EU back to the future?
There used to be a view of Europe: that France and Germany ran the union. It was fashioned to their design.
There used to be a view that Europe's leaders preferred backroom deals to the harsher light of open debate.
There used to be a view that, despite its economic power, Europe punched below its weight on the world stage. Other nations were frustrated at having to phone numerous European capitals in a crisis. It used to be said that the world was becoming a G2 - America and China, with Europe excluded.
So began a long, divisive process to change how Europe functioned. It ended up with the Lisbon Treaty. The larger union of 27 nations would function more efficiently and Europe finally would have powerful leaders who would rub shoulders with Obama and Putin.
Wind forward to the present. The key power-brokers in the choice of Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Catherine Ashton were the French and the Germans. President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel coordinated their approach. They agreed not to oppose each other in selecting the candidates for Europe's top jobs.
They went for the Belgian Prime Minister, Van Rompuy, not because he was the best leader for the job. Germany's Angela Merkel said he offered "consensus". It is an interesting word that can be interpreted in many different ways. In Europe it often means "the person that is least objectionable". Some interpret it as "the lowest common denominator".
It should be said that Van Rompuy does not arrive empty-handed. He is an effective mediator but he is not a communicator who can sell where Europe stands. It will be interesting to see when he gives his first international interviews.
The key for the French and Germans was not to have a Blair-like figure who might overshadow them. The laws of power have not changed by the signing of a treaty.
In any system there is always some backroom horse-trading. It is not necessarily sinister. In the past few days Gordon Brown knew that Tony Blair would not make it, yet he and his ministers continued to support him publicly. It strengthened their hands in the deal-making. The French and Germans knew that if Tony Blair's name remained on the table it could split the member states. They were desperate to avoid it.
It enabled Gordon Brown to go to a meeting of the Socialist group of leaders yesterday and essentially trade in Blair for Cathy Ashton. From the British point of view it was not a bad deal. They have someone who is the Vice President of the Commission and at the heart of decision-making.
Earlier this week the British felt what support there was for Tony Blair was draining away. The final straw came on Tuesday evening, when diplomats received a Swedish paper detailing what the job of president involved. Under the Lisbon Treaty it had been left vague. There was mention of the need for a consensus-builder, a good chair of meetings. What had slipped away in the night was the role of being the voice of the EU on the world stage.
In that note the British understood the job had been redefined in a way that would not suit Tony Blair. He was called by Downing Street and by Thursday morning he knew it was over for him.
Of perhaps greater significance was the new emphasis of the job. The ambitions of the EU have been lowered. They have backed away from a powerful figure sitting at the world's top table. After being appointed Van Rompuy joked that he was anxiously waiting by his phone to be called in the event of a crisis. It was a joke because world
leaders will continue to make their first calls to Paris, Berlin and London. Part of the federalist dream has faded.
That is why some of those applauding the appointments are Eurosceptics. They can live with a relatively low-profile "chairman". It does not seem like another step towards a "superstate".
So the EU, in many ways, is back where it was. Certainly, under the new voting system it will be easier to reach decisions among the 27 member countries. But in choosing relative unknowns the EU has signalled it does not want new centres of power to challenge the nation states.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
My argument would be that Barroso is strengthened and that we will see a stronger division between the supranational and the intergovernmental parts of the EU: http://julienfrisch.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-eu-first-analyses.html
Complain about this comment
It is good to see the superstate stumble a little, but it is a little. The monster is already through the door now. The federalists can be more bold next time. Now is a time for them to sit quiet and let the anger over the LT subside. Then it will be time for the next bite.
Complain about this comment
I think your assumption that these appointments signal a step back on the path towards a federal state are premature. The EU has always been playing a very long game, from its initial origins, through its incarnations of a "European Economic Community", "European Community" and "European Union", to the newly created post of permanent president. Every step, however small it may seem, or indeed be proclaimed by the federalists, has only ever led in one direction; there has never been a falter, much less a backward step. It is the unwillingness of inept national politicians and their political advisors to either understand this or admit it to their populations that have allowed the Euopean Union to develop unhindered to this point.
Once this post has bedded in and been accepted, you can expect a much more high profile (and powerful) appointment next time round.
Complain about this comment
Frankly, the manner in which you cover Van Rompuy is rather offensive, to say the least. Not the best leader for the job? He may have been Belgian PM for only one year, but his achievement list is rather more impressive than that of Tony Blair's long tenure as British PM (never mind the mediation work he's supposed to be doing in the Middle East). Van Rompuy has worked Belgium out of a serious financial crisis, calmed down a serious existential crisis, and pacified a governing coalition riven by continuous infighting, and some vicious personal feuds. Unlike others, he may not be the type to blow his own trumpet, but as some fellow Belgian politicians have found out to their detriment, it is rather dangerous to underestimate him. The best testimony to his leadership is that the Belgians have been extremely loath to lose him as PM, which is a problem that few European leaders would have been likely to face right now.
Complain about this comment
Back to the future?
In that film, Marty McFly travels back in time has to put right things that have gone wrong in order that history can unfold correctly, the way it was supposed to.
The EU is now unfolding in a totally undemocratic way, without the consent of the people.
If only it were possible to go back to the idea of a Common Market.
Complain about this comment
Hi Gavin
Thank you for posting your blog, it gives me a chance to better understand how people in Britain think.
I'd say, please, get over the fact that Blair will not be the EU president. It will not, that's the reality. Maybe you Britons like him, but outside of your country, he is highly un-popular mainly due to his involvement in the Iraq war.
As I see it from the outside, you Britons have one main problem - at one side, you want to have more voice in EU leadership, but at the same time, you don't want to be that much committed and want to maintain your independence. You even do not have Euro currency, so why do you want EU presidency? It's a bit awkward to me. I think you need to incite a deep discussion in your country, whether you consider yourself to be Europeans or not, and to make clear why you wanted to be a part of EU in the first place. Just decide, what you want, be in EU or be independent... you can't have it two ways.
Complain about this comment
Here is today's scoreline:
France and Germany 2 the rest of Europe and UK 0
Msr Rompuy is the ideal EUrocrat: An all-out goalkeeper for the Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis of ill-intent who will staunchly organise and defend the back 4 (BeNeLux being the small, pacey wing-backs), never taking his eye off the ball of their self-centred interests at all times in all matters.
Baroness Ashton is the perfect lightweight midfielder: She can do almost anything with the ball except trap it, pass it, shoot it, but will get around the field of play snapping at the big players' heels in selfless pursuit of Brussels' vision of how the game should be played.
However, over the full 90 minutes plus additional time and extra time both will seriously flag and at the vital stages be substituted for impact team members who know how to turn a match on its head!
Complain about this comment
#4 RCalvo72
"Van Rompuy has worked Belgium out of a serious financial crisis, calmed down a serious existential crisis, and pacified a governing coalition riven by continuous infighting, and some vicious personal feuds."
You obviously admire the man and are therefore pleased at his appointment.
But the citizens of the EU member states have been denied any say as to whether they want a permanent 'president', or whether they want this particular man, or whether they want the Lisbon Treaty that created this post in the first place.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
i have to say i agree with rcalvo72 @ 4. i think gavin is being unfair on rompuy. i don;t know the context of merkel's comment about "consensus", but i suspect what she really meant is that the man has proven skills at consensus-building, which is exactly what is required for the counsel presidency job.
Complain about this comment
pp @ 3
if you were sarkozy or merkel, why would you want to create a federal superstate? wouldn't that somewhat subordinate your own office?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@benagyerek - A country with 80/60 million people cannot compete with countries of 300 million or 1000+ million. Now were you to control 500 million of high income individiuals, then the story is different. Any nation in the EU, can, through the EU, have this power.
Complain about this comment
# 9 Me_rijn and
#12 Freeman
I think it is undesirable to use the term 'mongoloid' in this context. This is an offensive expression to describe a person with Down's syndrome.
Complain about this comment
People don't stress about DistantTraveller he is confussed about what democracy is. Somehow his simple equation goes like this Anti-EU = democracy, pro-EU = undemocratic.
Complain about this comment
#7
CBW
Couldn't you pick another metaphor no one will take you seriously now, everyone knows we can't play football anymore.
That's why I follow rugby, with that game we have a chance to beet the rest the EU. Hmmm also golf, we good at that too! But please drop the football.
Complain about this comment
# 15 ChrisArta
You say "People don't stress about DistantTraveller he is confussed about what democracy is. Somehow his simple equation goes like this Anti-EU = democracy, pro-EU = undemocratic."
Not at all! That is a gross misrepresentation. I am not anti-EU, but I certainly object to its anti-democratic institutions.
If you like the way the EU is being run and the fact that we (ordinary citizens) have had no say in the changes to the constitution, or the election of the president and 'foreign affairs minister', then that's your prerogative.
I am certainly not confused about 'what democracy is'. You, on the other hand, appear to think our political masters always know what's best.
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller
re #14
Here, here!
Appalling disrespect shown for perfectly legitimate members of society.
Very surprised at Me_rijn using such terminology: I know he leans towards anti-democratic instincts, but this introduction and use of a particular word really is disturbing.
From all previous uses of 'English language' by Me_rijn it is evident Me_rijn knows the category and characterisation implicit in the wording.
In the circumstances unless an apology is made I for one will not be responding to any contribution by Me_rijn on any topic in the future.
Complain about this comment
@Greyman (#6)
You wrote: "Just decide, what you want, be in EU or be independent... you can't have it two ways."
If only we could!!!!
Yet for us and the rest of the EU, the leaders deny the democratic principles in order that they carry on in power in the direction they desire! I wish (and hope) that within the next 5 years, we will eventually get that referendum and can tell the EUSSR that we are NOT europeans (in the culture sense).
Complain about this comment
Eurosceptics in general, and British media in particular have made the most contradictory statements in the past few days. The objections relating to the back-room appointment, his lack of international allure of the president-elect and his qualities as a mediator miss the mark, as they fully correspond to the nature of the task given to the President of the European Council by the Treaty. It is precisely because the EU is not a European superstate that this President is not elected. The task entrusted is more akin to the equally unelected secretaries-general of NATO or the UN (whose international prominence, even if the post is held by mediocre figures as Mr. Ban Ki Moon, is undisputed). The President of the European Council is unsurprisingly elected by the members of that Council, just like parliamentary assemblies choose their presidents. However, these members do hold a strong national democratic mandate. As the European Council is by its very conception (which is the reason, btw, the Benelux countries in the early seventies objected to its informal creation) is meant to be a forum for national interest, a person who can mediate and reconcile these national interests and redirect them in a manner that is beneficial for the Union is a clear asset. Under the Treaty rules (and that is thus not a backscaling) the President of the Council will have a lot of influence, but no decision-making power. Actually, that is not too bad. I think that Van Rompuy's assessment that his own opinion does not matter as he will have to reconcile the opposing Member States views is in essence right (though, and here's the catch, in order to reach a deal it is important to have a clear ideal of where you want to go, so his opinion will matter). The real policy motor in the EU should be the European Commission, who is appointed with the consent of the European Parliament and thus enjoys a considerably higher democratic standing. Admittedly, the Commission President is neither directly elected, but agian that is precisely because the Union is not yet a superstate.
The position of Blairites is wholly untenable. On the one hand, it is impossible to have an elected president, whose executive powers would be as limited as the one of the European Council President or even the Commission President - people would rightly object to electing a man with a particular vision into office, who then is fully at the mercy of the Member States as to his chances of attaining any of his manifesto objectives. On the other hand, conversely, it would have been equally unworkable to have a stellar figure going around the world making bold policy statements, but without any democratic backing. Either a stellar EU Council President would be acting in clear disregard of Member States wishes without any democratic legitimacy, or Member States will constantly overruling it President, thus completely undermining the credibility of the Union whose rhetorics will not match its actions.
Accordingly, the current constellation with a somewhat low-key EU Council President, who mediates between the Member States, but nevertheless will also defend publicly - in the European Parliament and abroad its actions, and thus has a firm stake in making sure that the EU also delivers, is fully reflective of what the Union currently is. It is not unconceivable that this will also give the Commission President the opportunity of reclaiming some of the long-lost stature of his position.
The eurosceptics must thus know what they want: either a low-key president of an intergovernmental body, or an elected political heavy-weight who can press his own agenda like a US President - but then in the full acceptance of national sovereignty. You can't have your cake and eat it, too: an elected nobody or an unelected Great Leader are both equally undesirable.
Nevertheless, one bold prediction: precisley because of the low-key legitimatley appointed European Council President and the potential for a more explicit role for the indirectly elected Commission President I dare to predict that in five years time, on the occasion of the renewal of the Commission and at the end of a potential second term for Mr. Van Rompuy, the choice will be made to entrust the presidency of the European Council to the President of the European Commission, thus reuniting the executive leadership in one person, who will then be competent both in CFSP and non-CFSP matters and be able to speak on behalf of the EU with a single voice. It will still not be like a US President, because such a double-hatted figure will - as long as there are independent Member States (and that is not likely to change any time soon) - will rightly have to look into the rear mirror to see whether the Member States are still onboard. But he or she will then be able to fully embody the EU policy. If this were to happen, depending on the political climate at the time, eventually the pressure for even ggreater democratic legitimation of this unified President may grow, thus resulting in some sort of a more democratic election system.
I realize I have left out observations as to the High Representative. She will already have a public key role, and she will also have the democratic legitimacy for doing so, as she has not yet been appointed, but technically merely nominated pending approval of the new Commission by the directly elected European Parliament. In high profile matters she will often be more in the picture than the EU Council President, but that is not unlike most states where the minister of foreign affairs does the heavy lifting and the President is there to mark the occasion - but also to assist in the final push. If the Belgian experience is any indication, do not underestimate Mr. Van Rompuy to indeed elicit the final agreement of otherwise somewhat unwilling partners. The big question is whether Catherine Ashton will quickly develop into the EU's answer to Hillary Clinton - she is wholly unknown (but so are the Chinese, Russian and Indian ministers of foreign affairs to most non-initiated), but if she manages to get a firm grasp on the extensive competences in her portfolio she could well surprise many. Again, some discretion, diplomatic skills and a somewhat muted profile may help. Unlike a US Foreign Secretary who is essence only needs the blessing of the President of the US (at least when it comes to policy, not when international agreements are to be concluded and the Senate comes into play), the EU foreign policy chief will have to take into account the support of the Member States and thus paly both sides: the foreign partner and the own Member States. However, the mere fact of making a proposal to the Council is a political act. Whenever the Member States were to reject a proposal by the High Representative the split in foreign policy visions will be undesirably visible for the whole world. Accordingly, a clever High Representative may well be able to somewhat steer the Member States beyond their initial national reflexes. If this were to materialize the Union will be a stronger actor on the international plane than it currently is.
Complain about this comment
" But in choosing relative unknowns the EU has signalled it does not want new centres of power to challenge the nation states."
No I don't think that's what it signals at all. What is signals is that the EU will allow its subjects to become accostomed to the notion of these positions for awhile before bringing out the big guns. The rejection of the Constitution was a lesson to the EU masters that Europeans will have to digest the new order in small increments. Each small step brings the ultimate goal of an EUSSR closer while an attempt at giant steps that are rebuffed set it back. Lisbon had to be jammed down the EU throat but in the end, all of the exclusions from the Constitution will be incorporated one at a time, so gradually it will hardly be noticed. Strike up the band, the MEPs and Eurocrats are already writing their own version to the theme Beethoven wrote to accompony Ode to Joy. Perhaps it will be called, Ode to Rumpoy, the Remus and Romulus of the EU, its Mao Tse Dong.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta
Re #16
Sorry, no can do:
Quote, "Some people are on the pitch, they think it's all over!
Lisbon Treaty ratified.
Quote, "It is now!
Complain about this comment
Another good piece Gavin, though i would disagree with the closing remark that in choosing a couple of unknowns the EU is signalling EU leaders do not want new power centres to emerge to challenge the nation-states.
In ratifying Lisbon they have given a far stronger signal that they want the EU Parliament to emerge as a single power centre with equal co-decision rights to all the nation-states together (i.e. the Council of Ministers) in deciding the highest law of 27 lands. By changing the voting rules within the diminished Council of Ministers they have signalled very strongly that they want to make it easier to overrule dissenting nation-states. And of course they have extended this EU system into many new policy fields that were previously exclusively decided by nation-states. Compared to these strong signals, enshrined with all the force of international law, the selection of a couple of unknowns at the EU Council (which is anyway the forum of nation-states) is a very weak signal and a temporary one at that, because they will be gone in 2.5 or 5 years at most, whereas Lisbon is quasi-permanent.
Some federalists and some EU sceptics seem pleased by this week's events, but in my opinion the big losers of this EU Council are pro-EU supporters in Britain. For the next 5 years they will be no major British figure in Brussels, no Blair or Miliband or Mandelson nor any member of a likely new government, who they can point to as evidence that the UK can advance its interests through Brussels. Indeed the events of this EU Council will cast a long shadow in that Blair's humiliating rejection now becomes the symbol of where you end up when you aim for 'the heart of Europe'. Why should any future Prime Minister try so hard again?
Complain about this comment
Very much in agreement with Greyman. Enough of britain acting like the spoiled child of europe. You are either in or out! To be honest, i don't think that you will be missed on the continent and we will be very happy to move europe further without britain and its unwillingness to be a full, enthusiastic european member.
Of all thing I hope that what will come of all of this will be the realization on the continent that enough is enough with britain's atitude.
Complain about this comment
It is rather disappointing, a puppet president of the EU
Complain about this comment
# greyman
What on earth makes you think that the British 'like' Tony Blair? Prvious posts on this site were begging for anyone - and I mean anyone - other than him! Possibly Gordon Brown likes him - at least enough to push him for the job - but that is probably only to keep him out of domestic politics.
Most of the rest of us welcome his non-appointment to a post that many of us see as an expensive, bureaucratic non-necessity.
Complain about this comment
#17
I don't trust them as far as can throw them but it is the whole lot of them not just the EU
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn @9 wrote:
"You really get the impression from reading your posts that the English political leaders are backward mongoloids."
You are so wrong!
Our political leaders are progressive mongoloids.
Complain about this comment
This article is another good illustration of the contradictions that dominate English journalism: They don't want the LT, but then they want a strong president. They use democracy in every sentence, but then they don't want a president who cares to listen to the needs of all member states.
Cynicism and slogans obviously attract more readers than informed journalism.
Complain about this comment
milou @24 wrote:
"nough of britain acting like the spoiled child of europe. You are either in or out! To be honest, i don't think that you will be missed on the continent and we will be very happy to move europe further without britain and its unwillingness to be a full, enthusiastic european member."
Quite right!
And I'm sure you won't miss our (as of next year) £7,000,000,000 annual contribution either. (I'm confident that Dutch, German and Swedish taxpayers will be delighted to make up the shortfall).
Complain about this comment
@19.scottspeig:
"Just decide, what you want, be in EU or be independent... you can't have it two ways."
""If only we could!!!!""
Yes, you can! The LT provides the possibility (for the very first time) for countries to leave the EU. It's again another example of the paradoxes in the English press: anti-EU, YES, but leverage this aspect of the LT, NO.
It's up to your democratically elected government to decide to be IN or OUT. It's clear that also Cameron wants to be IN, otherwise he would have made more publicity about this option.
Complain about this comment
As far as Van Rompuy is concerned: it's true, he's very good at compromising and maintaining status quo. Mind you, he hasn't kept together or solved anything in Belgium. He's just put all the problems in the freeze. That's why we're so glad to see the back of him.
As far as Blair is concerned: you can't really expect us to support a bloody foreigner at the head of the EU now can you?!
Complain about this comment
# 27 ChrisArta
"I don't trust them as far as can throw them but it is the whole lot of them not just the EU"
Fair enough! One of the reasons I don't trust them is because they don't do what they say they will do! (eg the broken promise on the referendum)
I believe that if a government deliberately breaks a manifesto pledge, this amounts to an election fraud and breach of contract. I would like to see a new system where MPs are barred for life from holding public office if they are found guilty of breaking a manifesto pledge. Furthermore, they should have to repay all their salaries and expenses. The courts should also have the power to revoke any legislation passed that was contrary to what was promised in the manifesto.
This would certainly focus their minds on sticking to what they promised - which was the basis on which they were elected.
The EU will undoubtedly continue to evolve, but my concern is that without democratic scrutiny we will end up with a monster that cannot be removed.
If we don't like the ruling party in the UK, we can boot them out at the next election. The same is not true for unelected officials who act in our name but without our consent.
Complain about this comment
milou
Re #24
".. realisation on the continent that enough is enough with Britain's attitude.."
Yes please!
Reject, eject, send us home without a sandwich, soonest please!
Of course you on the Continent wont miss the UK/English: Though the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish may well miss you - - but, being a 'democrat' from that bastion of 'democracy' the EU, you would let them stay in if they wanted wouldn't you - - oh go on - - you '25' can start paying their bills as the English have done for the last 300 years!
Naturally, the English must have choice too: That is why us Europsceptics are not strident about being in or out, but we would welcome the helpful persuasion of EU enthusiasts such as yourself in getting a Referendum on the issue put before the British/English Citizens.
Let me now guess: All you 'pro-EU' are going to tell us it is upto the UK/English Government: Just like the Eire Government was not told to hold a 2nd Lisbon Treaty referendum by the 26 other EU members! Yeah right!
Let's face it, if it happened, it would be the first genuinely democratic move by the EU since Maastricht set-up the Single European ideal as beyond reproach.
So, several squadron of flying pigs over the channel are more likely to be seen in the next decade.
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller@8 "But the citizens of the EU member states have been denied any say as to whether they want a permanent 'president', or whether they want this particular man, or whether they want the Lisbon Treaty that created this post in the first place."
Wrong. Firstly, the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by the democratically elected parliaments of all 27 member states. So you got your say during the general elections.
Secondly, my fellow Spaniards actually got a referendum on the European Constitution. We overwhelmingly voted yes, yet our vote was disregarded, since the Constitution was binned and we ended up with the heavily watered-down Lisbon Treaty instead. Why should only "no" votes be taken into account?
My point being of course, that if you *really* want democracy, EU-wide matters should be submitted to EU-wide referenda, not 27 different national referenda which will almost fatally have different outcomes, and where a "no" in Malta would be enough to block everybody else, no matter how badly a majority wants a change. National referenda should be reserved to a single, simple question: Do you want to be in or out?
Complain about this comment
No offense to anyone, but, GO EUROPE.
We need a strong Europe so we, America, can survive financially and as part of a world with more than a two big powers--the "G-2." (China and America)
Europe has 1000+ years of tradition of democracy, free-speech and culture (that it has lent to America)
As well as a tradition of world wars, but, hey, "that was then, this is now"...
So, I'm betting on ocntinued peace and prosperity for Europe.
Also, it might be nice for America to take a (big) break from policing the world and let someone else (Europe? China?) to do that.
I, myself, prefer Europe to China, though China has much to offer to our futures :)
Complain about this comment
#29 ignace
"They don't want the LT, but then they want a strong president."
I'm not sure that is what people want. I think many people who oppose the Lisbon Treaty don't actually want any permanent 'president'. But not only were the citizens of member states not asked about Lisbon, we then have an unelected 'president' and foreign affairs 'minister' foisted upon us.
That is why this latest stage of EU evolution is void of any democratic legitimacy.
If you really believe member states should be listened to, why was the process of national referenda halted when the results showed a strong 'no'?
I really can't work out why some people seem so implacably opposed to a democratic process! I can only assume it is because they are worried that people won't vote the way they are supposed to - like the Irish! This assumes that the political elite know what's best for us, and we should just do as we are told.
What we have now is tyranny.
Complain about this comment
In the comments here there are a couple of viewpoints I would call mistakes. The first is that Great Britain is either in or out. It is somewhere between both and will remain there until politicians and people of that country have reached another understanding. I am convinced it will be more of in than out.
Secondly: The dichotomy of independence versus EU membership. It is a dichotomy that is rooted in nationalism, and it is doing nothing but pouring water on the mill of the sceptics.
It has already been said previously that we are pooling sovereignty together in the EU. When despite the quite unmusical concert of the sceptics, which seems to be noisier in GB than elsewhere, the member states accept this transfer of sovereignty at all, and with GB as a very reluctant participant, it is because their representatives believe they achieve something that would otherwise not be achievable. Internally it is about the market, externally it is about Europe in the rest of the world.
It is not my understanding of the global development, when we for instance include the climate problems, that middle size European nation states will gain more influence in the world. Gordon Brown has realised this. It is possible that David Cameron has too, only he just pretends not to.
Complain about this comment
max sceptic wrote:
"And I'm sure you won't miss our (as of next year) £7,000,000,000 annual contribution either. (I'm confident that Dutch, German and Swedish taxpayers will be delighted to make up the shortfall)."
Quiet frankly, I think it will be greatly offset by an obvious gain of efficiency in decision-making brought by not having to deal with nations such as britain that continually drag their feet, make ridiculous demands and refuse to positively participate in the european construction.
Complain about this comment
#24
"Enough of britain acting like the spoiled child of europe."
So what you seem to be saying is the people of Britain are not entitled to have an opinion. We just have to roll over and do as you say. How very 1940s.
Complain about this comment
@30 MaxSceptic
Please check your data: since 2000, the net contribution from the UK varied between 955,000,000 and 4,168,000,000, with an annual average of 2,400,000,000
Complain about this comment
29. ignace
"...the contradictions that dominate English journalism: They don't want the LT..."
I don't care about journalists. I do care that people give their yeah or nah.
To put an end to presumptuous comments like "They don't want the LT".
Complain about this comment
I have no comment but would like to know what may be rather stupid questions to you but not to me because I don't know the answer.
First, does Britain bring any of its Commonwealth with it into the union?
Second, to cement the Union, to really make it one nation, not just a confederation, what happens to the houses of royalty?
Third, If the union becomes finally cemented together, why should the rest of the world allow the EU to bring multiple teams to the Olympics? If the EU continues to do that, what would be different if the Ununited States were to bring 50 different teams, and each of those flew under the banner of their state? Those who do not know the history of the United States will see that in addition to the 13 colonies, there was The Republic of Texas and The West Florida Republic which specifically formed as nations apart from the United States and then joined later, and we still see problems of these former nations being treated like bastard children in the king's palace. Frankly, I would love to see an Olympic team from The West Florida Republic. We contribute many Olympic athletes to the United States team.
Complain about this comment
@23 Freeborn-John
you said: "Indeed the events of this EU Council will cast a long shadow in that Blair's humiliating rejection now becomes the symbol of where you end up when you aim for 'the heart of Europe'"
Blair has never made any chance, although the English press told you the opposite. Blair got only openly support from Berlusconi (!?). What most continental Europeans have not forgotten is his decision to go to war in Iraq. But also the way he did it: he presented himself to Bush as the voice of Europe, although he knew very well that most countries didn't support him. That's not the type of leader Europe needs, and you will understand that very well, as you want the individual states to be respected.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt: You Wrote:"Germany's Angela Merkel said he offered "consensus". It is an interesting word that can be interpreted in many different ways. In Europe it often means "the person that is least objectionable". Some interpret it as "the lowest common denominator"."
You're misrepresenting what Angela Merkel said. "Consensus" in Europe never refers to a person and it means exactly the same as in English, see below. Anything wrong with that?
...................................................................
Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together.[1]
The formal process of achieving consensus ideally requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of action, genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since discussion, it is supposed, can only enhance ultimate consensus. The hope is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of group opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare. A consensus rather than a voting process is often employed with this intention, as well as to minimize any possible damage to inter-personal relationships
Complain about this comment
Hi Gavin
The real issue here is the lack of democracy. After all we are invading countries to establish democracy and yet 2 European leaders are elected by only 27 people. It would appear that this is the widest election Lady Ashton has ever put herself up for. On this basis she should not have the job.This is government by oligarchy.
To the earlier poster who said that Blair is not popular in Europe there are many British people like me who are anti his wars too
Complain about this comment
RCalvo72
Re #35
It is truly, stunningly amazing what some of you 'pro-EU' come up with.
Actually, no it isn't: Because only a 'pro-EU' contributor could have the bare faced nerve to write and claim that as their Nation held a Vote on a 'Constitution' (and voted 'yes') that never saw the light of day those same Citizens must therefore have been willing to Vote 'Yes' to another set of proposals (the Lisbon Treaty). Therefore they were never given the chance to Vote yes or no!
Now that really is a demonstration of the EU version of 'Democracy' in action: Look Citizens! 3 years ago you voted in favour of this policy and that means you always would vote 'yes'!
In fact to save you all a lot of time and trouble as you voted 'yes' in 2006-07 we have decided you need never vote again, on anything!
I don't know about anyone else but your version frightens the life out of me!
Complain about this comment
Baroness Ashton seems to have reached the heights on the strength of a degree in sociology, membership of the Labour party, and very little else. Apart from short spells of "work " as head of one focus group or another,little more was achieved, then as a reward for loyalty to the party she was raised to chief head nodder in the Lords and subsequently after keeping her head nodding to Gordon's tune, reached the ultimate non job , European commissioner. Now a promotion, if this can be considered that, though the scope for pocket lining will no doubt be increased considerably.
Complain about this comment
35. RCalvo72
"...the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by the democratically elected parliaments of all 27 member states. So you got your say during the general elections..."
Yes we did have our say in the 2005 General Elections with all three main parties committed to give us a vote on what became the Lisbon Treaty.
We got our say? Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
Complain about this comment
SB;
"Europe has 1000+ years of tradition of democracy, free-speech and culture"
What cave do you live in? Where does your library get its books? What did they teach you in school? 1000 years ago Europe was hardly any different than Afghanistan under the Taleban. Since then they've had inquisitions, pogroms, expulsions, ethnic wars, dictatorships of every kind known to man, mass murder. The worst tyrannies that ever existed and the greatest bloodbaths that ever happened were fought between and against them. Their imperial empires committed crimes of every imaginable horror beyond counting all over the world. Our own country was invented as a rejection of Europe. Our worst war, the Civil War was the result of a legacy they left us that had no peaceful resolution. If Western Europe had any freedom and democracy in the last 64 years at all it is because we won it for them in WWII. If Eastern Europe has had any freedom and democracy at all in the last 20 years, it is because we won that too for them by winning the cold war in opposition to much of Western Europe's population who sympathized with the USSR. And even so, the best of them are not all that free or democratic. Take Britain for example where a government owned megalith is the main electronic media outlet for the entire nation. Even its own reporter Kevin Connelly reporting from Grand Rapids Michigan the other night admitted that BBC is part of an elitist liberal media outlet. There are things this 800 pound gorilla that dominates the UK's media will not say and will not allow to be said over its facilities. Why do you think moderators censor more than just uncivil postings? The other European countries are no better. These people are of no value to us. We should dump these losers who are also no friends of ours. They just play our good will as us being suckers. We will start reaping the benefits immediately if we do cut them off. Today is as good a day to start as any.
Complain about this comment
48. kaybraes
"...Baroness Ashton...as a reward for loyalty to the party she was raised to chief head nodder in the Lords..."
The Noble Baroness was instrumental in ratifying Lisbon over the heads of the British electorate.
Her promotion is just reward for a job well done.
Complain about this comment
I still think European Federalism is unavoidable now that the EU has a President. Power will eventually gravitate to the top; it may take decades or even another referendum on the structure of the EU, but it will happen because power almost always trends towards to top.
The EU today is not really comparable to the US Federal government today, but to this American, the EU looks an awful lot like the US did over 200 years ago under the Articles of Confederation.
Complain about this comment
I take my hat off to the Brits. Instead of admitting defeat with Tony, you have set up Catherine Ashton to be the gatekeeper of relations with the U.S. I don't think the French and Germans have figured out what you have done yet. Keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
Gavin, I sometimes wonder if journalists are as out of touch as politicians. It is not about Tony Blair overshadowing Merkel or Sarkozy. Tony Blair is loathed, not just in the UK but abroad. His legacy will remain lying about WMD, giving sycophantic support to a war-mongering US president and being directly responsible for hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read some of the blogs and check how many contributors agree.
Complain about this comment
If you think real hard about why the world would not want George W. Bush leading the UN you might begin to realize why other countries in the EU might not be interested in having Blair lead them.
Not saying but, ya know... Just a guess that any reasonable and rational person might make.
Complain about this comment
36. stellarBeloved
"...it might be nice for America to take a (big) break from policing the world and let someone else..."
Like they did in 1914 & 1939?
Complain about this comment
netterwolf
Re #54
Well, here is one contributor who does not agree with you.
First, I have to take issue with the 'hundreds of thousands' dead Iraqis: Even the latest U.N. official figures suggest around 109,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2003, and that same report attributes 75% of those deaths to the internecine warfare of Shia and Sunni plus the degenerate activities of Al Queda cohorts.
Blair is far from popular but neither is he the devil you portray; not at international level at least: He was very 'pro-EU' and later, his work as mediator on behalf of the 'west' powers in the Middle East has been generally well received on all sides.
The former PM's unswerving support of the NATO ally in Afghanistan and then the Iraq campaign surely did ruin what was a very reasonable record, but, Blair acted according to his belief that it was the correct policy both for the 'west' not to be split (which true enough, it did anyway) and for the UK as backer of the USA (which may or may not pay dividends as the Obama Presidency unfolds).
Yes, post the very successful Iraq invasion the debacle that followed was/is a catastophic tragedy for the Iraqi people (and to some extent for the prestige of the 'west' especially the USA), and the death and injuries on all sides have been horrendous: However, I have yet to see, hear anyone actually prove anything of the sort was intended by the Blair.
That he got the policy choices so woefully and deathly wrong in some aspects will be the mark upon him for all his life and in History.
Complain about this comment
#50 - MarcusAureliusII
"What did they teach you in school?"
That the Second World War began in 1939. I think you teach you kids it began in 1941?
Complain about this comment
When will Britain recall that it no longer has an empire, and isn't granted special nation status in the EU because it had one, once upon a time.
I'm convinced this sense of entitlement because of past glories is a strong motivator in a lot of Britain's give and take with the EU, everyone is just too polite to bring it up.
Complain about this comment
MAII
Re #50
Quote, "...our worst war, the civil war.."
It is typical of your complete lack of historical authenticity that you refer to 'our' in that context.
You totally neglect to mention (have you ever even thought about the people who are enforced hosts of your presence in their land?) that even the tightest estimates put the number of Native Americans killed by the advance of Your civilisation at around 900,000 and some put it as high as 2,600,000!
Make no mistake, that is deaths in the period from 1775 onwards: The casualties amongst native Americans include over 70 tribes genocidally expunged from existence on the North American continent post American Independence.
Whose 'worst war', MAII?
Complain about this comment
ignace @41,
I stand by what I wrote: "... our (as of next year) £7,000,000,000 annual contribution".
Complain about this comment
A combined effort to promote business interest at the expense of citizens. Banks and investment firms find it expensive to steal multiple currencies and fund multiple elected officials, they would like a single body to exempt them from criminal activities they commit against depositors and small investors. Big business and international investors have instituted their own legislative body unencumbered by national interest or economies. An international version of the East India Trading Company.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (61):
Eh... I think you are missing the point...
If you had a real respectable world currency and not something approaching grading of an toilet paper the quoted sum would be smaller.
Complain about this comment
Loyola
Re #59
Here it is again!
When? Oh when will you 'pro-EU' stop repeating this utter drivel about Britain and an Empire!?
Spain, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium etc. ALL had 'imperial' pasts - - how come it is the British that are supposed to be unable to recover from their past - - and how come those clever Continentals are claiming not to struggle like the UK with their Colonial legacy?
For your information, no one under 50 in the UK would have any recollection of the 'Empire' except Hong Kong 1997 handed peacefully back to China, and places that still vote to remain a part of the Commonwealth of Nations (formed pre-WW2, that's prior to 1939, in case your dates are as bad as your perspective), e.g. Gibraltar, Falklands, Tristan da Cuhna..
Nobody in the UK under 60 could have been in any Imperial Armed Forces or overseas Civil Service. India became independent in 1947! Almost the entire African nations (Rhodesia/Zimbabwhe the 'white' colonial exception) by 1965 - - that's 40+ years ago!
Finally, may I point out yet again, that the Britons you are describing as suffering from post-imperial angst includes some 8 million residence of the UK who have parents/grandparents whose first language is not English: That is 1 in every 7 Britons come from those former colonies and they are hardly likely to base their views on the EU around what the 'white' British did dozens of years ago in Africa, Asia etc.!
If you have even a shred of evidence that Britons' attitude to the European Union was/is something to do with when they ruled Kenya, Sri Lanka, Singapore etc. please do present it.
Otherwise, give up because you plainly have absolutely no factual idea what you are writing about!
Complain about this comment
#58, Threnodio II,
Japan invaded China in 1937, the war didn't start in Europe or the US. But of course the Chinese war dead were not even counted as part of the total for many years and the figures used are low.. 20 million or 40 million, what's the difference, unless you were Chinese.
Complain about this comment
#41 - ignace
#61 - MaxSceptic
Measuring contributions in terms of sterling is not helpful. Contributions are paid in Euros and should be measured in that currency otherwise you are going to fall foul of the corrective mechanism of the exchange rate.
The Open Europe estimate for 2007-2013 shows an annual gross contribution from the UK of Eur 103 billion and an income of Eur 46 billion or a nett contribution of 57 billion. Whether this represents value for money depends on your perspective but a simple measure is nett benefit or deficit per capita, under which the average Austrian or German is somewhat worse off, the Swedes considerably worse off and the big losers are the Netherlands at a bit under 1,500 per head.
The gross UK government from direct taxation is a bit harder to pin down but, in round figures, it is 875 billion Eur for the current tax year so 1,450 per capita or about 10% of the direct tax take. This takes no account of indirect taxation such as VAT.
Complain about this comment
#64 - cool_brush_work
For once, we are in complete agreement.
The only theory I can come up with is that France (Indo-China anyone?), Belgium (Congo), Portugal (Angola, Mozambique) and Spain (all of Latin America apart from Brazil), were either unceremonially chucked out or made such a hash of withdrawal as to leave a lasting legacy of civil or regional warfare. Frankly they would rather forget all about their legacies. The British withdrawal, with a few exceptions, was relatively well ordered.
However, there are a few people on here who would like to draw on 'the good old days' as a symbol of the great power that once was. Those days are over and, as you rightly say, many were not born when the end came. It is all over people. Live with it.
Complain about this comment
brush-off;
you and threnodious can twist history any way you like, it doesn't bother me a bit. Fact, the Civil War was the worst war Americans fought in. Fact, there may always be the land once called England but the species known as English will be as extinct as the dodo bird in less than 100 years. Between the EUSSR, emigration of native English, and homogenization of the EUSSR through mobility to eliminate all local loyalties and historical connections between people and land, the population inhabiting the British Isles will have no more in common with those who lived there these last 1000 years than the Australians, Canadians, or South Africans have with the UK today. It will become nothing more than a curious historic relic if it is even allowed to be taught.
Complain about this comment
#65 - ghostofsichuan
I do not argue that the figures are not horrific but it was nevertheless a regional conflict. I said World War and I stick by it.
Complain about this comment
#33
I'd go along with that! (and not just for politicians also airlines that advertise tickets from ....) however the problem is we don't have that now and instead of screaming EU undemocratic we should scream polical establishment undemocratic. For me getting out of the EU will not solve the problem we will still a whole lot of officials that are unelected.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_11
Re #67
Yes, it does get up my nose when there are so many far more recent and pertinent points at issue as you and I have batted across the web over time.
Never mind Indo-China, what about Algeria? A new republic and De Gaulle's restoration came about from that France debacle?
In truth much of Europe has these 'post-colonial' issues, e.g Spain complains (today a little fracas over a gunnery flag!) about Gibraltar, but, when are they going to pull-out of North Africa!? Other modern versions being in the Balkans and former 'east Soviet Europe' - - and the same can be said of Nations on all the Continents, e.g. Pakistan's troubles in Waristan (in Robert Clive's colonial times it never was part of Pakistan), and then Iraq and Turkey with the Kurds, Iran with at least 3 non 'Persian' nationalities (much like England with 3 other Union nations!) and so it goes on...
Anyway, good to here from you direct. Keep up the good fight: It is something we Brits do so well, dontcha know!!!
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
#68
fact "brush-off" is correct
fact you are wrong
fact you are entertaining with your insane patriotism
fact England in a 100 years will still be here
fact In a 100 years England will still have 800 years more culture and history than the USA
Complain about this comment
MAII
Re #68
Inconsequential drivel: About as accurate as your Hurricane Katrina stats!
Complain about this comment
PickledPete is right on the money. I'd go even further - these appointments are perfect because they lower expectations and the eurosceptics temperature. They also allow the new jobs/institutions to be built and bed down. Then the next appointments can be highly selective and ambitious.
Additionally, as someone here said, this empowers Barroso and reinforces the EU dual institutional structure - Commission vs CoM, which is good.
Complain about this comment
57 cool_brush_work
"U.N. official figures suggest around 109,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2003":
Since when can UN figures be relied on? "suggest" - a bit weak. And only 109,000 dead Iraqis, and all their own fault - that should bring some comfort to Tony Blair. As for George Bush, he's probably catching up on some golf.
"his belief that it was the correct policy both for the 'west' not to be split" -
Which West? Does that include the French and Germans at the time. I took part in the marches in Berlin and I remember the anger and contempt from all walks of life.
As for his breathtaking achievements in the Middle-East - just a fat fee to enter oblivion.
Your last paragraph and final sentence pretty much sum it up.
Complain about this comment
@64, 68, 73: history is repeating itself and nobody is clean (over the long haul). The Germanic tribes (including the Anglo Saxons) replaced the celtic people in what's now England, Netherlands, Belgium, France (yes, the Franks were a germanic tribe), Germany, Austria about 1500-1300 years ago...No different from what happened later in the US. It's very bad, but it seems to be part of human nature. And you're right about the colonial past of the continental countries. There are probably no Scotts on this forum, otherwise they would (rightly so) have added the cleansing of the highlands to the list.
Complain about this comment
Ignace
There is a Scot (one "t") here! And you're right.
Complain about this comment
Milou @ 24 & 39
If you can help throw us out it would be very much appreciated. Perhaps you can have a word with your new "Pres".
Complain about this comment
Netterwolf
Re #75
Nowhere do I imply it is 'all' the Iraqis fault - - clearly the great majority of those deaths follow on from the invasion of Iraq, 2003 - - that said, the fact that Iraqis then deliberately chose to slaughter each other on grounds of inter-tribalism, faith and fundamentalism is a tragedy partly of their own making as well as the lamentably inadequate preparations by the US-led coalition of the willing for a post-Baathist Nation.
You can remember whatever you like, but it does not alter facts: France and Germany failed to support their number 1 'Liberator' and Cold War ally and have lamentably failed to do so throughout the first decade of the 21st Century. As I wrote, it remains to be seen what effect this split amongst the Allies of the 'West' has in the longterm: Whether the USA, under Obama's administration, has already forgotten that foreign policy decision by France-Germany is something still to be unravelled. Having travelled extensively in the States I can assure you that whilst Americans seem on the whole to be delighted to be rid of Dubya Bush, that by no means is the same as accepting their European/NATO partners turned their backs on the USA when it called for assistance - - the ongoing squeamish and lacklustre performance of both Nations' armed forces in Afghanistan is being seen by some Americans as evidence of a fundamental shift in the America-Europe alliance.
That maybe exactly what Paris-Berlin had in mind in 2003: My point in #57 was that Blair saw that split as dangerous and hoped to avoid it - - he failed, as did the US-UK policy for Iraq much to the detriment of the unfortunate Iraqis - - however, you should not mistake France-Germany decisions in 2003 and since as their humanitarian concern for Iraq, but as Foreign Policy power-plays because that is what it was and is all about.
Blair's efforts in the Middle East were neither successful or unsuccessful: Afterall, are you seriously suggesting in such a short time he should/could have brought about a lasting peace that has not been possible in the region for the last 100 or so years!?
Yes, my final summation of Blair's career to date is that a bright and effective start went tragically, sadly astray: You can be as high and mighty as you feel about your honourable opposition to the Iraq campaign, but the elected rulers of each Democracy must make choices based on the available information, what they consider to be in their Citizens best interests and like all of us, on gut instincts. Blair trusted poor Intelligence, he misjudged just how dumb Bush's administration really was, and in the final analysis his political instinct which had stood him well in the past was hopelessly erroneous in that Iraq instance.
Any brief glance at History will reveal countless such Leaders who got it right and wrong: When they were right their people for the most part applauded them, and when they were wrong no surprises their staunchest supporters as well as the public at large raged against them. That is the fate of those who would seek to lead: You went on the march, but it is a different perspective from being at the front of the column with everyone counting on your personal choices of which direction to take.
Blair is a deeply flawed man, but, so are we all, trouble is the 'leaders' mistakes cost a great deal more than those of you or I.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan, I thought it's 1931?
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work
You kind of like to have it both ways: "Blair is a deeply flawed man, but, so are we all." I'm not. A moderately flawed man who demonstrates his rejection of warmongering the only way most of us can as well as getting a ground floor view of what other people (all kinds and ages)think and feel. As for leading, well, he didn't exactly show up on the front line. No, just the poor kids sent to defend us against what exactly? WMD, Iraq's aggression against the UK, Iraq training and harbouring Al Qaeda. Poor intelligence...CIA misleading Bush...etc., etc. Do you honestly believe that? Why are the French and Germans power-playing cynics and poor US and UK misguided philanthropists as you seem to imply? The bottom line is whatever the case for going after the Taliban in Afghanistan Iraq was a war of aggression and for oil and Israeli foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan, you've got a sudden supporter in terms of Russian history, that says that the 2nd WW overall began in 1931 :o). And that the Russian "Great Patriotic - in 1941."
It appears all count from the time they were attacked.
I understand you are somehow committed to 1937? How come, because we begin counting the world war from you, which is "it began on the rails of Mukden, 1931"?
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work
in case you get back (and I'm pretty sure you might) I've gone to bed!
Complain about this comment
cool-brush-work @71, on colonies and ex empires. I'll summarise it for our Eastern quarters: there has never been any one :o)))) around but, counting East to West - China, "Moskovia", Persia, Turkey, Sweden.
Well, "Nor-Weg"/North Way - also sounds an old name. Accordingly, everyone around me here is either ex-Persia or ex-Turkey or ex-Sweden (new Russia :o) new Russia :o) new Russia) and, as of late "ex-Russia".
:o)))))))
Complain about this comment
MAII, no. 50,
How did you know I went to school in a cave? -- it was in France and they had real cool painting classes (my parents were,,,sob..
neanderthals)
But, I stand by my fact of 1000+ years of cultural tradition for Europe.
When I saw Westminster Abbey, I was 24 (am 51, now) and I was thrilled to see a beautiful 1000 year old cathedral--our great skyscrapers were built ..um..900 years later.:)
David
Complain about this comment
Has anyone calling for a vote for the President considered the repercussions? It would be like the Eurovision Song Contest but worse, and much, much more expensive.
How many British people had heard of the 3 front runners before a week ago?, who would they have voted for? I suppose on their voting record and knowledge of europe and the leading europeans outside the UK, they would have voted for any Brit that was standing however much they may dislike him. - and lets be honest the French and the Germans and all the other nations would all have voted the same way
Unless the EU became a confederated state then direct election of a president is impossible. Even then just think of the cost.
Complain about this comment
When will the Catholic Church is going to allow Europe to advance its Democracy to become a real one??
One can smell the Vatican people's HOLY intervention, with their fatherly system of demo-bureaucracy. Please, give us back our RIGHT to vote!! Do you really think we will accept this Van man as our president, just because Mr Sarkozy has selected him??
I am really thinking here of FORCED MARRIAGE for all the European citizens!!
Complain about this comment
The second world war in Europe began in 1918 at Versailles. That is when the seeds were sown. The outcome was inevitable. Britain and France could hardly have been any dumber had they tried deliberately. But they didn't have to. It came to them naturally. It still does. Just look at the mess called The Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
artiste;
"fact England in a 100 years will still be here"
Oh really. If the rains hold up the entire country may be under water within a few months. The only memorial possible will be a buoy in the ocean marking where the Tower of London once stood. If that happens, half the population will flee back to Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
You have completely missed the point - the job to watch is not the President of the Council because nobody cares what the Council does, apart from rubber stamping what surges out of the Commission, , ably led for the past five years by President Barrosso who is in for another five years.The job to watch is the foreign policy job given to Lady Ashton, who will have to bring together the overseas delegations of the EU and weld them into sort of embassies, shout down the World Trade Organisation as Peter Mandelsson pathetically failed to do, shut down the relationships with Africa that now exist under the Cotonou Covention and spend its budget on the climate change thing ...... Britain got a good job out of the latest changes, so why do you not mention that - and if you think the British are so thoroughly stupis that they are unable to negotiate like the French and Germans do, why do you not say so more openly? This is bad reporting.You have failed your public by not keeping them properly informed about the real issues .
Complain about this comment
I am concerned about Ashton's Dalek in her home.
Who controls whom? And should mankind be concerned?
Complain about this comment
To stellarbeloved who wrote "When I saw Westminster Abbey, I was 24 (am 51, now) and I was thrilled to see a beautiful 1000 year old cathedral--our great skyscrapers were built ..um..900 years later."
There are two reasons for this:
Reason 1) You have to remember that Europeans are the new kids to North America. One could easily make the claim that they are this continent's original illegal immigrants. :-)
White history in the US is only 1000 years old. Our much older history is from the natives and goes back a long time.
Which leads me to
Reason 2) Native Americans respected the land. They believed that you only took what you needed from the land and left the natural beauty of the rest alone. When Europeans came over and saw that the natives lived a very sparse lifestyle, they thought the natives to be very foolish and wasteful. Their thinking was that with this rich abundant land available to them, the natives should take as much as they could from it (a very European view then and now). What they didn't realize was that natives thought the Europeans were foolish, wasteful and selfish for taking far more than they needed. Read up some time on the difference between Native and European hunting of buffaloes to see my point.
Because Natives left the land alone and didn't mow down vast acres of trees to throw up churches and castles and other unnecessary stuff (like the Euros did in Europe), we Americans are blessed with National Parks that are absolutely huge. National Parks that are practically crawling with Europeans (at least the ones I've been to).
I don't know about you but I'd take Yellowstone and Yosemite any day over Westminster Abbey. But then that's just me. :-)
And if you want something really, really old (to compare to what the Euros have) google Chaco Canyon and check out the calendar built by the natives. Pretty cool stuff.
Complain about this comment
They are an interesting looking pair.
Not to put too finer point on it, both of them have been thoroughly thrashed with the ugly stick.
I wonder if the idea is to stop people looking?
Complain about this comment
TY, kcwhattrick
I do like natural scenery And
history...I have been to see Native American places in Sunset Crater (near the Grand Canyon)
and I know some people who have been to Chaco canyon
and they liked it very much:)
Complain about this comment
Whatever the qualities of Mr Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton, how can the EU, at a time of severe economic pressures on ordinary EU citizens (citizens who had absolutely no choice, no rights and no voice in the selection of the president ) possibly justify the £26 million annual cost of the president's office and the scandalous £280 million budget for the new presidential palace in Brussels?
The lack of debate on these expenditures show how totally out of touch the EU and its leadership remains.
Complain about this comment
As Julie Harpum says, the job to watch is the foreign policy job. This is the powerful role and calls for a diplomacy guru that Lady Ashton clearly is.
Complain about this comment
"88 MAII:
Was just going to post the same comment when I read yours.
But then, you could go further, and say that the Versailles Treaty was the outcome of WWI, or Sarajevo - July/August 1914. Of course, you lot didn't get involved for another three years, did you?!!
Complain about this comment
The debate in this column has long ago declined to the level, where contributions have no connection to the theme whatsoever, and British euro sceptics continue to demonstrate that their case has no chance.
BBC made itself a part of the campaigning team behind Tony Blair. For the public opinion in GB, I hope there are media with another angle.
Readers of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung can today read an article about the appointment process. I cannot refer the many interesting details here, but among the main points is the attempt by the British government through the whole process to promote Tony Blair; a candidate that was anything but popular among the rest, from the wrong country, from the wrong party, and perhaps also the wrong gender. Going through the possibilities, it ended with Mrs. Ashton, who has made herself a good name in Berlin.
Secretary Clinton has congratulated EU and Mrs. Ashton, but Frankfurter Allgemeine writes that these remarks cannot be taken seriously.
The chairman had to be found in the BeNeLux countries, but probably because of opposition from France the best candidate, as Berlin saw it, Jean-Claude Juncker was disappointed. Instead van Rompuy got the consent.
For a more serious debate on EU the result opens questions like: What is the voice EU will speak with? How will the EU parliament react on the appointment of Ashton, the vice president of the commision?
One might of course fear that the conservative and the socialist fractions will block any further discussion.
Complain about this comment
" ... make clear why you [Britain] wanted to be a part of EU in the first place ..." (greyman, 6)
Many contributors to this blog and elsewhere have already done that: the people of Britain voted in 1975 to remain part of the "Common Market" (as it was described on the referendum ballot paper).
The idea that Britain should cease to exist as an independent nation and instead become part of a much larger nation called the European Union (or just "Europe") has no democratic mandate. No politician has ever said to the people that they believe Britain should give up its independence to the EU, much less sought our approval for such a step.
Complain about this comment
86. aveyron
"...Has anyone calling for a vote for the President considered the repercussions? It would be like the Eurovision Song Contest but worse..."
If the voting mechanism was "one country = one vote" then yes I suppose it could.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work@47 : "Actually, no it isn't: Because only a 'pro-EU' contributor could have the bare faced nerve to write and claim that as their Nation held a Vote on a 'Constitution' (and voted 'yes') that never saw the light of day those same Citizens must therefore have been willing to Vote 'Yes' to another set of proposals (the Lisbon Treaty). Therefore they were never given the chance to Vote yes or no!"
rg@49 : "Yes we did have our say in the 2005 General Elections with all three main parties committed to give us a vote on what became the Lisbon Treaty."
I think you two should try to agree on this first: Is the Lisbon Treaty the same thing as the Constitutional Treaty or not? Because if "cool_brush_work" is right, then the promise "rg" mentions didn't bind anybody to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. You two can't have your dialectical cake and eat it, so to speak.
Anyway, my whole point, "cool_brush_work", is that indeed democracy was denied to us Spaniards: we didn't get the Constitutional Treaty we voted to get. That was my whole point. The difference between us two is who we blame for this, and why we want democracy. I want democracy for democracy's sake, and I blame the national fetishists like you for not getting it. Real democracy would have meant an EU-wide referendum on the Constitutional and/or Lisbon Treaties. You want "democracy" only for the purpose of derailing the European project no matter what. That's why you would have liked to get a separate referendum in each and every member state (and, if possible, separate referenda in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland too, I guess), with approval conditioned to a "yes" vote in each and every country. That isn't democracy, that's an obstacle race. If overwhelming majorities vote "yes" in 26 countries, a single country votes "no" by a small margin, and the proposal is binned for that reason, would that be democratic? Not by a long shot, I'd say.
Complain about this comment
101. RCalvo72
"...I think you two should try to agree on this first: Is the Lisbon Treaty the same thing as the Constitutional Treaty or not? Because if "cool_brush_work" is right, then the promise "rg" mentions didn't bind anybody to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. You two can't have your dialectical cake and eat it, so to speak..."
RCalvo72 I am not cool_brush_work and they are entitled to their opinion just as you are.
This doesn't alter the fact that the UK electorate didn't get their chance to vote on the Constitutional Treaty (whether or not renamed Lisbon Treaty).
Complain about this comment
threnodio@67:
"The only theory I can come up with is that France (Indo-China anyone?), Belgium (Congo), Portugal (Angola, Mozambique) and Spain (all of Latin America apart from Brazil), were either unceremonially chucked out or made such a hash of withdrawal as to leave a lasting legacy of civil or regional warfare. Frankly they would rather forget all about their legacies. The British withdrawal, with a few exceptions, was relatively well ordered."
You must be joking. What do these places have in common?
Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Burma, Nigeria...
Yes, they were all once painted pink in British schoolbooks, and they've all been enormous messes ever since, not least because of decisions once taken by their colonial masters. Indeed, if there's ever a nuclear Armageddon, the chances are high that it will ultimately be because of how a Whitehall mandarin once decided to trace a line in the map, either in Palestine or in the Indian subcontinent.
It is indeed this wholly uncritical view of the British Empire, and "holier than thou" attitude that us foreigners find jarring. Most other former colonial powers have come to terms with the darkest parts of their colonial past (often enough thanks to the work of British historians). Only in Britain does the public opinion remain wilfully blind to the messes that Britain left behind, apparently.
Complain about this comment
#98 - Mathiasen
I really do not think you can blame posters for wandering off topic when we have had three consecutive posts on the same subject and some are running out of ideas. Unfortunately some of them will seize the moment to bang the big bass drum of prejudice.
Regarding Frankfurter Allgemeine, I am a little surprised at you as someone who has had critical remarks to make about the Telegraph in the past. They may be a long way apart on EU policy but in other respects, they are centre right papers of a very similar type. We all know, if we stop to think about it, why the UK government pushed so hard for Blair. It was a negotiating ploy. Brown knew perfectly well that Blair was not going to get it. He also knew that the Swedish presidency wanted a unanimous vote Ultimately the trump card was 'give us the High Representative job and we will be nice about the Presidency'. Credit where it is due, it worked. The assumption that FAZ knows better what Hilary Clinton is saying than she does is also highly suspect. She was in Kabul at the time trying to whip Karzai into shape so she would have been terribly focused on any more than making the right noises of approval in accordance with the diplomatic niceties. Obama has responded positively as well.
You also suggest that the BBC has been promoting Blair as well and that simply is not true. It is true that the British government have been briefing in his favour and the BBC have to run with what they get. In fact, they have been saying for many days that they were not convinced the Blair campaign was going anywhere and that van Rumpuy was looking like the front runner.
For my part, I will promise not to accept the word of The Telegraph without double checking The Times and The Guardian if you will do the same with Die Welt and SDZ before accepting FAZ as gospel truth.
Complain about this comment
#101 and #103 - RCalvo72
The point I was making - and well you know it - is that the whole colonial legacy is totally irrelevant to this debate but yes I do get annoyed when fellow Europeans accuse the British of been stuck in their past when they flat refuse to acknowledge it. You give a list of former British territories and ask what they have in common. I will tell you - with the possible exception of Israel and Palestine, they were all left with viable economies and functioning administrations which were dismantled and fouled up by a subsequent events. I won't dwell on it as it is meaningless in this context but, while one could possibly have foreseen the split up of the Indian empire, nobody could reasonably be expected to foresee the impact of massive genocide in Europe on a small territory in the Middle East.
You are a reasonable person and a valued contributor with whom I am in agreement most of the time but your accusation that I am "uncritical" and "holier than thou" and that the British are "wilfully blind" about the messes left behind reveals either that you lost your temper or that you have not read my previous posts. I have been sharply critical on many occasions. These are exactly the kind of suggestions which bring out the worst in us. You accuse us of living in the past because you do not like the dissenting voices but can see no purpose in acknowledging your own past.
". . .and, if possible, separate referenda in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland too". And for the Basque Region or Catalonia? And what about the repeated electoral evidence that Gibralta wishes to remain British? That counts for nothing?
You see what I mean. If you seize on generalisations, misrepresent them and end up with EU enthusiats shouting at each other, what chance doo we have against the sceptics?
Complain about this comment
Old-Math;
"The debate in this column has long ago declined to the level, where contributions have no connection to the theme whatsoever, and British euro sceptics continue to demonstrate that their case has no chance."
That is true, those in Europe who opposed the creation of what will ultimately be a tyrannical EUSSR susperstate have no chance, they never really did. That is because only those who have a tradition of fighting and dying to gain and defend freedom, who have worked to perfect truly democratic society understand how fragile and precious it is. Only they know that antidemocratic forces can and do try to use the process of democracy to take power and destroy democracy. Only they understand that once lost, it may be gone forever. And only they know that the structure of government must be sufficiently fractured to deter a conspiracy to corrupt democracy to the point where its survival is in dire jeopardy. Finally, only they know that as a last resort the only alternative to being enslaved again by despotism is war against the government itself with all of the implications that brings. Europe fails these tests miserably on every account. Europe doesn't even understand what real democracy is, that is why it is inevitable it would never have it, why it would surely lose whatever small gains were won on its behalf by Americans in two hot world wars and a third cold world war. Europe is doomed for sure, there is no hope now. They ought to hang a sign over the door reading "All Ye Who Enter Here Abandon Hope"
Complain about this comment
#106
Amen.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it should read "Abandon hope all ye who thought you were going to allowed to enter here".
Complain about this comment
I can hardly believe anyone would seriously try to defend the British Empire. Left a legacy of what? India and Pakistan may yet fight a nuclear war over the way Britain carved up and exited the Raj because some maharajah in Kashmir had an influential friend. The misery all over Africa is in great part testimony to the bitter legacy of the British Empire, South Africa and Zimbabwe being only two examples. To this day China resents Britain's role in European humiliation of it in the 19th century. Australia is the remains of a British penal colony. The shanty towns of the Caribbean islands are all that the Brits left most of them. The Middle East owes much of its present day troubles to Britain. Churchill himself said the way he drew the borders of Iraq was the worst mistake he ever made (believe me he made far worse blunders than that, Gallipoli for example. Iraq is the only the worst one he admitted to.) And of course America was an utter rejection of Britain and everything it stood for. Once rid of Britain it constructed itself as an anti-Britain. It still is. The British Empire was a curse on humanity on which the sun never set, the ultimate piratical state. How fitting that the sun is now going to set on Britain itself for the last time. I hope I live to see it. The ghosts of its countless victims if they exist are also looking forward to that day as well. Justice long delayed but justice at last.
Complain about this comment
106. MarcusAureliusII
[quoting Old-Math] "British euro sceptics continue to demonstrate that their case has no chance."
I prefer the term EU sceptic myself. If our position is so weak how were we denied a referendum?
Complain about this comment
#104. threnodio_II
I have never mentioned a word about The Telegraph in any of my contributions.
Re BBC: I will have no problem in finding passages in this blog on Blair’s candidature, which went beyond journalism. The question is, what we will reach by it, since I have no doubt BBC will do it again.
Who has told BBC that the Swedish presidency has made a bad preparation of the summit? It is not very difficult to guess. I wrote already Thursday evening that the summit very swiftly made the appointments.
As I have already stated, I hope the British public has admittance to sufficient sources on the matter, and I would indeed not count BBC as sufficient.
Are there any factual errors in the articles in FAZ?
Finally; I have some difficulties in understanding why these appointments are discussed here as if BBC it a newspaper of a remote county with a strayed population. BBC is a national medium of a large EU country. As editor I would delete 50% of all contributions here, and tell people to stay with the matter.
Complain about this comment
Re "That is true, those in Europe who opposed the creation of what will ultimately be a tyrannical EUSSR susperstate have no chance, they never really did. That is because only those who have a tradition of fighting and dying to gain and defend freedom, who have worked to perfect truly democratic society understand how fragile and precious it is. Only they know that antidemocratic forces can and do try to use the process of democracy to take power and destroy democracy. Only they understand that once lost, it may be gone forever. And only they know that the structure of government must be sufficiently fractured to deter a conspiracy to corrupt democracy to the point where its survival is in dire jeopardy. Finally, only they know that as a last resort the only alternative to being enslaved again by despotism is war against the government itself with all of the implications that brings. Europe fails these tests miserably on every account. Europe doesn't even understand what real democracy is, that is why it is inevitable it would never have it, why it would surely lose whatever small gains were won on its behalf by Americans in two hot world wars and a third cold world war. Europe is doomed for sure, there is no hope now. They ought to hang a sign over the door reading "All Ye Who Enter Here Abandon Hope""
One really wonders what motives you have to tell a bunch of Europeans that their continent is 'doomed'. Why would you care?
If one considers this, one also comes to the question of what you are pleading for instead of against. Apparently you want us to believe that 'real' democracy exists in the US. Or that you have more genuine freedom than Europeans. Somehow postulating US superiority over the rest of the world (or at least Europe).
That would be quite laughable indeed and would indicate that you lack historical awareness, which of course would not be surprising, since you are an American ;)
Those American 'accomplishments' (perverted accomplishments to the eye of most Europeans) you brag about have their roots in European culture and philosophy. One could paraphrase by citing Oscar Wilde: "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
Fact of the matter is that Europe has more often than not been at the forefront of Human Advance. Looking more closely at the evolution of political organisation: the modern (nation)state was created in Europe by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648): a revolutionary idea at that time. Today this European form of political organization is copied around the world, the dominant 'content' of this form nowadays is the democratic state. Democracy again a European (Greece) invention, philosophically refined by European philosophers in the 18th century.
The nation states of Westphalia do have their shortcomings of course. This was demonstrated in the 20th century and again the European people stood at the forefront: they established a completely new form of political organization, a radical revolution from the nation state: a supranational international organization in which is bundled parts of the sovereignty of nation states.
Some people can not really grasp the radical implications of this process. They are confined to old concepts and their historical awareness only reaches back for a century (hence they only cite 20th century events), this is why they come up with silly little comparisons and allusions to an EUSSR.
Do not be fooled sir, your country is not a city upon a hill and the European peoples have few lessons to learn from you and your countrymen.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen, "delete 50%", policing again :o(.
Better tell us what your focus group :o) in your favourite cafe says, what are the opinions on the ground?
Complain about this comment
ceebee23 @95
280 million is alright in modern times. Just watch that they don't start stuffing it with paintings and sculpture - in our experience the grip tightens when a Winter Palace gets turned into a Hermitage :o))))
Complain about this comment
#111 - Mathiasen
If I misrepresented references or non-references to The Telegraph, I apologise. Maybe my memory is playing tricks.
Of course you will have no problem finding passages on the blog referring to the Blair candidacy. It is a public forum. What did you expect? I was referring to the BBC's own coverage. As to the job the Swedish did, the BBC said that 'some felt that' they had not handled it well (or words to that effect). They did not say it was the case, neither did they point the finger at anyone else and they certainly did not propose it as their own few.
'Are there any factual errors in the articles in FAZ?' No but their view that Mrs. Clinton's reaction is not to be taken seriously is just that - an opinion, not a fact.
'As editor I would delete 50% of all contributions here, and tell people to stay with the matter". I dare say. You need to understand the character. The one sure way of guaranteeing the Brits will not do something is to tell them to do it. Mercifully, the editor appears to have more sense.
Complain about this comment
RCalvi72
Re #103
"..they were once all painted pink in British school books.." and, "..this wholly uncritical view of the British Empire..", plus, "...only in Britain does the public opinion remain wilfully blind.."
Have you been in any School in England since the inception of the National Curriculum in 1986?
There you will find contemporary History, Geography, Political and Environment text books from Infant to Junior to Secondary level: All by order of Parliament displaying alongside the factual historical pattern of British/European/World affairs the Human issues of Rascism, Slavery, Ecology, 1st to 3rd World environment etc.
British/English 'education' gets a bad tabloid press at times - - however, as a Teacher once aptly described the Media focus - - if 6 kids truant from a school and fight inside a MacDonalds that is 'news', but the fact 1,000 of the same age kids were in that school's classrooms the same time is 'no news at all'!
For a second time you have launched into this 'imperialist Britain' view of the UK and yet You clearly exhibit absolutely no idea/knowledge about what you are writing!
I must admit to never having been in a Spanish or Dutch school, but, in the 1970s I did visit my Belgian nephews senior school: They had History and Geography books showing the 'Belgian Congo'; and, friends confirm it was the same for the French schoolbooks on Indo-China, Algeria, Pacific islands etc.
By the way, surely the "pink" bits was the English books in part admitting G.B. had gone about conquering and plundering places? The text alongside, even when I was at school in the +50-60s always pointed out the British were not there by invitation and the daring-do of Brits was at least sometimes juxtaposed with particularly noble/important/clever 'foreign' opponents. So far as I recall, the 'Triangular Slave Trade' was always decribed as a tragedy but lessons would (inconveniently by your version of history) include the French, Dutch, Belge, Portuguese, Spanish 'enslavers' alongside those dastardly British!
The point being I do not believe France or Belgium Governments or their Citizens in general base their views, attitudes, concerns about a European Union on some spurious connection to near and far flung corners of the world that they once cruelly inflicted themselves upon!
It is your premise that Britons, unlike their Continental neighbours, have not been able to make that differentiation in their modern geo-political thought processes.
How do you come to this utterly unfounded/unsubstantiated/unfactual point of view about Britons in general?
Where is your evidence for the "..holier than thou.." attitude?
In my opinion you are the one guilty of all that you accuse Britons of - - you make huge assumptions about a certain sector of people - - you neglect the fact other sectors of those people in that British society are much in favour of the EU.
Thank you, but We will decline to have lectures on how to form opinions on the future of Europe from you: You are the same person that argues a vote in 2005-6 for the defunct 'constitution' means no vote is needed for the Lisbon Treaty 3 years later! If that is Spanish 'democracy' in action kindly return to the era of General Franco and the rest of us will get on with living in the modern world.
I gather the Spanish are at long last having a debate about that recent internal history and apparently there are moves afoot to discuss it openly in Spanish schoolbooks - - do let us know how that debate goes - -in the meantime, safe to say every nation has its "darker" side and all must come to terms with it within their own social-political time-frame.
Until that time arrives: Frankly, your arguments about the UK Citizens are stuff and nonsense!
Complain about this comment
115. threnodio_II
"...The one sure way of guaranteeing the Brits will not do something is to tell them to do it..."
I look forward to seeing Brown banging the drum for a Cameron victory.
I do see your point though. The Eire party leaders refused to be photographed together in support of a 'yes' vote in their second referendum, they thought it would repulse the electorate.
Complain about this comment
MeRinTinTinYouLassie;
"Those American 'accomplishments' (perverted accomplishments to the eye of most Europeans)"
It is Europe itself which is the perversion. Perhaps if it stopped looking in the mirror and idolizing itself, it would react with horror and dismay at what it was, what it has become, and what it will be. I don't expect that. It gives me particular delight to say to Europeans that there is at least one person in the world who does not look at Europe with admiration but with utter contempt. Who does not ignore the overwhelming scars of its crimes past, present, and likely future. Who sees it not as an example to be emulated but as a disaster to be avoided at all cost. Not to be engaged for its wisdom and the benefit it confers on those who do but to be shunned for its folly and the lead ball and chain it imposes on those it touches...like it has on America in the 20thy century.
"Democracy again a European (Greece) invention, philosophically refined by European philosophers in the 18th century."
Democracy such as it was in Greece was reserved only for a handful. It's imperial conquests such as by Alexander the Great, its slaves, its unwillingness to give up those conquests voluntarily and extend democracy shows it was very limited and not at all like the American invention of modern democracy. While some European philosophers may have imagined portions of democracy, it was America that sifted, distilled, assembled, and added its own critical contributions to actually realize democracy. Meanwhile the reality of European civilization in the 18th century was a horror show, all but the noble aristocrats living as virtual slaves. Nor was rebellion against monarchical despotism in France a success at all. Not only did all of the rest of Europe decry it, was horrified at the thought of changing the prevailing order, France itself degenerated into the new despotism of Napoleaon. Then it returned to Monarchical despotism in the 19th century. Only America invented what the modern world considers true democracy. And when you get down to it, even over two centuries later, only America actually has it in its undiluted form. The election of Barack Obama is proof of that. A comparable event is virtually impossible anywhere else including in Europe...especially in Europe.
"This was demonstrated in the 20th century and again the European people stood at the forefront: they established a completely new form of political organization, a radical revolution from the nation state: a supranational international organization in which is bundled parts of the sovereignty of nation states."
Yes that is clear. There was the Nazi Empire, the Soviet Empire, and now the EUSSR empire, all built on European conceptual models. All contemptable despotisms, crimes against humanity, the antithesis of human freedom. It is exactly what Orwell warned about in 1984. But that is a warning that will go unheeded in Europe because it is inherent in the nature of the way Europeans see the world. To them slavery is freedom.
Complain about this comment
There is no Presidential Palace for the coming EU Council President.
Residence Palace is a complex of buildings in Brussels. It was originally designated as an apartment block for wealthy people. After the WW2, the Belgian government used one of its blocks as administrative offices and one block as international press office. In 2004, the Belgian government suggested that the EU Council and Council of Europe would take it, the administrative side, as their place of office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residence_Palace
Since the EU took the offer, they made plan for renovation and for extension of the building. Into the extension, besides the offices of the said entities comes the office of the EU Council President. Again, I underline the usage of word, office.
Here is a link to the winning plan for the extension of the building:
http://www.uia-architectes.org/texte/england/Residence/2-results.html
So no. The EU President won't have a palace, he will have an office in an office building that looks like an regular office building, there won't be no luxury or extravagance, just plain office work.
Complain about this comment
MA2 (106): I won't speak for other countries, but there is no need in the UK to "abandon hope" and revert to extra-parliamentary / revolutionary methods to get us out of the undemocratic EU predicament we are in.
Mathiason uses a phrase here – "eurosceptics have no chance". It is an interesting phrase not because he uses it (after all he has never been able to dent any EU-sceptic argument here, nor sustain a single serious pro-EU point in his discussions), but because German politicians use it. Thomas Kielinger is London correspondent of Die Welt, and a regular and respected face on BBC television to explain German views to the British audience. In a recent appearance he described how "There are a lot of eurosceptics in Germany on the ground - people who feel rather sympathetic to the way Britain is trying to re-evaluate what Europe is about, what Brussels should be - who don't speak up because the powers that be in my country are holding such a strong hold over public opinion that they won’t let these voices come to the fore". That is what this phrase "eurosceptics have no chance" means when you hear it coming from Berlin where all the political parties are able to suppress EU-sceptics internally, using devices like party-lists to keep such voice out of parliament, and Proportional Representation which guarantees more or less permanent government by coalition, with all possible coalitions being pro-EU.
I can understand that someone in Germany, or even the USA, might think a similar situation applies in the UK, but it does not. The different national interests, the scale of the discontent with the EU and the different political system mean that there s a good chance – even the probability – of a euro-sceptic majority of MPs in the House of Commons in less than 200 days. There may be a view in Berlin or British media circles that we will see a repeat of the John Major years when a Conservative prime minister struggled to suppress an EU-sceptic minority in his party, but the likelihood is that supporters of the Lisbon status-quo will be in a very small minority on the government benches next June, with only 1 of the old pro-EU Conservative guard (Ken Clarke) left. David Cameron will have a vast number of EU-sceptic MPs and will need their support to remain in office. There are scenarios where a pro-EU Prime Minister with an enormous majority could, with the support of the Opposition, force through a pro-EU agenda, but this seems an unlikely scenario for the next 5 years, not least because David Cameron is an EU-sceptic. The probability has to be that he really will do what he recently said he intends to do, which is to re-negotiate some powers back from Brussels. This may be a timid or inadequate step, but it is a step in the right direction and only a first step at that. I cannot say how those countries where 'EU sceptics have no chance' are going to restore their democracy, but in the UK at least it will not be by non-parliamentary means.
Complain about this comment
netterwolf
Re #81
Hope you slept well. I did.
Nowhere do I suggest I want it "both ways" for the assessment of Blair or the ill-conceived, ill-fated, Iraq policy.
US-UK were most certainly not acting from any "misguided philanthropic" ideals: No, it was hard-headed realism, but, unfortunately as we all now know it was the soft human frames of Iraqis that paid a very huge price.
Your personal rectitude is admirable.
Me? I scuffle along each day trying to do what's right/best/needed and it always appears I got bits right and other bits not so.
As for the tired old cliche causes of Iraq 2003, "oil" and "Israeli foreign policy", they are so hackneyed and far off the mark that I find it even more extraordinary people such as yourself still promote this totally flawed reasoning whilst suggesting the Bush-Blair belief in equally flawed Intelligence on WMD was all a con!
True enough, the 'neo-cons' as some label them were out to get Saddam and their tactics-arguments-concerns won the day in the Oval Office: It would seem from Twin Towers onwards PM Blair saw a gap opening up between the Atlantic Alliance nations and more than anything I think this motivated his untimely and unfortunate 'foreign policy' initiative to back the USA Bush administration no matter how far it was prepared to go. Blair either reckoned he could save the 'split' from happening or, that if it did occur he would ensure the UK remained at the USA's side and not Continental Europe. That was quite a gamble and repositioning by him personally as he had been the most 'pro-EU' PM in the UK since Edward Heath. Now Blair, any PM, do not make foreign policy moves like that in isolation: It is my presumption that there was a battle in Whitehall between the Foreign Office 'europhiles' and the 'atlantacists' over which line to take - - Blair being the most incredibly successful PM upto then must have at first believed he could balance the 2 sides - - in the end he plumped for our longterm partnership with the strongest Nation in the World that in the previous Century had twice come to G.B.'s decisive assistance and enabled mainland Europe to progress.
I cannot fault the logic of his foreign-policy, whereas the implementation was a catastrophe of immense proportions which depending on Pres Obama's overall view may or may not resonate down the next 8 to 10 years in the USA policy toward the UK and towards Europe in general.
Some very forthright European political leadership that were so critical of Dubya Bush have been placing their foreign-policy bets on the USA coming back towards Europe in its attitude. It is a very high risk gamble they are still carrying out in Afghanistan and to some extent in the newly EU strident attitudes toward Israel in the Mid-East.
In that sense 'power-politics' is the vital tool of international relations - - people opposed to the Iraq campaign are patting themselves on the back that they were right all along about WMD etc., but if they were right about 'oil' and 'Israel', well then the USA is not going to view the clever EU leaders very favourably, is it? - - foreign policy is based on the interests of a Nation and whether it was in the best interests of the EU to start pulling so dramatically away from its main benefactor all in the belief that a unified Europe can manage for itself remains a really mute point.
Perhaps the Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis leadership have got their tactics spot on: If so, it will be the first time in over a Century of trying. In that same period the UK foreign policy stumbled along in support of the USA (except where it conflicted with the now defunct 'imperial' interest') and PM Blair, unlike the EU leaders, reverted to that stock-in-trade foreign outlook - - what is right for the USA is okay by the UK - - perhaps Blair got his tactics spot-on although it seems unlikely at this moment.
If he did, then some time in the next 8 to 10 years Europe will pay a very heavy price for walking away from Washington in the first decade of the 21st Century. Were Pres Obama to carry on his present mainstream foreign policy and reach out to create a 'Pacific Alliance' with China then the EU really will feel the 'global' nature of power-politics. Of course the UK will be a back-water Isles were such a US-China accord come to fruition, but, it will have retained a political-military-geophysical link to the pre-eminent G2 that in power-politics terms the EU will have lost in order to establish itself.
The UK has long been used to playing that 3rd fiddle, occasionally heard incidental contributary role, in the Global foreign-policy orchestra (e.g. during the Cold War).
Look at this way: Iran (or take your pick - N.Korea already, the Indian sub-continent has them, the Mid-East may have etc.) may well have nuclear weapons within the next decade.
If you were the man in the Oval Office looking to secure the nation's economic-military future which would you be paying more attention to? State dept. advisors recommending a return to strong ties with the EU wrapped up in its own incredibly expensive regulatory blanket of protectionism and who have repeatedly demonstrated unwillingness to fund or uphold a commitment to military preparedness/security, or, those State Dept. advisors bluntly stating China is a nuclear power, China is the largest trading nation, China is open for business, and crucially China has clout with Iran and everywhere else in the World?
When you marched against the Iraq campaign you did the right thing: No doubt about it. Whether Europe's leaders did the right thing taking the same road for their Citizens over the longterm is a completely different matter.
The jury of History is still out.
Complain about this comment
Re "It is Europe itself which is the perversion. Perhaps if it stopped looking in the mirror and idolizing itself, it would react with horror and dismay at what it was, what it has become, and what it will be. I don't expect that. It gives me particular delight to say to Europeans that there is at least one person in the world who does not look at Europe with admiration but with utter contempt. Who does not ignore the overwhelming scars of its crimes past, present, and likely future. Who sees it not as an example to be emulated but as a disaster to be avoided at all cost. Not to be engaged for its wisdom and the benefit it confers on those who do but to be shunned for its folly and the lead ball and chain it imposes on those it touches...like it has on America in the 20thy century.
"Democracy again a European (Greece) invention, philosophically refined by European philosophers in the 18th century."
Democracy such as it was in Greece was reserved only for a handful. It's imperial conquests such as by Alexander the Great, its slaves, its unwillingness to give up those conquests voluntarily and extend democracy shows it was very limited and not at all like the American invention of modern democracy. While some European philosophers may have imagined portions of democracy, it was America that sifted, distilled, assembled, and added its own critical contributions to actually realize democracy. Meanwhile the reality of European civilization in the 18th century was a horror show, all but the noble aristocrats living as virtual slaves. Nor was rebellion against monarchical despotism in France a success at all. Not only did all of the rest of Europe decry it, was horrified at the thought of changing the prevailing order, France itself degenerated into the new despotism of Napoleaon. Then it returned to Monarchical despotism in the 19th century. Only America invented what the modern world considers true democracy. And when you get down to it, even over two centuries later, only America actually has it in its undiluted form. The election of Barack Obama is proof of that. A comparable event is virtually impossible anywhere else including in Europe...especially in Europe."
No european is blind for the scars from the past. You can say Europe idolizes itself, but it is not blind for it's history, including the not so nice parts. You on the other hand seem completely blind for your own, short, american history. The philosophical underpinnings of your 'democracy' are completely european. And your 'democracy' is far from perfect, neither is your society. You seem to easily forget the slavery in the US, way up until the 19th century. You seem to forget the segregation way up until the 20th century (including the withholding from voting rights from black people). And currently the huge differences that exist in your society between poor and rich, white and black/hispanic.
I won't even go into detail on the backward morals that dominate US society: where is the freedom to choose euthanasia? freedom for same sex couples to marry? freedom for them to adopt children, etc.
Re "Yes that is clear. There was the Nazi Empire, the Soviet Empire, and now the EUSSR empire, all built on European conceptual models. All contemptable despotisms, crimes against humanity, the antithesis of human freedom. It is exactly what Orwell warned about in 1984. But that is a warning that will go unheeded in Europe because it is inherent in the nature of the way Europeans see the world. To them slavery is freedom."
Strange than that in all international reports on 'quality of life', education, well being etc. The top ranking countries are European and that the US often lags behind the rest of the western world. Your freedom doesn't really lead to a greater well being, the freedom to live a second rate life! But perhaps the Europeans are enslaved, perhaps this is obvious when you look at the healthcare: in Europe you are obliged to pay taxes to fund universal healthcare, whereas in the US the common man has the freedom to choose between an overpriced prohibitive insurance and no insurance (costless!).
And the concepts you mention aren't really comparable. The use of force or coercion doesn't exist at the EU level. Nobody demanded from the member states to sign their treaty of accession to the EU. They all came and asked to join, not an unimportant difference from the other two 'concepts'.
Complain about this comment
"The key for the French and Germans was not to have a Blair-like figure who might overshadow them."
This single phrase let's anyone tell how crappy the rest of the blogg entry is. I though British media was to a certain extend unbiased. Looks like it isn't. Maybe I should stick to our local Bild-newspaper, which is as good as the BBC seems to be judging by the quality of it's journalism.
I think neither of the two may really be the best choice, but I don't know them well enough to be sure, but the British europhobes are just pathetic. You even have someone as high representative now (which is more important than the president as one term lasts 5 years in that office) and yet you still complain how bad Britain is treated by the EU.
Your maybe beloved Tony Blair NEVER EVER was an option to become president as he is HATED in MOST of Europe and no biased BBC reporting could ever have changed that so get over it.
Complain about this comment
cool-brush-work @121.
"American geologists discovered an Arab country above their oli reserves".
Complain about this comment
MeRinTinTin;
"You on the other hand seem completely blind for your own, short, american history. The philosophical underpinnings of your 'democracy' are completely european. "
You might as well trace America's "philosophical underpinnings back to the bible or for that matter to the first amoeba that crawled out of the primordial slime. Those people who invented American rejected far more of what came out of Europe than they accepted and they added a lot more that Europe never thought of. Among Europe's countless irrational inconsitancies is how it likes to take credit for the invention of America on one hand and then condemn it in the very next breath. Europe didn't invent America, it invented itself as a rejection of Europe. We are all aware of America's history both its glorious triumphs and its tragic shortcomings. But at least America is going in the right direction. America would be far richer and better off if it hadn't spent so much of its treasure and energy on helping other people most of whom are ungrateful for the sacrifices made for them even if they are aware of it. Europe would be nothing today if America hadn't rebuilt it and protected it since the end of WWII. It is time for America to reign in its horns and think only of itself. It is time to tell the ingrates of the world to fend for themselves without America for a change. It is time for Americans to stop caring what happens to other people elsewhere and focus entirely on what is happening to their own countrymen at home. That is the only way America will restore itself. Our government that supports internatioal capitalism is killing our own domestic capitalism. Time to fill the moat, raise the drawbridge, deploy the crocodiles and fend off those who are draining America's wealth and energy. America does not need the outside world to survive in complete happiness and prosperity. Only a few mineral resources that lie beyond America's borders must be imported, the rest is right here in our own backyard.
Complain about this comment
SarahPhlegm;
"Your maybe beloved Tony Blair NEVER EVER was an option to become president as he is HATED in MOST of Europe"
That is true. That is because when Europe wanted to abandon America, force it to lie helplessly prostrated and paralyzed in the face of what virtually everyone saw as threats to it from Iraq and Afghanistan, he didn't go along with them. As a result, America has not been successfullyb attacked by foreigners on its own soil again since 9-11-01 and President Bush's policies to defend America were vindicated. And he had support at least in part from Europe. For that crime, Blair will never be forgiven by most Europeans.
Complain about this comment
cool-brush-work, "no, it was hard-headed realism, but, unfortunately as we all now know it was the soft human frames of Iraqis that paid a very huge price."
Incredible. God save from "hard-headed realism" then. I have read more or less philosophically where you protected the British empire ahievements, simply because I know to challenge this with the British is a no-go, LOL! at max you'd get a sigh type "yes, didn't work out exactly nice - from the modern times' point of view, mind it! - with the locals" and, how to say, as it seems it's not a scare in the observable future - let the sleeping lions sleep :o)
but this "hard-headed realism" is ugh. Any war is someone's "soft tissue" - not "as we now know it" - but every time - it will be.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinWonderland
Re #124
Sorry, you've lost me!
What, who, where etc. was that a quote from?
In some ways no matter: 'Oil' simply was not and still is not the grounds for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the continued USA presence there.
Complain about this comment
#125 - MarcusAureliusII
"It is time for Americans to stop caring what happens to other people elsewhere and focus entirely on what is happening to their own countrymen at home".
So in future we will expect to find your pearls of wisdom on Mark Mardell's blog shall we? If we can be bothered to look.
Complain about this comment
To the entire OVER-FED Euro-Cows, that are indifferent to stealing their simple VOTING RIGHTS, listen to this song, that maybe, I say maybe ignite something;
Lee Greenwood – God Bless The Usa
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, if you "rejected" all Europe's wrong-doings, and left them in the past - why did you start doing the same in the newer history?
Right in the beg. you were a sweetie darling (means pestered folks and killed only internally) , but once you stood up on your legs - you also began expeditioning right and left for your own means!
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85
Re #123
Quote, "..single phrase lets anyone tell how crappy rest of the Blog is.."
Well, you need to read the Blog Article again and especially your own opening quote from #123.
Mr Hewitt's words are, "...not to have a Blair-like figure..": I.e. the French and Germans decided they did not want the EU to have any 'President' of the Council or 'High Representative' of Foreign Affairs with significant international stature that might conceivably rival their own positions.
That is not only 'Blair' (and the Blog dealt with the selection process, not just 'Blair'), but other outstanding, leading Statesmen such as Nobel winner Martti Ahtisaari, or, Bertie Ahern, Miquel Moratinos, Maxine Verhagen, Lord 'Paddy' Ashdown etc. which is why such effective and known leaders did not offer themselves for either EU post. They well knew, as the Blog article details, "the ambitions of the EU have been lowered" by the Paris-Berlin axis that would not entertain the concept of a strong leadership style.
Instead, and there is no reason to consider it anything other than sensible from their superior EU status point of view, France-Germany opted for the low-key "consensus"-"bridge-builder" in each appointment.
As an avowed Eurosceptic I am pleased no one of high profile such as Blair, Ahtisaari, Ahern etc. got the jobs: In my view these appointments go some way toward continuing the EU path to internal collapse. The Lisbon Treaty was supposed to set-up the final layers of the Federal super-State. Instead, it has been ham-strung at its 'senior echelon representative' level (by a President surely already labelled, 'why?') and at its 'international' level (by a High Representative who could not be ranked more low in reality).
To top it all, this administrative sandbagging of Brussels was done by the EU's 2 primary founding-father Nations.
It is about as effective a door-slamming on EU international ambition as Pres De Gaulle's "Non!" to PM Harold MacMillan's enquiry about UK entry to the EEC.
From my jaundiced perspective this appointment of political minnows is a mini-triumph for us 'anti-EU': I do congratulate Paris-Berlin-Brussels on the finely crafted choice of internationally inarticulate representatives. It should go some way to balancing the increasing interventionist menace of Commission loudmouth, sorry I meant President, Barroso and his EUrocratic lackeys.
Perhaps all is not lost afterall!
Complain about this comment
The only difference btw British Empire and all the other European Empires - and its particular crime therefore :o))) - from the Russian history point of view - was the British one happened to be the biggest by 1914.
I'll quote from the wiki in Russian:
Colonial world split btw the Great States (Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, USA, Russia, Japan) in the last quarter of the 19th century - beg. of the 20th century.
French-Prussian war of 1980-1981 completed the epoch of national states' creation in Europe; a comparative balance of forces was established in the continent, with neither country having military, political or economic over-weight, allowing it to establish an own hegemony. For more than 40 years Europe got rid of military conflicts (with the exception of its South-Eastern corner.)
Political energy of European states turned towards beyond the limits of the continent; they focused their efforts on the division of the yet un-divided territories in Africa, Asia and the Pacific basin.
Alongside the old colonial states (Great Britain, France, Russia) in the colonial expansion took part new states of Europe - Germany and Italy, as well as the USA and Japan, who made in 1860s their decisive historical choice towards political, social and economic modernisation(War of North and South 1861-1865, Meidzi revolution 1865).
tra-la-la... etc. .. the reasons...
:o)
"in the first place - political and military-strategic reasons,...
considerations of national prestige...
desire to establish politico-military control over strategically important world regions and NOT to allow the competition to have them ...
a certain role have played demographic factors - population growth in metropolies and formation of human "excesses" - those who happened to be socially un-demanded at home and who was ready to look for his luck in distant colonies...
there was a place also for economic - or, more excactly - commercial motifs - search for sales markets and sources of raw materials, though in many cases the "housekeeping" management of the new lands took place very slowly; very often, after a state established its control over a territory it "forgot" about it...
economic interests were leading at subjugation of comparatively developed and most rich countries of the East (Persia, China).
Quite slow went also the cultural penetration, though "the duty" of Europeans "to civilise" wild and un-enlightened nations was put forward as one of the major justifications of the colonial expansion....
beliefs of the natural cultural superiority of the Anglo-saxon, German and Latin and Japanese races were used for acquittal of their right for political subjugation of other ethnic groups and grabatisation of their lands. :o))))
tra-la-la skip skip skip.. "The results"
By 1914 the whole world got split between the colonial states.
The biggest empires were able to create
Great Britain (27,621 thousand km2 or about 340 mln people)
and France (10,634 thousand km2 and ab 59 mln people).
Vast properties have also had
the Netherlands (2,109 thousand km2 and 32 million people)
Germany (2,593 thousand km2 and 13 mln people)
Belgium (2,253 thousand km2 and 14 mln people)
Portugal (2,146 thousand km2 and 14 mln people)
and the USA (566 thousand km2 and 11 mln people). (how modest :o)
Having done with the split of the "free" territories of Africa, Asia and Oceania the Great States turned their attention to the battle for the re-division of the world.
There began the period of World Wars."
:o)
Complain about this comment
In fact a glance at wiki's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
explains the old antipathy between Russia and Britain.
Whenever you look - "the largest empires by land", "the largest empires by people", the largest marine empires - everywhere Britain, Britain and Britain :o( Disgusting! and, in the un-likely event Britain ever cared who is stepping on its feet :o))) it's always "Russia", Russia and Russia" (except for watery fleet things :o)
Complain about this comment
I have no idea who resurrected this tired old Iraq issue or why. It has no relevance to the business in hand. It may have had if Blair had been chosen but he was not.
However, since we are on the subject, let's get it dealt with once and for all. 9/11 was both a catastrophe and an opportunity for the US. In terms of cost to life and limb, it was a monstrous crime but the States did finally wake up to the fact that a few thousand miles of ocean did not render them invulnerable to external attack. Oklahoma City had been seen as an aberration, a once in a lifetime attack by the 'fruitcake fringe'. 9/11 cured all of that. But what happened subsequently is terrifying. Bush, suffering from a severe deficit of credibility in his domestic politics suddenly had the opportunity to bestride the globe as a powerful leader armed with righteous indignation. He could do what his father had not done. He could finish off Sadam. Never mind the fact that there was no credible evidence to link Iraq with 9/11, never mind that the WMD evidence was flawed. And he had the perfect ally in Blair. Major it was who, in the aftermath of Iraq 1, demanded the no-fly zones and insisted that the Marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north should be given an opportunity to reassert their rights. Major had an agenda. He was a partner in the enterprise, not the lapdog. Blair though came armed with that flawed intelligence, apparently from British sources. He required no convincing. He was on board.
In the meantime, Al Quida's strategy had been well and truly justified. Anyone who believes that their sole intention was to kill as many civilians and demolish a symbol of western liberty is severely misguided. They were aiming at the very foundations or western liberal systems and they succeeded triumphantly, especially in Britain where the government generally and Home Secretary Blunkett in particular launched a broadside on many of the fundamental freedoms we had all taken for granted up till that time. Amongst other things, he put in place a new extradition arrangement with the US which was enacted by an Order in Council to delay parliamentary scrutiny and was not reciprocated for more than three years. If ever the enemies of democracy were ever handed a gift horse, it was on 9/11.
'Shock and Awe' - or whatever fanciful name they dreamed up for it - was, of course, a triumph of technological military might over a vastly inferior opponent. How could it be anything else? But it was the action of people who could not see the noses on the ends of their faces. They either did not know or did not care that they were creating a humanitarian and political nightmare. It is a scar of shame on those faces. But it is more than that. It was a sideshow which diverted attention from the real perpetrators way to the east in Afghanistan. It was a gesture which proved that they were doing something - anything. It was utterly pointless. When - finally - they acknowledged they were wrong about WMD and complicity in 9/11, there was always the fall back position of ridding the world of an evil dictator and spreading the cause of democracy. What utter tripe. Global power politics was being played out for domestic consumption and it failed miserably - except in one sense. Where it succeeded was giving the control freak mentality the foothold they needed. A climate of fear was generated in which we accept being stopped and questioned for just about anything on the pretext of 'prevention of terrorism', believe that our phone calls and internet traffic can be monitored without a magistrates warrant because it makes us safer, that cameras watch our every move.
What has this to do with the matter in hand? Two things. Firstly, we are being constantly told that the EU is the enemy of democracy, the secretive unaccountable institution which is nibbling away at our basic citizens' rights. It may very well be the case that it is usurping sovereignty and shifting the balance of power away from the nation state. It is a valid case and worthy of debate. But freedom? Do me a favour. You rolled over like puppies and let it be taken from you - not by Brussels but by Westminster - and on an entirely false pretext. You insult the European movement by accusing it of being the enemy. The enemy is within.
As I said at the beginning, now that Blair is not a contender, the Iraq War is really not relevant but some of us will have to live with the consequences for many years to come. It would help if not used spuriously for point scoring in different debates.
Complain about this comment
cool-brush-work @124, also sorry, it was a joke, and not a quote from you at all. Like "Much to their astonishment, American scientists discovered a new Arab country above their oil reserves in the ground" :o)))
Well, if oil you think was not the reason, may be any of the reasons listed in my post @ 133 will do?
(there the years of "Franco-Prussian wars" were of course 1880-1881, not 1980-1981 :o)))
Complain about this comment
#111, Threnodio:
I too was referring to BBC’s own coverage. I wrote
"Re BBC: I will have no problem in finding passages in this blog on Blair’s candidature, which went beyond journalism.". You have read it wrongly.
Can you tell me, who the subject in this remark is: 'some felt that'. It is a premium example for the use of the passive voice. It is pretty much to know about peoples feelings, so I ask myself: How can BBC know what some felt?
FAZ has two articles. One is an editorial. I fully agree in their evaluation of secretary Clinton’s remarks.
Among the few blogs to which I contribute, this is the only one that is CENSORED. From time to time I wonder why BBC censors its blogs, but actually it is not difficult to guess, when you see what people would like to tell everybody.
Newspapers, radio and television channels are EDITED. I think we can agree that it is a pretty naive notion about democracy that media are unedited.
Finally, this is what I think this blog should be: An informed discussion about European problems. The rest belongs in other blogs or private discussions.
Newspapers all over Europe, influential newspaper, are today publishing editorials about the appointments in EU. Today this blog should be discussing the various interpretations by the hundred of contributions from the whole union, but see what we have instead.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
RE #133
At least your account upto World War allows for the other Europeans being involved in imperialist scrambles for Africa, Asia etc.
According RCalvo72 and some other 'pro-EU' apparently Britons still hanker after Malaya, Egypt, Jamaica etc. and because the UK has not got them Britons are extremely cross with the European Union!
Make of that logic what you will!?
Complain about this comment
WA;
Comparing America to the colonial empires of Europe is an out and out lie.
"Right in the beg. you were a sweetie darling (means pestered folks and killed only internally) , but once you stood up on your legs - you also began expeditioning right and left for your own means!"
Westward expansion of the Americans began almost immediately after the revolution. The settling and incorporation of the full expanse of the continent is what is termed in American history "Manifest Destiny." The move West into the Ohio valley was followed by the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1815 which was a vast territory stretching from Canada to the gulf of Mexico. While the War of 1812 against Britain was fought to stop the British practice of kidnapping American Navymen claiming they were British subjects, it was hoped victory over the British would bring the capture of Canada. The fight against Mexico first in Texas and then for all of the Southwestern United States in the Mexican War of 1855 made the US a Continental power. Disputes with Canada over the Oregon Territory almost led to war with Canada. The slogan 54-40 or fight (the latitude Americans wanted as the border) typified the popular sentiment for war. In the end, the border with Canada was settled peacefully. The Southwestern corner of the US was purchased from Mexico as the Gadsden Purchase. Alaska was bought from Russia for I think 76 million dollars around 1867. Derisive Americans called it "Seward's Folly" and "Seward's Ice Box" after Secretary of State Seward who arranged the purchase until 1901 when gold was discovered there and the Alsakan gold rush began. The Monroe Doctrine told Europe to get out of the Western Hemisphere and stay out. That was I think in 1824. The Spanish American war fought early in the 20th century was fought to finally throw Spain out of the Western Hemisphere once and for all. For several decades, the US held the Phillipines and Cuba as the spoils of the Spanish American War but eventyally got out of them and gave them independence. Kennedy allowing the USSR to establish a colonial base in Cuba was seen as a dangerously permissive violation of the Monroe Doctrine which should have been stopped immediately. Puerto Rico has the option to become completely idependent of the US in a plebecite held every five years. So far it has always chosen to remain a "commonwealth" which is a unique status for a relationship with the US. It can also petition for statehood. Other territories in America's "colonial empire" include "The US Virgin Islands" purchased from Denmark around 1917, American Samoa, and maybe one or two other small remote islands or island groups in the middle of the Pacific. Some empire. Hawaii became a US state, the last one around 1960.
Referring to America as an empire is ludicrous but it is often used because there is no other historical paradigm to compare it to. BBC compared it to Rome in its influence on the world but its structure doesn't have even the remotest likeness. Unike real imperial colonial empires, when America finds itself occupying a naiton, its first thought is how to get out.
Complain about this comment
#137 - Mathiasen
We may have a language problem here. "Some felt that" in the sense that "some people had formed the opinion that . . etc". The media are perfectly entitled to say that in exactly the same way az FAZ is entitled to the opinion that Clinton was not sincere in her message. I do not especially agree with either of them but that is as may be.
As regards censorship of the blog, I agree with you that it is sad the BBC cannot treat us as adults and let us get on with it. However, having seen some of the rubbish which appears on unmoderated blogs, maybe they have a point. I do, however, object to posts being erased in response to referrals to the moderators. These should only be removed once they have been shown to be offensive otherwise people will be tempted to refer things simply because they do not agree.
You end by telling us what you think the blog should be. I can only respond that your opinion is noted and, if you find a better one, I hope you enjoy it.
Complain about this comment
threnodious, you're a joke;
"However, since we are on the subject, let's get it dealt with once and for all. 9/11 was both a catastrophe and an opportunity for the US. In terms of cost to life and limb, it was a monstrous crime"
Pleeze, we lost almost as many Americans to swine flu in the last 7 weeks as died in Iraq in almost 7 years. We lose as many every 5 weeks in car accidents on our roads. The financial cost to America for Iraq and Afghanistan combined has been between one and two percent of GDP. Insignificant and not in any way related to America's current economic crisis. As for the Iraqis they're probably no worse off now than they were under Saddam Hussein but that is their problem. We didn't worry much about the chaos, turmoil, dead and wounded, and political chaos that would ensue when we fought Nazi Germany...or the USSR for that matter. That's how war is, you don't worry about those things if you want to win. Worrying about them is one reason why it wasn't over and done with much sooner. Europe wanting the bad guys to win against America was another.
Focus threnodious. The reason the topic came up in the first place was because of the statement that Tony Blair was hated in Europe. And that was because he sided with America's government on the issue of Iraq. Not only that but he brought Britain, a large and important European power directly into the battle on America's side. That is the prerogative of a dictatorship, it can act unilaterally even if its population opposes what it is doing. In America by contrast, popular sentiment as well as both houses of Congress strongly supported the American led invasion at the time.
The major domestic issue facing America before 9-11 was the federal government no longer funding research on cloning embryonic stem cells. Hardly an earthshaking issue.
Complain about this comment
#139 - MarcusAureliusII
"Manifest Destiny". Has a nice ring about it doesn't it? A bit like "Final Solution". I think even from your supremely prejudiced viewpoint, the sheer arrogance of the Monroe Doctrine and the assumption that you had some sort of God given right to determine the destiny of two continents is breathtaking.
". . . its first thought is how to get out". As I recall from Saigon, in a state of near panic by helicopter is the answer to that.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, @139 :o))))))).
While I read your passage beginning with "Westward expansion of the Americans began almost immediately" - to "Hawaii became a US state, the last one in 1960" - I thought you got suddenly reasonable and understand own deficiencies.
But then you conclude the list of wars and acquisitions with "Referring to America as an empire is ludicrous" :o))))
If one can be an empire without colonies - you are an empire without colonies. In the old centuries colonies were in fashion. Now in fashion are military bases. I can't understand how can any country be its own with a foreign military base on its ground.
As a check up of this theory - do you allow for foreign soldiers on your ground? One - only one - modest and peaceful and full of best intentions never harming a fly - foreign garrison in the United States. Made up of friends?
Complain about this comment
Check up that wiki page again, empires by landmass, by population, by GDP, by duration of existence. What about introducing there a new parameter "by military bases"?
Until all those friendly NATO places establish each a garrison on the US soil (plus a dozen tons of heavy-own metal machinery) - you are an empire.
Complain about this comment
138 cool-brush-work, "at least your account up to World War allows for the other Europeans " :o)))
You can always count on the Russian historians in this respect; "the other Europeans" won't be forgotten; one British Empire being clearly not sufficient LOL to explain our own achievements as "the "style of the times".
Complain about this comment
@141
"that's how war is, you don't worry about those things if you want to win"
Wrong. - but you are welcome to continue to enjoy this "piece of wisdom" - and continue "to win" :o)))))))))) likewise :o))))))
Art of war is an old art, and there were butchers and professionals in the history. Russia once had a man who could win - not the way we were winning the 2ndWW. A profi :o), fieldmarshal Suvorov.
Approx. Catherine the II times.
When we were much involved at home - and in Europe, entering alliances with different European parties, and taking a side of this or the other country. Suvorov fought heaps of wars in Europe, when Russian empress decided to support one or the other European monarch. - nobody complained :o)))
You don't remember him - Good. He was passing ? like? knife through butter. And haven't lost a single battle, out of 33 he took part in - not a bad record.
Still, he wasn't butchery, and thought about things.
In Switzerland, BTW, I heard they remember him. There is a museum, on the place where he stopped over with his army for a couple of weeks. Locals in a small tavern or a mansion where he stayed tell stories around - type "my great grandma saw him when etc."
We might have lost the art of war, but it doesn't mean it does not exist.
A
Complain about this comment
#140. threnodio_II
We might have a language problem, but in that case it is not mine.
Please analyse the subject "Some felt". Who is it? Mr. Hewitt's feelings? The British government's? How does BBC know, what peoples feelings are?
However, it is not even the point. The point is the following: BBC is retailing feelings and I don't know what from anonymous sources, which happen to have an evaluation conform with the British government. But BBC is a media, right, a western media in a democracy (as you see the assertion of the opposite from the Euro sceptics has not changed my opinion) and rule number one in journalism is to ask another source. Take a look on the articles. How about this: EU jobs race could be a marathon.
It did not. On the contrary. Why did BBC think it would be a marathon. We do not know, but Gordon Brown insisted on Tony Blair, and most of the other countries as well as Blair’s own socialists had no intention whatsoever to appoint Tony Blair. Or as FAZ writes: Blair polarized the leaders.
It is not a language problem, we are having. It is something much more serious.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II
Re #135
Normal service resumed.
So many gaping holes in your 'Iraq' analysis that another Channel tunnel is as I write being completed!
That said, I too am very tired of going over it again and again (I did a dozen paragraphs on it last p.m. and this a.m. for 'Netterwolf'), so, blame me if you must, but let us agree on the not raking it all up all over again for any good or bad old time's sake.
Whatever we think it is those dreadfully maltreated Iraqis who have to actually carry the burden.
Complain about this comment
#35 RCalvo72
You write : "Wrong. Firstly, the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by the democratically elected parliaments of all 27 member states. So you got your say during the general elections."
I am afraid you are misinformed. As you have mentioned you are Spanish, you may be unaware that in Labour's manifesto, there was a cast-iron guarantee for a referendum on the constitutional treaty and THAT is what what people voted for at the general election.
After France and the Netherlands voted "no", the whole project was put on hold. As we know, it was then re-written, but in essence it was the same thing as we were told by its author Giscard d'Estaing. However, our Government attempted to lie to us, pretending the new 'treaty' was completely different, so (according to them) the promised referendum was no longer needed.
The French and the Dutch had already voted 'no' but were not given an opportunity to vote again.
You ask "Why should only "no" votes be taken into account?"
The reason is beacuse the treaty could not legally come into force until agreed ratified by ALL member states. If even one country said 'no' the whole treaty would fail, or have to be re-negotiated. That is what happened with Ireland.
Gordon Brown ratified the constitutional treaty on behalf of the British people, but had absolutely no authority to do so as he was breaking his own manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. Frankly, this amounts to treason.
Complain about this comment
# 70 ChrisArta
"For me getting out of the EU will not solve the problem we will still a whole lot of officials that are unelected.
Yes, I agree. Leaving the EU would not be my first choice. However, the EU urgently needs reform and Lisbon seems to be taking it in the wrong direction.
We will always need officials (like civil servants) but the problem arises when people who are not elected start making policy decisions. The EU commission is far too powerful and is able to expand its own remit at the expense of national governments.
The fact that we the people have been robbed of our opportunity to vote on these latest changes shows that the whole rotten structure is not merely undemocratic, but anti-democratic.
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller
Re #149
Spot on again.
And particularly so in RCalvo72's case as he argues the Spanish Voting 'yes' to the 'constitution' meant they did not need to vote on the Lisbon Treaty!
Yes, it is about as undemocratic as it could get: However, taking his view to its logical extension ALL those Nations that did not get a Vote on the 'constitution' should therefore have been granted one for Lisbon.
Afterall, if the 'constitution' and Lisbon are so similar the Spaniards did not need another Referendum then clearly LT does affect every National Constitution and the other 430 million Citizens have had their 'democratic' rights stolen.
Complain about this comment
#151 cool_brush_work
Yes, it's a good point! The fact that Spain did not need another vote indicates they believed that Lisbon and the original Treaty were much the same thing - which is of course true.
France and the the Netherlands should have been able to vote again, and Britain should have had its own vote.
There is no doubt Ireland was heavily leaned on to give the right answer the second time. They got to vote twice, whilst we didn't vote at all.
Brown's action can only be described as treason.
Complain about this comment
#125 - MA-II "Our government that supports international capitalism is killing our own domestic capitalism"
Interesting, so your democracy, being far superior to any European one if I understand you correctly, is stll acting contrary to the interests of "domestic capitalism". So what are you currently doing about this? Are you passively accepting this, or actively opposing it?
I actually agree with this remark: since capitalism is about making money, and not about being democratic, it seems cheaper to outsource the "not so essential" tasks to areas where they can be performed cheaper. Hence the US companies shipped the lowly paid jobs to Asia (China, Vietnam, etc. including the phenomena of 'sweat shops'), and then the slightly higher paid 'service jobs', and then the lower level engineering jobs, and then the higher level engineering jobs, and then everything else, except the essential task which is collecting the money itself in the form of bonusses for the bosses.
It is a worrysome trend, which has repercussions elsewhere. Yet no amount of 'democracy' seems to be able to get a good grip on this. Hence the diffuse feeling of what "Me_rijn" calls the 'common man' that he is powerless, and that therefore participation in elections does not matter. Note that in the USA the voter turnout is generally lower than in most countries in Europe.
As for indebtness of Europeans to the American effort in WW-II, it is still there, but it is thought that one can be grateful for actions undertaken in 1941-1945 without having to slavishly approve current USA foreign policy. I even managed to explain this to a WW-II veteran I met by chance in New Mexico. Hence the criticism of both the Vietnam war, and the second Iraq war. The latter was thought to be a folly. France in particular burned its fingers in Vietnam before the USA did, and then again in Algeria. This latter experience, still not very well digested by the conscripted soldiers at the time, must have played a role in Chirac's hesitation to intervene in Iraq. As the man wrote ~500 years ago in Florence : "For, although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives." And the latter was, predictably, not very forthcoming in Iraq.
Complain about this comment
#152: Treason is right; I do not recognise the authority of any of these unelected Brussels bureaucrats to exercise governance over us. We have never consented to it; the whole thing is illegitimate.
Complain about this comment
Does it really take a rocket scientist to say 'lull them into a false sense of security'? Powerful, non-democratic positions have been created - that this will attract politicians who enjoy exercising power is beyond obvious.
Complain about this comment
To 122 Me_rijn:
"You seem to easily forget the slavery in the US, way up until the 19th century."
You seem to easily forget that slavery existed in the US BECAUSE of Europe. It wasn't Americans who brought the first slaves from Africa to the "New" World (sorry, but I have a hard time typing that since it wasn't so new to the people who actually had lived here BEFORE Europeans arrived). In fact, Europeans actually practiced slavery on the Natives BEFORE they brought over the Africans.
"You seem to forget the segregation way up until the 20th century (including the withholding from voting rights from black people)."
Indeed shameful, but this racism has its roots in us having had slavery. Who do you think taught the colonists that the humans they were purchasing were not really humans but property? Europeans. And if you know anything about African troops during WWII, they weren't really treated very well by their Mother Countries. I'm certainly not solely blaming Europeans for the racism my country is striving to overcome, but I hope you understand that when it comes to the treatment of black people, Europeans can be pretty vicious too.
"And currently the huge differences that exist in your society between poor and rich, white and black/hispanic."
Absolutely true that there are huge differences. The US is capitalist, so there will be the rich and the poor and everyone else in between. Europe is socialist, so everyone gets a share, but where is the incentive to go the extre mile if everything is split evenly? Yes there is a difference between whites and minorities, but can you honestly say that a minority in the UK or the rest of Europe is really that much better off than in the US? Judging from the figures that I've read, minority kids lag behind their peers in most parts of Europe. The US has elected a black President (sorry, I mean half-black President since that seems to matter a great deal to some). I can honestly say that no European country has ever come close to this and I can't really see it happening in the near future, can you?
"I won't even go into detail on the backward morals that dominate US society: where is the freedom to choose euthanasia? freedom for same sex couples to marry? freedom for them to adopt children, etc."
But is euthanasia that accepted in Europe? And for that matter, how about same sex marriages? From what I've read of Europe, there are only a handful of European countries that allow either or both.
I'm not trying to say that the US is perfect, but it does seem that a lot of what is imperfect about the US either has its roots with Europeans or is the same in Europe.
Complain about this comment
#35 RCalvo72
Following on from my previous reply to you (#149), it occurs to me to ask why it was OK for Spain to have a vote, yet you seem to think Britain didn't need one?
This would imply that Spain can decide for us! I think Sir Francis Drake would have had something to say about that.....
Complain about this comment
Hi Alice,
I'm back and watching what is being said about our PM.
To all others,
What is worrying us in Belgium is the lack of suitable consensus replacements since any country or empire that embraces federalism is inherently doomed. Monsieur Van Rompuy has miraculously managed to keep the parties from each others throats for the last year but that is merely a temporary feat, albeit very commendable. The underlying problem is that in their desire to extinguish national identity and promote everybody as being merely an European citizen the federalists have also extinguished the social Europe and made the ordinary non-politicised citizen even more nationalistic than ever before. Giving an arch federalist the prime position, even if he supposedly a 'grey' man is simply a message that the Franco-Germanic alliance is just as alive as before and that Gordon McClown is, as ever, a cozener.
Complain about this comment
152. DistantTraveller
"...Yes, it's a good point! The fact that Spain did not need another vote indicates they believed that Lisbon and the original Treaty were much the same thing - which is of course true..."
It would have been nice to have a vote in the UK. Alas all three main parties would rather we didn't notwithstanding what they committed themselves to in 2005.
Oh those distant days when we thought we could trust the people we lend our power to.
Still so long as the Noble Lady, who helped ratify Lisbon over the heads of the British people, is happy in her new job.
Complain about this comment
"Strange than that in all international reports on 'quality of life', education, well being etc. The top ranking countries are European and that the US often lags behind the rest of the western world."
International reports make me laugh. How do you come up with standards that every country can be judged by? You have to admit that the standards used are always Western.
"But perhaps the Europeans are enslaved, perhaps this is obvious when you look at the healthcare: in Europe you are obliged to pay taxes to fund universal healthcare, whereas in the US the common man has the freedom to choose between an overpriced prohibitive insurance and no insurance (costless!)."
I don't think Europeans are enslaved because they pay taxes for their "free" healthcare, but I do think there are definitely cons to universal healthcare that many Europeans (and more than a few pro-universal healthcare Americans) are not willing to admit. It's interesting that out of all my European/Canadian friends living in the US, not one is happy that the US might end up with universal healthcare. A Canadian doctor friend of mine said she moved to the US because of Canada's "shoddy healthcare" (her words, not mine). A Polish friend of mine said that he didn't leave Socialist Poland to live in Socialist America. And an English friend of mine does NOT want an NHS for the US, because according to her, the NHS is fine for long term health issues, but sucks for short term ones. I'm not saying that our healthcare is perfect. It's far from it, but it would be nice to hear a balanced view of universal healthcare versus private healthcare. It would be nice to hear the pros and cons of each system instead of everyone just shouting how their system is just fine.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Re #127
I have been pondering how to reply to your Comment on my #121.
First off, because I hesitate to suggest that maybe there was a slight misinterpretation by you of the intention of my words, "..hard-headed realism.." and "..soft Iraqi bodies.."
My intention was to point out how wrong the US-UK intervention had been from the standpoint of those unfortunates who ended up paying the sacrificial price for Dubya Bush's (and to a lesser extent Blair's) ego.
I agree entirely with you that any 'hard-headed realism' that results in aggression always ends up damaging "..someone's soft-tissues..".
All that said, my main contention in #121 is that the decisions taken by PM Blair in order to remain and retain an 'alliance' with the USA were based on his view as to what was in the best interests of the UK - - he did believe the poor Intelligence on WMD, he did follow the Bush policy that to do nothing was a risk the 'west' could not afford, he had also lost trust in the IAEA ever adequately dealing with the 'hidden' weapons (which of course we now know were not there at all, but even Saddam it now transpires did not 'know' that either - - his own military-scientists to save their necks had been lying to him too!), and, Blair was seeking to keep the NATO Nations all committed to one policy.
Yes, of course the World would be a better place if no 'leader/politician' ever decided to take the military option: Unfortunately, my own hard-headed realistic look at History's lesson and human nature suggests that particular Ghandi-option is not even in the ambitious Politicians' lexicon of viable propositions for how they conduct international and all too often even national business.
Complain about this comment
#148 - cool_brush_work
Of course it's full of holes. What do expect from a couple of hundred cobbled together words - scholarly discourse?
It is, however the basis of a point of view and I suspect it does not find favour with you not so much for what I have to say about Iraq as the impact closer to home. Somehow I did not expect a jump in my popularity rating. It does albeit less than well articulated, sum up my view.
Apart from anything else, I was so fed up with the barrage of prejudice I have encountered here in the past day or so, I thought I would throw in a few of my own. (Before you take offence, that barb is NOT directed at you).
Complain about this comment
To 142 Threnodio who wrote: "Manifest Destiny. Has a nice ring about it doesn't it? A bit like "Final Solution". I think even from your supremely prejudiced viewpoint, the sheer arrogance of the Monroe Doctrine and the assumption that you had some sort of God given right to determine the destiny of two continents is breathtaking."
But Manifest Destiny is simply America's answer to "White Man's Burden" isn't it? I'll agree that MD was arrogant, but how is it any worse than Europeans being taught they have an obligation to go out and civilize the inferior darkies?
Complain about this comment
#159 rg
"It would have been nice to have a vote in the UK. Alas all three main parties would rather we didn't notwithstanding what they committed themselves to in 2005."
Of the three main parties, the Tories said they would give us a vote if the treaty was not yet ratified by the time they win the next election (assuming the polls are correct). Unfortunately, after the Czechs ratified, the thing became 'law' - and realistically cannot be rescinded, even with a referendum.
It is precisely because this treaty cannot be undone that a referendum should have been held, as promised in Labour's 2005 manifesto (page 83/84)
The Liberal Democrats COULD have forced a referendum. However, they abstained in a vote in the House of Commons on 5th March 2008 and then voted AGAINST a referendum in the House of Lords on 11th June 2008.
Like Labour, the LibDems had promised a referendum on the constitutional treaty (page 12/13 Liberal Democrat manifesto 2005). If they had upheld their own manifesto pledge, the government would have been defeated in the House of Lords vote.
The Liberal Democrats (a misnomer if ever there was one!) and Labour should both be ashamed by this act of treason.
Complain about this comment
Dear all,
as to the USA vs EU debate on this forum. Here is my point of view:
There are bigger differences inside the USA than there are between the EU and the USA. And there are bigger differences inside the EU than there are between the EU and USA. Either in opinion or income or any measurement you can think of. As the Indian prime minister remarked at a discussion: "there are bigger differences of opinion within my coalition government than there are between Europe and the USA".
Iraq was supported by several European nations and opposed by several others. As there were several USA governers supportive and opposed to intervening in Iraq as well. Only difference is that a mayority view in the EU does not mean we throw in our entire defensive/offensive capability as it is scattered between states. Next to being scattered, we vastly underfund our defensive capabilities continental wide. As a European I feel slightly ashamed for our dependence on US military musle for our defense.
But back on topic. As I wrote before in another topic of Gevin Hewitt:
--------------------------------------------
80. At 11:00pm on 12 Nov 2009, you wrote:
I'm not quite sure what the fuss is all about.
A bunch of elected leaders choose a person to chair their meetings.
I seriously do not believe this wrongly named "president" post has any substance at all, when push comes to shove. It is better called the "Chairman of the meeting of the elected leaders" Like the chairman of the senate.
The only position I have second thoughts about is the foreign affairs post. But, than again, that is just a coordinator with not real powers. At least as far as I know.
If we would elect these two posts through a direct election, they would defacto be the highest authority within the EU. I do not think any current member state President or Minister-President (as we call our Prime-Minister) is prepared to give up any real power by allowing for an directly elected EU leader.
Directly electing the two EU posts by popular vote would mean the defacto end of member state government power.
So, I think they will remain chairman and coordinator with no real power or substance for the foreseeable future. As realpolitic will dictate.
--------------------------------------------
So I'm not at all surprised at this outcome. It is realpolitik as expected. We (the people) will not get a vote in this as a population since this will give the highest ligitimity within the EU to the EU-president, defacto rendering all current EU governments to secondary status. And that is a bridge to far for most of the EU people as well. as asking for such a vote would establish exaclty the federalist superstate a majority does not want at this moment in time.
Complain about this comment
hattrick;
The slavery of the southern states was not merely a matter of culture but of economics. The economy of the south was created by the British in colonial times around the production of cotton at prices low enough to compete with Egypt. This meant the importation of slave labor. Nearly a century after the British had been kicked out the South's economy was still largely tied to this single crop. As a result, the end of slavery which the north wanted so badly was an economic death blow to the south. Another factor in the echoes of slavery down through the decades was the cruel and badly handled period we call "reconstruction of the south." It was a time of retribution for the North against the South and imposed such privation to southerners that it created the backlash we've had to overcome during the 20th century. It is fading fast but it is not quite ended yet. Undeniably great progress has already been made.
Manifest Destiny was not white man's burden. It was recognition that the building of a nation of continental dimensions could not be allowed to be prevented by a culture that depended on vast tracts of land for hunting nor by claims to vast tracts of land resulting from a handfull of Spanish missionaries and small villages built around them. The population density of the US was around one person or less per square mile. Had the railroads not been built, had settlers not been able to build villages, farms, ranches, the great cities could not have followed. The United States of America we know today would not have been possible. It is true there were cruel and inhuman acts in this process, many injustices. That I am afraid is the nature of all human history. We accept our tragic past and think ow what we can do to redress ancient grievances as best possible. What would you have us do, leave and return to the original colonies? That won't happen as you know.
WA, Russian soldiers not butchers? What do you call 22,000 pieces of artillery surrounding Berlin a the end of WWII in Europe and pounding soldiers and civilians alike for days before the final assault on the Reichstag? What do you call 20,000 hydrogen bombs targeted at American and European cities where three quarters of a billion people lived? Don't give me that holier than thou Russian baloney. Russians are no less barbaric in war than anyone else is.
Complain about this comment
cool-brush-work,
I swear I saw once in the internet an int'l agreement btw Britain and Russia - or was it USSR? (anyway, us, in one format or another :o) - about how we split Iran, and what do we do there together. It strongly seems to me we were there once together - and nothing bad happened with the locals. To such a degree - that nobody even remembers, that it was, how it was, and when it was! (well, may be you do). I don't - until I find those small script' papers again, in some on-line archive it was.
I was about to write to you that I don't think the Iraqis were so "maltreated", but that simply those quarters are a wasp place, that one can't, theoretically, enter. And that the one who takes a decision, to do it, carries full blame for all that will take place after, for the whole sunni-shiit chain reaction, the whole un-leashing.
And then I remembered about that Iran expedition. How come it didn't result in anything "memorable"? So, it is possible, even in those "quarters"? That's what interests me now, how was that trick done?
(because we clearly forgot, by the Afghanistan time :o)
What could it be, in Iran? Why would you or us go, especially - in the LOL, unorthodox format, together :o))))
Complain about this comment
dear Mavrelius :o) 22,000 pieces "surrounding Berlin" "surrounded it" at 120 miles away from Berlin. :o)
The "Battle for Berlin" is called so - and rightly - because its purpose was Berlin-city - but the most problem was TO GET near it at all. This is what 90% of efforts of the Red Army were about - and those "22 thousand guns". To be able to near Berlin, to approach the city. Nothing was fortified better or fought for with such despair and determination as the defence lines around the city. Zeele heights was a nightmare. While Berlin itself you've pre-bombed for us so nicely :o) - that not a single tank could come through the rubble - a nice surprise for the Red Army.
Complain about this comment
Though, yes, barbaric, I admit.
Such forces were put up around the city not only in order to take it - but in order to take it quick - ahead of you.
After the demonstration of the aviation show (on the Germans as well, mind it) Stalin began rightly doubting that the other two will keep to the Yalta deal. The aviation "show" was addressed not at Germans, but at USSR - "Beware! Keep your nose out!"
Stalin said "they've showed us what they could do in the sky. Now, we'll show them what we can do on land". Therefore excesses in Berlin.
Next time when you get an ally - keep up to the deal, don't violate the plan "who takes what" - this is un-healthy - and results not only in mutual suspicions and extra nervousness - but death on the ground.
Complain about this comment
I think the case was - it's bad enough for any country to lose a war - but when on tops the parties are COMPETING in it - "who does it "better" - total end of the world.
Complain about this comment
May I indulge in some wishful thinking? :o)
Any country who feels sporty enough to start up a war in future
A./ places a deposit with the UN (a Swiss bank will do :o) covering up all future expenses and moral, property and physical harm claims of the population :o))))
Alternatively :o) - finds an insurance company ready to cover "the risks"
B./ Signs a paper "Hereby I agree that in any media post war plus 100 years later our citizens are blamed, pestered, reprimanded, sworn at and called names"
And then start up a war any one who can afford!
Complain about this comment
This statement Van Rompuy made at a recent press conference as the newly 'elected' EU President isn't very low-profile or lacking in ambition:
"...2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis; the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet."
You can hear it 1:56 mins into this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWeOa-FuyM
There is a political agenda, and we are all being taken for a ride. At Copenhagen, the treaty politicians are building up towards signing is another illegitimate treachery based on propaganda and [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Not to mention the fraud that is our banking system, which the G20 is only going to consolidate and protect (at our expense) -- not fix!
Complain about this comment
*sigh*
I don't know why the (Ministry of Truth) moderators have nobbled my last comment; I'll try again without the Youtube link...
This statement Van Rompuy made at a recent press conference as the newly 'elected' EU President isn't very low-profile or lacking in ambition:
"...2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis; the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet."
(He made this statement on 19/11/2009; to corroborate that you may try searching Youtube!)
There is a political agenda, and we are all being taken for a ride. At Copenhagen, the treaty politicians are building up towards signing is another illegitimate treachery based on propaganda and [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Not to mention the fraud that is our banking system, which the G20 is only going to consolidate and protect (at our expense) -- not fix!
Complain about this comment
they had to choose someone from a smaller and relatively unimportant(politically speaking), because it makes the position appear less powerful. So many, especially in the UK think the EU is too powerful. This choice helps quell that fear.
Had they choosen a German or French person, people would always assumme all actions are to the benefit to those two nations.
Complain about this comment
For pity's sake; how politically correct and inoffensive does a comment have to be not to get nobbled?
Perhaps I can just say that Van Rompuy made the following statement at a recent (19/11/09) press conference as the newly 'elected' EU President:
"...2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis; the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet."
It doesn't sound very low-profile, or lacking in ambition to me.
Complain about this comment
#174, moionfire,
re "Had they choosen a German or French person, people would always assume all actions are to the benefit to those two nations."
I'm afraid this decision to choose an avowed self admitted extreme federalist(albeit Belgian) just goes to prove that the lurch towards a federal EU is to the sole benefit of the Franco-German alliance who continually promote it as being the only true course. The failing of federal Belgium and the very real possibility now of a split show how fragile federalism is and it took a Van Rompuy to paper over the cracks for the last year. Now that he has gone there are few logical replacements, but I consider the decision to elevate him has more to do with his ability to paper over the cracks in federalism and give an illusion of a working state (the EU).
This choice, rather than quelling my fear, makes me even more concerned since by his appointment it shows that the EU elite wanted a fixer to try and prevent the breakdown of their beloved federalist Europe.
Complain about this comment
#163 - kcwhattrick
You are quite right. MA was portraying it as a matter of pride in their history. I don't say that we were any better, simply that we have the grace not to crow about it.
Complain about this comment
WA;
If the Germans don't hold a grudge against Russiastan for the barbarity it showed them in return for German barbarity why should I? All wars are barbarous. That's the whole point. Wars are not fought according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules. The only rule of war is that there are no rules. You do what you have to to win or you may lose and you will certainly suffer more casualties on your side than you have to.
There was no chance the US led invasion from the West would take Berlin. Eisenhower stopped I think 250 miles West of Berlin to allow Russiastan to capture it. He could have won the race had he wanted to. I'll bet you just made that theory up :0)))))) America could have equally well kept carpet bombing what was left of Berlin until it was dust. By the end of the war there was nothing the Germans had left to stop it. Even with Russiastan capturing Berlin, it was divided into four sectors like Ge4rmany itself. That worked out well until Stalin's blockade and the Berlin air lift.
Complain about this comment
Well, MA, if we all agree it's barbarous - may be we can, like, put wars on hold for a while? There are heaps of money problems, and climate problems; the newly formalised entity the EU is also currently busy with own things - if three large regions - Europe Russia and the USA get peaceful - that's not the whole world, but a good part of it, all the Northern upper band around the globe.
Complain about this comment
Dear all,
I've been finding out all kinds of interesting stuff about the Lisbon Treaty. This is on wikipedia:
--------------------------------
"The Treaty will provide countries with the option to opt out of certain EU policies in the area of police and criminal law. Provisions in the Treaty framework draft from the June 2007 summit stated that the division of power between Member States and the Union is a two-way process, implying that powers can be taken back from the union."
--------------------------------
So appearently the Eurosceptics can take power back to Westminster via the LT.
Furthermore, the voting arrangements are such that the EU can pass laws even when both France and Germany oppose. Since their combined voting percentage is not big enough to block a descission supported by enough other EU members. So the whole FR-GE tandem has lost part of its bite.
Kind regards,
Johan
Complain about this comment
Johan, wiki is not a good source of law.
Complain about this comment
Dear democracythreat,
please enlighten me than. Is it possible to take back powers from the Union under the Lisbon Treaty? If it is, I think it is a possitive development and will make the entire EU process much more acceptable.
If it is not, I believe it is worth striving for to get it in a treaty.
The fact that a combined GE-FR vote cannot block discisions is also a possitive for me.
Kind regards,
Johan
Complain about this comment
#182 - Johan_Heuvel
We could get into an awful mess if we are not careful.
There are three potential scenarios here. The first is the one that the EU has pursued up to now, namely that insofar as possible it has sought consensus but where that has not been possible, opt-outs have been negotiated to allow for individual nation 'red lines'. Usually these are simple. Te dissenting country simply digs its heels in and says a flat no or a quid pro quo is found. For example, the EU was so anxious to get the last signature on Lisbon that if gave in to the Czech opt-out without a fight.
The second we have not yet encountered but might. That would be a situation in which a nation or group drew a red line which was not acceptable to the others and then simply asked 'what are you going to do about it?' Assuming that no one is going to go to war over it, the answer is obviously financial penalties and here, obvious, the nett contributors have a huge advantage since they can counter any threat of penalty with a flat refusal to pay their contribution.
The third is more bewildering. The second option would lead to a glorious free for all in which members would opt in our out more or less ad libertum to the point where the whole exercise would not be worth the candle. The result would be a whole host of bilateral arrangements and no authority with whom individual nations could negotiate. Not even the most ardent sceptics could advocate that. Most of them would agree that, were the UK to withdraw, they would seek a free trade agreement with the rump EU. Who are you going to negotiate this with if the whole thing falls apart?
Some form of formal European structure is not only inevitable but absolutely necessary. To deny this is to dwell in the nebulous world with the cuckoos.
Complain about this comment
Another question/thought from me.
I'm quite appalled by the fact that every day the tyranic Chinese government is gaining a little more power over our every day life. The so-called biggest leader in the West, Obama, appeared almost powerless on his trip to move China and appeared to dance to their tune. It was almost shamefull. Strategic industries are moving away to China, unemployment is rising in the west. Shops are filled with dangerous Chinese toys and other crappy made Chinese stuff, which is produced under shamefull circomstances and not checked on safety at all. The only viable way to compete with them is to throw away all our principles and gains of the last 60 years, and squeeze the workers in the west as well. What the hell is this shitty WTO about? Competition to poverty for most and wealth for a few? Pay freezes are common everywhere these days. Poverty is on the rise. Certain strategic resources are almost completely under Chinese control. The stock piling of Dollars. Curency manipulation. I'm not happy at all that they are growing in power and influence over international affairs. Since such tyranic regimes can not be trusted. If they were elected by the Chinese people I probably would feel differently, and they probably would not get away with a lot of stuff they are pulling. But now I'm perceiving them as a growing threat to my and our western way of life. So, I'm vesting part of my hopes in the EU to stop them from influencing my life even more. But I'm not happy at all at the lack of a popular vote on the EU president. And I was ashamed at my (Ducth) government for not receiving the Dalay Lama since the Chinese did not want that. What is up with that? How dare the Chines tyrants dictate our democraticaly elect government? I'm wondering if these sentiments are shared in other corners of the world/EU and if there are possibilities to start some sort of grassroot movement against their encrochement into our loves and their steadily distruction of our livelyhoods via in my view unfair competition. Don't misunderstand me I'm for competition, but it must be fair competition. And the way they are acting they are not competing fairly and we are enabling them to surpress the Chinese population and enabling them to take control over us.
This is for me the sole reason to support further EU federalisation. If, and only if, it is paired with a popular voting system.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Re #167
Your memory serves you well.
Though the 'rapprochement' you refer to was an altogether brief arrangement.
In essence, in 1907 the 'Great Powers' Imperial Russia and Great Britain were looking to strengthen ties as the anxiety increased over Imperial Germany's international and military manoeuvering.
One historic area of contention was Persia: G.B. had long been trying to secure that ancient land for itself and monopolise the 'oil' supply (you see Jukka_R, you can be right about oil, but a century too late - - only teasing!) and Tsarist Russia in its unending expansionist mode looked to the southern region as another tasty access to the sea morsel.
Times being what they were: Both these mighty Nations were of course scandalously disinterested in what the local inhabitants thought about it all!
Upshot was the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention which settled differences in the region by granting Russia control over North Persia, a neutral zone in the middle, and G.B. to control south-east Persia plus Afghanistan (we can still see how well that has all worked out!). This was the forerunner of the Triple Entente (France-Russia-G.B.) supposed to encircle and calm the Kaiser's volatile ambitions (again, we can see how well that went, too!).
For the short period it was in operation Russia and G.B. seemed content with the deal: For some reason the Persians, less so!
Suffice to say the arrangement lasted upto the outbreak of WW1 when the perilous military/revolutionary situation of Russia soon eclipsed all else.
G.B., naturally, thought to benefit and stepped into the breech - - picking rulers of Persia etc in the inter-war era and thereafter with USA assistance - - it goes a long way to explaining why London and Washington are so popular with Tehran to this very day, wouldn't you say!
To my mind it really shows how little the international situation has moved on a little over 100 years later: Big Governments still trying to push supposed smaller ones around and in reality with even less success. in
Complain about this comment
Johan_Heuvel
Re #180
Nice try Johan, however, as the Lisbon Treaty also provides for the European Court of Justice to over-rule any National Legislation it is a mmot point whether any Nation could 'take back' even the right to 'take back'!
Complain about this comment
#184 - Johan_Heuvel
A great deal of the prosperity we enjoy in the west is due the the additional spending power western buyers have because of access to cheap consumer durables from the Far East. It is a pretty safe bet that a good many contributors to this blog simply could not afford the hardware to be on line contributing without affordable Chinese components in their machines. Massive dollar reserves built up in China have been made available to alleviate the worst effects of the slump.
The Chinese labour market is evolving along with information technology. An increasingly aware workforce will, in time, adjust the injustices currently suffered by them. In the meantime, let's not kid ourselves that we could manage without cheap Chinese manufactured goods because we could not. There is a kind of balance in place at the moment. Tehy do not interfere in our way of life and we are expected to reciprocate the courtesy. It may not be ideal but it seems to be working.
Complain about this comment
Re "186. At 3:17pm on 22 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
Johan_Heuvel
Re #180
Nice try Johan, however, as the Lisbon Treaty also provides for the European Court of Justice to over-rule any National Legislation it is a mmot point whether any Nation could 'take back' even the right to 'take back'!"
Really should give a source on that statement instead of simply repeatingly postulating it.
You can't give a source, because it is simply untrue, so stfu.
Complain about this comment
Dear threnodio_II,
The cost of goods im my mind is linked to the cost of power (in terms of Watts) to produce it and the cost of that Watts of power in the form of for example oil (watts per Dollar). And it is linked to labour costs, which influences the Watts/dollar ratio. In the previous decades we in the West managed to improve productivity by increasing efficiency thus improving the Watts/dollar ratio. The last decade we have "increased" productivity by using cheap (near or complete slave) labour.
As to electronics: Moores law would have continued without this as well.
A factor of two every one and a half years. If you would be right and their would have occured a lattency, that would not be noticable in such an exponential curve.
Basically, we have become lazy in the West in terms of improving efficiency. Drunken on cheap credit. We have allowed our economies to become fundamentally weakened by allowing the production of real goods to bleed away for short term gain.
You should not forget the enourmes social cost of the now unemployed since their jobs moved to cheap labour countries. If they would work here and we would have improved effeciency as we did from 1900 - 1990
we would not be affected like this. So for me the current deal is not working. We have unemployed, they have bad labour conditions. The commies in China have an ever bigger stanglehold on power and are now looking outside China for countries to manipulate and increase their power.
Basically we in the West have made a strategic blunder. And the current crisis could be seen in that light as well. Without the currency manipulation the Dollar would have fallen earlier and the real estate bubble could not have expanded like it did. And if the production capability would have stayed in the USA they would have an economy to back up the real estate bubble and effects would have been less as well.
Now it is all hot air. just wait untill the Dollar falls and we in the West find out that the Emperor is naked.
Complain about this comment
Whether or not this debate has brought any clarity on the future of the EU is rather a big question mark.
What it has achieved is to provide a perfect illustration of why the debate on the UK's role in the EU keeps chasing its own tail...
A choice selection of the crown jewels of "little england thinking & logic":
- there is widespread agreement that the newly appointed Council president should respect the member states' sovereignty and autonomy, and hence should not be the type of politician who plays cavalier seule at the member states' expense. So who does "little england" want? Of course a politician who can be trusted to go it alone and ride roughshod over national interests and converns, ie Tony Blair...
- Re the same, both friend and foe seem to agree that Mr Blair is much better at communicating than at delivering, ie all talk and very little action. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Blair's qualifications, or is it?? So is that the rational motivation why "little england" has reacted with such disappointment about Blair being passed over??
Add to that a tabloid press which wouldn't know a rational and balanced analysis if it jumped up and bit it, then we're starting to have a picture resembling the UK's debate on its role in the EU...
The tragedy of the whole thing is that the UK debate is so engrossed biting its own tail, it doesn't realize that many of its rational concerns are shared throughout most of the continent. Nor does it realize that nobody ever questioned that increased EU cooperation can not come at the expense of either national interests or identities.
Had "little england" spent a little less time throwing a tantrum over not getting its way (whatever that might have been), they actually would have heard Van Rompuy say that EU integration can never be a zero sum game...
So while nobody on the continent wants the UK to leave the EU, increasingly there's a feeling of indifference that if such a big part of the UK's public opinion is unwilling to enter into a reasonable debate well then maybe everybody's better off with the UK outside.
And then all those brave champions of the UK's national interests will see what being outside the EU does for your manufacturing base & your financial industry! Not to mention of course all the regulations and financial contributions you'll still be subjected to, but no longer will have any say in setting!! (ask the Swiss & Norwegians!!)
How easy life can be when you don't know a good thing when you see it!!
Complain about this comment
Dear robbyvdw,
personally, I'm not comfortable with the term "little England".
I can understand some of your points though, but I think it is kind of an over simplyfication of the matter. It might be that due to the UK electoral system people feel they have less influence already and than an extra layer feels extra far away and extra difficult to influence. Furthermore, they need to get on a boat (or the tunnel train) to get to the power centre. Enter than that they have continually struggled to keep tyrants from the continent out, and have not experienced enemy tanks and enemy foreign soldiers in the streets, their perception of things is somewhat different from the other European nations.
Here in the Netherlands our perception of particulary Germany changes faster due to our proximity and is in effect constantly changing. Since we are more aware that for example the population around Koln is culturaly completely different from the population around Berlin. And we have a better understanding of the complete and utter destruction of Prussia and the complete destruction of that culture. And since we are so much closer to Germany, we are more aware of the miracle that the Federal Republic of Germany actually is. Especially if you consider the ashes of which it is build and the nature of the Federal Republic. And we understand that it has nothing to do with the Nazi regime and we understand the German shame much better. Also because we understand German and actually talk to them in German. And we have more feeling with their hurt of not being allowed to morn for their own deads since most of those deads are considered criminals in the eyes of others. But it still is their father, unlce, grandfather, mother, sister, daughter.
And we feel for their shame and pain when the rest of Europe celabrates the dead of so many of their family members as a liberation. Which it was, but it was also a liberation and a loss for many Germans as well. Since although they comformed, it must be extremely difficult to live under such an oppresive regime.
All these things are never covered or picked up in Brittish media. Rather they like to put salt in German wounds an laugh at their deads.
Just remember the adds in Brittish newspapers in 1996 in front of the Euro semi finals.
And most Brittish media and large parts of the population somehow link the Federal Republic of Germany to Prussian and Nazi esperations of continental domination.
When in all honousty I can say that the current Federal Republic of Germany is as far removed from that as possible.
Adding all this up makes the UK point of view much more understandable. and lets be frank about it. An Eu without the UK just is not a real EU.
All we can do is listen to the UK and take their opinions seriously and use it as constructively as possible.
Complain about this comment
190. robbyvdw
"...Whether or not this debate has brought any clarity on the future of the EU is rather a big question mark..."
What this 'debate' has highlighted is that the first 'permanent' leader wasn't chosen by the European electorate. Indeed the whole Lisbon business has graphically demonstrated that it is now impossible for the EU to progress with the electorate's demonstrable support.
Complain about this comment
#191 Johan
Thx Johan, I think we are largely saying the same things:
- A big part of the problem is the UK's tabloid press which is caught in a time warp of WWII & the Cold War (not to mention an obsession with pre-puberty fantasies..). But whose job is it to tell these guys this is 2009?? Surely it can't be up to us on the continent to give these guys a wake-up call, can it! I can already hear the abuse that would generate, :-)
- as for taking the UK's reasonable arguments seriously, of course we all agree on that. As mentioned before that's not what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with are the people who slam "president Blair" (of the UK cabinet, not EU Council!!) for riding roughshod over everybody's concerns and sensitivities, blast him for being all talk and no action, and then those very same people turn around and push the same Blair for a job where sensitivity for member's concerns and political effectiveness are considered by all as essential skills..
Complain about this comment
robbyvdw
Re #190
Well, you nail your colours to the mast when you spout off about "..little England..".
If that is your summation of the debate after all you have read on here by those of us opposed the UK/England membership of the EU plus those not opposed/supportive, but just wanting a 'Democratic' voice via a referendum to settle the issue once and for all, then all I can add is you must be a very 'small-minded' individual.
Complain about this comment
WA;
Putting war on hold is not an option. We are under relentless attack by militant Islam. At least two different strands, Suni and Shia are determined to establish a world under their control. They are opposed to each other but they could unite to defeat their common enemy the 21st century before they decide between themselves which version of the ninth century the human race will be forced to return to. Russia-stan seems to be allied with the Shia in Iran while Europe and the American left are doing an ostrich act pretending if they just stick their heads in the sand the enemy will go away or that we are all just imagining things.
If we are to win, it will not be by convincing hearts and minds, it will be by killing the enemy where we find him when we find him and making the Islamic world understand that if it wants to survive, it will make peace with the 21st centruy and co-existing with the non Islamic world, that return to the ninth century is not an option for them. We must make it clear that if they join a jihad against us, they will die a useless death and clear to those around them that concealing jihadists among them can cost them their lives too. The only way they will be convinced to give up their insanely maniacal jihad is to be convinced by overwhelming force that we have the will and power to make it fail. This can only be done though relentless barbaric demonstration of that power and will.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn
Re #188
I refer you to your despicable #9 and to my comment on it at #18.
We await the apology.
Complain about this comment
#193 robbyvdw
You mentioned earlier (EU opts for Belgian leader #35) that you are Belgian - so perhaps you won't mind if I suggest you have misread the situation from the British point of view.
By the end of his time in office, Tony Blair had become very unpopular as Prime Minister. His only redeeming feature is that he wasn't quite as bad as Gordon Brown...
Blair is largely ridiculed back home. Very few people in Britain would have wanted him to become 'president' of the EU. Indeed, most British people would have considered this totally unacceptable, given the unpopularity of his Labour Government and the direction he had taken the country. (I won't bore you with the list of failures, but it is a long list!)
So, you are quite wrong when you write:
"What I have a problem with are the people who slam "president Blair" (of the UK cabinet, not EU Council!!) for riding roughshod over everybody's concerns and sensitivities, blast him for being all talk and no action, and then those very same people turn around and push the same Blair for a job where sensitivity for member's concerns and political effectiveness are considered by all as essential skills.."
The people who criticise Blair in the UK most certainly did NOT want him to be president of the EU. That would have been the final straw!
The fact that you don't understand the thinking in Britain (or "Little England' as you keep referring to it) is not surprising as you live in a different country! I am not criticising you for not knowing about British politics, but it is a little insulting to have you making sweeping judgements about other people when you are clearly not very well informed.
Obviously, I don't speak for Britain, or even England. There will be many who don't agree with my analysis. And in a democracy, that's as it should be! But what this highlights is that 'one-size-fits-all' policy is not a recipe for success.
Whether you approve or disapprove of the Lisbon Treaty is up to you. However, the French and Dutch both said "no". After it was re-written, they did not have an opportunity to say if they wanted this 'new' version (which as we know was much the same, just presented differently). In Britain, we were promised a referendum, but the government later changed its mind.
That is why people are angry - and rightly so,
Complain about this comment
#197 distanttraveller
I'm sorry you seem to be confused by the term "little england". I suggest you consult any one who follows British politics on a regular basis. I'm sure you'll find it to have an entirely different meaning than what you ascribe to my words...
Let me also say how I appreciate your concern for ensuring us Belgians (& other foreigners) are properly educated about British politics! Rest assured though you needn't loose any sleep over this. As it happens the BBC channels are widely available on Belgian cable, together with Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Turkish channels to name but a few...
So I think when you're concerned about the continentals having a hard time keeping abreast of political debate in the UK, you really have nothing to worry about. I venture to think the BBC have also figured that out in light of the amount of feedback they recently seem to have received from Belgian viewers of Newsnight, This Week, Daily Politics etc etc.
Now remind me again, just how much do you follow the political debate in your fellow EU member states such as Belgium, Holland, Germany, France etc etc??
Complain about this comment
To: Gavin and others - re the selection of Baroness Ashton.
I offer the following, from yesterdays El Pais Spanish Newspaper under the heading "Zapatero was the facilitator of the pact over the High Representative". The Spanish President (of the Government) held a meeting at Brussels Airport with the British Prime Minister Brown which has not been reported. Zapatero knew that Gordon Brown, having given up on the candidature of Tony Blair would not stand in the way of Van Rompuy, supported by Merkel and Sarkozy. For the post of High Representative, Brown offered the name of three senior Labour Party figure - Peter Mandelson, ex European Commissioner, Geoff Hoon, ex Minister of Defence and Catherine Ashton, European Commercial Commissioner. They also spoke with the office of Austrian Representative where the leaders of the leaders of the European Socialist Party where waiting. Zapatero said Caterine Ashton was to be preferred as a woman who was already a Commissioner and clearly got on well the Barroso.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Complain about this comment
Dear robbyvdw,
I think you are asking kind of a rhetorical question. Most of us in the Netherlands and (like you) in Belgium are "lucky" (burdened in school) to have to learn English, French, Dutch and German. And we receive their tv networks and are able to follow them in their native tongue. Personally, I've visited the UK several times and I don't think any politics of other nations, except for USA politics, is really covered in the UK. And even those reports are, in my opinion, very colored by a UK point of view. Yes, I have several USA networks on the television here as well: Fox, CNN, CNBC, etc. And coverage of USA politics is distinctly different from for example BBC coverage. I'm not saying better, but definitely a different point of view. And I have Italian, Turkish, and other tv networks as well on my television. My activity on this forum has only started since I detect a severe tunnelvision in the British media when reporting news of other nations. It is most of the time an incorect over simplyfication of the facts. The sound bite culture is less than the USA networks, but in my opinion the news is already too colored and too flat. It just is not subjective enough and tries to enforce views on the readers/viewers. Which in my view is not what news reporting is about. You should present the facts and let the reader/viewer deside for themselves. So, I wanted to put another point of view here. The strangest thing, and almost contradictional experience for me, is that there are many imigrants in the UK, but the coverage in news papers is still very 1 dimensional when it comes to countries were those nationals come from. Most Brittish people I met when visiting the UK do not seem to be aware that they are not that different from the modern day French and Germans. And they do not seem to be aware that almost exactly the same discussions that rage on in UK politics are also going on in other European nations in almost a similar fashion. Although the outcome differs from state to state, due to other power devisions between political parties. The content of the discussion is almost the same as in the UK. Not knowing your neighbours normally makes you fearfull of what they might be up to. This is a common problem in most nations. Although, I feel at the moment, that from the European nations I follow the news, it is more apperant in the UK. Which I feel is a pitty and does not need to be so. In Dutch we say: "Unknown makes Unloved". So me you and others should engage more with each other to better understand each other and make the flat picture we (including me) have more four dimensional.
Complain about this comment
cool-brush-work @185 thank you. And I was lost seeing that archive - there was indeed that separation line mentioned and Russia does this, Britain does that etc. Still, interestingly, there are left zero memoirs on this side of any unforgettable impressions :o) (type we have left of the Caucasus wars, or Turkish wars or Japanese wars or Crimean war etc.); it does look it wasn't very scary, how to say - practically, nothing to remember! Which means it did go more or less well somehow :o)
One thing funny came across today in a newspaper - 96 yrs birthday of St. Pete director of botanical gardens :o), and it says "was born in a small town by the Shah' palace in Persia where his dad was a Russian garrison officer until 1917, protecting the shah from militaristic curds (?! :o) but then things took a different turn at home and the garrison in a hurry returned to Russia. Where his dad didn't know what to do, and finally boarded the last ship to Turkey with his family, but botanical future-gardens-director mum fell to the feet of her husband and he said the hell OK let's stay at home. The family descended down from the ship, where Red Army immediately grabbed the officer right on the shore, tore off his epaulettes, tied him up and bundled away to the total family despair. For 2 weeks they thought type "no dad anymore" but his luck was the "revolutionary committee smth" head who looked into his case was his ex soldier in subordination in Persia, who stood up for him explaining to his tovarisches that the officer was a good fair boss. So they let him go. :o)
Complain about this comment
In my opinion the "One Voice for Europe" was never really a runner.
However my I remind you that when President Bush realized that financial meltdown was inevitable, it was Barroso and Sarkozy that he asked to Camp David. As far as I know, no reports of the meeting have ever been made public.
Over the summer of 2008 a whole series of meeting were held between various European leaders and leaders from other parts of the world, not forgetting Presidential Candidate Obama under various cover stories.
What has happened is that some of the member states has taken on particular roles as link with the EU as a whole. France with the Near East and Eastern Med., Germany with Eastern and Northern Europe and Spain with Latin America and the Western Med.
Where we all go from here, well we will all have to wait and see.
Complain about this comment
#200, Johan_Heuvel and especially #198, robbyvdw,
One thing I learnt very quickly when moving to Belgium some 19 years ago was how the media was state controlled, and many Belgians I spoke to said you had to watch French or Dutch or German channels to learn the truth of what was happening in Belgium. What happened some days ago in the Belgium media shows that is still the case as the UK was accused of insulting Belgians over the appointment of Van Rompuy and inferring that Belgians were somehow sub developed and unintelligent. As a person who has gracefully been given Belgian nationality and who was confronted with that sort of misrepresentation by a number of Belgian friends on Friday, I simply gave them the major news sources in the UK so that they could learn the truth of what was in the UK media rather than what was misreported here. As an experienced internet user I look at many different news sources from many countries and it has long been clear that the UK is regarded as a convenient whipping boy to blame for the problems that have been created by the bad management (or corruption) of the ruling cliché of the EU in order to deflect attention from the disasters of their own making.
I might add that in my nineteen years of living in Belgium the number of UK people I have associated with is less than the fingers on one hand, so the 'little Englander' phrase is Bu**s**t. Just because the EU like federalism and the UK does not does not mean the UK are populated by 'little Englanders', indeed federalists would well be advised to spend some time in multicultural London as there is a lot to be learnt by them about how the UK population actually think, but then that is not PC for the EU federalist elite who continually ignore the views of many Belgians, French I know who do not support the EU federalists and regret the increasing diminution of their national identity in the cause of the great EU federalist cause (sic. disaster).
Complain about this comment
Dear Johan_Heuvel,
It's good to have in this debate a contributor from the Netherlands, because I'd like to ask how you and your compatriots feel about how the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty process was handled in your country.
I recall that in 2005 the Netherlands people voted about 63% against the Constitution - is that correct? How, then, did the people feel when the Constitution was re-packaged as the Lisbon Treaty and ratified without a referendum? I didn't hear of any protests or demonstrations against this flagrant disregard of public opinion. Don't the people of the Netherlands value their democracy?
Complain about this comment
#204 - CornwallCoastPath
Interesting post. You ask Mr. Heuvel a question then proceed to try to put an answer in his mouth. What was that you were saying about democracy?
Complain about this comment
@203 Buzet: RTL and VTM, VT4,etc state controlled in Belgium? What a nonsense....
None of the newspapers is state controlled. Yes, two TV channels, VRT (Flemish) and RTBF (Walloon) are state funded, just like BBC.
You're missing the point why Belgians like to watch foreign channels, they do it because they understand the languages and have an interest to do so. Given that Belgium is more than 95% cabled, they all have more than 30 TV channels at their disposition, including British, American, Spanish, French, German, Dutch,... Belgians are probably one of the least patriotic people on earth and enjoy their 30+ TV channels.
Complain about this comment
#206, ignace,
That's funny, I have at least 100 channels on my cable, that is if you include the various pay channels, which is substantially less than the number available on satellite in the UK or even freesat. However, whether a channel receives state funding or not is somewhat irrelevant since if it merely repeats the PC view it is of no valid substance. As for not being patriotic that is tosh, maybe you should look at the number of Belgian flags that are displayed outside peoples homes on certain occasions and especially on the national day, no doubt Mr Van Rompuy is against that display of national pride as flags are on his hit list I understand.
The main reason the people I know here watch non Walloon channels is either the other French speaking channels for a different slant on news or better quality programs or for teletext for sports results since teletext is strangely absent from our Walloon channels. As for understanding other languages there are few Belgians I've ever met who can speak all three languages (French, Dutch and German), and mostly it's one or two of those plus maybe English, and sometimes Italian in certain areas of Walloon.
Complain about this comment
Strangely enough, I'm starting to agree with "Eurosceptics." They now have a "president" in an election where only the Few in Europe (the council) voted.
I'm now understanding the lack of confidence in Democracy as it is in Europe. I mean when one thinks about it ...
(I just read some views in another BBC story on viewpoints--that is what made me see "sense.")
But yeah, its not the charisma that counts--its the legitmacy of the ruler. (well, I knew THAT already)
Complain about this comment
#198 robbyvdw
You write:
"I'm sorry you seem to be confused by the term "little england".
Actually, I'm not confused at all. As you know (and as you intended) the term "little Englander" is meant an an insult. It is a stereotype intended to depict English people who do not wish to engage with the world at large. However, in reality, the UK engages with the whole world in terms of trade and commerce. There is much more to the world than just Europe!
You continue: "I suggest you consult any one who follows British politics on a regular basis. I'm sure you'll find it to have an entirely different meaning than what you ascribe to my words..."
Thank you for you advice! Obviously living in Belgium, you are bound to know much more about British politics than people living in Britain!
You wrote at at #190 "So who does "little england" want? Of course a politician who can be trusted to go it alone and ride roughshod over national interests and converns, ie Tony Blair..."
This really proves the point! You obviously don't see the contradiction here. For a true 'little Englander', Tony Blair would be the LAST person they would wish to see as 'President'. Despite your claim to know about British politics, you are obviously not up to date with the opinion polls. Next year there will be a General Election and Tony Blair's party is expected to do very badly. Most British citizens did NOT want Blair for 'president' - your argument is based on prejudice and misinformation, not fact.
You should also be aware that England is but one part of the UK. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish would not take kindly to being called 'Englanders' (little or otherwise).
You say: "Let me also say how I appreciate your concern for ensuring us Belgians (& other foreigners) are properly educated about British politics!"
Actually, I'm not concerned about this at all. But the reason I am replying to your earlier comments is to point out that you are basing your argument on a misconception. If you are going to make sweeping statements about an entire nation, you should do your homework better.
If you are trying to make a case why the UK should put its trust in the ever-expanding undemocratic institutions of the EU, I'm afraid you are not doing a very good job.
Complain about this comment
So how long before Rumboy seeks an audience with His Omnipotence, the anointed one, President Obama? Will Obama accept a vist from such a low level representative? Would it be a state visit? Will he be considered as an equal? Will he be shuffled off to some low level dignitary instead? Will he be kept sitting in the waiting room the way Gordy was kept all knotted up? Will the decision for President Obama to see him or not see him be deferred to the leaders of China? I'll bet if Rumboy sees the Dalai lama first, he will not get to see the American President. The Chinese would not permit that.
Complain about this comment
To 177 threnodio:
But I don't really think we Americans see it as a source of pride and crow about it anymore. Quite the contrary, what my children are learning in school now is that we most definitely were NOT nice to the natives. I've recently read a book about Native Americans that was brought home by my middle son. The book started out with "95% of what is taught in school about Natives Americans is factually incorrect or else a myth." It goes on to explain that many native people did not have written languages and so any written history about them was produced by Europeans (who skewed the truth in their favor). It isn't hard to believe this, nor believe that we Americans simply kept up the trend when we produced OUR historical accounts. This certainly is the opposite of what I learned all those years ago. Thank God.
Complain about this comment
Johan_Heuvel wrote:
Dear threnodio_II,
"The cost of goods im my mind is linked to the cost of power (in terms of Watts) to produce it and the cost of that Watts of power in the form of for example oil (watts per Dollar). "
I hope you guys don't mind if I contribute (barge in) to this economic debate. I find it fascinating. I think Jukka could be useful here, too, if he is around. He knows his economic theory.
Johan, I agree with the premis of what you claim: Energy costs dictate production costs. However, haven't you left out "supply and demand" in your consequent analyses?
You say that "the cost of goods" is linked to energy costs. Surely not? The production cost of goods may be thus linked in a modern mechanized economy, but the actual cost must come from the price at market.
Follow my reasoning here: If the market is so over supplied with a certain product that demand cannot meet the supply, the price must fall. And fall. And keep falling. Until eventually, those who cannot produce the product for the price go out of business OR .... receive subsidies from the state.
So if China, for example, is subsidizing the production of products with state owned slave labour (in a communist system that is as good a description for it as any other), then the production cost of the goods in china is actually less than the production cost in the USA, no matter how efficient the USA's mechanized economy performs the production process.
In short, if slave labour is cheaper than oil and maintenance on high tech machines, your energy theory goes out the window.
And this, i would argue, is the great economic evil of dealing with china and other regimes where human labour is dirt cheap (India, most of south east asia, africa, south america, etc). You end up buying stuff made by slaves while your tech and industrial know how rust away, and your kids play computer games instead of studying engineering and trades.
We have to remember, when we talk about production costs in our glorious western economies, that we have unions. Or, we had. These unions have fought for human rights, and this has pushed production costs up and up. It has driven investment in technology, and it has served to force human ingenuity to take away the most mundane and soul destroying jobs in the economy.
But when we deal with nations like china and india, we are dealing with places where human rights are secondary to appalling legal standards that allow the human being to be used as a very cheap machine.
I would argue that our high tech machines, no matter how clever and energy efficient, simply cannot compete with slave labour on a grand scale. when you add to that equation the possibility that the foreign slaves can be equipped with modern tech, then you have a disaster scenario!
In short, every technological innovation in the west that has been created by the high living standards of western workers is promptly made available to the slave states of the east. They then use that technology to flood western markets with goods at a far cheaper production cost that our own markets can compete with. Then we need to create even more innovation to increase efficiency and reduce production costs. these these efficiencies are adopted by the slave states. And so it goes, in a vicious feedback loop.
And the west is always the loser.
Pretty soon China is going to be producing fifth generation fighter jets with fourth generation industrial robots. Meanwhile, the german and american engineers and workers who developed this technology are out of work and bankrupt.
It is a nightmare scenario, when you stop and think about exactly how advanced the political philosophy of China is today.
When you look at the history of Europe, and the rise of Soviet Russia, it seems to me that we can see exactly this pattern of economic development. Soviet russia destroyed Germany with german technology. Soviet Russia went from being a backward agrarian state to being able to crush the most advanced scientific and economic society on earth, all within a period of fifty years.
I would suggest that communism (itself a German invention!!!) only existed and thrived in Russia because foreign technology allowed the communists to deliver economic bounty to the russian workers. It was not a success of political ideology that created the massive boom in the russian economy, it was western technology. And the massive irony is that the technology that made the soviet union strong was developed in that evil system: western capitalism.
I fear we are seeing history repeat itself with the modern scenario. China is using a brutal and backwards political system, combined with western technology, to create itself as a superpower, and to feed from the economies of the west.
Free trade? That is just a catch phrase for the greed of the corporate few. Owners of western companies see the chinese market and the money greed takes over.
Complain about this comment
dt, :o) don't remind me of cheap labour! It's 6:46.
It's not only China into cheap labour habits. Russia still practices.
Only may be in China it's of some use, while here I don't know where all vanishes :o))))
Job vacancies thick kilo newspapers (hundreds and hunreds of vacancies open) - I don't know why they bother listing different companies and enterprises and various contact details :o) The message throughout one such a kilo- weight newspaper is one: 15,000 roubles a month.
In 50% of the cases - 12,000. Rare bits - whole 17,000!
And they want subway train drivers, and cake bakers, and some crane operators and some metal workers of "6th degree" and nannies and accountants, and book-keepers and sales managers and real estate agents and insurance agents and print house workers and IT staff of all sorts and secretaries and managers and supermarket cash desk something, and promoters and journalists and whoever they want - it's 12,000 -15,000 roubles a month gross. 400 dollars a month approx.
As 400 dollars in Russia is 2 pairs of boots or go to a supermarket 5 times after milk :o))) and bread - I do understand why all those immensely "wanted" people in 70 thousand vacancies (1 newspaper, weekly) in St. Petersburg - prefer to stay at home - because it's cheaper by transport costs - than to go to a work!
I do work for 300 dollars a month and I really wonder why because it's all the same - whether you work or you don't - anyway debts debts and debts.
On having complained :o) Good night.
Complain about this comment
# 207
The number of flags on display? I think I counted about ... erm, 5 last time, in Leuven. On the national holiday. You say you've been living in Belgium for the last 19 years, but you apparently don't even realize that the last few holidays in the French-speaking part of the country, the flags have been out due to the political crisis. Makes your entire story sound rather unconvincing, really. If you've only met a few people that can speak French, Dutch and German, you haven't met many of the slightly older Flemish generation, but seeing as you are apparently living in Wallonia, that wouldn't come as a shock.
Oh, and the PC rant is quite yawn-inducing. I've never seen a Belgian refer to foreign networks for correct reporting by the way, since foreign networks can never even be bothered to try and do a good job at it. For example, if the BBC wanted to report on Belgium, it would need somebody that atleast spoke both the main languages (German really isn't that important sugar). However, every time they turn it into a farce by sending some French-speaking reporter over here and then act like he would know how to tell the difference between political posturing and reporting in the French press.
... I don't even think I buy your 19 years in Belgium, unless you've been living in some pissy little village?
# 208, well, he is the president of said council, isn't he? A council which exists of people who are supposedly the 'democratically elected' heads of state of their respective countries. Calling for direct elections just seems very silly if you ask me.
Complain about this comment
Leo_Naphta wrote:
"# 208, well, he is the president of said council, isn't he? A council which exists of people who are supposedly the 'democratically elected' heads of state of their respective countries. Calling for direct elections just seems very silly if you ask me."
Leo, grab hold of yourself tighly, and see if you can follow me down a dark and mysterious path for a moment.
You say "Calling for direct elections just seems very silly if you ask me."
Leo, if you think direct elections is a silly idea.......... then you think asking you is a silly idea.
Therefore, "if you ask me" is entirely redundant. You are asking us NOT to ask you. Because it is a silly idea. According to you.
So why are you speaking? Why do you even have an opinion?
See, you are not really against the idea of direct elections. You don't honestly believe that you don't know your own mind. What really drives you is the desire to feel superior to your fellows.
You want a pat on the head from your Lord and master, and you want to be his favourite pet. In return for this, you will betray and condemn your fellows, and call their aspirations to an opinion "silly".
Hey Threnodio and CBW, this is your cue! Come tell me how the brits are not possessed by a sycophantic class system that predates pencils.
Complain about this comment
#206. ignace wrote:
"Belgians are probably one of the least patriotic people..."
- might explain why I have always enjoyed my visits in the country.
Complain about this comment
# 215, I'm sorry, I should have prefaced that with 'in this instance'. I'm not against 'direct elections' per se, I just don't see how they would be held in this instance. First of all, we're not talking about a presidential elections in the American vein to begin with, it's a chairman position, which usually means the members of the body itself choose the position. Now, follow me closely, the members of the body, who are choosing the candidate, all have a supposedly valid democratic mandate from their electorates. Now, I know representative democracy is a bit of a turn off when your candidate isn't elected - or in my case, tout court - but I am realistic enough to see that in this case, barring the sudden disappearance of nationalistic tendencies throughout Europe, it is pretty much the only way to make this work.
See, for example, I'm also part of an elected body. When we choose our president (chairman!), we choose him ourselves. It's not done by the 'general' electorate of the body. Seeing as how the entire body got a democratic mandate to make this choice, it would follow that the decision being made is also backed up by said mandate, seeing as we are, after all, the elected REPRESENTATIVES of said electorate.
It would be nice to work Athens style, but sadly enough, the European community seems to be a bit larger than the citizens body of ancient Athens.
Complain about this comment
Better evolution than revolution. Consensus decision making is the tradition in the European Union. The EU is NOT the"United States of Europe" and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be. However, that does not prevent sensible consensus policies being implemented eg in energy generation and distribution, transportation, capital markets and banking and so on. A "president" with a 2.5 year mandate should provide better co-ordination and continuity than the current 6 months coordinating leadership cycle.
Complain about this comment
#189 - Johan_Heuvel
What you say is true but you appeared in your earlier post to be blaming the corrupt Chinese system when we should be looking at ourselves. There is a reliable workforce available in eastern Europe if more manufacturers were minded to use it, something which far eastern countries with higher costs (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) have woken up to. Samsung have a large facility here in Hungary for instance.
I did not bring in fuel costs to my previous post because it raises a whole different issue. Since they are very short of gas and oil, the Chinese remain heavily dependent on cheap coal and we all understand the environmental consequences. Recent events have also highlighted the human cost in a painful way.
Nevertheless, like it or not, they are in a position to mass produce product and especially micro-electronics at a fraction of the price we could in the west and a growing dependency on this source means that we really cannot afford to be too judgemental. A growing middle class and an upward trend in skilled labour costs suggests that the necessary social adjustment may be taking place. DT's point about the social consequences is well made.
What I do not understand is how we can reasonably say to the Chinese that we want them to stop burning coal, reduce carbon emissions, start paying their workforce properly, carry on supplying us with cheap goods and act as a global reserve banker. It just does not add up. In the short term, they will continue to supply cheap product because it gives them the necessary cash flow but, medium term, the prize is much bigger - being at the cutting edge of a range of technologies in which they can dictate the market price. It would be foolish of the west not to prepare for this.
Complain about this comment
215 - democracythreat
"Hey Threnodio and CBW, this is your cue! Come tell me how the brits are not possessed by a sycophantic class system that predates pencils".
Precisely the kind of prejudiced cr*p I would have expected from MAII. I thought better of you.
Ask me a question which is not loaded and I will address it.
Complain about this comment
#214, Leo_Naphta,
Ah hah, Leuven, now I know where you're coming from, your claim of seeing no flags makes total sense, maybe you should try living in a town that is not in perpetual competition with Louvain-La-Neuve due to the age old university split and which still lives in the past. Add to that the fact your town is in Flanders and it explains your views.
As for not meeting the 'slightly older Flemish generation' in Walloon that shows how little you understand the composition of 'pissy little villages' since a high proportion of the farmers are from Flemish origins and some still struggle with French. The people in the communes I know, which include several big towns, were pleased to fly the Belgian flag unlike maybe the students in Leuven who maybe prefer the views of Mr Van Rompuy in decrying all forms of national identity. No doubt a person like yourself would prefer us to fly the flag of Walloon instead so that you can point your fingers and bleat on about the Walloon's as usual. Maybe you should also reflect on the fact that most families have family roots across both Wallonia and Flanders, meaning obsessive Flemish criticisms are actually also equally attributable to their own failings.
Complain about this comment
# 221
Your commentary gets funnier all the time. I don't live in Leuven, I do originate from there. I currently call Brussels my home. I think I saw more Turkish flags last holiday then Belgian ones. Secondly, competition with Louvain-La-Neuve? Shows how much you know about the Belgian educational landscape. Here's a hint, the minister of education in Flanders falls under the Flemish government. The KUL is not in competition with the UCL, it's in competition with UGent - and UA, UHasselt and VUB in a lesser form -.
I am doubting your claim more and more, since there are hardly any farmers left in Belgium, so it would stand to reason that you can't know that many, and less 'Flemish farmers living in Wallonia'. There aren't that many that live across the language border to begin with.
You do realize that Belgium's population is for most part, not a rural one, right? Not even in Wallonia. I do know quite a lot of Walloons from Liege, Charleroi, Namur & residents in Brussels, and I don't feel that much 'national sentiment' among them either. FDF is quite without the national zeal, even if they're filled with anti-Flemish hatred ;).
P.S. You should come to Leuven one day, if you feel like talking about living the past. They've got a nice exposition going on about Van der Weyden, if that interests you. Never been to Antwerp either I suppose, 'cause the lack of flags there is also astonishing.
P.P.S. Which 'several big towns' are you talking about? You still didn't get the reference to the crisis, I wager?
P.P.S. I didn't know that 1969 already qualified as 'age old'.
Complain about this comment
You know your problem threnodious, unlike dt and the rest of the Swiss you Brits (expats or not) can't tell chocolate from cheese.
"Hey Threnodio and CBW, this is your cue! Come tell me how the brits are not possessed by a sycophantic class system that predates pencils".
Excellent dt, sorry I didn't think of putting it that way myself. I guess that's what comes from eating so much high quality chocolate although it hasn't seemed to help the Belgians any. In Chocolate Veritas. From Shakespeare to Shaw the Brits been obsessed with their class system. Even Mark Twain poked fun at it in his book "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."
For first class entertainment dt, I strongly recommend watching PMQT (Prime Minister's Question Time) in the British House of Commons. See if you can guess which MPs are the most inebriated. To me they all seem to be to one degree or another...except for Gordo who probably only sips a little Scotch once in a while. Only because it's his patriotic duty. Blair looked to me like a sherry man. When you watch them, you get a clear understanding of why the word "common" has such derogatory connotations in British English.
Complain about this comment
# 200 Johan
I totally agree with you there isn't that much difference on the substance of the debate between the UK & the continent.
Like I said in my 190 "The tragedy of the whole thing is that the UK debate is so engrossed biting its own tail, it doesn't realize that many of its rational concerns are shared throughout most of the continent. Nor does it realize that nobody ever questioned that increased EU cooperation can not come at the expense of either national interests or identities."
Of course the mere recognition that people in the UK & on the continent might have the same concerns and aspirations is a highly sensitive & subversive statement of which the psycholigical impact among parts of the UK electorate should not be underestimated!
I'm sure Rupert's groupies in the tabloid press will do all they can to preserve this as a well-kept secret and wouldn't mind one bit to see the authors of such bold and subversive statement dangling from Tower Bridge! After all the recognition that people in the UK and on the continent might actually share the same concerns and aspirations would be so devastating to many Tory & UKIP voters that before you know it they might actually go and hurl themselves off the white cliffs of Dover in droves!
One final thought on the referendum matter. I can't think why, but I can't help getting the feeling there's a few people in the UK who are profoundly unhappy not having been given the opportunity to mark a big, fat, democratic "NO" on a ballot paper! Now they'll have a hard time believing this but I actually have the answer to all their problems!
As it happens there is this cute little country, right in the middle of Europe. While it is surrounded on all sides by wicked members of the EU with all their devious, anti-democratic ways, this country has had the courage to stand its ground and uphold democracy's beacon of hope and light in a sea of anti-democratic darkness.
In Switzerland there are referenda galore! They hold so many of them one can mark "no" a ballot paper to one's heart's delight. Hence you won't be surprised to learn the moment you cross the border and set foot on Swiss soil, immediately you are struck by the huge difference in atmosphere with the other European countries! The place is so manifestly more democratic than all other European nations, it really hits you in the face. Unsurprisingly the Swiss nationals are also so much happier than all other Europeans that they keep on declaring it and can't help themselves from singing it from the mountain tops!
So I really do understand that not being able to vote on/against UK's unelected royalty, or the LT or the EU council president, or the judges or police chiefs, it is so cruelly undemocratic it really gets to you after a while! But you see, now there's a really simple solution and guarantee of eternal bliss, you just move to Switzerland!!
Complain about this comment
Does anybody really think that Blair could become EU president? Uk is the most eurosceptic country in the EU, not in the Euro not in Schengen and what about Iraq? I think the British public should be given the chance to vote on whether to stay in the EU or not. If not let the other countries get on with the project, further integration is inevitable. No european country is big enough to stand on its own on the global scene, the sooner we europeans understand that the better, else we will always have to follow the US and China.
Complain about this comment
#221 - Buzet23
#222 - Leo_Naphta
Come on you guys. The rest of us need Belgium. Without you, what are we left with - Kronenbourg and Heineken?
Complain about this comment
#222, Leo_Naphta,
"I am doubting your claim more and more, since there are hardly any farmers left in Belgium, so it would stand to reason that you can't know that many, and less 'Flemish farmers living in Wallonia'. There aren't that many that live across the language border to begin with."
Oh my you have been indoctrinated, either that or my eyesight has failed me and those fields that I see everywhere are a cruel illusion of an agricultural industry. I shall have a laugh later on when talking to a number of friends who, it seems from you, don't actually work on farms and whose families were not Flemish. Have you and your kind disinherited them for fleeing Flanders and daring not to return to your supposed paradise. I worked for many years in a number of company's in and around Brussels and most colleagues were Flemish so that's where a lot of my Belgium history originally comes from, but then Flanders has been manipulating the truth for years so I had to try and find some sources that were not acutely biased in order to arrive at a partial knowledge of Belgian history.
Re PPS crisis, You are no doubt referring to the potential break up of the federalist Belgium and the disputes between Flanders and the other two Regions. It has simply proved to me and given me hope that the federal EU will go the same way, as Belgium is living proof that federalism is inherently flawed. You have the right to decry the flying of flags and to claim that they were only used as a sham to shore up Belgium as a state, but the people who flew them were simply doing the unthinkable to a federalist and showing their pride in their nation!
Re towns, you mentioned three major towns that I know very well and you can add to that the communes of Brabant Walloon which as you probably know borders the home commune of Mr Van Rompuy. Please though don't do the unthinkable and migrate down to one of our 'pissy little villages' as we've more than enough 'little Bruxelloise' already and they are worse than the English for not integrating in country life.
Re 1969, I am sure you realise that 1969 was a watershed and as Wikipedia says "In 1968, the conflict between the communities burst out. The French speakers were driven out of the Catholic University of Leuven amid shouts of "Walen buiten!" ("Walloons out!").[7] This led to State reform in Belgium, which resulted in the creation of the Walloon Region and the French Community, which have considerable autonomy."
Enough said I think.
Complain about this comment
Hi Threnodio,
You're right, but as long as Jupiler is in Walloonia there is hope as without those three we would be left with the undrinkable (or is it unthinkable), i.e. French beer!
Complain about this comment
And so it begins.
Romuy announces he want to introduce a new European tax.
This rather disproves the theory that his role is simply to 'chair' meetings.
We have not been consulted if we want a president. France and the Netherlands had their 'no' vote ignored. We have not had any say in these new constitutional arrangements.
No taxation without representation!
Complain about this comment
alex
Re #225
"...what about Iraq.."
Well, what about 'Iraq'!?
So, you did not agree with Blair etc. on the Iraq issue - - okay, that's your choice - - however, what about 'Iraq' and the European Union?
The connection being!? The decisive EU-Iraq factor is!?
When the EU discusses Directives, Competencies, policy initiative it's all down to Iraq because...!?
Most Britons appear not have wanted Blair in the EU position and as I write we now all know he was never really in the running and the new EU 'President' etc. have already been annointed.
Nevertheless, I am still puzzled by the UK and European contributors on here referring to Iraq as if it is some mystical entry requirement - - what has Iraq to do with 27 Nations' President of the Council?
Complain about this comment
democracythreat
Re #215 and #208 (which was Stellarbeloved not LeoNaphta #214)
If I had the faintest idea how you deduced from "President" to "class" via "pencils" from your Swiss mountain top when I cannot even work out which contribution you refer to I might try, but, I honestly could not make head or tail of your contribution!?
So, no now's not the time.
Complain about this comment
An apparently little known fact about Switzerland, its a very small country. Does anyone seriously think that that sort of system can be implemented in Britain unchanged? Just look at the problems California has.
Complain about this comment
#230 - cool_brush_work
"- what has Iraq to do with 27 Nations' President of the Council?"
Hear, hear.
Complain about this comment
#229 - DistantTraveller
"And so it begins".
Indeed it does. The Telegraph publishes a piece suggesting that Rumpuy would give his support to the Barosso proposal for a very specifically targeted tax, an idea 'already floated by Gordon Brown' (but apparently flatly rejected by the Americans - remember Brown's proposal was global, not European) and already we have the scaremongering stuff about him wanting to 'introduce' a new tax. He does not have the power. You know it, I know it.
Surely the clue was at the top of the article. The image of the people involved characterised as clowns (they have the nerve to give it a 'photo' credit). Presumably they were looking in a mirror at the time. This is not journalism, it is propaganda but there was a degree of truth in it. By simplifying it as you hand it down second hand, you do exactly what was intended - turn reportage into concern the better to serve a blatantly biased political agenda.
Complain about this comment
'229. At 11:56am on 23 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
Romuy announces he want to introduce a new European tax.
This rather disproves the theory that his role is simply to 'chair' meetings.'
No it doesn't. He can 'want' all he likes, but without unanimous approval (in the case of taxation policy) from Member States, he won't actually be able to acheive it.
Complain about this comment
Good evening. Let me join this interesting discussion, I’ve got head ache having read 80 comments from above. Obviously if there were an assignment for such top positions it should be certain demand for that.
I do not confuse about democracy which become look like a glaze upon the rolls. The real politics has nothing in common with democracy, it’s a mere struggle of forces and opportunities where any methods are welcome just to reach the target. Starting from Rome it was, is and will.
Mr Van Rompuy appearance on the spotlight telling me, this is an attempt to move EU from static point again, anyway, let him play, his age not allow to make some serious mistakes at least, just in case, did he serve in army?
Complain about this comment
#211 - kcwhattrick
No, I certainly would not say otherwise. My argument was with MAII, not the entire American people. Even I am not that dumb. What I do say is that various doctrinal statements that have found their way into history books may be seen with the wisdom of hindsight to be ludicrous. The idea that the white North American had a God given right of conquest over the entire continent was one such. The 'Monroe Doctrine' and the right to dictate - as I said before - the destiny of two continents belongs in the same category. That cannot be changed but it can at least be acknowledged for what it was - absurd and unjust.
On a totally different subject, those who have been posting on China would do well to read Paul Mason's blog. It is a sober read.
Complain about this comment
#234 threnodio_II
"He does not have the power. You know it, I know it.'
He may not in fact have the power.... yet. But we know to our cost that the EU has a way of slowly increasing its power as time goes by. Matters that were previously decided by national governments are now decided elsewhere. Rompuy is clearly starting as he means to go on.
You say "By simplifying it as you hand it down second hand, you do exactly what was intended - turn reportage into concern the better to serve a blatantly biased political agenda."
I don't agree that I have 'simplified' anything 'second hand'. This matter has been widely reported in the media and for convenience I offered a link. People can make up their own minds.
Anything to do with the EU is bound to be 'political' as you say. But whether it is 'blatantly biased' is only your opinion.
Complain about this comment
# 235 Iantownhill
"He can 'want' all he likes, but without unanimous approval (in the case of taxation policy) from Member States, he won't actually be able to acheive it."
I suppose it depends how you define "unanimous approval"!
The Lisbon Treaty which establishes to the post of president was not achieved by unanimous approval. As we know. after the French and Dutch voted "no" to the earlier version, the treaty was re-written but no further vote allowed. The UK did not get a vote at all.
The whole thing has been a confidence trick. When political leaders connive with unelected officials to impose a new system 'for our own good' because they arrogantly believe they know what is best, the result is tyranny.
Complain about this comment
~239 DistantTraveller
'The UK did not get a vote at all.'
It did, through the time-honoured tradition of parliamentary approval. If the UK Parliament wanted a referendum, it could have voted for one.
Complain about this comment
#227. You're quite funny,
first of all, Heineken is drinkable? That's a new one. Also, Kronenbourg is ... French beer. Oops, spoke too soon there? Also, if you're really in Belgium you would at least know that those are just the run of the mill InBev beers (even though I do appreciate Jupiler, and even Stella ... Maes, Cristal, Primus ... )
You are apparently though, not only indoctrinated, but not quite as good in analysing a situation as you might think. First of all, the fact that there is still something resembling an agricultural industry in Belgium, does not mean that there are many farmers left. In 2001 there was a grand total of 2% of the working population employed in agriculture. I'm not saying there aren't any fields or farmers left silly, I'm saying that the percentage they represent on the total population is hardly worth talking about, and the amount of those 2% that are Flemish farmers in Wallonia, is not going to amount to much.
Oh, and don't be idiotic, why would you even talk in FDF stereotypes about Flanders? You do realize that Brussels isn't even Flanders, right? I have been trained as a historian, but what do I know about Belgian history? Do stop talking about Belgium like we're still living in the epoch of Stijn Streuvels, would you? Agriculture in Belgium is a relic that's supported by EU money, but not much more.
I do like the fact that you're able to remember our governmental crisis, it was only in just about all the world media, even the Economist started making suggestions. Those people flying the flags though, my dear friend, were the federalists. If you actually had any Flemish friends you would probably have known that, seeing as there are enough amoung them that are probably Flemish nationalists. Again, your ignorance about our politics is astounding for somebody who supposedly has lived here for 19 years. Not too keen on learning languages or reading newspapers, are we?
I do like how you continue the rant with more stereotypes, I've now turned into a 'little Bruxellois', I thought I was a rabid French-hating Flemish nationalist? I can't even keep up with my identity! Don't tell me about them not integrating though, Leuven is not far from Brussels, and I know quite a few people who live in pissy little towns in Flemish-Brabant and are swamped by Francophone Bruxellois who refuse to learn the language, kind of like English immigrants. ;)
Funny by the way, you 'know' all the towns I mentioned, but for some reason failed to add at least Mons to the equation, silly you.
As for me realising the importance of 1969, sure, but you failed to realize I was refering to the fact that before this they were not two autonomous universities, but in fact, one bi-lingual one, and before that, one french speaking one. I'm sure your friends forgot to mention the entire linguistic history that went before that, right? Oh, but sure, quote Wiki, shows that you can't even remember enough history to stop you from having to copy it.
Please, and you also seemed to have forgot our entire national wealth in beer aside from Jupiler? No honorary mention for Chimay? Brugse Zot? At least Hoegaarden or Kriek? Orvall?
Man...
Complain about this comment
239. At 2:29pm on 23 Nov 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
'I suppose it depends how you define "unanimous approval"!'
Unanimous approval= approval by all of the elected governments of the Member States. The same as the unanimous approval of the Lisbon Treaty by the Member States.
Now you define it. If possible, without using the word referendum. A referendum is not a legal requirement for Acts of the British Parliament, nor it is legally binding.
Complain about this comment
#240 Iantownhill
"It did, through the time-honoured tradition of parliamentary approval. If the UK Parliament wanted a referendum, it could have voted for one".
I was talking about approval of the electorate. The Labour party promised a referendum in its 2005 Manifesto (page 83/84) - but then reneged on that pledge.
The Liberal Democrats also promised a referendum in their 2005 Manifesto (page 12/13)
As I wrote (#164) Labour government supported by the Liberal Democrats decided not to allow a referendum after all.
So, when you talk about "the time-honoured tradition of parliamentary approval", you are assuming they acted with 'honour'. They did not!
This blatant breach of a manifesto pledge means those MPs were elected under false pretences, an election fraud. This is why I (and many others) have suggested Brown's signature without the express consent of the electorate amounts to treason.
Complain about this comment
#243 DistantTraveller
OK. But now you're shifting your position. You're admitting that it was a UK decision whether or not to hold a referendum. This is something you can discuss with your labour candidate when he/she comes to ask for your vote next year.
Complain about this comment
#242 Isenhorn
As you probably know the UK has a (largely) unwritten constitution - or at least that used to be the case. In times gone by, it was understood that no government could tie the hands of a future government. In other words, any legislation could be rescinded in the future.
That has changed in recent times, particularly with the proliferation of treaties and EU law.
A new European Union Constitution was understood to herald quite a significant change to the governance of the UK - and it would not be possible to undo it at a later stage. It was for this reason that all the major parties promised in their election manifestos that this change would NOT be brought in without a referendum.
It was on that basis that the labour government was elected.
My complaint (and that of many others) is that the government, once elected, broke their promise.
You ask me for a definition of 'unanimous approval'. In my opinion this means governments doing what they were elected to do (and NOT doing something they said they wouldn't do)
If, hypothetically, Labour had said in its manifesto, "if elected, it is our intention to sign up to the new constitutional treaty" - then people would have voted for them (or not) on that basis. But they didn't say that. They promised a referendum, then broke that promise.
You may not approve a referendum - that is your choice. But is not correct to say that the government acted with approval.
You say "A referendum is not a legal requirement for Acts of the British Parliament, nor it is legally binding."
A referendum is not normally a legal requirement, you are quite right. However, where a government is elected having promised a referendum, they are clearly exceeding their mandate if they proceed without one.
Complain about this comment
#244 Iantownhill
No, I'm not changing my position! But, yes, I will certainly take this up with my candidate at the next election!
But unfortunately, it's too late to do anything about it now....
Don't forget, France and the Netherlands also voted "no", but French and Dutch citizens were denied an opportunity to vote on the 'new' version - which we know was essentially the same thing in different packaging.
Our political masters realised they were not going to get the result they wanted, so simply avoided the 'problem' by pushing it through without any further referenda. Once it is done, it's done - and by the next election its too late.
This I am afraid is a symptom of how the anti-democratic EU works.
Complain about this comment
I am not sure how many more times I have to ask this question before someone takes me seriously. Who offered a referendum about what?
". . . Labour government supported by the Liberal Democrats decided not to allow a referendum after all".
If it is your case that the proposed Constitution was effectively the same thing as Lisbon, say so. If you argue that they are fundamentally different, make your case for a referendum on the separate documents. But stop confusing the two. It helps nobody.
Complain about this comment
243. DistantTraveller wrote:
"The Liberal Democrats also promised a referendum in their 2005 Manifesto (page 12/13)
As I wrote (#164) Labour government supported by the Liberal Democrats decided not to allow a referendum after all."
You may not have noticed, but the Liberal Democrats did not form the Government last election. You can't expect them to vote against a treaty they openly supported just because they cannot force a Referendum.
Complain about this comment
Under the headline "Papers reveal No 10 Iraq cover-up" more information about Tony Blair and his actions prior to the war in Iraq is now turning up in The Guardian. Media in the rest of Europe are reporting the articles from the newspaper.
I think I shall keep it in private what I really think about the articles here on Blair's recent candidacy, but in any case I am sure that the Eureopean public will soon learn more about Blair's decisions as PM.
Complain about this comment
@ 20, Plons
Excellent post, one of the best I have read in this blog.
Of course, Europhobes do not let something as tedious as facts get on the way of their carefully constructed web of lies and propaganda.
As you correctly state they have made the most contradictory statements in the past few days. That is because they have been spinning so many lies to suit their agenda that one would think they are trying to win WWII all over again, given that the first time it was the Russians, aided by the Americans who won it.
They have been spinning three lies in particular:
1. The election of the 'EU president' is undemocratic; just look at how the US president is elected and compare. Quite. The US is a superstate, the EU is not. They have spun this superstate lie so much that they have started to believe it. The EU is not a superstate but rather an intergovernmental organisation. This means the 27 heads of government of EU member countries are the ones who have *direct* sovereignty over the EU, not the people of the EU. The people of the EU cannot have direct sovereigny over a state that doesn't exist, an EU superstate. It is *because* the EU is not a superstate that the EU president is not directly elected by the people of the EU, much as I would like it to be. The current EU is an intergovernmental fudge with some federalist trappings, e.g. the euro, Schengen, etc., none of which Little Britain is part of.
2. The second lie is that this post is EU president. It is definitely no such thing. Van Rompuy is the new President of the EU Council, not the EU president. There is a world of difference between those two things, one that again you cannot grasp if you think in 'superstate' terms. Because the sovereignty over the EU is directly held by 27 heads of government, there cannot be anybody *above* these 27 people. As president of the EU Council, who else but the EU Council would be the right body to elect their president? Van Rompuy is a chairman that these 27 members of the EU Council have elected to coordinate their work, their agendas, their meetings, and to act as a mediator between them and, of course, to represent them in the world stage in the same way that today the prime minster of Sweden is the EU representative in the world stage. If any of the Europhobes and Anglo-Saxon supremacists had bothered to read the Lisbon Treaty properly instead of just reading the Anglo-Saxon supremacist press they would have known this long ago.
3. The third lie from the Europhobes that has been swallowed raw by the same confused lot is that the UK is part of an EU superstate. As I've said there is no such thing as an EU superstate, but let's imagine for a moment that there *was* such a thing. Then, let's look at the prime example of superstate in the world: the US. Can any of the Europhobes (and I keep asking this question without getting a reply) point out to a single member state of the US superstate that is allowed to use its own individual currency, set its own interest rates, and to keep its own picket fences with border police to separate itself from the rest of that superstate, where border police officials scan the passports, storing those scans in a database, of every person that cross their border from other parts of that superstate? If they can give me such an example I will solemnly declare on this blog that yes, they are right, the UK is part of an EU superstate.
Of course they won’t. They will keep spinning their web of lies without bothering to look at the facts.
Complain about this comment
"It should be said that Van Rompuy does not arrive empty-handed. He is an effective mediator but he is not a communicator who can sell where Europe stands."
This is good, actually. Europe is quality design, it doesn't need selling. All it needs is representation, and not someone who will use their position to vaingloriously boost their ego.
What you call a Blair-like figure, would be doing a good selling job. Remember how Blair has been "selling England"? It's all gone and ended up in tears.
"The key for the French and Germans was not to have a Blair-like figure who might overshadow them. The laws of power have not changed by the signing of a treaty."
Of course the French and Germans lead the EU. As long as member countries will have such a heavy say they will do. Who do you expect to lead the EU? Luxembourg and Malta? Or Poland and Greece? Or the UK and Turkey?
Well, Turkey is not a member, but the UK could come forward and start working. I'm sure it will be considered more seriously if got down to some doing... rather than just trying to some "selling"...
Complain about this comment
# 250
I totally second that! What a relief to actually read a factual and reasonable analysis... Of course, you do realize (as you have indicated) that fact & reason is the last thing the Europhobes are looking for.
On the never ending referendum-whinge: does anybody out there realize you can not unratify a ratified treaty? You can have all the referenda in the world, that won't make a blind bit of difference. Before the Europhobe community start screaming bloody murder about this, if you still want your referendum, then push for the only referendum that still makes sense under the current conditions, ie whether or not the UK should remain as a member of the EU...
As a final thought a recent quote from the Chief Justice of the Californian Supreme Court: "the practice of referenda is making the whole State ungovernable". Does any one really think that observation only holds for California?
Complain about this comment
252. At 5:44pm on 23 Nov 2009, robbyvdw wrote:
" ...
On the never ending referendum-whinge: does anybody out there realize you can not unratify a ratified treaty? ..."
SB2: What we definitely can do is to be as difficult and destructive as possible.
" ... Europhobe community ... if you still want your referendum, then push for the only referendum that still makes sense under the current conditions, ie whether or not the UK should remain as a member of the EU..."
SB2: I woluld love to have thqat referendum.
'... a recent quote from the Chief Justice of the Californian Supreme Court: "the practice of referenda is making the whole State ungovernable". Does any one really think that observation only holds for California? '
SB2:It certainly does not hold for Switzerland which seems to be the best country in the world.
Complain about this comment
Very interesting article by Damian Chalmers, professor EU Law at the London School of Economics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8369636.stm
Complain about this comment
@166 MarcusAureliusII: great post, having lived in the USA for several years, I found your posting on some aspects of american history very educational.
Complain about this comment
#252 - robbyvd
It would also be interesting to have an understanding about how referenda questions are framed and by whom. DT recently raised the example of minarets in Switzerland as an example of how direct democracy works. I cannot help wondering whether, if you were asked "Do you want funny oriental looking things messing up your landscape?" or "Do you believe that people of other faiths have the right to erect a symbolic celebration?" would necessarily get the same answer. Direct democracy is not as straight forward as some would like to believe.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 (250): The EU is not an inter-governmental organisation. There has traditionally been a separation between the supranational 'first pillar' of EU law (which used to relate only to the single market) and the so-called 2nd and 3rd pillars of EU law which were inter-governmental. Lisbon collapses that distinction, by renaming the Treaty on the European Community (TEC) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) such that the supra-national community method (now renamed the 'ordinary legislative procedure') becomes the norm across almost all policy fields. Therefore the EU is less and less and intergovernmental organisation and more and more a supranational one.
If i were you i would not accuse others of spreading a tissue of lies when you make such claims. Your post 250 is classic 'Monnet Method' (a.k.a. 'integration by stealth') where you support measures (i.e. Lisbon) that bring a federal Europe closer while pretending they do not. It is clear which side here understands this treaty and which side is lieing about its effects.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio,
You have always been so nice on here (and to me) and very readable and so rational.
But, to pick out "Manifest Destiny" and "Monroe Doctrine" as horrible ..common ...criminal misconceptions by American students --whom are speaking in rote -- is by a European not the ..well...most surprising thing.
Both ideas/policies were of their time period and and were excuses for rapacious behavior and
any half literate American knows this (remember 50/50? split between Republicans and Democrats--well there IS a reason).
We are not and have not been wholly evil in our history...pragmatism isnt an evil behavior...it usually means positive action to achieve positive results.
So, these 2 "doctrinaire" ideas/policies are just red herrings for foreigners to enjoy ...these days.
Sorry, so harsh :)
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1
Re #250
Ah, when any person opposes the European Union they are are 'liars', they do not use any 'facts', and furthermore, anything they say that even vaguely resembles truth is actually just 'spinning'.
Here is a fact: The UK/England and 20 other members States did not have a Referendum on the EU 'constitution'
Here is another fact: The UK/England and 25 other member States did not have a Referendum on the 'Lisbon Treaty'.
Another fact for you: Since 1979 the number of EU Citizens participating in each EU Parliament Election has fallen.
To add to those 3 awkward facts: In the last 3 EU Parliament elections less than 50% of all the EU Citizens have voted resulting in no MEP returning to the Brussels' Parliament with a Mandate from the EU Citizens to carry out the policies on which they stood for election, but they went ahead anyway.
Another inconvenient fact: 17 of 20 annual EU Budgets have failed to be certified by the EU Parliament, but the EU continued with its policies and spending EU Citizens' monies.
Just another one of those inconsiderate facts: The cost of transferring the whole Brussels' EU paraphanelia to Strasbourg every 6 months almost increases by 40% the annual cost of EU organisations/administration.
A relatively minor fact about UK/England Political Parties and the Lisbon Treaty: All 3 included in their Election Manifestos a commitment to offer a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - - to be factually accurate none guaranteed one, but, none ruled it out - - so, factually 60,000,000 Britons of all ages got an EU offer they could neither consent nor refuse because it never happened.
Sometimes they speak for themselves... 'facts'.
Of course I would not dream of pointing out to you that calling us 'liars' and stating your 'opinion' of us as 'fact' does in fact not exactly strengthen your argument!
Quote, "...if any of the Europhobes and Anglo-Saxon supremacists had bothered to read the Lisbon Treaty..": Where did You get this fact?
Your claim to factual analysis is that You have read the Lisbon Treaty and You know none of the opponents of the LT have done so!?
Well, as I always write after reading such contributions from those 'pro-EU' who have read Lisbon: My admiration is unbounding for your ability to read the Treaty and refer to the 64 other EU documents that LT specifically links to and I assure you I feel grateful to be allowed to make any Comment on these Blogs with gifted people such as yourself also participating.
Thanks so much, I'm humbled: Honestly, no spin at all, that's a fact!
Complain about this comment
#258 - stellarBeloved
I thought I had made it clear that there was no criticism of the modern US intended. What is happening here is that some American posters - you are not one of them - are presuming to lecture us on the relative merits of your view of democracy as opposed to ours. Now that's fine as far as it goes but then our friend attempts to sell us the "Manifest Destiny" and "Monroe Doctrine" as though it is somehow virtuous. It isn't and there is no point in pretending otherwise.
You are the custodians of a wonderful country. Of course I will take issue with those who seek to belittle us. I am after all European. That does not mean that when those who are loaded with prejudice are set to one side, I am not with you. I simply reserve the right to beg to differ from time to time.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1
Re #250
And just on a point of clarification as much as anything 'factual': Can you give the example of the 'anti-EU' Comment that specifically refers to an "..EU superstate.."?
I am sure it has been used, but it is inaccurate as a term for the EU.
I and quite a few other 'anti' use the term 'supra-national' or 'pan-national' State when referring to the European Union as a political entity: This is of a very different species from a 'superstate' such as you use it when referencing the USA.
As in 'supra' = above, beyond, transcending (Oxford English dictionary) and matches the political elements/conditions of a European Union.
Whereas, 'superstate' is not actually a word in English and is more properly written Super State, though granted everyone knows what is meant by the former.
I promise I am not just being pedantic; 'super' is used as an adjective to increase the value of nouns, e.g. superhuman, but, taken separately 'super' means 'exceptional', 'splendid' and as such does not constitute an appropriate prefix to the word State.
I recall you once asked me about the UK/England in this European 'superstate' and I know I ignored it as it was as irrelevant then as your USA comparison with the EU is today!
Complain about this comment
#259 - cool_brush_work
Calm down. You are right, OK? There was a significant failure on the part of the European leadership to seek a mandate. That does not excuse factual inaccuracy or unjustified assumptions. The rejected constitution and Lisbon are not the same thing and the fact that people do not bother to turn out for elections does not invalidate them. I am not asking you to climb down, simply to be reasonable.
Complain about this comment
Th II,
I understood your feelings about certain misinformed people writing on here...I just
wanted you to see that some things aren't necessarily polite even in response.
What if I were to remind any Spanish person about their long ago history of enslaving Native S Americans and using them to mine silver for their 20-year long (more like 10) lives and then reminding Spanish people that this led to these native Americans becoming hooked on peyote or other drugs...blah blah blah... I could extrapolate until ...
What use would I have accomplished....I understand ur usage of "comebacks" but I, myself was insulted and I Misunderstood your coments.
Forgive me, I just think if "ignore" were used on some people (as in do not read their comments?) more or most often, this thing would not take so long to load and read (my internet is slow).
There would be less comments to wade through (mean that nice -- and not ur comments), but if I responded to MA II, every time he called me goat begotten, this comment blog would be 400 commments long instead of 250. :)
But, hey, now IM ranting, and I understand this is all part of the fun:)
Rereading my comments I do come off as righteously indignant lololol :)
Complain about this comment
#261 - cool_brush_work
Super - meaning literally 'over and above' - not necessarily 'better than'. This is similar to the problem in German - übermensch - being literally 'physically higher than' rather than 'superior to'- leading to serious misunderstandings about Nietzsche.
There are exceptions, of course - for example 'supercilious', who is clearly superior to a silly a*rse.
Complain about this comment
#263 - stellarBeloved
Well there you are, doing your best, for the best possible reasons, not to offend. Others think that they will make a point by being downright offensive and the rest of us are stuck in the middle trying to be reasonable and being shafted for it. My advice, for what its worth, is say it as you see it and to hell with the consequences.
Complain about this comment
Im sorry, Th II, Im waiting for my weekly prescription (a good one) and I'm so annoyed, Im not myself. I am taking it out on a nice person ...
Please take my apology.
You know, Manifest Destiny is taught as of that period (we did try to "take" Canada during a war), but you are right that the Monroe Doctrine was total hypocrisy..."our sphere of influence" to exploit (quite ruthlessly).
Again my apology for taking it out on you. Gosh, you are so subtle a writer and thereby classy. Impressed. Anyway....gotta call the pharmacy. (blush)
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II
Re your #262 and JorgeG1 #250
Thank you, but I am very calm as it happens.
Being labelled a 'liar' simply for stating that I disagree with 'pro-EU' is becoming a bit of a habit amongst certain 'pro-EU': JorgeG1 is now the 3rd to call those of us who oppose membership of the EU 'liars'.
Frankly, it is no way to debate and makes the whole issue more difficult to approach in a rational manner.
By what right does JorgeG1 or any of them denounce us in this way when they have no more knowledge, intelligence, access to the so-called "facts" than anyone else?
No, the 'constitution' and Lisbon are not identical but I used them, as you very well know, to illustrate the 'facts' of the matter to JorgeG1: A contributor who seems to think himself far 'super'ior/'better than' when all the time as you so accurately defined supercilious/silly... are eminently more suitable adjectives for someone generating such ill-conceived comments.
Afterall, this is the person who claims to know so much about the British and live(d) there, and yet constantly alludes to the UK tabloid press and 'imperialists' as if that was all there was to a population of 60,000,000 Britons!
I believe I remain fairly polite, but occasionally offensive garbage like #250 must be met with the disdain it thoroughly warrants.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio: There is no issue of any substance where the EU Constitution differs from the Lisbon treaty. The differences are either cosmetic or are differences of form rather than meaning. That is a fact which most government leaders acknowledge openly.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio Website reports:
"EU"-Parliament wanted that Ashton should only get the job after a hearing at said institution which is intended to take place in January. But no, the "EU-Commission" insists that she starts on December first.
"Streamlining of the decision making process" = Dictatorship.
"EU"-Speak = An Amazon of Bullproduct.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports that Van Rompuy twice turned downt the "President's" job because he felt he did not have enough support amongst the 27 leaders.
SB2: How much support does he have amongst the people. Is he not concerned about that?
Complain about this comment
I don't know if it's of any use to any body, Russia had referen-da ?experience. Not in USSR, of course, and not now. of course.
But at Yeltsin period.
Overall, no bad memoirs.
The 1st referendumndum had 4 questions (remembered still as "Yes-Yes-No-Yes Referendum".
The wording was - checked it up now:
1. Do you trust the President of the Russian Federation B. Yeltsin?
(as simple as that :o)
2. Do you approve of the social-economic policy as it is conducted since 1992 by the President of the RF B. Yeltsin and Government?
(this was about "do you like the change to what it was previously and do they do it alright, in your opinion approx.)
3. Do you find necessary new, pre-time elections of a new President of the RF?
(this was another way of questioning if one wants Yeltsin out ASAP :o) and a new one elected instead)
4. Do you find it necessary new, pre-time election of the people's deputies of the RF?
(back then there were no Upper Chamber and the Lower Chamber, but People's Deputies get-together, President and Government, that's all.) .
The Referendum was exactly called by the People's Deputies' get-together - they quarreled with Yeltsin and wanted him out. Tried to impeach him, but couldn't - among themselves only 617 voted "for", and it had to be "699" out of 1,097 deputies of the Russian Federation.
So the next idea the un-happy with Yeltsin half have had was to use a Referendum as means to get rid of Yeltsin.
Yeltsin didn't mind, theoretically the idea of Referendums existed in the Russian law somewhere, and we had one run.
He got his Yes-Yes-No-No (yes by over 50% of those who actually voted).
Still, to be legally binding - a Referendum in Russia has to have "over 50%" of all theoretically able to vote, not of those who bothered to come vote.
So the dear People's Deputies who called the Referendum said - "stuff! the results are not legally binding". We still badly want Yeltsin out.
Population didn't know the hell about referendums, and only wondered "why then we were asked to vote?" :o)))
Yeltsin made a speech on TV with the same message (I don't know if he knew in advance whether legally binding or ?un-binding :o))) Likely, didn't bother to read old papers either :o)))) He said type "we had one as well as we could" , and if that old Soviet Constition is so silly that's not my fault - let's write a new Constitution, where over 50% of those who bother to come will be enough to qualify for either "Yes" or "No".
People's Deputies though didn't lose heart :o))) and applied to the Constitution Court asking to rule whether the Referendum (that they initiated themselves :o) was a legal thing to do, as Question No 3 - "are you happy with economics" LOL - was not allowed to be asked in Referendums in the Soviet Constitution!
The Constitution Court ruled that it is against the Soviet Constitution, to ask naughty economical questions :o))) - and ruled that "as one of the questions in the Referendum was formulated against the Constitution -the whole Referendum was a crappy thing! :o)))))
(I'm writing the details because, as you see, before you call a Referendum - it's not a bad idea to check how do questions agree with your Constitution, even if the USSR times one is the only one hanging around (because nobody bothered to cancel it and basically all took for granted that since we live in the new country old laws don't apply :o))))
So we kind of had a Referendum but its results were interpreted by Yeltsin and the Deputies differently :o)))
We got stuck in the political crisis, which Yeltsin decided to sort out simply - announced he dissolves all those deputies all together, like go home sweethearts, folks at home do like me and that's what matters, not your old Soviet Constitution.
One of the chaps among the Deputies, Rutskoy, in reply announced himself a new "Acting President of the RF" and we had the coup, when TV got switched off, radio disappeared, as Rutskoy friends took the TV tower and places.
Then Yeltsion called tanks to Moscow and heartily shot at the Parliament building where there was no parliament, but those people's deputies sat, headed by Rutskoy. All ran away except for handful of close Rutskoy friends and then he also surrendered :o))))
(I was there by the "Parliament" building doing some work I wanted to do when the tanks shot at our "White House" - rapidly turning black :o) was great fun.)
Then Yeltsin once again sent Deputies home, introduced 2 Chambers Upper and Lower instead "like all decent people have" (bad idea. deputies were far more lively and energetic than those sitting there since that in total amnesia and collapse. but Yeltsin couldn't hear the very word "People's Deputies" again :o)))) so one kind of understands him)
and wrote a new Constitution.
As a summary? simply mind that a Referendum is a good thing, but it may require some shooting done at Parliament to seal the results, and it does have direct connection to one's Constitution (whenever in middle ages it was written).
The People's Deputies
Complain about this comment
#267 - cool_brush_work
I hope you will forgive what might appear to be condescension but I have a very real problem here. I have the utmost respect for you views on this subject and nothing but contempt for those that think they will overcome them by being offensive.
Even so, you must accept the possibility that there is a credible alternative position. If you trawl back through my posts over these past months (don't bother, why would you?), you will find that I have been severely critical of the EU as presently structured, very much in favour of a referendum on the constructive question on ongoing membership and more than a little angry about the lost opportunity to demonstrate democratic credibility. I simply cannot accept the view that the whole concept is flawed from top to bottom. At the risk of offending FBJ, I still believe in full engagement and constructive reform from within.
Complain about this comment
The wording of the Russian Referendum was formulated by those now distinct People's Deputies get together in Moscow - whole 1,097 of them, reps from various Federation regions and municipalities and whatever.
How they arrived at the exact words no idea, apparently simply, someone offers, others vote, back then it were all direct TV broadcasts, and they did sit in a huge hall, all together - all 1,097 of them.
Oh those were the days.
Complain about this comment
My feeling is that 1,097 in one place is better than the same approx. amount split into 2 Chambers. And that those 1,097 can decide all that the President and Government should do.
When powers are split they compete with each other, involuntarily, and a President can play on these contradictions. :o)
The more the better:) 1,097 is not the whole Russia and direct democracy, but closer to it :o)
Complain about this comment
So, Web Alice, you have lived through the exciting times of your nation, and with little bloodshed...
Do you feel it has all been good/bad/interesting/stressful?
It is so interesting...in America we know so little..:)
Complain about this comment
# 250 & 259 Cool Brush Work
I read your (CBW) response to JorgeG1 (250) with interest.
I'm sure you noticed JorgeG1 raised three points in this contribution. Couldn't help noticing though that you offered no retort whatsoever on either of the 3 points he made (ie items 1,2 & 3).
Nonetheless that didn't prevent you from concluding and I quote: "Of course I would not dream of pointing out to you that calling us 'liars' and stating your 'opinion' of us as 'fact' does in fact not exactly strengthen your argument!"
Now that we're on the subject of "strenghtening one's argument", if you do not refute the arguments that are presented, doesn't that mean maybe you recognize the facts presented are just that?? And if you then accuse JorgeG1 of "spinning" without the slightest attempt at refuting his 3 arguments, is that your idea of "strengthening an argument"?
Just wondering..
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports outrage in the international press.
"Weakest pair possible."
Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet: "Herman van Who? No, in principle nobody outside of Belgium has ever heard of him." And: "Europe wants to carry on talking to itself instead of being heard."
Austrian newspaper "Standard": The worst possible result has been achieved. Van Rompuy and Ashton:"weakest duo in the new EU-jobs." You couldn't have found a more unimpressive president. Ashton has never done foreign policy. She was only voted in because she is British, a Social Democrat and a woman. Together with Barrosso, the the leadership of gthe EU is a "a harmless troupe of grey mice" etc.
Another Austrian newspaper and Spanish,French,Italian, Hungarian and Swiss newspapers made similar comments.
Austrian M"EP"s were also quaoted as making highly critical comments.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit: The EU has reached a low point.
The Independent: "Less transparent than the Vatican." (Remember I am translating from German something which was originally written in English, so my words may not be exactly those of the Independent.)
SB2: Remember that some of these people are pro-"EU" and are sounding like "Eurosceptics."
Complain about this comment
oh sorry, the results of the referendum were exactly as I wrote in the beginning of the post - Yes-Yes-No-Yes.
Yeltsin stays - (a "yes", twice)
Deputies go - (a "no", once)
"economic-social changes after 1992 Russians approve of - "Yes".
Complain about this comment
Got mixed up again. Unless you have a question in front of you, those "Yes", "No" are meaningless. "Yes" we trusted Yeltsin, "No", we didn't want him out. "Yes" we wanted People's Deputies re-elected
(don't ask me now why:o))))
Strongly suspect 1993-1995 were the best years of my life, past and future. Many now say - "was best time of my life - will be something to remember in elderly years and tell grandchildren about"
Revolutionary youth :o), full of hopes and freedom.
Complain about this comment
can't stop sweet memoirs :o). And Yltsin wasn't mean - nothing happened to Rutskoy. He spent 2 yrs in a very privileged :o))) Moscow prizon, special dpt for special high-position guests :o) , full of TV, newspapers and media visits, and then was quietly released. Don't even know where how he is now and is he? He clearly didn't complain, didn't run to "the West" with some accusations in the pocket, I think he kind of decided he was wrong, but from his best intentions.
Imagine what'd happen to a man these democratic LOL days - in any world country - who declares himself "Hello I'm your new President", gets hold of some friendly army troops and advances as much as taking up all media places in the capital by storm.
Complain about this comment
#247 Threnodio_II
"I am not sure how many more times I have to ask this question before someone takes me seriously. Who offered a referendum about what?"
Before the last UK general election in 2005, the main parties each proposed that the UK would NOT sign up to the new EU constitution unless it was first put to the people in a referendum.
The reason for this is because it was recognised that the proposed constitution would be a significant change to the way the country is governed - and could not be undone later.
But, after France and the Nethrlands both voted "no" in 2005, the whole project was put on hold because the treaty could not go ahead unless it was ratified by all EU member states.
Meanwhile, in the UK, the Labour Government originally said it would still go ahead with its own referendum, but later changed its mind saying there was "no point".
The constitutional treaty was then re-written and re-packaged as the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish voted "no" to this, but were persuaded to vote again after several gaurantees were offered.
The French and Dutch were not given an opportunity to vote again even though they had already voted "no" the first time.
The UK did not get a referendum because the Labour government knew the answer would be "no" (the same as the French and Dutch). They justified this by claiming Lisbon was totally different to the original treaty. Of course that was not true.
One of the main people responsible for drafting the document, Valery Giscard d'Estaing admitted the old and the new treaties were really the same thing, and the new Lisbon Treaty was still intended to be a new constitution.
So, you ask "If it is your case that the proposed Constitution was effectively the same thing as Lisbon, say so"
The answer is yes! This has been stated many times! They are effectively the same (even Giscard d'Estaing says so - see the links above). That is why UK citizens are angry that Brown signed the treaty without giving us the promised referendum.
Complain about this comment
I love Medevev :), WA.
He is the unnoticed as of yet, new Great Man of the "coming up" world,
Either he is positioning Russia for the future or he is using Putin as as a straw man to knock down and gather trust from his citizens.
But, I feel he felt unappreciated for his talents and now is showing the world those talents. If I may give some credit to Obama--for his role (canceling the ridiculous not even usable missile shield) for providing safe haven for this development.
While Europe surges and China dominates/scares/bores (sorry Chinese peoples) Russia evolves ...again. :)
Complain about this comment
Stellar-beloved, I know I am supposed to live better now, at Putin, when life became organised and richer - because many feel so and approve of the changes. But somehow I must be all wrong - I can't help it - but I was the happiest (and richiest) during Yeltsin's rule. I became un-happy and un-lucky - on all fronts - exactly sharp in 1998 :o)))) And it lasts and lasts :o)))))
When Yeltsin said good-buy - my life ended as well.
May be simply a co-incidence. But that "co-incidence began sharp with Yeltsin's rule beg. and ended sharp when he expired :o)))
So can't help it I like that tsar.
Must be different people are better fit to different times.
Complain about this comment
#248 Benefactor
You write:"You may not have noticed, but the Liberal Democrats did not form the Government last election. You can't expect them to vote against a treaty they openly supported just because they cannot force a Referendum. "
What I was referring to wasn't the vote on the treaty itself, but the vote as to whether or not there should be a referendum.
The LibDems put in their 2005 General Election manifesto ('The Real Alternative') that they would hold a referendum. The only copy I can find on the internet is in PDF form, so I can't give you a link. (House Rules don't allow links to PDF pages). If you can find it for yourself, see page 13.
A motion on a referendum was put to the House of Commons on 5th March 2008. The LibDems abstained and the proposal was defeated.
Note, this was not a vote on the treaty, but whether to hold a referendum - which the LibDems had promised in their own manifesto.
There was another vote in the House of Lords on 11th June 2008 on a motion to hold a referendum. This time the Lib Dems voted against it. In other words, the LIbDem peers didn't want a referendum - despite the fact that it was part of their manifesto.
So my point was, both Labour and LibDems betrayed their own manifesto pledges.
Complain about this comment
robbyvdw
Re #272
You 'pro-EU' really do like to duck and dive, don't you!?
It was not I made the accusation of 'lies'!
Quotes from JorgeG1 #250
"..Europhobes do not let something as tedious as facts get in the way of their LIES.." (my caps) "... spinning so many LIES to suit their agenda.." (my caps) "..3 LIES in particular.." (my caps)
And what is all that stuff and nonsense about, "...think they are trying to win WW2 all over again.."?
All that from someone whose own Nation cannot dare let its children confront its own internal past of mass murder, butchery, torture and pillage - - anyone would think they were afraid to dig up the mass graves of the slaughtered innocent!
Yes it's unpleasant! So, why do you keep writing such stuff JorgeG1?
Now for the 3 versions of 'facts':
Point 1: As has been repeatedly explained there is absolutely no relation between the Presidential candidate nomination process, primary elections, and final run-off between the 2 USA Political Party candidates (yes, there are others, but none that matter), and the European Union.
It is like attempting to draw a comparison between Putin - Obama - Jintao - Sarkozy - Kim etc. each is a President, and not one is in the same Post by the same process or with the same responsibilities.
It is just a nonsensical argument to make. The EU has its own method of selecting and appointing various Posts - - all of them have some degree of legitimacy in that they are (so we are told - - but who actually knows as nothing is done under public scrutiny - - e.g. the Commissioners, the most recent 2 new Posts etc.) chosen by some means by Nationally elected leaders. Other than that the whole thing is a corrupt under-the-table stitch-up by various power-groups. Only Barroso can claim any true 'democratic' legitimacy as he is voted in by the MEPs, but then again, as none of the last 4 EU Parliaments has received even a 50% Citizen Mandate to be in Brussels it is a scant democratic process that gets the Commission Presidency.
The supposed 'superstate' (?), well the 'supra-National' Federal EU that I oppose is centred in Brussels from where its Directives, Legislation and European Court of Justice has supremacy over all 27 National Governments (except Foreign Policy) - - opt-outs/derogations all have limited time-spans, and if the Lisbon Treaty is not a 'constitution' then why would Eire need 3 Protocols protecting its Constitution?
Point 2) This is easy: Msr Rompuy is the Chairman of the EU Council. Not sure why JorgeG1 took a paragraph to state that. I have seen and heard reference made to his Post as Chairman and as President and sometimes both in the same Reports. I suggest JorgeG1 looks beyond the UK tabloids at the Euopean press and tv where the similar mix of descriptions is being made. However, no argument from me, Msr Rompuy does not have the powers of Obama etc., but I have yet to read anything that suggested he did!
Point 3) Is actually the only one of any real value or interest: Though how it can be claimed we 'anti' are lying about this situation is ridiculous when there are so many and varied aspects to the idea of this 'superstate'(?)!
Thus, clearly there are 27 different Nations and with that number of infinite cultures-heritage etc. the 'superstate' is a non-starter.
However, the 'supra-National' or 'pan-European' State is very much in evidence: It is a work in progress, but with things like a common currency, a common central bank, a common European Court of Justice, a common open-borders policy etc., so the 'supra' extension of control from the centre, i.e. Brussels continues to grow with each passing day. I already dealt with the 'derogation/opt-out', but just to add that it is stated within the the Treaties of Union that all member Nations will eventually abide by the same set of rules (something many 'pro-EU' on these Blogs do also assert, e.g. Jukka_R, Mathiasen...) eventually. This gradual absorption by Brussels has been ongoing for 5 decades and Lisbon is merely the latest confirmation of that drawing together particularly with its cutting back of 'veto' and increasing 'majority' decision-making.
In any other case but the EU I would be arguing a 'veto' is undemocratic and majority rule is democratic, but such is the complete lack of credible 'Democratic' principles applied from Brussels over so many years that it is impossible to do so in this case.
The 'supra-National' entity known as the EU claims to represent 450,000,000 Citizens of whom 330,000,000 are eligible to vote and only one-third of that number did in 2009: This 'minority' is claimed as a Mandate for the Lisbon Treaty and to go forward with the EU Federal project.
I deny any such Mandate exists: I claim JorgeG1's version of Points 1 to 3 are not lies, but mistaken interpretations of how the European Union functions.
I deny I am lying; I believe my interpretation to be in the main correct although everything from my perspective is open to challenge. On the other hand JorgeG1 etc. accuse us of just being 'liars' and in his case he also keeps referring to a United Kingdom that only exists in old history and story books and bears no relation to the vast majority of modern, multi-cultural Britain.
Said it before and say it again: Unsubstantiated accusations and abuse is no way to strengthen or win an argument.
Complain about this comment
Stellar-beloved, I'll tell you how coups happen :o) the main sign is when TV disappears on all local country channels and radio gets off.
I was in St. Petersburg picking up from a hotel an Englishman, who was on business trip to our company and had to go to Moscow by the Red Arrow overnight train. As I also had ticket for that train, also returning to Moscow office, we agreed I pick him up from his hotel, and we go to the train together (foreigners are always afraid to get lost here :o)
So I like entered his room where he was packing, and he showed me to TV - what's that? I said "What do you mean?" He said approx, "Is it normal that your TV channels switch off and you have a big white cross on the screen?" I said - no idea, really? So we both stared, then I tried radio, and heard shhhhh.
But, like, what? TV, radio - trifles. We went to the lobby and there hotel chaps told us someone heard somewhere it is a coup in Moscow may be.
Now I had cats in Moscow, mum in Moscow, work in Moscow, no reason to suspend in St. Pete, besides, that chap was clearly confused, and we decided to go to the railway station, ask there how are things. RW said yes, a coup in Moscow, so all return tickets. ??? But that trains go, Red Arrow always does, only in 2nd WW it didn't work when it couldn't. I thought if Red Arrow goes it's not the end of the world, so it may be alright to carry that foreigner with, especially that he was a quite energetic young chap and not scared at all. Then in the morning in Moscow we saw an absolutely empty rw station and platforms, and interesting shots here and there but still not "right here". And empty steets. Myself - I'd go by subway, but foreigners always like taxi-s so I decided to take a taxi, only there were no cars either! No traffic :o) So we went by subway which worked. Walked to the office where all sat barricaded up because many offices' glass were beaten and many became boarding up against chancy bullets. There was our company's absolutely wonderful GM who demanded that all staff immediately go home and why have you all came here Jesus Christ well as you are all here don't you dare to put a nose out, all sit here and don't come to the windows or I will personally kill you all who dares to step out of the office. :o)))) He was very glad I brought him an Englishman on tops as an icing to his cake :o))))
I phoned mum and said I'm alright and happy and she said she is at home and not exactly happy :o))) but also alright.
Well then in fact I did go out, having recruited one compassinate company driver because I was a marketing mng and wanted a good picture type we work when nobody does :o)))) and "we deliver last letter to Rutskoy" :o))))
Complain about this comment
Your CNN by the way also worked, helicoptered above me.
My mum concluded for future that one can't buy in Moscow potatoes, because every time she bought a heavy pack and tried to cross the Leningradsky prospect with the bag - she immediately found herself between two columns of tanks and she with potatoes in the middle :o)))
That was in 1991; she swore she'll never put Leningradsky prospekt and potatoes together - kept her promise - went the 2nd time only in 1993 - and it was again the same, she stands alone, tanks roar, potatoes roll out.
That's why revolutions happen - our un-scientific family observation:o))). Nothing as easy as to get a third one :o))))
Complain about this comment
WA,
My "day" was 1989-1991, then reality crashed in...I went to this expensive school (and my education took on the aspect of a horror tale--too expensive)
How I got out of this mess was.. to have a stroke--I was 34--"sooo young" for such a thing.
But God said, I love you David, (at that time unrequited).."here is this"...and I went to a much cheaper school and graduated with a BA 7 yrs later--minor stroke..quick recovery--with eye operation (tmi).
But, now I have a "good job" and I hate IT...so time and happiness sure are relative..but I'm not unhappy, because I get three months off per year
making almost the same amt of money (without savings for future during off time--unemp benefits)...so maybe one does need to have balance...tho
I am thinking HA, I'll use this off time to look for a "happy David" job..hmmmm (with the govt of course)
So they can't hit you--be a "moving target" lololol :)
I don't know why im so talkative, but it will be rare..hopefully for y'all :).
Complain about this comment
That Englishman, by the way, was very happy that Russia didn't fail his expectations :o))), it's not everyone's luck that you just go for the first time for a couple of days - and have a full excellent revolution, with much shooting, but not much harm. Perfect timing. Well, he was a travel house manager, a good travel house manager always knows where and which tickets to buy :o))))
I think all Russian coups and revolutions are that - lots of emotions, lots of shooting, luckily none victims or 1-3. They say the Great October of 1917 was in reality not what Soviet propaganda bombasted later on, but 3 people killed in the whole "revolutionary Petrograd".
It's Civil wars - if they start after - are disaster.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2
Re #277
Steady now!
You can't come on here quoting from 'foreign' (i.e. not British) news sources that people who are 'foreign' (i.e. not Britons) are not all delighted and enraptured with the European Union's most recent appointments!
How dare you!
Next thing you know there will be EU Citizens coming on here telling us that the EU is not such a good idea, afterall!
Now that is impossible because we have it on the unreserved authority of RCalvo72, JorgeG1, Mathiasen, Me_rijn, robbyvdw and many, many, many more whose knowledge of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU and those 'orrible Britons puts it beyond doubt that the only objectors to the EU all live in the British Isles.
Now kindly remove yourself and let those fine EU supporters take the floor for the next round of mystical-musical chairs!
You've not heard of that one?
It's the one where even 'buggins-turn' does not work so they pick 2 representatives who did not know they were standing for the Posts!
Complain about this comment
We are off subject,
but that was so wonderful to read....I love fiction, but non-fiction accounts like that are neat and engrossing (and probably inspiring to fiction writers.)
My favorite fiction author is at the moment George RR Martin, (he wrote a near classic novel of vampires in New Orleans set basically in the 1850s on the Mississippi--with steamboats--"Fevre Dream")
but, I love biographies of people's experiences of world events.
Thank you. :)
Complain about this comment
Dave, :o) (cool-brush-work, sorry for interchanging :o) - but you are supposed to sleep now :o))) it's American-crazy Russian time of the blog :o)
so, Dave, very beloved - you're talkative because I'm talkative, so nothing to worry about :o)
I'll remember it, about "moving target".
So, strokes do happen to young people, because they scare me I fancied to get high BP lately. You are always experimenting with advanced things on yourself! as I remember this summer you tried on the swine flu one of the first.
May be you should start developing liking for more boring things :o))))
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II
Re #272
No problem.
Yes, there is always an alternative in any political scenario.
I just find it extraordinary and very worrying that so many Europeans appear to believe there is no alternative to the present EU.
You at least concede it needs reform, but there are a whole lot (at least those writing on these Blogs) who seemingly will brook nothing but what is already set down - - a sort of latter day Tablets of Brussels - - with the same attitude to individual rights and responsibilities as the chap had to his followers in the wilderness: You (Citizens) will do it my way (Brussels) or not at all (USA-China-Russia will eat us up).
Well, it's getting late, 03.30 here, and I'm at work in 6 hours.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
G'nite WA and everyone ...have some fun :)
Complain about this comment
when I worked full-time I remember I liked IT departments. always someone in at nights to look after servers or smth, you can borrow money :o))) those lights shimmering, boxes humming smth, they always had something to eat. well, rather - to drink! :o) one of IT chaps once opened me a mail account, must be one of the first ones in Russia. and I kept it next 13 yrs LOL - :o))) unable to change it :o))))
Complain about this comment
# 285 Cool Brush Work (& 250 JorgeG1)
I'm sure there must be some misunderstanding here:
Re the 3 points
1) The point is exactly that you would have direct elections among some 500 million EU citizens to appoint some one who has no decision making power, no power to initiate legislation and no power to appoint the administration (ie the Commission in this case). And in your book that’s called the president of “a superstate” ??? …
2) I understand you grant the point
3) You list a whole range of policy areas which the UK doesn’t agree to and hence has opted out of such as the Euro, the ECB, Schengen, the social charter etc etc. Apparently you disagree with this because undemocratic? So what would be democratic in your book ? For the UK to join policies it doesn’t agree to?
If that were to be the case, of course I would be the first to applaud the generosity of your reasoning, but are you sure this is the point you want to make??
I would hope you have taken notice I never called you a liar. But you’ll forgive me for failing to see how the above is meant “to strengthen your argument”
PS: If I understood you correctly you are lambasting the Germans for the way they are dealing with their WWII heritage and responsibility. FYI relatives of mine were assassinated in Auschwitz. So I believe I have some speaking rights on the matter. The above notwithstanding I do not see how any one can fault the current generation of Germans for failing to face up to their historical responsibility. On the contrary I would say it comes pretty damn close to being exemplary in its ensuring historical awareness, reparations, relations with victims, be it on individual basis, or on basis of religious, national groupings etc etc. Having traveled extensively in the Far East, I can assure you I have seen others who do indeed deal with their war responsibility in a totally different, and as far as I’m concerned, totally inadequate manner. I suggest you have a look at German TV. You will notice hardly a day goes by which doesn’t feature some program that deals with Germany’s role during WWII in a frank and incisive manner. So you’ll have to forgive me for advising you that you’re likely to find holding off on such cheap shots would do wonders to help you « strengthen your arguments »
PS2: I have heaps of relatives of all kinds in the UK and various other ties. Hence trying to equate pro-EU with anti-UK really isn't very credible in my case, and I'm sure that holds for the overwhelming majority of those who do see a strong EU as complementary and not contradictory to our respective national interests... Besides are you trying to suggest pro-EU Britons would somehow be anti-UK??
Complain about this comment
I think ...should one say this...the EU is a good thing for European "self esteem"...but, maybe one should relax and realize that not all things are forever...
The USA was a Federal Union of states ..until the Constitution was written and rafified. In a much different way change could come back to Europe.
Perhaps, Europe will devolve eventually and become a trade union again Only ..inviting other nearby candidates like Russia and/or the Ukraine--with these 2 countries included only a trade union would be possible ...
But, the EEC was revolutionary in the peaceful evolution sense...people may just be getting momentarily carried away at this moment,
wanting nationalistic feellngs as opposed to prosperity...but "it's the economy, stupid"..dont ya think?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I just noticed something reading the various posts on this blog.
It seems most of the british "eurosceptics", if we really have to put labels on everything... are stark mad about the fact that they did not have a referendum.
Well, I totally agree it has been promised you should have had it. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, besides the fact that it is the thing that you should have had a referendum about, no it is solely an issue you have to take to your own government.
So, accusing the EU of being undemocratic because of that fact is an injustice. Furthermore, using it as an argument for saying that the EU is undemocratic in my opinion does not help anyone, as it is totally beside the issue.
To sum it up. If you have a problem about the promised referendum take it to the government of the UK.
Besides, there are plenty of other problems concerning the EU in terms of democracy and corruption. Talking about something that has no connection to any of the powers exerted by the EU (besides the afore mentioned fact that it is a referendum about the EU), just distracts us from the more important issues.
Complain about this comment
Nimjaneb (299): The decision (in the wake of the French and Dutch NOs) to cancel the expected EU Constitution referendums in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the UK and later to replace the EU Constitution with an equivalent treaty to be rubber-stamped in national parliaments without referendums (except in Ireland) were taken in EU Council meetings. Therefore you are being disingenuous to say it had nothing to do with the EU.
Complain about this comment
Nimjaneb
Re #299
Referendum on EU membership or the Lisbon Treaty, or even the 'constitution' for the UK.
Sorry, either you are completely new to this Blog in which case I fully accept your point of view as being legitimate, or, you are trying to pretend that this particular issue which has been repeatedly discussed on here has somehow eluded your attention until now!
From us 'Eurosceptics' (and though labels are unfortunate, it at least identifies the different perspectives - - though the abusive/attempted ridicule name-calling, does get very tiresome) point of view it is completely incorrect to suggest the lack of a 'Referendum' is not partly the fault of the EU.
Yes, the absolute primary reason for no sort of UK Referendum on these issues since 1975 is down to the UK Government: This has become especially marked since Maastricht in 1992 specifically changed the course of the European venture from one of inter-nation trade-travel-tax cooperation to one of international coercion toward a politically centralised Federal union.
Any idea Eire held a 2nd Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty other than under extreme pressure from Brussels and many of the other member Nations is simply politically implausible.
Furthermore, the example of the defunct EU 'constitution' also shows how the EU having been knocked back immediately set-out to ressurrect this body of Law under another guise: It then actively discouraged any National Government from seeking the support of Citizens (it is often conveniently forgotten Eire's Government tried to push through ratification of Lisbon without any referendum and was forced to do so on the threat of legal action as Lisbon did affect the Eire constitution).
To pretend, as many of the 'EUrophiles' do, that the EU has no input to the political-will of individual Nations when determining 'referenda' etc. is to fly in the face of commonsense - - any supra-national entity with such over-arching powers on matters affecting member Nations would be wholly unable to avoid influencing Political party policy - - if the EU had been 'neutral' in its dealings with Eire's 1st and 2nd referendum then why were so many EU representatives and National leaders suddenly finding reasons to visit Dublin and/or Eire Ministers/delegations discussing the issue in Brussels?
No, I am not saying the EU should not have presented its case before the 'constitution' or Lisbon or any other time - - that would be politically daft and undemocratic - - however, even more daft and a subversion of the democratic process is for any EU supporter to claim successive UK Government decisions not to hold Referenda are made totally in isolation from the expressed wishes of Brussels.
The EU policy to avoid/obstruct/negate calls for National 'referenda' became increasingly clear after 2 of the EU founding nations voted in Referendum against and succeeded in killing the 'constitution': If 2 lots of very 'pro-EU' Citizens could vote in such a manner (inc. one whose own ex-president had written it!) the whole EU Federal project was at risk of collapse - - Referenda became a very dirty word in the corridors of Brussels and on these Blog articles with EUrophiles aping the Brussels' harpies and using every means to argue EU 'democracy' does not need referendums for its Citizens.
No, according to Brussels and EU enthusiasts an average EU Citizen must be contented with an EU Parliament election once every 5 years as the only expression of their 'Democratic' input: Apparently, EUrophiles maintain that as this is on the whole what happens at National level then 450,000,000 Citizens do not need more at supra-National level! To which EUrosceptics reply if the National standard of 'democratic' participation is adequate why would anyone need an International entity like the EU at all and especially as it is clearly unable to come up with any increase/improved 'Democratic' representation for such an immensely larger 'political-economic-judicial' organisation?
The UK population clearly has several doubts about the EU (though how many are 'for' or 'against' who can say as no Government ever allows Britons a voice on the matter) and membership is only a part of it.
One factor leading to public accusations of EU influencing UK Government decisions is quite obviously the number of times the UK has chosen an opt-out/derogation - - if all was harmony there would be no need for these. Clearly at times the UK Govnt is caught in a balancing act of attempting to assuage British Citizens' concerns and EU pressures to conform - - it is an odd supra-National organisation that introduces binding legislation on all member States and then has no opinion when members back away from such regulation. The UK is by far from being alone in the opt-out brigade, but it is often convenient for EUrophiles to paint the British into that role (with derisory assertions about 'little englanders', 'imperialists', 'ww2 fanatics' etc. as if any of that had any connection with a UK Popuation of 60,000,000 making choices about the EU in 2009!). According to EUrophiles when any other Nation has a derogation/opt-out is for entirely logical-practical reasons, but the British only do it because of affection for the long lost 'colonies' - - it truly is astonishing to read such twaddle but it appears on here on a regular basis!
From the EU's point of view conformity is a must and to duplicitously argue that the EU has no opnion or input to National decisions defies the very purpose for which the EU was created.
It therefore follows that any 'referendum' on any issue that might result in the Citizens refusing to accept an EU proposition is anathema to Brussels: Referendum per se are distinctly not what Brussels wants to see in any member State - - far too many variables like Citizens discharging and expressing through the Ballot box their 'Democratic' Rights and Responsibilities contrary to the EU agenda/project!
I think you will find as you read more on here that many EUrosceptics and to be fair EUrophiles are also concerned with other issues, e.g. corruption, replication of tasks, the 2 EU centres etc.
Whilst, unsurprisingly the 'referendum' issue for the UK does tend to overwhelm things at times as this is a BBC Blog and reflects British concerns fairly accurately (though BBC is accused of being 'anti' and 'pro' in these Editorial articles by virtually all of us!).
Complain about this comment
robbyvdw
Re your #296 and my #285
You will forgive if I say that your objections to my views on points 1 to 3 do not 'strengthen your argument'. Anyway, we have covered that now.
Complete misunderstanding of my jibes (in #285) about a country's history concerning JorgeG1 at #250 (and in many of his contributions).
I was not referring to Germany at all: Not National Socialist, or WW2 era.
Sincere apologies if I inadvertently caused you any offence: Very pleased to acknowledge Germany has done more than any European nation (inc. G.B.) to come to terms with and make restitution for its unfortunate past.
My reference to "slaughtered innocent" was all about Spain, its brutal Civil War and the Falangist era.
In his contributions that are so critical of the UK and of British people in general JorgeG1 regularly very disparagingly refers to the History of G.B.'s 'imperial-colonial' era and its role in WW1 and WW2. He constantly belittles the British by asserting Britons only read tabloid newspapers and are obsessed with a period that ended some 50 to 70 years ago!
I and others resent this attitude that the multi-cultural modern UK Citizens only base views of Europe and the EU on whatever Britons were doing in the world a long time ago!
In my #285 I was giving him an example of how we can all look at our Nation's past with some concern and doubtless we all have things still to be resolved and Spain certainly has, but, I would never claim the influence of Franco was how Spaniards decide about the EU - - why does jorgeG1 always revert to that accusation with the UK's past?
Frankly, it is an appallingly invalid, illogical as well as plainly offensive perspective of 60,000,000 Britons in 2009.
Again, I assure you no intention to question Germany's laudable post-WW2 record.
Complain about this comment
It is amazing what we can read here, but the fact is that the influence of the member states in the EU is overwhelmingly obvious. And it of course disturbs the picture the sceptics are painting.
If treaty A needs a referendum and treaty B is an equivalent treaty, it also needs a referendum. The Lisbon treaty was not subject to a referendum, because the Danish government told everybody what it was that would lead to a referendum, and asked the treaty writers to take away every possible reason for a referendum. (B was not equivalent with A.)
Before we must read a lot of rubbish about the Danish public, I should perhaps remind everybody that the Danish government has lost a referendum twice. The entire LT procedure was of course a secret to neither sceptics nor the Danish population. (Tomorrow we can read, again, that the EU court can annul a referendum. It is also false.)
It has now been ratified and the revolution has failed to appear. People have moved to the next item on the agenda.
Complain about this comment
Of course the EU tries to influence decisions made on a national level, especially in regard to the Lisbon Treaty. I do not deny it.
Still, in this case I rather only talk about the referendum in Britain. As it is mostly discussed here, and frankly I do not think I could put forward any opinion based on facts about the French and Dutch referenda (though it does seem really dodgy to me).
Still, the decision is made by the UK government. The British people then have to vote for a partie that is not influenced by the EU, or at least claims not to be.
Again this issue is national, admittedly the EU is involved since it wants to keep Britain in the union, not least because of the contributions. Does not change the fact though that it is not the EU's decision or responsibility to give you a referendum.
Still, the only way to change the UK's policies is to vote for a partie that will allow a referendum on the EU, even if I am encouraging you to vote for UKIP with this statement (which I am really not, at least it is not my intention).
I agree with you on many things cool_brush_work. The EU is not as democratic as it should be. There is a lot of corruption and haggling about jobs. Second rate politicians are sent to the EU as a reward for having done what their partie wanted from them.
The 2 EU centres is a truly irksome business and I would like to instantly change that. Seriously who needs 2 centres...
But, to get to the point we are now. It took us decades of political discussion, haggling, power grabbing and the list goes on. Any institution that would replace the EU would face the exact same problems of national interests clashing.
So, yes I see where you are coming from and I agree with you. I just differ in my approach to the problem.
So what is my opinion...I think to get involved is much more important than to sulk somewhere in the corner and say "buhu the other kid cheated I do not want to play any more". It seems there is a lot of anger floating around in the UK use it dictate your government what you want it to do that is what it is there for in the first place.
Then when that mess is sorted out, and forgive me for saying that but it seems UK politics are really in a mess right now...others countries too, but since it is a UK blog I focus on the UK.
You will then be in a situation to say, ok the EU is not working for us we will leave. Still, to make any of this happen there must be the political will in the population and if they are in any way comparable to the population in my country....good luck with that.
But, if there is no one saying what they want there will not be any change. And all the ramblings on this blog, will be the impotent arguments of a few.
I am preaching I guess...sorry for that. I am just tired of people talking but nothing is happening. The EU will only change if someone kicks it in the behind, but to do that one would have to lift oneself from the comfortable (or not so comfortable chair, in my case) and do something about it, as kicking while sitting is quite awkward.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen
Re #303
Why wait until tomorrow!?
Although, as ever, you got the detail about the ECJ slightly off centre because that helps deliver the illusion of being well informed.
The European Court of Justice cannot annul a Referendum: The ECJ does have the authority and power if requested to do so, to consider whether a National Government piece of Legislation, following a Referendum result supporting withdrawal, to withdraw a Nation from the EU is legal under EU Law.
That is not to say (as I have explained ad infinitum on here) the ECJ would neccesarily reject Legislation for withdrawal.
All I have ever claimed is that the ECJ does have the 'competence' and the Judicial right to hear such a case and make such decisions.
I submit your Denmark is subject to that same ECJ authority as any other of the 27 member States.
Complain about this comment
#305
1) Denmark is not mine.
2) The example you mention has no relation to any Danish reality. Your notion of a withdrawal process is fantasy, and the ECJ has no competence in this case.
Complain about this comment
Mthiasen
Re #306
1) If you are a Dane then Denmark is certainly as much yours as any officials working out of Brussels.
2) The example I mention was not about any particular Nation, and it is not a fantasy just a possibility as even Lisbon's clauses recognise.
3) The ECJ does have that competence and all attempts to deny its powers are not so much fantasy as obdurate wishful thinking that the EU is a benign entity.
Complain about this comment
Re"The European Court of Justice cannot annul a Referendum: The ECJ does have the authority and power if requested to do so, to consider whether a National Government piece of Legislation, following a Referendum result supporting withdrawal, to withdraw a Nation from the EU is legal under EU Law."
LOL
"legal under EU law" you worded it marvelously abstract.
The fact is that there isn't any relevant EU law on this subject. So what would the ECJ look into? You are stating that the ECJ has the power to review national legislation in the light of inexistant EU law. What a joke!
To be complete in the redundancy, perhaps you should also mention that this question could be put before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to consider whether the national measure is compatible with the ECHR!
Anyways, nice to finally see your 'argument' on the ECJ, quite the joke!
Complain about this comment
" As a final thought a recent quote from the Chief Justice of the Californian Supreme Court: "the practice of referenda is making the whole State ungovernable". Does any one really think that observation only holds for California? "
You cite a senior judge making a comment about the political system, and your first impulse is to suppose this is worthy comment.
That is interesting. You see, I had thought that judges were paid to enforce the law, not play politics. I had supposed that a judge who decided to enter the political debate was guilty of not knowing his proper role in society.
It is not up to a judge to comment on what is "governable", and it is absolutely false to suggest that the situation in California is some kind of apocalypse.
What is happening is california? Well, the government no longer has the tax revenue to carry out its duties. It has been forced to scrap a whole load of government programs and jobs.
Is that a "disaster"? Maybe. Some would say it is. Indeed, if you are in a major political party and your whole existence is based upon taking the taxpayers money and gifting it to party members in return for their votes and the votes of their union members, then YES. It is indeed an absolute disaster for you that the government cannot afford to do more of the same. It is absolutely a disaster that the people have told you that you can no longer spend and spend and spend their money as you wish.
But what if you are someone who thinks government has become out of control? What if you are sick and tired of the war on drugs? What if you do not see the point in sending 19 year olds who smoke cannabis to jails which are overcrowded? What if you are someone who thinks the educational system has become a monster, massively overstaffed with overpaid idiots who sit around in committees and preen themselves with their own self importance while the children run riot in the hallways?
What if you think the economy of California has become degraded and harmed by too much government operating with too few controls?
Then, I suppose, you would be rejoicing at the government running out of money. You would see the "crisis of government" as exactly what the doctor ordered. You would rejoice at the prospect of changes in government practice.
You would see the coming changes in the drug war, the educational policy and so on as huge steps forward for your society. You would see these things as the direct result of direct democracy.
Look, there is no question that direct democracy is bad for members of political parties. It is bad for lazy teachers who cannot be sacked. It is bad for people who work for companies which receive government contracts instead of companies who compete in the marketplace. It is bad for the chiefs of police unions, and it is bad for the lawyers, too.
And because it is bad for the lawyers, it is clearly bad for the chief justice of the california court system. After all, he is simply the top lawyer in town.
No sector in californian society will be hit harder than the lawyers, due to the government running out of money.
Now you say this is a bad thing, because the media report it as a bad thing. But myself, I think the government running out of money in California can only be a good thing. Sure, it means the government will not be able to save the people from themselves any longer, or to such a large extent.
But they were failing in that task anyway, so who cares?
Complain about this comment
I refer to the despicable content of #9 on this topic.
An apology is still awaited 4 days later.
Complain about this comment
#300 - Freeborn-John
Surely you do not reject the perfectly logical argument that the decision as to whether or not to hold a referendum was a matter for the sovereign governments concerned. If you accept that, then clearly you have to blame Westminster, not Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Nimjanneb
Re #304
Unfortunately, as UKIP really does not have any logically coherent set of policies concerning the vast range of issues affecting the Governance of the UK there is no likelihood of it ever achieving the support it would need from enough 'anti' people such as myself.
One of the misconceptions among the 'pro-EU' on these Blogs is that Britons are obsessed by the EU when this is not the case: Whilst UK/England relations with Europe are of course an important factor in all Britons' (and all Europeans) lives it is not central to the 'political' views of the British Citizens.
Which again illustrates how confused and misreading of the UK/England - European Union debate many 'pro-EU', especially those not from the UK, are about the priorities of Britons. Contrary to popular assertion/theory most Britons most days give little or no thought to the EU and most certainly do not attribute their daily struggles to some overmighty conspiratorial union of nations on the Continent. Thus all the stuff and nonsense about the influence of tabloids and Britons living in the past is renedered even more absurd.
It is no accident that UK and especially England has issues with the EU. Equally, it is a travesty of the true situation to suppose the English believe everything will be rosey if England just upped and left the EU - - this is a politically and sociall sophisticated, multi-cultural nation accessing a worldwide cultural-heritage base as well as the natural tenets of its British Isles experience over many centuries. That some segments are indeed EUrophobic, Anglo-centrist, stuck-in-the-past is undoubtedly the case: That I could replace such observations of Britons/English with like-minded minorities in France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Greece etc. seems not to occur to many 'pro-EU'.
The most simple of observations will explain it: This is a BBC Blog accessed in the main by Britons - - guess what - - they are addressing the 'European Union' issue which this BBC Blog is about. It does not make all Britons myopic dullards that those of us who use these Blogs refer to the central themes to which the Articles pertain.
Complain about this comment
# 309 « democracythreat » (sic !!!)
Let me first congratulate you on the callsign/alias you have chosen for yourself. We might not agree on much else, but at least I appreciate the honesty demonstrated by your choice of name!
This is supposed to be a debate on the EU’s future, but since you bring up the subject of the US right, this is an excellent opportunity to illustrate where the EU shouldn’t be going!
As a result of various plebiscite-initiated measures the State of California is inexorably being driven towards default. This same plebiscite approach has created such majority-thresholds that it’s become impossible for politicians to approve measures to redress the situation. If this persists there can be only one outcome, the State of California will be paralysed and enter a period of anarchy. So the California electorate create a situation where they expect their politicians to square the circle, and then they have the nerve to blame those politicians for failing to achieve the impossible. Now of course it’s symptomatic of the decay of right wing US political thought that there are those who welcome the prospect of anarchy. Those of us whose inclinations are somewhat more democratic (note the small “d”) tend to take a rather dim view of that.
Of course you are right in one thing, these last few decades the performance of US government has been abysmal. That does not necessarily reflect on its political leaders, but very much on the actual policies as they affect everyday American life.
Where the American right fails miserably, to the point of betraying its country and electorate, is for failing to ask why… Why is US government policy among the worst performers of the entire Western world ? Why is it that when it comes to infant mortality, longevity, crime rates, incarceration rates, education, teen pregnancies, energy efficiency etc etc the US is systematically among the worst performers of all Western nations. Now even the much maligned European “socialist” economic policies have left the US behind in unemployment rates. How much more evidence do you need that the US right is morally, intellectually and even factually bankrupt??
But of course the above are numerical facts and reality. Recognizing those is tantamount to heresy and a capital offence in today’s GOP. Today’s GOP prides itself on its morality and its ideological purity. That’s the morality of making it illegal for husband and wife to kiss in public in some US states, but has no qualms frying an innocent on an electric chair. The morality that has no problem condoning racist abuse or even death threats against its democratically elected president, but has absolutely no qualms denying over 45 million of its compatriots medical care…
The US and GOP were great in the days pragmatism ruled their actions and policies. Now a recent CNN poll shows a majority of republicans actually prefer “ideological purity” over electing politicians that may compromise but might actually achive something!!
That is the cost of sidelining the Colin Powells in favour of the Sarah Palins & Rush Limbaughs!
The GOP used to be known for being slightly grey, but sure hands that could be trusted for responsible good and moderate government. What is the GOP today? It acts as if JM Keynes is some left wing extremist. When a Republican president (GW) faces the imminent collapse of the global financial system he can not rely on his own troops and needs support across the aisle to enact life-saving measures. Finally the icing of the cake is provided by Ron Paul who’s coming very close to destroying the political independence of the US Federal Reserve.
Any mainstream economist will tell you all of the above is a mixture of unadulterated madness and incompetence!
Meanwhile the GOP has found its new rallying cry, defeat Obama’s “socialist health care plans”, in light of excessive bureaucracy and cost! I understand the overhead cost of Medicare/Medicaid is a few %, whereas it is a few 10 %’s in private programs. To any one who has eyes to see the waste, bureaucracy and incompetence in US Health Care is in the private sector, not the government sector! Of course you may trust the GOP to look the other way and bark up the wrong tree!!
Today’s & yesterday’s IHT/NYT feature two interesting editorials that complement the above. Today Ross Douthat states in “They chose celebrity” that “the Republicans need people who prefer the responsibilities of leadership to the pleasures of fame”. Yesterday Tom Friedman in “Advice from Grandma” stated “… the standard answer is that we need better leaders. The real answer is that we need better citizens…” I’m sure both will be gratefull to you for taking their cue!
In conclusion all I can say is I feel deeply sorry for prominent Republican icons such as Lincoln & Eisenhower who have made major contributions to their nation and the cause of democracy worldwide. But no one has done more to tarnish their legacy than the present day GOP with its obsession with Palin and Limbaugh. Both the Taliban and Marx/Lenin might be inspired by the dogmatic and moralistic aversion of today’s GOP to reality . But surely the EU has nothing to learn from this insult to democracy !!
Complain about this comment
# 302 Cool Brush Work
I think our basic disagreement is in outlook. Yours appears to be to expect that any political structure can comply with your idea of perfection right from the word go. I'm afraid reality is that any political structure (whether on national level or EU) is a work in progress.
I don't think there's any EU-proponent who doesn't recognize the EU has its flaws. However what is frustrating in this debate is that when the EU tries to adress those perceived flaws (such as inefficiency of decision making or democratic content) as was the stated intention of the LT, then the opposition fights measures to improve efficiency and democracy precisely for those reasons, ie because they feel the EU is undemocratic and inefficient. Now how's that for a circular argument!!
As for the tabloids, while they may have disproportionate influence, nobody's arguing that they control the UK's entire public opinion. What gets up people's noses though is that they are not making a honest/positive contribution to the debate. Every one's entitled to their opinions, both pro & con. But for a press medium not to distinguish between fact and opinion, or to fail to report both the positive and the negative simply is not professional. As stated before that's the difference between journalism & propaganda...
PS: I'm sure you'll be pleased to know IHT/NYT in its editorial today endorsed both V Rompuy/Ashton as the right people for the jobs!! :-)
Complain about this comment
robbyvdw wrote:
"As a result of various plebiscite-initiated measures the State of California is inexorably being driven towards default. "
You blame the voter for the economic performance of the political class. That is curious way to judge matters.
Tell me, how would ever know, using your method of blame for performance, of the political class were at fault?
It seems to me that voters are responsible for setting the policy, and the politicians are responsible for spending the money. But since the money has been overspent and the policy not achieved, you blame the voter.
Again, I would ask you the simple question: How can we ever know if the political class is at fault, for overspending and making bad decisions?
If you tried to run a private business in this way, you would blame shareholders for the bad decisions of directors. If the shareholders elected directors to achieve outcomes A, B and C, and then those aims were not achieved and the directors wasted all the companies money, your solution would seem to be to blame the shareholders. It would be their policies, and not the execution of them, which would be at fault.
No director would ever be to blame for their decisions. As I said, a curious way to run a business. It seems a recipe for creating useless and reckless directors.
"This same plebiscite approach has created such majority-thresholds that it’s become impossible for politicians to approve measures to redress the situation."
Who are you to say what is politically possible? If the current collection of politicians wish to spend and spend while the electorate is telling them not to, why are you insistent that the politicians know best?
It is entirely possible that the politicians of the past could have spent less money, and made better judgements. But you claim that the predicament of Califormia is not the responsibility of the politicians. They made all the spending decisions, and yet you blame the voter for denying them more money when those spending decisions were proved wrong.
"If this persists there can be only one outcome, the State of California will be paralysed and enter a period of anarchy."
With respect, it will not. That is senseless fear mongering by the political class who want to frighten people away from holding them accountable.
The GOVERNMENT of california will be forced to reduce its footprint, and its spending. "California" will not be paralyzed. Indeed, there is a better than even chance that a lot of californians will be much better off without the government being able to interfere in their lives.
You presume government does good, and always does good. You presume that a state is defined by its government, and not by its people. You then call yourself a "democrat". That is a curious way to see the world.
"So the California electorate create a situation where they expect their politicians to square the circle, and then they have the nerve to blame those politicians for failing to achieve the impossible."
The "nerve"? The nerve to hold politicians accountable for balancing the budget?
Look, in any business the bottom line rules supreme, and government is no exception. Nobody ever held a gun to the politicians heads and said "YOU MUST SPEND XX DOLLARS ON THIS SCHEME." All anybody ever said was "YOU MUST TRY AND ACHIEVE THIS". How that was to be done, and how much money was spent in the process, was up to the politicians.
Of course they should be held accountable for their choices and how they spent the money. They were always at liberty to spend less, and to try and do more whilst spending less. It is called "working harder". When you suggest this policy to politicians and government employees, they squeal like pigs in the slaughter house. That doesn't mean it is the wrong policy. Working harder is a great policy in business.
"Now of course it’s symptomatic of the decay of right wing US political thought that there are those who welcome the prospect of anarchy. Those of us whose inclinations are somewhat more democratic (note the small “d”) tend to take a rather dim view of that."
You are a funny kind of "democrat". You blame the people for question politicians. You refuse to hold politicians accountable for their spending habits. You think the government knows best for the people, and that the pople ought not have to power to limit the economic damage done by politicians.
"Of course you are right in one thing, these last few decades the performance of US government has been abysmal. That does not necessarily reflect on its political leaders, but very much on the actual policies as they affect everyday American life."
Right, so you admit that government performance has been woeful.
Hold that thought, and walk with me a moment.
If performance has been woeful, what is the effect of not holding the performer accountable for the results? Can we expect better or worse performance? Can we expect things to improve if we do not hold the performer accountable for results?
This whole debate about the situation in California needs to be taken in view of the POSSIBILITY that the bahaviour of the political parties needs to change, and that voter enforced bankruptcy is the only way to stop politicians spending tax payers money in ways that is destroying the social fabric of the community.
The war on drugs (for example) has created vast numbers of jobs for people who work for the government, and who vote accordingly. It has caused untold damage to the private economy, and to the trust and goodwill that are fundamental to an open and honest society. Police have become the enemy of the people instead of their protectors. Crime has become an industry which makes hordes of lawyers rich, and owning prisons is now a legitimate way to increase wealth.
You argue for government, and against the voter. I feel you may wish to consider that position, because government run societies are not the reason America became the strongest and richest nation on earth. it was free and honest folks who built the USA's remarkable economy, NOT government employees and lawyers.
Complain about this comment
robbyvdw
Re #314
The difference in outlook is a bit more stark than you state.
We both agree the EU is a "work in progress": However, you think it is moving slowly towards a more democratic outcome to the good of the Citizens, whereas I, far from seeking perfection, see the EU creeping its way to outright domination to the detriment of the Citizens.
For instance, I cannot for the life me see where any aspect of the negotiations prior to and about the content of the Lisbon Treaty were even made accessible for public comment, yet alone actually constituted efforts at improving the 'Democratic' infrastructure of the EU? Did I miss the 27 Nation round of Public Consultations between the architects of Lisbon and the Citizens? Perhaps I was at the cinema those evenings!
I am unaware of EU Polls/Surveys that actually revealed 'why' the Dutch and French voted against the original 'consitution', so how did the EU form an opinion as to what should be dropped/retained? Questions were asked, but no one thought to 'not ask', but 'invite' Citizen contributions and therefore any 'answer' was always going to be within pre-framed constructs: Set the Question parameters! It is a very old public relations exercise that guarantees whoever is running the survey gets the sort of replies they always intended.
That in a nutshell is the EU problem with Referendum: If the question is a bald 'yes' or 'no' there is no way for the EUrocrat to bend its implication.
One assumes the EU naturally consulted the Governments of those 2 countries: However, as both had strongly urged a 'Yes' vote how could the EU ever think to rely on the ideas about the Citizens' opinions when the National representatives were so out of touch with their electorate?
Could it be no one in the EU or at National Government level really wanted to know after the 'constitution' 'No' what any future views of the Citizens were as they might not fit with the Constitution mark II, Lisbon!?
The EU employs Gallup to make all sorts of surveys and I have looked at those held post Dutch-French Referenda and the regular ones surveying how people feel toward the EU over various matters: Whilst these are interesting none actually asked for the Citizens' views of what should be in a Treaty after the 'constitution' was abandoned!
Seems about as 'circular' an argument as is possible: EU gets knocked back by public, EU sets-up another version, EU pays no attention to public opinion of new version, except to ensure no Referendum!
Could it be as we 'anti' have said all along there was only 1 possible result even if there had been Referenda, i.e. just as in Eire, the Citizens had 'Yes' as the only option no matter how long it took!?
As for the UK tabloids - - I'm sorry, but if you are seriously claiming that no part of the European press runs inaccurate, plain daft and exploitative stories about the EU - - I have to say the difference in our outlook is even more stark. Living outside G.B. as I do I regularly access Continental media and at times their stories match anything in the UK press!
If you care to look back at SuffolkBoy's comments at #269 and #277 you will see the European media was far from being universally impressed with the 2 latest EU appointees.
So it was in the UK with some stating they were typical EU 'consensus' appointments, others that the whole thing was a stitch-up either to the good or bad of the UK/EU depending on the 'political editorship' stance of each newspaper.
Complain about this comment
244. Iantownhill
[To DistantTraveller] "...OK. But now you're shifting your position. You're admitting that it was a UK decision whether or not to hold a referendum. This is something you can discuss with your labour candidate when he/she comes to ask for your vote next year..."
This is something I'll ask of any Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative canvasser that comes a calling.
What odds that the response will be 'but the Lisbon Treaty wasn't the Constitution'?
- Of course not, it didn't contain so much as a word of it, arf, arf.
Complain about this comment
303. Mathiasen
"...It has now been ratified and the revolution has failed to appear..."
Politicians can get away with duping the public provided this doesn't result in a revolution.
This seems reasonable.
Complain about this comment
Beautifully written, Mr Hewitt, from start to finish. Excellent title.
Complain about this comment
#317 rg
"What odds that the response will be 'but the Lisbon Treaty wasn't the Constitution'?
- Of course not, it didn't contain so much as a word of it, arf, arf."
Yes, that's exactly what they do say! They must think we were born yesterday!
It may be too late to do anything about it right now, but Brown's duplicity will not be forgotten.
Complain about this comment
#318 rg
you say "Politicians can get away with duping the public provided this doesn't result in a revolution."
Thankfully, we don't do 'revolutions' in this country. That isn't the British way. However, New Labour and Gordon Brown will hopefully get their comeuppance at the next General Election.
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller wrote:
#318 rg
"you say "Politicians can get away with duping the public provided this doesn't result in a revolution."
Thankfully, we don't do 'revolutions' in this country. That isn't the British way. "
No. I believe the British way is to hang on in quiet desperation, is it not?
Cue Threnodio gnashing his teeth at me and claiming not to be a royalist sycophant and patriot at heart.
Look, threnodio, I am not going to take you seriously until you can admit that having a head of state appointed by bloodline is moderately out of date and at least faintly ridiculous.
If we cannot accept that premis together, comrade, I just do not accept that you are revolutionary material.
Complain about this comment
The Power of the European Union should be enough to empower politicians who represent it - the EU would really be weak if it needed Obama-style personalities to mean anything on the world stage. And Hu Jintao is neither overly charismatic nor elected in any open way - and this does not stop him from meeting world leaders and influencing world affairs.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS