unstated) assumption that the only purpose of a referendum is as an opinion research exercise. That's precisely the point that I'm challenging in 137. If we were (even now) to held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, it's very unlikely that it would produce a result other than that predicted by opinions polls, namely a majority against. It's precisely for that reason that its value lies elsewhere - namely in making the result OFFICIAL. Of course, there are those who don't want to see the British public's opposition to the Treaty made official. For their own reasons, they would prefer to have the facts regarding the British public's view of the Treaty and the EU itself in the shadows and not discussed; hence, as I said in 137, their opposition to referendums.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS