Ashton gives diplomatic answers
Catherine Ashton is little known in the UK but, if she ever doubted it before, she must have realised today she is now an international figure. For her three-hour questioning in the European Parliament there was a packed debating chamber with banks of cameras.
As Europe's new "foreign minister" the big question that hung over her appointment was her inexperience in foreign affairs. It was clear today she had spent the past five weeks preparing for this hearing.
The most hostile questions came from members of the UK Independence Party and the Conservatives. Lord Dartmouth attacked her for supporting the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). "On the most important foreign affairs and security issues since the second world war," he said, "your judgement has been shown to be demonstrably wrong".
Catherine Ashton was unapologetic. "I am not ashamed of what I am, and who I have been." A Conservative MEP, Charles Tannock, asked her if she was still in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament. "I have not been in CND for 27 years," she said. "The situation then is not relevant now."
She was asked whether the war in Iraq was justified. She chose not to answer directly. She said she had been part of a government that had backed the invasion, but she said we are now where we are.
Many of the questions were about the structures of the EU, whether the parliament would get to question any special representatives or ambassadors. The MEPs wanted to ensure they would have scrutiny over the budget for the EU's soon-to-be-created diplomatic service.
There were questions about Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Cuba, Kosovo, the United States etc. She was confident, but sometimes bland and general. It frustrated some MEPs, who demanded to know what her vision was. Afterwards the Greens said "her hearing revealed no sense of vision". But others who had been critical before praised her performance.
Afterwards I asked her which leaders would be called at a moment of international crisis. "I suspect," she said, "in an international crisis a number of phone calls will be made. One of them will be to me."
Soon she will make her first major trip to Washington. Others will follow to the Middle East, Beijing and Moscow. By April she will have to have drawn up plans for a diplomatic service. The hurdle remains a high one, however. Will she and her diplomats really give Europe a bigger voice on the world stage? Or will powers like Britain, Germany and France be reluctant to see their own influence wane?
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
By the way what is the EU's policy regarding misogynistic bigotry or is that just to be pursued by Gordon Brown and his selective policies for certain sections of the UK?
Complain about this comment
"..One of them will be to me.." (i.e. phone calls in time of international crisis)!
Has the Baroness any concept of what is actually going to happen in such a moment? Presidents and Premiers will call each other.
The 1st or 2nd Secretary of Foreign/State departments will put a call through to Brussels from all the main players: It will be a short call, informing the 'lady' of the situation, thanking her for her concern and expressing bounteous goodwill toward her 'Office'.
In the meantime, the international event will be unfolding with those of importance making policy-choices7decisions and one of them will agree to keep the EU 'in-the-loop' by forwarding copies of certain parts of what has been agreed.
Baroness Ashton will make media statements on the gravity of whatever crisis it is and then go back to her Office to await the next crisis.
'Lame duck'? No!
Deader than any duck since Caesar failed to beware the Ides of March! Oh yes!
Complain about this comment
The diplomatic corps has great potential. There are already "EU Missions". It will be very interesting to see how this Englishwoman will shape this service. I wish her well.
Complain about this comment
This is an article in the NYT by Paul Krugman about the US learning from Europe. (MAII - take a look)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?em
Complain about this comment
This gormless person may 'represent' the European Union, but she doesn't represent me.
She - or any other High-Poo-Bah-Representative – will never represent me unless I have been given the opportunity to elect him/her to office.
Luckily, however, her position is irrelevant. (Seriously, can you imagine at a time of world crisis President Obama or Premier Putin picking up the 'hotline' and actually asking to speak to Baroness Ashton? (Or to Rumpey?).
Furthermore, in EU ranking it comes way behind the 'important' posts of 'President of the Council of Minister', "President of the EU (Council)' and "President of the EU Commission'.
Gosh, there will be confusion - and possibly fisticuffs - when they all line up and hustle and bustle to be the first one to shake Obama's hand....
Complain about this comment
Well CA does represent us all in Europe!
When CA eventually meets the Russians perhaps having been a memeber of CND 27 years ago will be an advantage when the time comes for the EU to discuss security and nuclear disarmament.
Perhaps the Russians can learn something from CA (if they 'drop the bogrotry')?
Complain about this comment
"This gormless person may 'represent' the European Union, but she doesn't represent me."
...sigh..
Complain about this comment
6. At 9:11pm on 11 Jan 2010, you wrote:
Should have read 'drop the bigrotry'
But I'll say it again anyway
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re "Has the Baroness any concept of what is actually going to happen in such a moment? Presidents and Premiers will call each other.
The 1st or 2nd Secretary of Foreign/State departments will put a call through to Brussels from all the main players: It will be a short call, informing the 'lady' of the situation, thanking her for her concern and expressing bounteous goodwill toward her 'Office'."
No need to elect someone that unimportant than is there?
Complain about this comment
nautonier, we don't have any bigotry :o) Premier Putin loves to charm ladies his second speciality, remember our good relations with Timoshenko (unless they wear brooches like Madeleine Albright). Only a brooch will put him on guard.
But overall I am at a loss what can we possibly disccuss with the EU apart from pressing-calling supplies when they get in aaah condition.
Can anyone remind me of a single EU-Russia deal signed please.
I know of only two - and both from aaah categories - EU monitors in Georgia and that we signal the EU when the transit countries start looking odd, in adavance, and not when we have quarreled to pieces already.
Otherwise we have deals with individual countries within the EU.
The umbrella agreement with the EU as a whole is un-signable by definition, as one EU country is enough (or was enouugh, until Lisbon, as minimum) to blw the deal up. Which was constantly the case, we can always count on the Baltics or Polish in-put :o))))))
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (10):
There are actually many things that EU and Russia will be going over. For example:
..the question of Ukraine. Kremlin would want to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence, or at least as an buffer state, what it really doesn't want to see is that Ukraine gets accepted to NATO and accession to the EU that is an economic superpower and adding military security functions to it in the near future doesn't probably sound not much better than the NATO.
..the question of Belarus and other former ex-Soviet republics. Some of them have their task on joining the EU, some on using the EU to balance Russian influence.
..the question of brake-away regions in not only in Georgia, but also in Moldova.
..the question of the new organization over the security in Europe, the Kremlin initiative. The US will just disregard it, but so will the EU.
..the question of co-operation between the two. In matter of economy and trade, EU isn't the most easiest partner to negotiate. And remember that while Kremlin can make individual projects with EU member states, it is the EU that dictates the common policy including trade treaties and also VISA agreements.
There are tons of different things were the EU and Russia will have to negotiate, and there are many subjects that have the potential to turn into a minor diplomatic conflict between the two.
Complain about this comment
Might I suggest that on her first trip to Washington she starts by asking the Americans if every life is valuable and of equal value? She might then ask if every Israeli life is as valuable as every Palestinian? And then move on to every Afghan life?
The discomfiture of the warmongers is important! It is always necessary to highlight the difference between their beliefs and their actions! The USA is very able to deny to other that which it declares a self evident right to its own. This hypocrisy and logical dichotomy is at the heart of their failure to achieve almost anything with their foreign policy. This is the root of their political and military failure. (It is also quite typical of religiously inspired regimes!)
Complain about this comment
The first time Europe challenges Russia with a military ultimatum, I bet the US will immediately rethink its security ties..
asking for more money from Europe or disengaging--why do we, the USA want carry the EU on our back when it can't back it's demands with it's own muscle--when it has its own money??
Maybe, the USA doesn't want Russia as an enemy..when it may have its own hands full elsewhere..Afghanistan???
No offense to Web Alice.
Complain about this comment
" ...The most hostile questions came from members of the UK Independence Party and the Conservatives ..."
EUpris: What about the BNP? I can not believe that they did not put some awkward questions to her. They despise the "EU" just as much as I do. You hardly mention them. Is here we a BBC plot not to mention the BNP just as, I believe, there used to be a BBC plot not to mention UKIP?
Complain about this comment
"Might I suggest that on her first trip to Washington she starts by asking the Americans if every life is valuable and of equal value? She might then ask if every Israeli life is as valuable as every Palestinian? And then move on to every Afghan life?"
Kumbayah, my Lord, Kumbayah...
Complain about this comment
The "EU" can never be legitimate because we were denied a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Even if the voting mechanism for the "EU"-parliament is "democratic", it will not make this whole crock of nasty democratic.
Complain about this comment
so much blablabla on this blog.
same old arguments. If you're really that pissed off about the EU, go to Westminster and protest outside like the guy who's been there for years now protesting against the Iraq war. Join the debate with intelligent, significant and constructive arguments that do justice to an adult. I you keep crying like a unhappy spoilt kid you will only be ignored further.
Either take it or deal with it.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, I don't think we will even "discuss" with the EU "the questions"
of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and what else have you mentioned?
Russian position is there are no "questions". They are their own countries and the times of Yalta Europe-split on a scrap of paper in pencil are over. (we got those scraps. as a memory. charming.)
However. The EU is free to charm them as the EU wishes.
Russia is free to charm them as Russia wishes.
We are a sovereign state as well, may I remind you.
Right, our charming potential is reduced :o) but so what. In war and in love there are no rules :o)
We'll use the few charming possibilities we've still got.
Gods in the Olympic mountain will announce the winner, in case by case, eventually, and what Gods on Olympys want , how to say, hat off, not for ordinary humans like Russians are to complain ab the verdict.
Complain about this comment
The other thing you've listed, the military pact, is discussable, but too early "to discuss", and may be there will never be any thing, "to discuss".
We rolled a ball and wait for the reaction.
How to say, "we've got the goods, you've got the merchant" :o) means, we have something to sell, you have people who can buy, but further on - all are free to make their mind. If yes - we will think what's next, if no - we will acccept gracefully, rest assured. No problems to be "discussed" will arise out of the EU countries "no".
Complain about this comment
I don't know at all why we offered :o))))
Nobody here does. :o))))
Kremlin's madness :o))))
Complain about this comment
I think I hope if Baroness Ashton ever says to either of the three - Medvedev-Putin-Lavrov "and now let's discuss Belarus/Ukraine etc." any one of the three will say "now hold on, stop where we are, I suggest we continue the talk after Mr Mrs Ms whoever Belorussia/Ukraine etc. is in the meeting room, and continue in the 3 sides' format."
I also hope Baroness Ashton has enough advisers around to forecast such a turn and will not do this, in the first place.
Complain about this comment
"Ashton gives diplomatic answers"
Yes, diplomatic is a code word for meaningless evasive doubletalk that says nothing. The audience for it is free to interpret the words to have any meaning they like.
"For her three-hour questioning in the European Parliament there was a packed debating chamber"
There was never a debate held in that chamber. In a debate the outcome isn't known beforehand.
"As Europe's new "foreign minister" the big question that hung over her appointment was her inexperience in foreign affairs. It was clear today she had spent the past five weeks preparing for this hearing."
Five weeks to learn what career diplomats learn over a lifetime. She's a poster child for the awarding of positions of responsibility based on politics over merit. Once in office her subordinates will be expected to carry her. If they succeed she'll take the credit, if they fail they'll take the blame. Perfect Eurocracy.
"Catherine Ashton was unapologetic. "I am not ashamed of what I am, and who I have been.""
Shameless...and not the least surprising.
"Soon she will make her first major trip to Washington."
She might just as well get on the tour bus with all the other tourists and spend her time gawking at the monuments and visiting the museums for all the good it will do. No knowledge of foreign affairs, no power, not really representing anyone or anything, no formulated policies. What will she discuss that would be worth the time of anyone higher than some low level flunkie in the State Department? On the bright side I'm told there are some fairly good restaurants in DC. Not as good as Brussels best offerings but then when one is on the road, one must make do with prevailing local conditions. There will be time enough when she gets back to Brussels to savor the best cuisine and wines at the public's excpense when the going gets too rough to endure in the colonies.
WA;
"Premier Putin loves to charm ladies his second speciality, remember our good relations with Timoshenko (unless they wear brooches like Madeleine Albright). Only a brooch will put him on guard."
I'm not surprised and I don't blame him. You can never feel at ease when something as sharp as a brooch pin that can puncture your skin might be laced with a poison...like ricin.
John from Helldom;
"[USA]failure to achieve almost anything with their foreign policy."
Yes, for over 40 years the US tried desperately to save Western Europe from succumbing to Communist tyranny only to wind up in abject failure after having defeated the USSR by bankrupting it, the Western Europeans themselves devised an end run around that loss and created the E-Who as an equally effective substitute.
Complain about this comment
A joke...sorry...
knock,knock
who's there?
your butt
my butt who?
your butt keeps calling my number, please put your cell phone on lock:)
Complain about this comment
Sorry, not trying to stop discussion of the EU subject. WA likes to tell jokes and this was just one I heard here.
Please, continue the interesting discussion about the EU. Its so well written and well discussed.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic wrote:
"This gormless person may 'represent' the European Union, but she doesn't represent me.
She - or any other High-Poo-Bah-Representative – will never represent me unless I have been given the opportunity to elect him/her to office."
Uhuh. So why tell us? Why not wait for representative to tell us what you think?
You see max, my own position is that nobody will ever represent me. I don't need representation, and I don't want it.
I am literate, and I want to vote on laws that affect me.
I fail to understand any literate adult who does not want to vote on laws which affect them. Worse, I just can't fathom how people can watch politicians behave and then tolerate these sorts of people as representatives.
Why do people accept having liars and cheats as their representatives? It beats me, it really does.
Complain about this comment
Hey George, there's this old English duck from the EU at the airport headed this way. I sent a few limos and a couple of assistant undersecretaries to meet her. I know you've only been with us for a few months but could you do me a favor and clear your calendar for the rest of the day? I've booked Conference Room 7 and have a lot of suits lined up for it. Conduct the meetings. Talk about whatever she wants to talk about only don't say anything, don't commit to anything, just keep nodding your head and tell here we'll take it under advisement. Sorry to stick you with this on such short notice but everybody is busy on projects. No she has no power, she represents nobody, just the EU Council. Oh, and I've booked out Marcel's. Whatever she wants, put out the feed bag for her. No the Presdident is out of town today, last minute emergency ribbon cutting for some new high school in Chicago, he had to go. We'll have to set up a drill for this so we'll have the playbook down whenever she comes back, this time just wing it.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #9
Always leaping in and forgetting to actually read the content, aren't you!?
Show me any Comment where I've called for Baroness Ashton to be elected?
No, I've always accepted that Individuals and Political Parties stand for Election before the Citizen Electorate, and the Majority of like-minded elected Representatives usually form the Government; the leader of that Majority usually heads up the Government and chooses their 'team'/'cabinet'/'commission' from among those others who are elected.
Baroness Ashton is NOT from any selection process stemming from any sort of election that provided any sort of Mandate from Citizens that I have heard about which in any way conforms to 'democratic' methods.
The EU Parliament does NOT have a Majority party/group/faction that Citizens have voted for - - it has loose alliances that choose to lump themselves together in order to qualify for vast sums of Citizens' Tax Payer money - - this EU Parliament then has the temerity to claim it may choose who will represent those Citizens in everything from Transport to Foreign Affairs when all they really want is their fingers and snouts in the EU Financial trough.
In that sense the 'lady' is absolutely typical of the EU: A nobody from nowhere representing an institution that for the last 3 Elections has failed to attain any Mandate from the Citizens it claims to represent.
You can twist and turn all you want but the the fact is the EU is undemocratic, unrepresentative and therefore a corrupt institution. The 'lady' is as venal and unaccountable as all the rest and deserves the ignominy that is headed her way at international level.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"The most hostile questions came from members of the UK Independence Party and the Conservatives. Lord Dartmouth attacked her for supporting the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). "On the most important foreign affairs and security issues since the second world war," he said, "your judgement has been shown to be demonstrably wrong"."
Nice to see UKIP trying to make this a challenge for her. Disturbing that she thinks she was right to try and get the west to surrender to the USSR. It does not bode well for any future conflict involving the EU.
Complain about this comment
17. At 11:27pm on 11 Jan 2010, Gheryando wrote:
"so much blablabla on this blog.
same old arguments. If you're really that pissed off about the EU, go to Westminster and protest outside ..."
EUpris: There is no point in protesting outside the House of Commons. They ignore the electorate and they ignore their promises. I can protest wherever and whenever I like. I don't have to do what suits anti-democratic "EU"-lovers like you. I want to communicate with others throughout the world who might be open to what I have to offer.
Which reminds me about the Italian food thingy. You said that I was delusionary. One of the points I had made was that I had had better Italian food in the UK than in Italy. Yesterday I met a lady who has been to many places in Italy and she said she had had the same experience. I am not stating that it was made by Brits. Most of the excellent Italian influenced food in British supermarkets comes from Italy. Many of the chefs may be Italian. Italian food in the UK is treated with a religious respect.
Complain about this comment
27. At 09:05am on 12 Jan 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
" ...
In that sense the 'lady' is absolutely typical of the EU: A nobody from nowhere representing an institution that for the last 3 Elections has failed to attain any Mandate from the Citizens it claims to represent. ..."
EUpris: And of course there is the referendum we "didn't have" but were promised and which we wanted and which I demand. As I se it, we did have it. They knew that about 70% wanted to vote "NO" so we didn't get it and the result was NO and the Lisbon Treaty is waste paper and the "EU" is a dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando
Re #17
Why should those who are 'anti-EU' stop writing down their EU protests?
Why should we leave this Blog free for the 'pro-EU' to write their EU support?
It is just as easy for one of us to suggest, "..so much blablabla on this blog...same old arguments. If you are really that easily pleased by the EU go to Brussels and parade your support..".
I believe for so long as there is still a semblance of 'democracy' around we will reserve our right and responsibility to make our views known. There is no need for us to give-in and accede to your viewpoint simply because it is irritatingly unchanging in its opposition to the EU.
Afterall, we all know if we did stop the 'pro-EU' would promptly announce it as clear evidence of the arguments won and Citizens support for the EU!
Sort of Msr Barroso style 'democracy voice', when he proclaimed afer the 2009 MEP Elections with 44.6% Voter Turnout, "...the peoples of Europe have made their views known..."
Yeah, right!
Complain about this comment
CBW
You're one of the few who actually offer "real" arguments one can argue with as well as an openness to other's opinion.
Certain people on this blog have nothing better to do though than to waste my time while I try to engage in a proper debate.
I'm getting bored.
Regarding the food - just shows how delusional EP is. Comparing UK's (non-) cuisine to Italy's. I'm falling off my chair.
Talk whenever.
Complain about this comment
The European Parliament has been given increased powers for 30 years, during which time the impression has steadily grown throughout Europe that the EU is undemocratic. When an institution like the EU Parliament fails to confer legitimacy for 30 years you can be sure it is not down to particular individuals or decision-making rules, but is a systemic failure which will not be corrected. The EU Parliament persistently failed to legitimise Brussels decision-making for numerous reasons, including:
(i) that the voters who elect it are not a united 'demos' that would agree to live under its majority,
(ii) that elections to the EU Parliament are second-order affairs in which votes are cast mainly based on views of national governments and
(iii) that in most countries MEPs are not elected but rather selected from party lists such that when one resigns there is no new election but the next one down the party list is used as a substitute.
National governments are the actors with the second highest claim to democratic legitimacy (after national parliaments) among all political institutions in Europe, and have a greater democratic legitimacy than any others involved at EU decision-level. The EU Parliament not only has weak democratic legitimacy, but has also shown itself chronically incapable of responsible use of its powers, always being tempted to use current powers in its never-ending campaign to increase its power, budget and perks yet further. The questions asked of Baroness Ashton yesterday confirm that this was very much uppermost in the minds of the MEPs who questioned her yesterday.
It is not appropriate that the EU Parliament should be able to reject the EU Commission appointments made by national governments, nor to use this threat to extract concessions in other areas. Indeed since the EU Parliament has proved incapable, over 30 years, of conferring democratic legitimacy on Brussels decisions, and since it exists for no other reason than that, the continued existence of this expensive and power-hungry alien transplant into our body politic must be called into question.
Complain about this comment
I wondered what you said to be consigned to the naughty step there Ghery. Thank you for that attempt to shut out dissenting voices. Fortunately I am used to it.
"Regarding the food - just shows how delusional EP is. Comparing UK's (non-) cuisine to Italy's. I'm falling off my chair."
Surely that would be entirely relative to the person? You prefer Italian cuisine to British. Your choice. I like both but if I was pushed to pick one I would go with the British. My choice.
Choice...good word.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon wrote: "Might I suggest that on her first trip to Washington she starts by asking the Americans if every life is valuable and of equal value? She might then ask if every Israeli life is as valuable as every Palestinian? And then move on to every Afghan life?"
Were the lives of Nazis conquering most of Europe during WWII valuable?
"The discomfiture of the warmongers is important! It is always necessary to highlight the difference between their beliefs and their actions! The USA is very able to deny to other that which it declares a self evident right to its own. This hypocrisy and logical dichotomy is at the heart of their failure to achieve almost anything with their foreign policy. This is the root of their political and military failure. (It is also quite typical of religiously inspired regimes!)"
Contrary to what you obviously think there is such a thing as good and evil in this world. The Nazis were evil, the Soviets were evil, the Taliban are evil, etc, etc, etc.
Innocent people will also die in wars and there is nothing that you can do about that. You are free today because much braver Western leaders, governments and citizens of the past accepted that truth. Your kind of thinking would have all of Europe under Nazi rule today.
You could also never have any kind of military success with that kind of thinking. You want limitations on military actions and then you expect success? That's supposed to be "logical?" Is that some kind of bizarre joke?
Complain about this comment
Gheryando wrote:
"This is an article in the NYT by Paul Krugman about the US learning from Europe. (MAII - take a look)"
Maybe he should move to a European country that suits him better than America. America doesn't need his kind.
American innovation and success has nothing to do with the way things are done in European countries. Hopefully that will never change.
By the way, there is no such thing as a country called Europe and there is no such thing as a European culture.
Complain about this comment
@32
CBW how did you arrive to the following?
"undemocratic + unrepresentative = corrupt institution" very large leap :) I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
Lets wait and see what she can do first before we shoot down in flames her abilities. By they way she doesn't need to be elected, no one elects directly their ministers, the parliament selects them.
Even in DT perfect (but not existent world) he doesn't elect directly his FM, the Swiss paties elect her.
Over the last few days with the crisis in Greece I've been checking some Greek newspapers for information. It looks as if the Communist Party in Greece makes the exact same arguments as most Europhobes make in this blog, don't tell me you are all communists at heart that you try to express your feelings through nationalism :))
Complain about this comment
"Maybe he should move to a European country that suits him better than America. America doesn't need his kind.
American innovation and success has nothing to do with the way things are done in European countries. Hopefully that will never change."
I thought the USA was built on potentially 'unacceptable' ideas? Ideas which could find no root in Old Europe and had to flee westwards to grow.
Complain about this comment
@36 AllenT2
There is no "good" and "evil" those are just words to hype up people!
In the Palestian - Israel conflict, if you mean Israel are the Nazi then I'd be careful calling them that. They are not that bad, although lots of their policy is right down racist they are not Nazi. As for the Palestinians, they are screwed by both their leaders and the Israeli.
Regarding European culture wrong again, there is one and it is centuries old. Even older than the cow-boy culture, which is not really a culture more made up stuff just to make movies, cowboy culture is similar to Bolywood culture.
regarding the news article was it a shock to you, to find out you are not the best? Welcome to the real world, stop watch fox news, that way you may enhance your chances to come across some real news.
Complain about this comment
@27 & 32 cool brush
"In that sense the 'lady' is absolutely typical of the EU: A nobody from nowhere representing an institution that for the last 3 Elections has failed to attain any Mandate from the Citizens it claims to represent."
"Sort of Msr Barroso style 'democracy voice', when he proclaimed afer the 2009 MEP Elections with 44.6% Voter Turnout, "...the peoples of Europe have made their views known..."
Yeah, right!"
I take it your consistent in this then and that the MPs representing Staffordshire, Central Manchester, Glasgow, Central Barnsley, Tottenham, Brightside, Birkenhead, Middlesborough, Sunderland South, Nottingham and many many others who had less than 50% turnout have no mandate and are illegitimate? What about the US Senate that has even worse turnout than the EP (about 30%)?
The turnout has no bearing on how democratically a Government functions. Low turnout isn't a good thing, but if people have no opinion and don't care I'd rather they didn't vote.
Complain about this comment
T for 2
"American innovation and success has nothing to do with the way things are done in European countries. Hopefully that will never change."
That is correct. Many of the best innovative ideas Europeans ever had could not come to fruition until those people came to America, worked in America, took advantage of the opportunities and rewards America uniquely offers to innovators.
Americans were able to "give" Europeans the physical trappings of modern society which was invented in the USA. This includes technology, management skills, manufacturing techniques such as mass production and quality control all invented in America but it could not give Europe the mindset that created them any more than it could give it to China.
You can take the European out of the Neanderthal but you can't take the Neanderthal out of the European. With absolute monarchies gone, Soviet, Fascist, and Nazi tyrannies gone, the Europeans have filled the void with the E-Who? It's the way they see the world and life.
Complain about this comment
"This includes technology, management skills, manufacturing techniques such as mass production and quality control all invented in America"
Marcus the Eternally Wrong strikes again.
Although the USA and those who chose to go there have created some brilliant ideas/items for the world, so have the Europeans.
Mass Production and Quality Control....I can think of at least one example from over 2000 years ago. Long before the USA was just a passing thought from one of those Europeans you despise.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta
re your #38 and my #32
You are correct: A slight, but not regretted, overflow of the verbiage by me!
My usual mantra is the EU 'is undemocratic, unaccountable, venal and corrupt'.
In that sense I got my shorthand-jargon for my views out of sync!
In all truth, I regard most EU apparatchiks as being in 1 of 3 camps: The time-serving cipher-jobsworth, the sadly delusional-believer in European Union, and the utterly venal-on-the-make rascal.
I believe the 3 main types of EU employee whether a Commissioner, MEP or EUrocrat can be approximately divided 50% - 30% - 20% along the lines of the 3 miscreant groupings of apparatchiks I have proposed.
It is a view that roughly coincides with my long-held, jaundiced observations of the UK 'body-politic' (and judging from the recent Expenses debacle I may have got the UK 'venal %' too low; much like the failed EU Budgetary systems!).
The Baroness appears to be a cipher-jobsworth, but there is a possibility after her laughable 'grilling' by MEPs she is a believer in 'union', and regrettably, whenever anyone steps into such a role for which they clearly have absolutely no credentials whatsoever, the Lady could be in it for power and money.
Time will tell: Only one thing IMO is certain, she'll be as useless to the international interests of the UK/England and the EU as all the rest of the disreputable undemocratic, unmandated shower in Brussels.
Complain about this comment
I'm really not sure if Ashton and the EU crew are wore and more corrupt than any other group of party members in Europe. After all, the scandals in the british house recently have established that thieves and cheats are representatives of the british people. I will not dwell on that delicious irony, except to note the fundamental nature of party politics and the ordinary day to day life of a career politician.
what do we expect from the EU crew? what do you want from a pig except a grunt?
I think the only reason we witness dissent against it it is because too many literate and hardworking people have too much access to their representatives, and folks are finally starting to work out that representation is orchestrated theft.
Yes, representation has its benefits. When compared to theocratic monarchy or military junta, it looks great.
But when compared to direct democracy, it is a festering wound.
I think politicians have always been party members, by and large, and so they have always been low grade characters with poor work ethics and dubious morals. The only thing new about the EU is that everyone can see it. It is a system of representation brought up in the digital age.
One hopes it will be one of the last of its kind, and that sooner rather than later the people of europe will embrace the technology that allows direct democracy to be a reality in their lives.
Complain about this comment
"I think politicians have always been party members, by and large, and so they have always been low grade characters with poor work ethics and dubious morals."
How true.
"The only thing new about the EU is that everyone can see it. It is a system of representation brought up in the digital age."
I would disagree a little here. The EU is a system of representation designed by the elite to try avoid what currently holds them to account...the people. It is an exercise in trying to grab as much power with as little accountability as they think they can get away with. The digital age shines a light on the flaws in all governments...it is just the EU has more than some.
When it is a government by the people, of the people and for the people the digital age will be to the advantage of the EU.
Complain about this comment
10. At 10:00pm on 11 Jan 2010, WebAliceinwonderland wrote:
nautonier, we don't have any bigotry :o) Premier Putin loves to charm ladies his second speciality, remember our good relations with Timoshenko (unless they wear brooches like Madeleine Albright). Only a brooch will put him on guard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sounds like it doesn't take much to put him 'on guard'?
Complain about this comment
29. At 09:47am on 12 Jan 2010, Freeman wrote:
"The most hostile questions came from members of the UK Independence Party and the Conservatives. Lord Dartmouth attacked her for supporting the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). "On the most important foreign affairs and security issues since the second world war," he said, "your judgement has been shown to be demonstrably wrong"."
Nice to see UKIP trying to make this a challenge for her. Disturbing that she thinks she was right to try and get the west to surrender to the USSR. It does not bode well for any future conflict involving the EU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CA understands that the EU cannot afford any future conflicts - increasingly we are going to need Russia as an ally as the 'balance of power' shifts from east to west. Better still we need the Russians and other Eastern europeans to participate and benefit more from the EU.
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re "The EU Parliament does NOT have a Majority party/group/faction that Citizens have voted for"
Neither do the vast majority of national continental European Parliaments. Do you dismiss them as undemocratic as well?
Re " - - it has loose alliances that choose to lump themselves together in order to qualify for vast sums of Citizens' Tax Payer money - - this EU Parliament then has the temerity to claim it may choose who will represent those Citizens in everything from Transport to Foreign Affairs when all they really want is their fingers and snouts in the EU Financial trough."
The MEP's already have that Tax payer's money. They don't need to lump themselves together for it.
Pity it's the only thing you got: "they are in it for the money!" When the entire EU budget is just 1% of GDP (let alone the EP's budget, let alone the part of the EP's budget that is actually avaible to MEP's)
Re "In that sense the 'lady' is absolutely typical of the EU: A nobody from nowhere representing an institution that for the last 3 Elections has failed to attain any Mandate from the Citizens it claims to represent."
The lady doesn not represent the European Parliament. Can't even get the simplest of facts straight.
R "I believe the 3 main types of EU employee whether a Commissioner, MEP or EUrocrat can be approximately divided 50% - 30% - 20% along the lines of the 3 miscreant groupings of apparatchiks I have proposed."
How very interesting. So how did you come by your typology and the percentages? Intensive study of the working of the European Commission or plain populist UKIP propaganda?
Complain about this comment
48. At 2:39pm on 12 Jan 2010, you wrote:
29. At 09:47am on 12 Jan 2010, Freeman wrote:
"The most hostile questions came from members of the UK Independence Party and the Conservatives. Lord Dartmouth attacked her for supporting the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). "On the most important foreign affairs and security issues since the second world war," he said, "your judgement has been shown to be demonstrably wrong"."
Nice to see UKIP trying to make this a challenge for her. Disturbing that she thinks she was right to try and get the west to surrender to the USSR. It does not bode well for any future conflict involving the EU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CA understands that the EU cannot afford any future conflicts - increasingly we are going to need Russia as an ally as the 'balance of power' shifts from east to west. Better still we need the Russians and other Eastern europeans to participate and benefit more from the EU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry try west to east... China, India etc
Complain about this comment
# 27, It's funny that you - and many others - keep harping on about the supposed lack of democratic mandate for the EU, while apparently ... the US midterm elections haven't had a 'popular mandate' (over 50% turn out in ages). Actually, the data from 2006 to 1962 consistently has a lower turn out, hoovering, usually, between 40 and 30%. They only get to the 50% with presidential elections - oh, the excitement! - but ...I didn't use the internet, back in 1996, but did anybody ever complain that that election also failed to get a 50% turn out? Clinton didn't have a mandate from 1996 to 2000! Oh the horror! Bush only narrowly had one in 2000 actually, with a whopping 51.21% turn out.
# 29, would you please stop complaining about the EU denying you a referendum. Your own government did that, not the EU. Take it up with the people you elected into office. There's enough wrong with the EU to complain about, without having to invent grieviances.
Yeesh.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #49
If I were a Frechman, Austrian, Greek etc. I might be concerned about their 'democratic-defecit', however, as an a UK/Englishman I am concerned with 2 supposed 'democratic' entities: The UK Parliamentary system and the European Union.
The former has many negatives but on the whole has seen the UK7England through good and bad tims over many decades: It has undertaken 'devolution' of the Union with relative calm (N.Ire being the violent exception); it remains to be seen whether in due course an English Parliament will complete the dissolution of a very successful, but frankly no longer worthwhile 4 Nation Union of the British Isles.
The latter, as I have said coutnless times, is an undemocratic, unaccountabnle, venal and corrupt European institution that has no useful or positive political-social-judicial-military merit: It should be done away with as soon as enough Citizens realise the enormity of the democratic-defecit to which they (or more precisely their Governments inc. UK) have presently attached themselves.
Complain about this comment
"CA understands that the EU cannot afford any future conflicts - increasingly we are going to need Russia as an ally as the 'balance of power' shifts from east to west. Better still we need the Russians and other Eastern europeans to participate and benefit more from the EU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry try west to east... China, India etc"
---
Today Russia could become an ally. Back then it was most certainly the enemy number one. Her take back then was to surrender to the USSR. I could put down to the idealism of youth (She would not be the first) if she had said so. Her reply sounds like she still thinks she was right. Not good when a new enemy stands against the EU.
Complain about this comment
LeoNaphta
Re #51
And it is funny how the 'pro-EU' constantly use the example of the USA political system which is 200+ years old, has stood the test of time (or, are you claiming Obama and Dubya Bush are 1 and the same!?), is founded sound on basic 'democratic' principles as if the USA is another European Union!
Frankly it is not my concern how American Citizens vote when I am discussing the lack of Voter Turnout in the EU Elections: I leave that worry to 'pro-EU' who are bereft of any logical argument/reasoning on the matter of EU Citizen participation as it is clear from the last 3 or more EU Elections there is NO CITIZEN MANDATE for a European Union.
Complain about this comment
@49 Jean Luc
"How very interesting. So how did you come by your typology and the percentages? Intensive study of the working of the European Commission or plain populist UKIP propaganda?"
85% of statistics are made up on the spot, roughly 30% of people know this.
Complain about this comment
You wilfully misinterpret the argument. I'm saying that it's interesting how you only complain about the lack of mandate of the EU, but that you never hear anybody complain about this 'lack of mandate' on other fronts. It's like you're only using this as it's a convenient stick.
Either way, it is actually not true that this means there isn't a 'citizens mandate'. You want to interpret the fact that less than half of the elegible voters turned up, as some sort of a middle finger to the EU, when you can't. They were given a chance to come and vote, they didn't. That can easily and with just the same justification be seen as an endorsement, and a general 'happiness' with the 'status quo'.
The participation level, does not actually make or break the mandate. Otherwise, I'll have to start and interpret the UKIP votes as being part of a 'citizens mandate' for the EU to exist.
Complain about this comment
Leo Naphta
Re #56 adn "..you wilfully misinterpret.."
Oh right, when a Citizen of the EU whose daily life is regulated by a supra-National, pan-European Government has the temerity to complain they do not feel the 'democratic' system provided by the EU for the fair and just representation of their views is adequate and is dsyfunctional in its processes that is being 'wilfull'!
When a Citizen of the EU writes Comments in support of that EU system of Governance that is being fair-minded, considered and in no way reflects an attitude of misinterpreting how those EU democratic systems function!
No, the votes for UKIP are upto the (mis)interpretation of anyone who looks at the results of the EU Elections: Under 50% Citizen participation in the EU Parliament Elections for 3 consecutive Elections is also open to (mis)interpretation - - it could be the 340+ million eligible Voters are so delighted with the EU that some 55% of them decided there was no need to Vote in 2009 - - on the other hand, it could 55% of eligible EU Citizens were so disgusted by the EU ignoring them at 2 previous Elections that they just thought why bother as no one in Brussels gives a damn what they think anyway!
Who knows!?
I do believe that from any 'democratic' perspective the idea of less than 50% Voter participation being seen and promoted as a good sign of a thriving Democracy-in-action is a sort of sick misinterpretation of the 'political' reality that is going to eventually bring down the European Union.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor and Jean Luc
I made it clear they qwere my personal *%* split and not in any way scientific or based on knowledge.
It is fine by me if you wish to focus on this percentile point: It shows that the factual detail of less than 50% Voter participation in 3 successive EU Parliament Elections is beyond even your 'pro-EU' excuses.
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work post 2 etc.
Justin was disingenuous to call the post Catherine Ashton will hold the post of "foreign minister" she will be nothing of the sort. She appointment will be entirely diplomatic Head of the EU Diplomatic Service and Diplomatic Coordinator might be a better, even though it is even more of a mouthful! As such she will hopefully be advised of any future crisis involving the EU
Although a in favour of the EU as a partnership of states, I am against any suggestion of creation of a federal entity. For this reason, I am opposed to the European Parliament being anything other than a consultative assembly. The European Elections, as I presume you well know, are solely concerned with the election of MEP's. As such they are no indication of pro- or anti- EU sentiment.
As far as British governments over the last 100 years are concerned, I will not comment as my opinions would prably get me arrested and marched to the Tower the next time I presented myself at Terminal 3, Heathrow.
Complain about this comment
nautonier @47 "It sounds like it doesn't take much to put him 'on guard'?"
nautonier, alas, a brooch is "much" (in our case). It means "Serbia will be bombed", exclusively these associations.
In fact, I hope the lady in question is reading this, as this is the best advice I can give from open heart intentions, for someone new in an interesting position, and what is in my limited power.
Why not instead come in a samuraj outfit I assure you :o)))) Putin won't wink an eye! Nothing other I am sure will make him ill-dispositioned, be it? a casual Smith & Wesson, a cossac sabre training behind :o))) with metal cling :o)))) on the floor, or, say, an elegant casual addition of a small lady's Brauning, handle set in pearl. He'll say ? something like "oh. Ladies shoot from the hip, I know! so if you'll excuse me, I'll movve my chair slightly left ..:o)))) and that'll be abouut all.
Anything. But a brooch.
Complain about this comment
33. At 11:00am on 12 Jan 2010, Gheryando wrote a comment about the food thingy apparently without reading the posting he was commenting on properly.
Complain about this comment
MikeDixon
Re #59
Yes, I know what you would like to be her role and the title you would prefer for the role the Lady has in the EU. However, this is the full title:
'High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security'
That is a 'Foreign Minister'.
You are also against a Federal EU entity and against an EU Parliament that is more than just a "consultative" body. Unfortunately, you are unlucky in both aspirations:
The Lisbon Treaty enables a 'federalised' system of EU in everything except the EUrocrats know using such a 'key-word' is still unacceptable, so they use various combinations/phrases to get around it.
As for the EU Parliament it is a lot more than a 'consultation' exercise as any glance at its increased powers/authority since Lisbon shows.
Similarly, it is your contention when 100+million Citizens Voted in 2009 for Candidates to a European Parliament they were not expressing any support or otherwise for that institution: Infact, they just went out and voted for the sake of it!
Meanwhile the 200 million or so who did not Vote at all were actually as ambivalent as those who voted!?
Oh dear!
When an organisation such as the EU goes to all the trouble and expense of organising Supra/Nationwide Elections it is for the basic political purpose of supporting the 'democratic' process (even I will admit the EU tries to do so):
The EU was seeking the Votes of Citizens in order to have a Mandate (Public endorsement) for the Policies/Programme of Legislation-Measures of the EU (e.g. such as continuing negotiation with Turkey, Serbia etc., extending Directives to more areas of work-life, completing the Ratification and Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and so on); those Candidates successful in the EU Elections who are Returned to the EU Parliament will lay claim to being the Representatives of the Citizens and thereby Enabled to Speak on behalf of the European Citizenry on the EU Policies/Programme etc.
That is the purpose of Elections.
In view of the 2 EU Elections prior to 2009 failing to gain even 50% Citizen Voter participation; as less than 46% of the EU's eligible Citizens took part in that most recent Election; and, as only 1 of 27 Nations ratified by Citizen Vote the Lisbon Treaty, I believe I am correct in saying that the EU does not have a Citizen Mandate for its Policies or Programme.
Therefore the EU is acting in an UnDemocratic manner by proceeding with policies/progammes which the Citizens have quite obviously refused to endorse in any meaningful numbers for such supra-National organisation.
IMO the "sentiment" of the EU Citizens is demonstrably clear by their lack of participation in the EU Elections i.e. they do not support it; however, even if that is not the accepted view, I defy any 'pro-EU' to claim the Elections indicate 'support' for the EU.
So far as UK Government is concerned: I think there have been some outstanding ones over the last century or so, e.g. Asquith-Lloyd George Liberal (Parliament reform) Government (pre-1914), the Attlee Labour (NHS) Government 1945-51, and, (history to judge - UK Devolution) the Blair NuLab 1st term of office (plus, of course, Churchill's WW2 Cabinet).
Complain about this comment
# 57, you are apparently suffering from some sort of a persecution complex.
You shouldn't put the arguments in such 'stark' terms, as I am hardly the most rabid of 'EU' supporters. I do find your arguments to be lacking in strength, based on the merit of the argument itself. I'm just saying that interpreting the participation level as a de-facto disapproval of the EU, doesn't actually work. You're a bright guy, you know what I mean. I'm just saying that this doesn't actually forbode any imminent 'collapse' of the EU, nor does it mean 'massive disapproval'. As I said, I've yet to see any massive demonstrations in the USA that their house of representatives is not 'representative', yet they've had a consistently lower participation level in those elections than the EU. I'm not saying we should compare the EU and the USA, I'm trying to make the point that, unlike what you are suggesting, these numbers don't unequivocally point in one or the other direction.
The crisis in 'participation' the EU is going through, is a very broad one shared by just about every 'representative democracy'. It's part of the 'zeitgeist' and the disillusion that a lot of people are feeling with politics and politicians, and not inherently tied in to the nature of the EU.
P.S. I'm sort of awed by the fact that so many people on here seem to take their wishes to be the one of the 'majority'. Even if the majority of the English population wanted out of the EU, I doubt you can actually generalize that for the entire European population. If I look at my own country, there's massive approval for the EU, does that mean that this is Europe wide? I don't know, this board would tell me different.
Complain about this comment
The corru[ption ridden democratically deficient eussr is not a country and as such can't have a foreign policy, all its lowest common denominator one size fits all fits no one legislation is in regard to foreign countries within the corruption ridden democratically deficient eussr. One person can not, and indeed, as the constitution was railroaded through against the wishes of the people, has no mandate to speak for any nation including her own. Far from reporting on what Lady Ashton is doing, the BBC would be far better off by not reporting the propaganda from what has become the least democratic governmental body in the world.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta wrote: "There is no "good" and "evil" those are just words to hype up people!"
So the Nazis that shot, gassed and burned alive millions of Jews were not "evil?" Maybe they were just misguided and confused, huh?
"In the Palestian - Israel conflict, if you mean Israel are the Nazi then I'd be careful calling them that. They are not that bad, although lots of their policy is right down racist they are not Nazi. As for the Palestinians, they are screwed by both their leaders and the Israeli."
Why on earth would you think I would be comparing Israel to Nazis?
Palestinians are "screwed" by themselves. When you start seeing huge mass demonstrations in so-called Palestine by Palestinians for peace then there will be hope. They are their own worse enemies.
"Regarding European culture wrong again, there is one and it is centuries old. Even older than the cow-boy culture, which is not really a culture more made up stuff just to make movies, cowboy culture is similar to Bolywood culture."
Is all that a joke? How can there be a "European culture" when there is no such thing as a European country or shared identity?
I lived and traveled in Europe for many years and about the only thing that Europeans share to any noticeable degree is their dependency on governments to coddle them. It's a sad state of affairs for any culture if you feel that that constitutes some kind of significant culture.
There is French, German, Italian cultures, etc, etc, etc. Once again, there is no such thing as a country called Europe or a culture called European.
You also obviously do not know much about America to makes such silly remarks about its culture. America has a strong and unified cultural identity because the states that make up the country all came together, already sharing similar cultures, within a relatively short period of time or at the same time. That is not the case in Europe now and never will be, nor can it be.
"regarding the news article was it a shock to you, to find out you are not the best? Welcome to the real world, stop watch fox news, that way you may enhance your chances to come across some real news."
Ah, I see. So the "real world" lies in Europe? Who would have known. Then again it isn't surprising to hear a Europhile make such a remark.
Just answer me a couple of questions, why is it that you Europhiles instead of simply going about your business and misguided dream of trying to fool the citizens of so many countries in Europe to create a United States of Europe always have to attack and put down America? Why are so many of you so insecure about America? Why are so many of you so obviously jealous of her accomplishments?
One should accomplish something because it is worthwhile and the right thing to do, not because you simply wish to prove yourself superior to others or have power over them. For goodness sake get over yourselves already because if there ever is a European superstate then that will certainly be its undoing.
Sounds familiar, doesn't?
Complain about this comment
Re "I made it clear they qwere my personal *%* split and not in any way scientific or based on knowledge."
You did not make this clear. But still it's nice to see that you are not hampered in the slightest to debate even when you have no factual evidence and no idea what you are talking about.
Re "It is fine by me if you wish to focus on this percentile point: It shows that the factual detail of less than 50% Voter participation in 3 successive EU Parliament Elections is beyond even your 'pro-EU' excuses."
Nobody's denying the low turnout is problematic. But there isn't any legal argument that allows you to qualify the EP as undemocratic because the turnout was below 50% It's just a fantasy of yours, as if the 50% threshold is magical. If turnout is 49.9% the assembly has no mandate, but if turnout raises by 0.1% the assembly does have a mandate.
You also wilfully ignore that in the UK the 50% threshold is not met. This not in turnout, but in popular support. Although more than 50% of eligble voters turned up in 2005, labour got her majority (and thus control over the entire government) although less than 50% of the votes went to Labour! OH NO! UNDEMOCRATIC! END OF THE WORLD!
You see? You are very keen on picking whichever standard suits your argument, your argument not based on facts, but on 'emotions'. Just like the percentages and categorization you made were not based on facts but on personal feelings.
Complain about this comment
#63 Leo
"I'm sort of awed by the fact that so many people on here seem to take their wishes to be the one of the 'majority'. Even if the majority of the English population wanted out of the EU, I doubt you can actually generalize that for the entire European population."
Being brutal, I would say the 'majority' could not give a tinker's cuss either way. A mixture of anger, stupidity and apathy. Very sad.
Complain about this comment
#64 Barry Davies
If this really was the 'eussr' and the least democratic body in the world, you would not be writing posts like that on a public website, since 'they' would know where you lived, and you would be expecting a knock on the door, at the dead of night.
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc: It is quite obvious that the EU does not have popular consent for the powers that it exercises. The proof is all the bypassed, canceled or keep-voting-until-you-get-it-right referendums. If EU supporters could secure majorities in such referendums then they would undoubtedly have been held (and many were plannd until it became quite obvious they would be lost) and the results would then have been held up as indicating the consent of the governed to be ruled by Brussels institutions. No such popular consent for EU power has been granted because it does not exist. The entire history of the Western World shows that political institutions that do not enjoy the consent of the governed ultimately perish. This should be the fate of the EU.
The fact is that voter participation in the evolution of the EU has been limited to the secondary issue of who exercises power in the EU Parliament (and not whether the exercise of that power is acceptable to the voters) explains why many voters express their discontent either at EU Parliament elections either by abstaining, or voting for parties that opposed Lisbon (and earlier treaties) or want to come out of the EU altogether. This explains the long-term trend towards falling participation in EU Parliament elections and also why Labour and the so-called Liberal Democrats came in 3rd and 4th last June behind the Conservatives and UKIP.
WontWilliam: You are mixing up lack of democracy and tyranny. Neither democracy not liberty existed in the USSR but they are not automatically connected. It is possible to have a great deal of democracy without basic liberties (e.g. ancient Athens) or a great deal of individual liberty without democracy (e.g. Hong Kong). The EU is more like Hong Kong than the USSR, but that is still not as good as having both liberty and democracy like we used to before Maastricht.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #66
Tedium is a key-word that comes to mind as you nit-pick over things.
"50% - 30% - 20%": It's just numbers and not rocket science!
Don't know what you are referring to with the UK '50%' - - every UK General Election since 1945 has had in excess of 50% Voter Turnout - - I've explained the complete lack of comparative relevance between UK Local Councillors (who do NOT make Law) and MEPs who do.
That UK Elected Governments do not have 50% or more of the Vote was/is not how the system has ever worked: And with Devolution it is a statistical fact such a 50% or more vote would be a literal impossibility.
The UK's FPTP Electoral system does not need the EU or your approval: It has existed since full male and female enfranchisement was established in 1928. It eludes me as to quite why you would think yours or the EU's opinion of a long-established 'National' constitutional standard has any relevance when we are actually debating a supra-National organisation's democratic processes?
We are examining the democratic principles and efficacy of the European Union. If the EU wishes to be accepted then it is for the EU and its supporters to convince doubters such as myself that it has something more and better to offer than the Nation State I have had the luck to be a part of for some 60 years.
I remain to be convinced: Especially when the 'pro-EU' argument usually (and in your case, often) comes down to decrying the achievements, the methods, the leadership, the Citizens etc. of the UK and of mainland Europe, but significantly lacks any explanation as to the benefits of EU methods, EU Leadership, EU Citizenship etc. and simply recites how this document or that piece of legislation is so bountiful. Of course, I am aware you regard 'open borders', the EUro common currency etc. as 'achievements', but there we will have to again differ - - what you see as success I see as exploitation and abandonment of basic principles concerning the fair treatment of People, the security of the Nation etc.
I'm afraid you'll just have keep on going in ever decreasing circles of obtuseness and unreality (much like the Baroness' damp-squib 'grilling' by MEPs) as you seek to defend the indefensible: The European Union and especially its relevance to the UK/England.
I understand your frustration and annoyance: We 'anti-EU' can be so stubbornly unenlightened and unintellectual! Of course, if we did by chance read Lisbon, study the powers of the ECJ, contrast the European Parliament and Commission with our National institutions etc. then we either misunderstood or worse, made all the bad/worrying things up.
It therefore remains a puzzle, doesn't it: The EU you seek to validate and promote cannot get even 50% of Citizens to turn out and Vote for this modern miracle of political utopia, and worse, it has existed since 1992 as the 'ever closer union' and since then the divergence and disconnect with the actual Citizens has grown and grown!?
You have my sympathy: What it must be like to know you are so right and yet those Citizens just don't get it, do they!?
Go ahead, if it makes you happy: Keep trying to square the circle; I was never one to seek pleasure from someone else's discomfort.
Complain about this comment
Leo Naphta
Re #63
"..some sort of persecution complex.."
No, I just will not allow 'pro-EU' supporters to repeatedly claim the EU is a positive and useful new system of organising the British Isles and continental Europe when no Citizen Vote since 1992 (Maastricht) has significantly revealed any Public support for its present form and policies.
If you believe the 'ratification' process for the Lisbon Treaty was entiely legitimate then that is your right: I believe the complete opposite - - so far as I can see 1 Nation (Eire) approved of and consented to the Lisbon Treaty (and that was at the 2nd attempt) out of 27 - - and stemming from this it is my view the EU is undemocratic, unaccountable and corrupt.
I am not sure if you were inferring I laid claim to be some sort of 'majority' voice: I do not - - I claim mine and the voices of hundreds of millions are being deliberately thwarted at National and at pan-European level concerning the political path undertaken by the EU - - I write for myself, but of course, assume I share some commonality of ideas/themes with others who oppose the EU (and not only those in the British Isles).
My point is: How will we ever know if the UK or any Nation's Citizens actually want to remain a part of the European Union, or agree with the provisions of Maastricht, Nice and the Lisbon Treaty when only 1 Government from any of the 27 is willing to put such issues to the Public Vote?
I have writen before and do so again: When we were invited to Vote in Referendum on joining the EEC no one then said this is 'too complicated' for the ordinary Citizen, so, let the Political Leadership decide; for the last decade the Citizen has constantly been told this or that is too complex for you little people to understand, so, you don't get to choose! What a crock of undemocratic sh#t!
France and Netherlands Citizens understood and didn't like what they read: They voted 'No' (it's often forgotten Spain voted 'Yes' so the debate was open to public perception). The negative result in 2 founder Nations had the EU vested-interests/big-business/big-Government running scared: All that immense gravy-train and fingers-in-pies might not come their way!
So, the Citizens still got an EU Constitution, only worse, the EU supporters now just outright lied and said it is not a constitution!
I am very afraid the Dutch and France Referenda results on the defunct 'Constitution' has put paid to 'democracy' in the broader sense of British and European Citizens being a party to and consulted at the Ballot box on the EU's policies and programmes.
Your "..crisis in 'participation'.." argument simply does not bear scrutiny when the EU is taken into account: There is no EU Citizen 'participation'. Hence, when the formal EU Parliament Elections come around it is my view the average Citizen just thinks what is the point when no one bothers to consult them on the issues. The EU as with the rejected 'constitution', just rewrites it, rebrands it and goes straight ahead in implementing it without any reference to even the Dutch or French Citizens reasons for voting 'no'!
That method of Governance used to be called a 'banana republic' and the EU is not far off such a description in its 'political' make-up.
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re ""50% - 30% - 20%": It's just numbers and not rocket science! "
40% turnout, it's just a number and not rocket science!
Re "That UK Elected Governments do not have 50% or more of the Vote was/is not how the system has ever worked: And with Devolution it is a statistical fact such a 50% or more vote would be a literal impossibility."
How very strange that you are not willing to take the next step: if the system has never worked that way, it never was democratic... The government in your country has (practically?) always relied on a minority popular support. You can not deny this, yet where you are the first to call the EU undemocratic, you refuse to call a minority popular support undemocratic if it concerns the UK.
Re "as you seek to defend the indefensible: The European Union and especially its relevance to the UK/England."
Oh dear. As if I would ever want to defend the relevance of the EU to the UK. How funny you actually think that I'd desperately want to convince you of the relevance of the EU!
I just react to all the nonsense you write about the EU. 99% of what you write is nonsense! (hey, it's just a number, not rocket science!)
Re "I understand your frustration and annoyance: We 'anti-EU' can be so stubbornly unenlightened and unintellectual! Of course, if we did by chance read Lisbon, study the powers of the ECJ, contrast the European Parliament and Commission with our National institutions etc. then we either misunderstood or worse, made all the bad/worrying things up."
Well to quote yourself:
"My usual mantra is the EU 'is undemocratic, unaccountable, venal and corrupt'"
And that is all what you do: repeating your mantra. No arguments, ever. The closest you have come to an argument is your statement that results of elections can not be considered democratic if the turnout wasn't 50% of eligble voters. This is quite easily refuted, because the 50% threshold is quite arbitrary, which explains why your claim is just that, 'a claim'. No serious legalist or political scientist will back it up, democracy isn't made or broken by a number (it's just a number!).
Re "How will we ever know if the UK or any Nation's Citizens actually want to remain a part of the European Union, or agree with the provisions of Maastricht, Nice and the Lisbon Treaty when only 1 Government from any of the 27 is willing to put such issues to the Public Vote?"
The Treaty of Lisbon provides this option. Any Member state can resign from the Union. Who decides this? The member state. How will the member state decide this? That's up to the member state concerned. Who is to blame if citizens will never be able to express their wish whether or not to stay in the Union? The NATIONAL political leaders, not the EU.
You see, your UK is so much more democratic isn't it? What are the odds you'll get this chance? Why does Mr. Cameron want to renegotiate a Treaty (quite impossible to do, one wonders how otherworldly this Cameron is) instead of asking the UK people if they still want to be member of the EU? Because he knows the UK needs the EU. That's the whole reason behind European Integration; european states themselves have no political/economic clout anymore in a globalised world.
Complain about this comment
"Because he knows the UK needs the EU."
No. The UK does not need the EU; The new European aristocracy needs the EU. All the power they are used to, but with bare minimum accountability.
Complain about this comment
#71 cool_brush_work,
I wonder why you keep mentioning the Dutch and French referendums. Neither of those were an actual vote on the state of the EU. It's quite dishonest, intellectually, to claim that they were. In fact, other polls show that after the 'No' vote, support for it rose significantly, up to 59%. Those referendums were used as a vote on domestic issues, and it's quite obvious that a lot of people took them as such. In fact, France after the referendum, had no qualms in voting in a pro-EU government. If you want to infer such conclusions from the referendum, then I can quite easily turn it around and infer other conclusions from that vote.
You mention that only one nation put it to a public vote. Sure, but if it had been a public vote here for example, it would easily have won general approval. Does our voice count for as much as yours? Or does the referendum in the Netherlands have more of an impact because it leans closer to your views?
In fact, the treaty was ratified in just about every country by the 'elected' national parliament, by significant margins. Seeing as those parliaments are democratically elected by the public, it would seem that, by proxy, as they are the elected representatives, representing their constituents, their voice seems to suggest a general approval of the treaty. Of course, and I will grant you this, most people don't actually care or know enough about it to form an opinion. Point taken, but that has more to do with what I suggested last time, and that is a general 'malaise' that infects every representative democracy. It's one of the key problems, isn't it.
According to some opinion polls, only 8% of the people that didn't vote: "said they were dissatisfied with the EP as an institution."
Which seems to directly counter your assertion that it lacks a popular mandate because the majority ( that's 92% ) of those that didn't vote, apparently did so for other reasons than a dissatisfaction with the EP as such.
If the people want to seriously show that they are overwhelming against the EU as an institution, they could. It's quite easy, the means exist, the parties exist. Yet, it doesn't show.
I voted for an EU-sceptic (even if he doesn't want the EU abolished completely), by the way, so don't accuse me of being blindly pro-EU.
In short, I just think your arguments don't hold water, because you are suggesting something that can't be infered from the sources that you cite. If the UK wants to leave, the only thing they need to do is elected those that would take it out of the EU, and you're done. How much more democratic do you want to make it? You can, with reason, state that governance in representative democracies are anything but. The only problem then is, that you're not talking about the democratic deficit of the EU, but an institutional problem in the way we use the concept, and I am absolutely in agreement that we aren't living in a society in which every citizen has a vote, but that goes way further than the EU as such, and means a complete opposition to parliamentary politics as we live it in our society at large.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #72
There is nothing "..very strange.." about my views: I do not have to take the next step, that is for you and other 'pro-EU' who consider that they are promoting a new system of Government that will bring immense benefits to all the Citizens of the British Isles and mainland Europe.
How "funny" indeed, that us 'anti-EU' remain unenlightened about the EU and so many millions of Europeans uninspired when it is all so clear and obvious to you about the EU.
Thanks so much; we, who are mere mortals really do require a constant explanation and reminder by such as yourself about how wonderful it all is! And how do you do it? Why, by constantly carping about this dreadful UK or the USA or anywhere else, but your own backyard!
If the EU is so good and all the rest so undemocratic why are they not flocking to Vote for its policies in Elections? Why has the EU leadership since the failed 'constitution' been afraid to put their policies to a Public test? Maybe "just a number" does not matter so much unless it was the Eire Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty at the 1st Vote?
Come now, don't be bashful! If the "just a number" Voted for 'No' and it is just numbers then Lisbon would be unratified, wouldn't it?
That's right! The "number" matters when it is the figure that suits the EU - - any other 'numbers' of course, are wholly unacceptable - - and you have the nerve to claim you know about 'democracy'! It's that abuse of democracy enables the EU to circumvent any and every Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities.
Honestly, if I hadn't read some of your earlier stuff explaining the ECJ etc. I would think you were beginning to get desparate for some logical/reasoned point that might sustain your perspective on the EU!
"Integration."?
The EU is a political construct not a State: No serious legalist or political scientist would ever consider it as anything more than a collection of documents drawn-up and published without the validity of the Consent of the Citizens.
"..European States have no clout... globalised world.."
Whereas an EU that has not had a legitimate Mandate from Citizens since the 1990s has the clout of being the mouthpiece for big-Business/big-Government and to hell with the Democratic Rights and Responsibilities of People.
I know little if anything about what Mr Cameron may do: He and his Party must first win the General Election and that is not certain. If he does, then as Prime Minister he would of course be able to renegotiate any Treaty. The way he would approach this is quite easily understood by all: He tells Brussels the Lisbon Treaty has bits that are unsuitable to the UK/England and will not be enacted - - if the EU does not like it, that is tough - - democracy prevails, for the UK Citizens will have Voted for Mr Cameron's policy (though not me; I've never been conservative) and he will be expressing on behalf of the UK Citizens their views on Lisbon.
You think Brussels wont negotiate (re, "..quite impossible to do.."); you really have no idea about realpolitik and just how the world turns - - the EU will do somersaults rather than risk an outright split with the UK/England (as it would any of the 5 largest contributors) - - let me guess, you think the EU could bring in sanctions against UK/England... Truly, it would so delight Mr Cameron and his 'anti-EU' section of the Conservative Party (many are 'pro-EU') it would bring a Referendum on Membership within weeks or bring down the UK/England Government (and as the newly elected Conservative MPs will not want that.. the referendum is the only option). To avoid it, the EU will do anything and I mean anything to appease PM Cameron over Lisbon.
As I have siad before, the Lisbon Treaty may come to be seen as the high-water mark for the European Union as presently constituted.
The retreat/alteration from Lisbon may not be British led; there is every likelihood within 2 to 4 years other Member Nations' political leadership will have had to respond to the tide of despondency and ill-will that has developed toward the EU in its present ways. The EU will have to alter course: Surely even you would accept that another decline in European Voter Turnout 4 years from now could not be allowed to pass without a genuine political-leadership response?
Changing Lisbon will be the first of many steps leading to a far more publicly suitable EU: A form of the EU will exist at the close of this decade (probably much like the original EEC only with full support from the UK/Engand and the Citizens of Europe), but whatever it is, it will be very different from that overmighty and undemocratic entity you at present so proudly proclaim as the new wonder of the political world.
Complain about this comment
60. At 00:54am on 13 Jan 2010, WebAliceinwonderland wrote:
nautonier @47 "It sounds like it doesn't take much to put him 'on guard'?"
nautonier, alas, a brooch is "much" (in our case). It means "Serbia will be bombed", exclusively these associations.
In fact, I hope the lady in question is reading this, as this is the best advice I can give from open heart intentions, for someone new in an interesting position, and what is in my limited power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From your point of view ... was C Ashton's appointment more favourable than another candidate e.g. Tony Blair?
Complain about this comment
Leo Naphta
Re #74
"..Dutch and French referendums... Neither of those were an actual vote on the state of the EU. Its quite dishonest, intellectually, to claim they were..."
You see, there it is again!
If I draw allusions from something to do with the world of the EU I am being unreasonable, illogical and just plain nonsensical.
Then you write, ".. those referendums were a vote on domestic issues.."
Oh well, that's alright then: Unlike unscrupulous me, You are not drawing your own conclusions and making inferences based upon your own view of what happened!
No, you are being a typical 'pro-EU' supporter, and therefore, nothing you write could or should ever be misconstrued as anything but hardened truth!
"..only one Vote (on Lisbon)... sure, but if it had been a public vote here for example, it would easily have won general approval.."
No need for any Citizen Consultation or Elections there then! LeoN will call the result and save everyone the time and expense!
Does it not occur to you that in a 'democracy' those who would like to express their opinion via a Ballot box include those who will 'win' and those who will 'lose' and furthermore, in a democracy it is the 'losers' who especially are entitled to be heard!
In all honesty LeoN after reading those opening 3 or so paragraphs from you I realised we are not debating from the same perspective at all: You appear to have little or no respect for the Individual Citizen and think that because in your view something is a foregone conclusion it does not need to be followed up!
The ratification by National Parliaments of Lisbon is a fair point: However, it is a fairly weak point too as it simply exposes all the more clearly how weak is the EU connection to the Citizens of Europe.
1 Nation's Government was forced to hold a Referendum after intervention by a Politician who pointed out the Lisbon Treaty did materially affect the Irish Constitution: Apparently the 'non-Constitution' that is the Lisbon Treaty needed 3 Protocols added specific to Eire, but no other Nation's constitution is affected in any way!
To which we 'anti-EU' just all say, well why write that many pages about absolutely nothing at all, and how come the Irish didn't spot Lisbon was really nothing at all!?
I'm sorry, but for so long as the 'pro-EU' such as yourself, the EU representatives themselves, plus National Leaderships continue to mislead to the Citizens there is no chance of an Election Mandate for the EU.
It is my contention the Citizens of Europe do not trust the EU or their own National leaderships in relation to what is happening in the transfer of authority and power to Brussels: I believe the lack of Citizen participation in EU Elections is a reflection of this very deep divide between Citizen and Union.
I've rehearsed my views on this several times already on this Blog and wont do so again.
Complain about this comment
Re "If the EU is so good and all the rest so undemocratic why are they not flocking to Vote for its policies in Elections? Why has the EU leadership since the failed 'constitution' been afraid to put their policies to a Public test? Maybe "just a number" does not matter so much unless it was the Eire Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty at the 1st Vote?"
No one ever said the rest is undemocratic. I just indicated that your own state fails your standard of democracy.
No need to say EU leadership. You can call a cow a cow: your own government did not put the Lisbon Treaty to a public test. Who's to blaim? Your own government.
And in case you didn't notice the 'just a number' thing alludes to your own statement. Nice to see you realized that numbers are not just numbers :) Glad I could help.
Re "That's right! The "number" matters when it is the figure that suits the EU - - any other 'numbers' of course, are wholly unacceptable - - and you have the nerve to claim you know about 'democracy'! It's that abuse of democracy enables the EU to circumvent any and every Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities."
Don't get overexcited in my allusion to your own 'just a number' statement.
Still I explained this before: it is obvious the national leaders wanted a positive outcome, therefore they pressured Ireland to have a second vote.
Democracy is respected because Ireland can denounce international treaties (now even provided explicitly through Lisbon). In case you missed it: when a country joins the EU it accepts that we aim for an ever closer union (implying ever diminishing sovereignty on the part of the member states).
Re "The EU is a political construct not a State: No serious legalist or political scientist would ever consider it as anything more than a collection of documents drawn-up and published without the validity of the Consent of the Citizens."
Have you ever read an academic book on the subject? In fact very few political scientists and legalist do not view the EU as a new sui generis political entity and very few do not talk about 'integration'. Name me a few of those academics you refere to.
Re "Whereas an EU that has not had a legitimate Mandate from Citizens since the 1990s has the clout of being the mouthpiece for big-Business/big-Government and to hell with the Democratic Rights and Responsibilities of People."
It won't get any less false by you keeping repeating it :)
It's not because turnout is less than 50% that there is no democratic mandate.
Re "The way he would approach this is quite easily understood by all: He tells Brussels the Lisbon Treaty has bits that are unsuitable to the UK/England and will not be enacted - - if the EU does not like it, that is tough - - democracy prevails, for the UK Citizens will have Voted for Mr Cameron's policy (though not me; I've never been conservative) and he will be expressing on behalf of the UK Citizens their views on Lisbon"
Right. Obviously you forget that the Treaty has already been ratified. It has already come into effect. The UK is already obliged to respect the Treaty. There needs to be only one member state who refuses to renegotiate. Now do you think there is a single member state that wishes to reopen negotiations after it took them 10 years to have the current treaty?
So what happens when the UK decides not to apply the Lisbon Treaty. Well obviously the UK will become greatly isolated. This is quite problematic ofcourse, because the UK has given away part of her sovereignty to the EU, when the UK becomes isolated, those other member states may still bind an isolated UK to policy it might not want.
Than there is still the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. If the UK refuses to implement EU Law, it will get fined.
You shouldn't think to highly of yourself or your country. The EU won't do anything to appease mister Cameron. In case you forgot: it was your country who came begging the EC-6 to let it join. In case you forgot: Mr. Blair promised you a referendum, but didn't give it to you because he knew a negative outcome would be detrimental to UK interests.
Re "Changing Lisbon will be the first of many steps leading to a far more publicly suitable EU: A form of the EU will exist at the close of this decade (probably much like the original EEC only with full support from the UK/Engand and the Citizens of Europe), but whatever it is, it will be very different from that overmighty and undemocratic entity you at present so proudly proclaim as the new wonder of the political world"
Hehe, a new EU would mean a new Treaty. I don't think that e.g. the Benelux countries would agree to a less ambitious EU than we have present day.
And in case you forgot: the original EEC didn't have a directly elected Parliament. The appointed parliament didn't have any powers accept for the power of advice. The members of the Commission didn't need to be heard by the Parliament. The National parliaments didn't have any role to play in european decision making. The meetings of the Council were not public.
Much better than the undemocratic EU we have today!
Complain about this comment
@CBW
The UK is certainly in a rough ride for the next 2-3 years, no matter who wins the general election.
It seems unlikely that the Bank of England will keep the practice of QE for the purpose of financing the British State much longer. And the gradual deterioration of the UK credit rating (already on par with Italy) will either push Cameron (assuming he wins the premiership) :
1) to let the Pound slide, thus creating a major rift with the Eurozone (and stoking inflation + impoverishing the British people further)
2) and/or slash public expenditures savagely (while preserving defense spending), thus heading for spats with the EU over UK contributions, budget negotiations or accession countries (Iceland and Croatia most likely).
Both cases will hurt the British people hard, and a 25% devaluation this year against the Euro hasn't helped UK trade balance either.
Yet as a UK/English retiree on the Continent, it shouldn't affect you directly, right ?
However, I'm not too sure, that other European countries (and most importantly Eurozone members) will agreed to "let it slide".
Quite a few would enjoy a fight, especially in a period where protectionism is just lurking round the corner.
France comes immediately to mind. But actually it may be the only other major country willing to help the UK, if only because of their mutual aspirations to world and military action.
There is always the distinct, yet remote, possibility of the UK joining the Euro as a way of solving its looming public debt problem.
Though, I won't hide I would be against it. That is, as an Eurozone citizen.
Anyway, if worst comes to push, and the Tories were to endanger the whole relationship with Europe over a few billions annually (compared to the 250+ billions worth of goods and services exported annually to the EU), expect more a tsunami back home than just a little slap on the wrist.
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
To anyone interested,
there is an article in the ny times by Paul Krugman defending Europe Social programs as compared to th US including a response about 'growth' comparisons to the U S.
It's probably on ny times website.
Complain about this comment
@David
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion
But hey, Krugman likes sailing where the wind blows : this has to be understood in the context of the US healthcare reform.
Only a few months ago, he was castigating European economies because they were overburdened with debt, though they are proving more resilient in the current downturn, while spending on a much smaller public stimulus than in the US.
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11
Haven't the remotest idea why you made those comments specifically to me. It is a situation practically all UK and EU Citizens find themselves in from Dublin to Athens.
The World is far from on firm and certain economic-fiscal ground.
Unsure how you came up with the 25% reduction in Pound value (against what exactly?) and as for the Credit Rating, again it would seem you are hankering after the doom and gloom side of things just so as to make a point about...
Actually, after reading it again... What was the point?
Complain about this comment
As a person who from Ireland who voted in the the Lisbon referendums I find it interesting that people from outside Ireland still go on about the the fact it needed two referendums. In Ireland I think most people expected this. Now what this says about the EU, people can decide themselves but there have been very few complaints from the general Irish population about this. The second referendum saw a higher turnout an increase of about 6% to 59%.
Ignoring the results the one beneficial thing to come of it was that we got a proper debate on Irelands membership of the EU the second time round particularly. This was because the second time round we saw the government and politicial parties in general take a back seat whos views are well known. This meant that private organisations such as Unite and Siptu (both trade unions), the various business bodies and many others laid out what they thought of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU in general. This non government campaign was big reason in the vote turn around. The Fianna Fail Green coalition is not popular.
From reading this blog it seems the UK is need of a genuine debate on its membership of the EU.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re 378
You are going in those ever decreasing and now quite tight circles of nothing new, genuine or relevant to add.
Of course the EEC didn't have a European Parliament. It wasn't needed and isn't now; the National Parliaments made Laws for their own States and guess what - - it worked perfectly reasonably!
All the EEC needed was fine-tuning of the Tariff and Transport Regulations in order to harmonise the Member States activities: There was even room for an ECJ but of course strictly limited.
No need for directives on hours of work, health and safety etc. except in so far as they affected Transport of Goods and People and the knock-on effects on Tariff/Duties.
Nations wanting to share 'police' resources etc. could just have made the deals they wanted and even agreed 'extradition' procedures but of course no need for some artificially centralised Brussels administration intervening in the business of Nationalities.
Complain about this comment
nautonier @76
I don't know. I suppose I can go address two of my old-times English friends, there on the ground, and interested in politics, for an opinion.
But this will take some e-mails' exchanging and explaining LOL where from so unusual (non-cat related :o) non clothes' related :o) questions :o)))) and waiting for the answers. One thing is "good for Britain", another thing "good for Russia", third thing "good for the EU" :o) I'm afraid Nn 1st and 3rd are not so, how to say, automatically one-to-one yet congruent :o)))))
Without a local opinion of, how to say, politically tuned on people, with experience for decades keeping ears pricked up in that respect, and able to write any thing analytical, because not all my acquaintance are thus, how to say, interested, anyway - without - will never venture to say what is "good for England". where is me and where is that Gertrude :o))))) and all. I don't have a feel of what happens in Britain. I've only got one head :o(, and quite small one :o)))) stuffed with other things :o))))
In a very general level yes, positive expectations, first of all LOL because there exists such a thing as presumtion of innocence, and why to be negative at once :o))))) and for Russia, of course, someone, you know un-yet heavy calibre is easier.
though this you don't know for sure either. old monsters can agree just fine btw themselves! :o)))))) same , how to say, weathered category :o))))
Complain about this comment
CBW,
I was replying to some of your assumptions in post 75.
1) Obviously, the value of the pound against the Euro since its inception :
http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=GBP&c2=EUR&days=3650&lastday=20100113
2)As for UK credit rating, just go reading the news : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6874992/Gilts-sell-off-as-Britain-joins-Italy-in-debt-house.html
However, I don't know what you are refering to in "It is a situation practically all UK and EU Citizens find themselves in from Dublin to Athens."
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
General satisfaction also stemps from the fact, that, how to say, Britain is int'l known for "politics". A diplomat from Britain for the EU was to be expected. So that it is someone British, as min, is , how to say, is normal, gives one assuredness that "all still goes as expected in this unstable otherwise world" :o)))))
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #78
There was no excitement on my part.
It was why I forgot to put in my thanks for acknowledging by completely ducking the question that the "numbers" do matter if they are "numbers" suitable to the EU, but any other "numbers" do not.
Thus a Referendum on the Lsibon Treaty that results in "numbers" opposing Lisbon are disgarded as unimportant, but a 2nd Referendum's "numbers" are to be the sign of the assent of all the Citizens!
Sorry, can't write more from laughter at your, "..therefore they (other National leaders) pressured Ireland to have a 2nd vote.." and recalling all your huff and bluff about how the EU does not "influence" and has "no say2 in Referendum.
One moment the EU never involves itself in National matters (you even write it in the same Comment as you deny it!) and the next of course it was all the National Leaders and not the EU at all...
Gotta go... it's just too jaw-droppingly, surreal escapism the way a 'pro-EU' turns and twists every single thing to suit the EU view. There's LeoN berating me about lack of "intellectual honesty" and then you rush in with the how did I get the % "numbers" and use them dishonestly to make a cheap point, but when I turn your argument on "numbers" to the disadvantage of the EU then suddenly it's not fair again!
Look, why not just come straight out and say it: Black is white and 100% is 1% when it suits the EU and vice versa.
Complain about this comment
Correction about the timeframe.
The Pound lost 25%+ against the Euro, since this economic "crisis" (ie: 2 years ago), but 40%+ since the inception of the Euro (ie: 9 years ago).
And it's clearly not a temporary blip ...
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
Good to know that there is another person with the responsbilities to represent the EU that will not give an honest answer to a question. Encouraging about the future. Just what the world needs another diplomat that will do the bidding of banking and business in the name of the people. The history of diplomatic relations hangs like an anchor, preventing any real progress but insuring that the old hands all are maintained. Another layer of government that will do the people absolutely no good. I think the economy would rebound if someone started a factory to build larger conference tables.
Complain about this comment
What strikes me as funny here is the fact that this unelected figure is supposed to be a rep for the EU,draws a salary paid by europes tax payers,has a dept paid for by europes tax payers,her travel will be paid for by taxpayers of europe and yet she has no power!One question is she hiring?
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan, I happen to know of a sure way to improve any country's economy.
Hire a Russian to local language interpretor, snap any tourist in the street, and pay for a day's translation work. You may later on wish to keep the person permanently.
The secret to prosperity is not conference table, that is, it is conference tables, included. It is the top most secret Russian secret the name in the web of "state-purchases" site.
By law, Medvedev obliged all Ministries, all institutions from police to municipalities to army to hospitals to univerities - all who use state budget - to publish on-line what they need to purchase, and quote the description and amount of money they are willing to pay for the order. Theoretically, it is open internationally - free market, any bidder, any supplier able to supply goods or services.
Now, this is the novelty, and the most interesting Russian web site ever.
It is also the most un-manageable, intentionally un-organisable, un-statistical ability, how to say, extractable site one could only design :o)))))
That is, you can't pull out data summarised type "all last week" or "all today" or "all from the region name" or "all last week from the medical industry" or "all from my town" - forget about it.
You can only sit and read stupidly, line after line, as they enter the system.
Many journalists now sit and read, like silly. Makes headline country news, persistence awarded :o)))))
Recent examples, like - buyer - Ministry of Internal Affairs (police), HO, Moscow "willing to buy a bed, material - oak, make - Italian or Spanish, thickness of mattress etc, filling, King size, gold-plated legs and? that head side, 24 karat gold, q-ty - 6, time - in 2 months' time, allocation per bed - 24 thousand euros, name, contact etc. "
:o)))))
Vladivostok, Municipal Council, "willing to import for the New Year party an orchestra of Peru drummers, flights-accommodation-meals will be covered, desirably a group of 12 musicians, budget for the organiser - 8,500 dollars."
Kaliningrad - Counter -Narcotics Crimes' Department - forgot what the car was wanted? something that only has 120 ccars in the world, or something.
Grilled by media who fished out many such bids, the Moscow police replied "do you think it's for us? we can sleep on the floor! in fact, we do! It's for foreign police delegations, on expereince exchange trips, to accommodate them nicely in our Moscow suburbs police health resort, where tired policemen rest from their crazy work, and do you want us to look poor when foreign policemen come, that they won't even have anything decent to sleep on!"
The Narcotics' fight department explained they can't penetrate the gangs in Zhiguli, nobody takes them seriously in Soveit-make cars undercover :o))) so they absolutely can't do without good cars.
Vladivostok told media it's not that City Council itself plans a New year party, but it's their Youth development Dance Centre requested exactly "Pery drummers", because they had already all other visitors, and Scotland pipers and who only not, and the youngsters of the Russian far East absoluutely can not develop creatively further unless they share drumming experience with Peru-ians :o)))) and "we don't save money on children!"
In other words, all have their explanations, but the fact remains the site is a treasure mine.
Complain about this comment
I see a pattern emerging cool_brush,
People don't bother voting = No democratic mandate = Not democratic = People don't bother voting = No democratic mandate = Not democratic, ad infinitum.
Circular logic, wonderful...
Complain about this comment
WA,
Actually, that is new for some, maybe. You are sophisticated, no insult, meant to Russia.
Complain about this comment
Why are there so many posts about Catherine Ashton? There are 26 other commissioners being grilled and all you can blog about is Ashton. Nothing about Rumiana Jeleva and the corruption claims made in the parliament which might result in the commission being rejected. The Lithuanian candidate was also surprisingly given a very harsh hearing. Can you please pay more attention to EUROPEAN issues?
Complain about this comment
David, sophhisticated no doubt :o)))) You can't imagine the level of "sophistication" poor organisations apply to try to comply with the law and still be able to award the orders to friends and acquaintance!
:o))))))
The thing is that many try to apply on the site the search engines, to proceed the data, and in order for the data to not pop up and become readily LOL accessable, organisations invented a way of inserting some Latin letters here and there, in the goods' description, so that search control systems get astray or coonfused somehow. Some simply took to writing their demands in English! So media complained and Medvedev had to show up with official address "heads will roll if 1 letter in Latin in future, stop cheap tricks."
So Latin disappeared but instead they began to insert strange intervals :o)))) spaces :o)))) and most crazy key-board signs ("by mistake") :o)))) and what not. So Medvedev did another speech on "spaces" and funny signs" in particular, like, cheap tricks again.
But I am sure we are the most creative folks in the world :o))), best country's brains are now focused on the "problem" :o))))) and surely more means will be invented shortly.
Though, in another stream, others try to invent an own google :o)))) search engine, to be able to fish out info that suits their business from this site on-line :o))) and not when the time allocated for fulfilling the order expires :o))))
Far more effective approach to fighting corruption is of course Stalin or Chinese approaches :o)))) but we are humanitarian these days :o))) so there emerge these interesting measures :o))))
Complain about this comment
Have you ever heard how immigrant Russians to the USA in the 90-s saved money on post stamps :o))))))))?
They changed to and from addresses on the envelope and "forgot" to add a stamp when posting. So the letter "was returned to the sender".
So, rest assured.
:o))))))
Complain about this comment
However the national corruption record is still un-beaten, so not all is so bad :o)
The palm? of priority? here still holds a certain Alexander Menshikov, tsar Petr I best friend and associate and companion in arms, and, how to say, a confidant. First city mayor of the newly built St. petersburg as well. Tsar Peter attempted to lynch him many times :o)))), broke not one walking stick over Menshikov's back :o))))), 100 times approximately "nationalised" his illegal posessions into the state budget, imposed on him fines type "twice what you've stolen - on top", made him eat 2 kilos of raw meat with worms! that Menshikov "bought for the army", tore to pieces rotten cloth that Menshikov bought as "cloth for army uniforms" and tore to pieces all clothes on Menshikov himself, in other words the chap constantly walked around btuised :o))) beaten :o))) but still cheerful! Every time promising on the knees it's the last time he'd never, and "I'll return back to the budget 3 times the amount! no, 4 times the amount!" etc.
I suspect tsar peter at the end even found that it's not a bad way to replentish country's coffers, as the chap always got money out of nowhere and did pay in cash, his "wrong-doings", "mistakes", "but I've been fooled by suppliers myself!" etc.
However. When tsar Peter died, and Menshikov went out of favour at the court, and became "has long been absolutely poor and honest" - on his bank accounts abroad only - without any difficulty - was found 115% equivalent of the yearly budget of the empire.
Complain about this comment
I knew a Russian woman who was a mail-order bride
she who was getting an education at the college where I worked. She was/is a beauty--truly--and he was ..annnnh. But, she had respect, and great sweetness and intelligence.
On the phone where I work now I talk all the time to Russian emigres and they are as nice as anyone else And I see what youre saying actually so....continue...lol..
my motto is people sre ....not-so-smart..especially in groups:)
Complain about this comment
joke 4 u,
In China people are being cautioned not to throw snow balls...because they contain lead.
:)
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re "Of course the EEC didn't have a European Parliament. It wasn't needed and isn't now; the National Parliaments made Laws for their own States and guess what - - it worked perfectly reasonably!
All the EEC needed was fine-tuning of the Tariff and Transport Regulations in order to harmonise the Member States activities: There was even room for an ECJ but of course strictly limited.
No need for directives on hours of work, health and safety etc. except in so far as they affected Transport of Goods and People and the knock-on effects on Tariff/Duties."
In case you suffer from amnesia: Your country has tried this approach when it founded the EFTA as a rival to the EEC. Guess what? It failed miserably. This is why your country begged to become part of the EEC, just 2 years after the establishment of the EFTA. So, no we don't need a 'slim' EEC, the UK's EFTA project has shown that a 'slim' EEC is a failure.
And the EEC did need a European Parliament mr democrat. Because the EEC did take binding measures. Who did? Obviously the ministers in the council did: politicians, part of the executive power at national level, generally unelected, that became part of the legislative power at EEC level.
You can't honestly uphold that such a decision making doesn't conflict with your standard of democracy.
Re "Thus a Referendum on the Lsibon Treaty that results in "numbers" opposing Lisbon are disgarded as unimportant, but a 2nd Referendum's "numbers" are to be the sign of the assent of all the Citizens!"
I thought the English were renowned for their humour. I was just playing your part: hammering on the 'people's wish'. Because whether you like it or not, in the end the Irish people voted for the Lisbon Treaty. If you had read my comments properly you would know that I think the outcome of the first referendum was silly (wrong outcome, people voting for wrong reasons) and the outcome of the second referendum equally silly (right outcome but again people voted for wrong reasons).
Re "therefore they (other National leaders) pressured Ireland to have a 2nd vote.." and recalling all your huff and bluff about how the EU does not "influence" and has "no say2 in Referendum."
Do you actually read what you and I write?
I said "other National leaders pressured Ireland to have a 2nd vote" So where do you see EU in my statement? Nowhere, that's right, still you are able to come up with the following as remark "recalling all your huff and bluff about how the EU does not "influence" and has "no say2 in Referendum". *TADA* out of blue comes the EU. How is this possible? Ask CBW!
Complain about this comment
WA wrote:
"Have you ever heard how immigrant Russians to the USA in the 90-s saved money on post stamps :o))))))))?
They changed to and from addresses on the envelope and "forgot" to add a stamp when posting. So the letter "was returned to the sender"."
Smart, indeed.
Complain about this comment
"From reading this blog it seems the UK is need of a genuine debate on its membership of the EU."
Amen to that.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work:
----------------------------------
If I draw allusions from something to do with the world of the EU I am being unreasonable, illogical and just plain nonsensical.
----------------------------------
I said you were being intellectually dishonest, and you are again if you want to claim that I used any of those characterisations for your argument.
-----------------------------------
Oh well, that's alright then: Unlike unscrupulous me, You are not drawing your own conclusions and making inferences based upon your own view of what happened!
No, you are being a typical 'pro-EU' supporter, and therefore, nothing you write could or should ever be misconstrued as anything but hardened truth!
-----------------------------------
Again the intellectual dishonesty of your argument is staggering, as I clearly write the reverse of what you claim. My point was exactly that you can read both explanations into those numbers, and that you are being intellectually dishonest in claiming that your viewpoint is absolutely the correct one, as there is enough evidence out there to easily swing it around the other way. You, by the way, fail to acknowledge that opinion polling showed a majority support in both France and the Netherlands after the No-vote, that wasn't there before ( I'm just drawing a conclusion based upon this ). I'm not saying it's written in stone, I'm saying your argument isn't either.
------------------------------------
No need for any Citizen Consultation or Elections there then! LeoN will call the result and save everyone the time and expense!
Does it not occur to you that in a 'democracy' those who would like to express their opinion via a Ballot box include those who will 'win' and those who will 'lose' and furthermore, in a democracy it is the 'losers' who especially are entitled to be heard!
------------------------------------
You're quite a frustrating person to debate with, as you seem to be unwilling to read my arguments in any other way, than the one you've already had in mind before even logging on. The argument was that if we had had a referendum in every country, chances are the majority of those consultations would have supported a constitutional treaty (or Lisbon). It wouldn't have mattered because of unanimous decision-making, which means one 'No' blocks the entire process, irrespective of the number of Yes votes. You keep harping on about the 'No' vote in two countries, but apparently, it's not that important that other countries would have voted 'Yes'. Your defence of democracy appears pretty thin, if it only applies to your own views.
Nobody says you can't be heard. As I said before, vote in a government that will take you out of the EU, and make them do it. Why do you blame the EU for something that is entirely in the hands of the UK population?
----------------------------------
In all honesty LeoN after reading those opening 3 or so paragraphs from you I realised we are not debating from the same perspective at all: You appear to have little or no respect for the Individual Citizen and think that because in your view something is a foregone conclusion it does not need to be followed up!
-----------------------------------
That is a very shallow reading of my posts, and quite an offensive one at that.
Your view of the 'individual citizen' apparently consists of those individual citizens that are brave and intelligent enough to see the EU for what it really is. All the rest are sheep that will come to the light eventually, or should otherwise be forced, right?
Wait, am I over-generalizing here? I probably am, but you have no problems in drawing such dramatic inferences from my posts.
---------------------------------
The ratification by National Parliaments of Lisbon is a fair point: However, it is a fairly weak point too as it simply exposes all the more clearly how weak is the EU connection to the Citizens of Europe.
1 Nation's Government was forced to hold a Referendum after intervention by a Politician who pointed out the Lisbon Treaty did materially affect the Irish Constitution: Apparently the 'non-Constitution' that is the Lisbon Treaty needed 3 Protocols added specific to Eire, but no other Nation's constitution is affected in any way!
-------------------------------------
That's up to the politicians of those parliaments. We voted for them, we can vote for someone else if they don't do their job. Hold them accountable. If the population can't do that, then it's THEIR fault, not the EU's fault. If your national politicians are apparently not of the same material as those Irish ones, vote them out and vote somebody in who will listen to you. Of course, if you are not in fact, the voice of the silent majority, then ...
-----------------------------------
To which we 'anti-EU' just all say, well why write that many pages about absolutely nothing at all, and how come the Irish didn't spot Lisbon was really nothing at all!?
-----------------------------------
How come your own government doesn't trust it's citizens? Why is this the fault of the EU, as they clearly didn't prevent the Irish from voting?
---------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but for so long as the 'pro-EU' such as yourself, the EU representatives themselves, plus National Leaderships continue to mislead to the Citizens there is no chance of an Election Mandate for the EU.
It is my contention the Citizens of Europe do not trust the EU or their own National leaderships in relation to what is happening in the transfer of authority and power to Brussels: I believe the lack of Citizen participation in EU Elections is a reflection of this very deep divide between Citizen and Union.
--------------------------------------------
I believe that you are again reading things into certain numbers that you can't infer from them. There might be a divide, but this does not reflect any lack of 'mandate'. Otherwise, as I said before, you must abolish representative democracy in its current form. Which I would support I suppose, but if you're not going to take your gripes to it's conclusions, they're just empty.
Nobody is 'misleading' the citizens.
The fact that you think you're being conned into a political union, is quite funny. The EU and all it's predecessors, since the conception of the idea, were always intended to strive for ever closer political union. It's the core concept of the EU. Economic integration was a means towards closer political integration, not the other way around.
If the UK wants out. VOTE FOR THE POLITICIANS THAT WILL DO IT. All this griping about lack of democracy doesn't hide the fundamental fact that this reponsibility lies with your nationally elected governments, and not with the EU as organisation. IF you want out, it's up to YOU.
Complain about this comment
Leo said "The fact that you think you're being conned into a political union, is quite funny. The EU and all it's predecessors, since the conception of the idea, were always intended to strive for ever closer political union..."
Maybe some politicians who are now dead thought that in 1957. But the dead do not rule us. The UK population has never consented to the type of European government that the EU would like to become. The treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon would all have been overwhelmingly rejected by the British electorate if any of them had been put to the vote. And the current government would not have won the 2005 general election had voters realised that Blair was lying in his manifesto about holding a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon. Support for 'ever closer union' never went beyond a permissive consensus in any European country, even in the 1970s, and even that permissive consensus no longer exists with politicians resorting to clearly dubious means to impose the Lisbon treaty. That treaty must not stand.
Even if other European governments currently say they do not want to renegotiate the return of powers to Westminster, the next UK government must bring irresistible pressure to bear on them until those other governments accept that they do not have any right to govern Britain via the EU without the consent of the British people.
Complain about this comment
# 105:
None of that actually contradicts what I wrote there. If the people of the UK feel duped, it's not the fault of the EU, as it has always been quite clear what the eventual intention was. If you feel duped by your national leaders, it's up to the British people to change it. The UK rules 'us' as much as we rule 'you' through the EU. It's not some sort of 'continental cabal' thought up to finally conquor the UK. If that were the case, de Gaulle wouldn't have vetoed the UK twice ( in retrospect, turns out that even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh ...).
If you feel Lisbon has dubiously been imposed on the UK, it's up to the UK national government, to make sure it gets out. It's not the responsibility of the EU, nor any other memberstate aside from the UK.
The British electorate is only a fraction of the total EU population, hence I don't see why I should accord it's opinions with more relevance than any other. If they want out, make sure your government does so. It's no use to make futile statements about the EU if it's that tyranical as some would have me believe. It's clear that there is but one real solution, you vote a government in power that takes you out. If they don't, it's on their heads, and on the heads of your own electorate.
The Lisbon treaty is not going to be re-negotiated just for the UK, but the UK can withdraw from it, if it likes. Stop blaming everybody but your own electorate for it.
Complain about this comment
Leo: Do you believe the argument you are making? I don't believe you do.
The whole aim of federalists is that the UK government will do what other European governments want them to do as agreed at EU meetings, rather than what UK voters want their government to do. This is what happened with the EU Constitution where the Europeans governments meeting at an EU Council in 2007 decided to rename it and use the majorities they control in national parliaments to ratify it with as few national referendums as possible. Therefore is a bit rich of you to say that the imposition of agreements made at EU Councils and other EU institutions on dissenting electorates is "not the fault of the EU" when this is precisely the main goal of every federalist.
Complain about this comment
@107
FBJ,
EU Federalists are looking at ways to bind EU decisions onto individual member-states, so as to make those states more accountable and cooperative.
But they are not forcing any states into becoming a member of the EU, or staying a member, against the will of that country's electorate.
Only your national government have that power.
And that's the gist of Leo_Naphta's comment.
When the UK joined the EEC, its national government agreed to implement common European decisions. And all successive UK governments have agreed to ever-closer EU integration since then, whatever their political affiliation.
Whether it subscribed to that goal enthusiastically or reluctantly, is up for you to decide, but no non-UK European federalist "forced" it unto the UK government : that's just BS.
And even now, it's still up to the UK electorate to decide whether or not their government is actually representing them.
Close to a million UK citizens demonstrated against the UK's government decision to go to war with Iraq, back in 2003.
Why hasn't there been any significant demonstration in the UK against the Lisbon Treaty or the EU ?
No need to whine or scapegoat others for your own (ie: UK voters) dereliction of duties ...
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
Free born John:
Even if one would believe your fairytale of EU federalists dominating the European Council (which isn't the case; European Council is made up of national leaders), Leo's main point still stands and will always stand:
The EU can not coerce the UK to remain part of the EU. Therefore if the UK stays in the EU (against the wishes of the UK people according to you) there is only one 'actor' to blame: the Uk government.
Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the same can be said of that war. The only 'actor' responsible for the UK's participation in the war is the UK government, you can not blame e.g. the US for iniating a war and getting support from the UK. However this is what you do when it concerns the UK's 'participation' in the EU.
Complain about this comment
Leo (106) said "The Lisbon treaty is not going to be re-negotiated just for the UK, but the UK can withdraw from it, if it likes. Stop blaming everybody but your own electorate for it."
You can always tell a federalist has lost the argument when they attempt to redefine the debate as a 'Yes or Out' choice. Once the federalist starts to use this line of argument it is a sign that he is mentally retreating from the uncomfortable real world where he appears unable to make any persuasive case for federalism into a personal comfort zone where:
(a) this does not matter because there is no need to make the case for something when it is the only option he can see, and
(b) he can pretend it is not undemocratic to force other people to go along with him when they have no other option.
This is the mental thought process which leads to forcing entire nations to keep voting until they say Yes to what you want. It is always striking that federalists never deny themselves the option of being able to say No to EU-sceptics (indeed they insist upon it), even while simultaneously demanding we must choose between the limited 'Yes or Out' scenarios visible to them from behind their self-imposed mental blinkers.
European federalists need to open their minds up to the possibility (indeed the reality in the non-European world) that countries can get along just fine with one another without any of the supranational government that we see in Brussels, and that when federalists are in a tiny minority in every European country, they have no right to force their blinkered choices onto the rest of mankind.
Complain about this comment
LeoN
Re #104
It is seldom one gets to read such a clear example of a 'pro-EU' so steeped in the lore of their opinion/views are never disingenuous or misleading that it takes the breath away by the astounding nerve you have to write as you do!
I write the Dutch and France Voters in Referendums rejected the EU Constitution.
You write and tell me that is the wrong view: Furthermore, you write that actually the Referendum participants were voting on national/domestic issues.
Apparently, You can write Referendums held in the Netherlands and France specifically about the EU is not about the EU at all: That is not You alluding to anything else that is just You being more aware than I about what is really going on!?
Apparently, I and the Dutch and French Citizens did not know what the Referendums were about and when they participated in the Vote You knew all their heads were full of stuff about local issues and not at all about the EU!?
And, then You have the colossal cheek to complain, "..you are most frustrating to debate with.."!
Run that by me again: I point out 2 Referendum held about an EU Constitution rejected the EU plans, but You tell me the Voters did not reject the proposals and were just putting their crosses in the boxes for the hell of it!
Frustrating! Intellectually dishonest!! Staggering!!!
Since when did You or anyone decide there is "..enough evidence out there.." to show Dutch and French voted on anything except the proposed EU Constitution!?
This is absolutely typical 'pro-EU' twisting and turning to make the facts suit the EU at every point.
The 2 Referendum were not held about the Dutch or French National Government policies, except for the 1 issue: Do you or do you not support the implementation of the EU Constitution?
The Dutch Voted NO! The French Voted NO!
Not 'no' to higher taxes, not 'no' to new motorways, not 'no' to their Governments' foreign/military/judicial polices - - the Citizens Voted NO to the EU Constitution - - they were not being asked any other question and anything You try to infer/imply/allude to the contrary is post-Referendum and therefore has no bearing on the actual EU Constitution Votes.
You may like to think all 'anti-EU' are fools, but we are not: You can allege whatever You like about the factors behind the 'No' Votes, but the 'No' was to the EU Constitution. End of.
Get it!? Understand!!? Comprehend!!!?
".. all this griping about lack of democracy.."!
Yes, must be very irritating for You: Fancy! All those people living under the same EU system as yourself and they invoke their Right and responsibility to question, disagree, challenge, debate... All those Citizens who do not just lay down and accept the EU as it presently stands is worth preserving.
Fortunately, we are not yet at the stage (even within the EU) where the Citizens must adopt the servile approach that would stifle all legitimate argument about the EU.
There is nothing "..shallow.." about my interpretation of your regard for the Individual Citizen: I regret if you are offended, but the criticism bears repeating - - You do not know and cannot possibly determine the outcome of any Democratic Secret Ballot - - to lay claim to such power is undemocratic (albeit, a classic 'pro-EU' stance).
YOU support the EU and its present policies: Well that is your choice, but your advice on how to go about changing or removing it, is a matter open to all to debate.
As all 27 National Governments have bent the knee to Brussels and the Lisbon Treaty your views are in the ascendancy just now. However, I note with satisfaction that neither You, JL, or any of the other 'pro-EU' have been able to come up with even a hint of an idea to explain the increasing disengagement of the European Citizens from the EU entity.
The ongoing failure by the EU to gain any sort of popular support at Elections, the utter cowardice of 26 out of 27 National Governments in failing to put Lisbon to Citizens' Ballot, the one-size-fits-all creeping sterility of EU economic-fiscal policy (first masked by the expansion to the 'east' and until recently by the Global recession), the internal wrangles over Turkey's entry, the continual usurpation of EU equality of membership to suit the requirements of Paris-Berlin, and the trivial appointees made since Lisbon all reveal an EU that shall not stand beyond this 2nd decade of the 21st Century.
Okay, I'm moving house, so, no more for some time...
Cheers to you and all...
Complain about this comment
round and round it goes, I will say this. I don't like the way the EU polarizes politics into a for or against crowd, reminds me to much of the Democrat/Republican thing they have going off in America.
It also annoys me that people on here say stuff like "typical of the Europhiles" or "typical Eurosceptic close mindedness" as if that justifies everything they say and invalidates whatever the other person writes. Lazy "Us vs. Them" mindsets achieve nothing.
Complain about this comment
# 110,
Yet again you claim to represent people, yet you have no mandate. Who exactly told you that 'the federalists' are 'a tiny majority' and furthermore want to 'control' everybody? Seems like you're just pulling this out of thin air to be honest.
I thought you wanted out of the EU? Isn't that the argument you've been making? In that case, do it. I don't see how this can be such a difficult line of reasoning. Elect a government that will take you out of the EU. Make them do it. Re-negotiate trade options, if that is what it's about, like the Swiss or the Norwegians.
Exactly at what point does this argument become about 'my federalist dreams'? I've not proposed any action line for the EU, I've not even made my own opinion about Lisbon clear. I'm just trying to explain my point of view on your argument, which is quite confusing. What is it exactly that you want out of the EU?
# 111,
You are so incredibly caught up in what you think I am saying, that you are raging against your own imagination.
I wrote, or at least tried to explain this, that the result of the constitional vote in the Netherlands and France, can be explained by more than just a widespread distrust or disillusionement with the EU.
I'm trying to say that your argument is disingenious, because you claim that it can only be such. I am proposing that there is more than one viable explanation, although I won't make a definite commitement to the veracity of any of them.
I am both fluent in Dutch and French, and I did follow this vote, and it was admitted by a lot of people that they were going to use the referendum as a vote on national issues, and not so much on the exact contents of the treaty itself. - In France, a lot of people used it as a way of taking out their frustrations about the years under Chirac, apparently, according to research by the French press - Of course, if you want to ignore that this has been said, you can. It's also funny how you ignore the fact that I've posted on here several times, that after the vote - and thus the rather 'surprising' No, the support for the treaty in both countries skyrocketed according to several opinion polls, putting the support at roughtly 59% in some cases, which is supposedly - and I am keeping in mind the inaccuracy of polls - above the error margin.
It's also interesting that you apparently group everybody that doesn't show up for a vote as being a 'negative' vote, which is at complete odds with just about every study about this behavior - on any poll/election, not just EU-related-.
I've not classified you as 'fool' by the way, nor anybody else on this board. I hope you actually know what a term as 'intellectually dishonest' means, because it does not include 'fool'.
You seem to be turning me into some caricature that you have in your mind of a 'EU-federalist' and have no actual intention of engaging me in any debate.
The EU in its present form needs reform, but I see very little proposals from you aside from the 'abolish it' factor. I have little or no problem with the fact that you want a debate over the issue, but try not to act so hysterically about it. I'm not preventing you from voicing any opinion. I'm not even claiming my interpretation is 100% correct, I'm trying to suggest that the fact that you're so certain about yours is unwarranted.
For example: the cowardice of 26 out of the 27 governments.
The Belgian government did not put this in a referendum.
Was this cowardice? Given climate, hardly.
How about the fact that you're ignoring Spain again, which had already won the 'yes' vote in 2005?
What do you even mean by 'trivial appointees' ? Would you rather have had real strongmen for the un-democratic EU? Please ...
Did you know that the Netherlands are amongst the most fervent supporters of the EU? With more than 70% saying that they are happy being part of the EU? Even in France it's still about 60% ...
In closing,
if you want out of the EU, why don't you make sure the UK gets the government that will take it out? If you want reform, press for reform. Don't whinge on about some sort of cabal, please.
Conspiracies in history are very rare and never that elaborate. Stop blaming everybody but your fellow countrymen.
P.S.
Actually, I have pointed out that the increasing distance between the EU and it's population is mirrored in just about every representative democracy and ties in perfectly with the 'zeitgeist' and a wider crisis in 'democratic praxis' as it stands. It's the same reason why everybody 'hates politicians' and 'nobody trusts the media'.
P.P.S. I would like a higher democratic element in the EU, unfortunatly, I have to recognise that this is partially blocked by something 'pesky' like ... national sovereignity. The idea that I have no regard for the individual citizen because I don't agree with you, tells me more about your conception of free speech, than it is telling about mine.
Complain about this comment
Politics are meant to polarize.
The problem is whether participants in any topic, want to have a factual debate or fudging the issues.
In the latter case, insults, character assassination, intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking ... are just some of the tactics used to avoid debating.
Plus, you can't expect blogs to be much more than a tool for some grumpy old men, to vent out their anger, while enjoying the benefits of being anonymous and noncorporeal.
It's not like they are doing anything much practical to correct the challenges they describe in such a dramatic way.
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
Benefactor (112): Why do you think the EU debate is polarised? Could it be the inevitable consequence of EU supporters wanting an asymmetric debate where they can say "No" to EU-sceptics who want to negotiate powers of self-government back, but EU-sceptics are only allowed to say "Yes or Out" to ever closer political union? If one side things it has a monopoly on the terms of the debate which guarantees the outcome they desire then is it not a foregone conclusion that the debate will be polarised?
Would it not be more honest of supporters of 'ever closer union' to just go ahead and leave the EU to create their federal European state and leave the rest of us to govern ourselves? When EU supporters never proposes that approach, but insist instead on imposing their agenda (e.g. Lisbon) by the most dubious of means it shows they want not just European federalism, but something else besides. i.e. a European federal European entity which they dominate (hence the 'Yes or Out' calls to anyone who objects) and which they can use to govern other nations against the will of their own electorates. That domineering mentality should be unacceptable but is endemic among EU supporters. There can be no meaningful debate with such people because all those people want is to get their own way regardless.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn John (115):
First of all, remember "the ever closer union" thing mentioned in the Treaty of Rome?
Secondly, objectors of the ever closer union do actually have a choice, they have an option to fall back. There is no restriction on a member state to resign from the EU and fall back to just being members of the European Economic Area, and if that is too much still they can fall back to participating to European Union Customs Union.
Thing is that the European Union was, is and will be an ever closer of union, if you don't like it then you can get out of, there are lots of options to fall back.
If you don't want to party, why ruin the party for others? Why getting the UK out of the EU isn't good enough for you? Are you actually afraid of the EU becoming superpower and living next to it?
Complain about this comment
!!!polirization is not 'a good thing"...look at the USA!!!
Complain about this comment
# 115,
I personally think that's an unfair characterisation of the debate, but aside from that, I'd like to know: what do you exactly wish to achieve?
What is your vision of the EU? Where should we go with it?
It's also sort of ironic that you would propose that the 'federalists' leave the EU to form a federated state, as it has been implied from the start that the EU would be moving in that direction, and the very first theoretical debate for such an entity has roots in the 1860s. It's not exactly the 'new' and 'unexpected' route that the EU is taking in respect to closer political union. Wouldn't it make more sense that the UK (or other 'sceptic nations), which seems to be the nation the most 'opposed' to the EU, withdraw itself from the project in a measure closer to that what you think would suit it's interests better?
At what point do you think the EU should have stopped it's evolution towards a more closer union (I'm actually not sure if 'federal' is even the right word, as I'm not sure we're actually going entirely in that direction)?
Where do you see an ideal situation going, and please make it a bit more concrete. Which powers you would you like to see 'devolved' back to memberstates? Why do you think that the majority of Europeans are in agreement with you on this issue?
The reason that an 'ever closer union' is within the EU an accepted route, is because it's historically the way the evolution of the EU was envisioned from the start. The UK was not a founding member, but it agreed to this in joining up. If the people feel 'duped' about that, doesn't that also mean that they don't accept the responsibility for not having informed themselves on that aspect? Apparently the Norwegians had no problem in saying 'No' to their government at the time, and as far as I know they weren't 'forced' into it.
I'm quite at loss as to what your actual demands are, I'd like it if you were to explain your goals more clearly.
Complain about this comment
LeoN
Re#113
The only person "..raging.." is my wife as I've broken off from packing to write this brief reply to your incredibly duplicitous comment about 'intellectual honesty'!
From my perspective:
Question: When, according to 'pro-EU' is it "intellectually dishonest" to claim a Referendum is about the EU?
Answer: When it's the Dutch and French Citizens voting 'NO' to the EU Constitution.
Question: When, according to 'pro-EU' is it 'intellectually honest' to claim a Referendum is about the EU?
Answer: When it's Spanish Citizens voting 'YES' to the EU Constitution.
Question: When, according to 'pro-EU' is it "intellectually dishonest" to claim a Referendum is about the EU's Lisbon Treaty?
Answer: When the Irish Citizens vote 'NO' to the Lisbon Treaty.
Question: When , according to 'pro-EU' is it 'intellectually honest' to claim a Referendum is about the EU's Lisbon Treaty?
Answer: When it is a 2nd Irish Citizens' vote and they vote 'YES' to the Lisbon Treaty.
It is my hope the above will have amply explained to you the meaning of "intellectual honesty".
I also trust the next time you so condescendingly enquire whether I understood a particular terminology that you have also researched this little saying: "Eyes have they, but they see not!"
Complain about this comment
# 119
I see you persist in 'viewing' my arguments in a pre-determined light. You seem to be unwilling to actually read my argument, and thus resort to rebuffing the argument you apparently wish I am making. You're not trying to debate with me, you're just asserting 'truth'.
Try reading my posts again and keep in mind that I am not claiming any assertion as being 'true' to a full extent and am trying to show you that each of your questions can be answered in various 'ways' without there being a definitive answer. Motivations are usually a complex interaction of different causal factors, in which it is difficult to assert one of the other as being the primordial cause.
I have never actually asserted that any of the 'Yes' votes are in fact motivated primarily by the contents of the Lisbon treaty, as such is hardly the case for Ireland and dubious at best for the Spanish case. Of course, if you are trying to typecast my argument as being some sort of caricature of the 'EU-federalist', it's tempting to do so.
P.S. I care very little for the St. James Bible. I didn't accuse you of being a fool or illogical or ravenously mad when you question the EU. I am however slightly concerned about the rather hysterical tone in which you assert that I do this. It once again seems that you are not debating with me, but debating some sort of caricatural community that you feel is stifling your arguments in nefarious ways. It's rather amusing that you think in such homogenous blocks, as I have nothing but scorn for somebody like say ... dreaded EU fedealist Guy Verhofdstadt ...
Complain about this comment
116. Jukka Rohila
"...If you don't want to party, why ruin the party for others?..."
Here the party was all set go on to next base, the guests assured that if they shouted "Labour!", Liberal Democrat" or even "Conservative" they'd have a say.
Who's in charge here?
Complain about this comment
118. Leo_Naphta
"...If the people feel 'duped' about that, doesn't that also mean that they don't accept the responsibility for not having informed themselves on that aspect?..."
Different time, different people.
Complain about this comment
# 122,
1975 isn't that long ago. It's a valid question for just about every citizen in the UK over the age of 50. Besides, to be able to feel 'duped' you would have to have taken part in the referendum to begin with, no?
Complain about this comment
123. Leo_Naphta
"...to be able to feel 'duped' you would have to have taken part in the referendum to begin with, no?"
1975 was a long time ago. I'm more concerned with 2005 and what the three main UK parties offered the electorate.
Complain about this comment
To rg (121):
You, the people are in charge in there, if you vote for a wrong candidate or wrong party into a position of power, then it is your fault. Vote for UKIP in the next elections, they are the only party in reality who would give you the exit out of the EU.
Complain about this comment
125. Jukka Rohila
"...they are the only party in reality who would give you the exit out of the EU..."
It is a mistake to tar people who wanted a referendum on the Lisbon (Constitutional) Treaty with the same brush as those who want a referendum on EU membership.
Though I can see why the Pro Lisbon side would wish to do this.
Complain about this comment
@125, RG
you most certainly have a point.
Yet, in today UK politics, it doesn't seem like you will have any popular referendum on either UK membership to the EU or how the EU institutions operates, unless you vote for a truly EU-sceptic party.
If only to shake traditional parties (Lab and Tory, coz LibDem are for EU membership) into adressing the issue upfront.
Therefore, why not shunning traditional parties, and vote accordingly to your own convictions ?
It has already been discussed earlier why the FPTP voting system might be good for "stable" government (though with short-lived cabinets and ministers), whereas it amounts to a powergrab by political elites in reality.
Whatever your personal position on the EU, there wouldn't be so many child-like posts about a NuLab manifesto (assuming those posters DID vote for NuLab ...), if one were to vote for policies it support, rather than party he deems "electable".
And it also assumes that the matter of the EU is so much a problem to the average UK voters, that it trumps all other issues. I've got a really hard time thinking that the rabid dogs in this blog are representing much else than themselves.
Proportional representation might "scare" some voters because it shows in plain sight how diverse(and ugly) society can be, and also because it risks a balkanisation of politics (multiplication of small parties).
But this is what democracy is really about. Not about granting the right to decide only to the "select few".
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
Debate is an interesting word at the best of times: On here it sometimes takes on whole new meanings.
Some Comments ago on this Blog topic this was written by contributor:
"Politics are meant to polarize.
The problem is whethether participants in any topic, want to have a factual debate, or fudging the issues.
In the latter case, character assassination, intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking... are just some of the tactics used to avoid debating. Plus you can't expect blogs to be more than a tool for some grumpy old men to vent out their anger whilst enjoying the benefits of being anonymous and noncorporeal... "
So, we have all been told: WE are not debating in the proper manner and have let ourselves down by use of epithets against others, name-calling, and displaying unwholesome asides that are not in keeping with the idea of debate.
E.g. ".. no need to whine or scapegoat.." Comment 108.
E.g. ".. grumpy old men.." Comment 114
E.g. ".. rabid dogs.." Comment 127.
All by Starbuck11: Who should know what he is talking about as he wrote the original quote!
LeoNaphta Re#113 and #120
Fascinating use of statistics in there: According to you the EU is so popular in France (60% in favour) and the Netherlands (70%) that both Nation's Governments decided NOT to hold any sort of Public ballot or Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which was the EU replacement for the 'constitution'.
Is that some sort of new method of reverse pyschoanalytical-democracy? I.e. We, the Government, having looked at the very favourable Survey/Poll results on the institution known as the European Union, have decided there is no need to consult the Citizens on a specific EU issue as they must all really love it, especially the 40% and 30% who did not express support for the EU!
"...you (me) persist in viewing my arguments in a predetermined light.."
No, I don't! I enjoy reading each one as the ducking, diving and twisting reaches new levels as in #113 and #120!
I mean, did you actually "..read" your own comment and the implications? It was much like your previous one that you knew the result of any vote on Lisbon in your country so no need to hold one!
So, when I read your "...don't whinge on about some sort of cabal.." I just get this odd feeling that it is you who does not read your own content!
Also, I have not forgotten Spain's 'constitution' referendum (see my #71); I pointed out it showed the Dutch and French voted one way and Spain another, but the EU backed-off and has acted in a 'cowardly' manner ever since. Hence, when you write 70 or 60% "..in favour.." of the EU, I just ponder how come the EU that is so popular nothing like 70 or 60% Voter turnout in 2009!?
Honestly, I'm not "unwilling to actually read (your) argument.." because it so often ends up serving as an 'anti-EU' comment for me!
Complain about this comment
CBW,
Did you feel targeted even when you're not mentionned ? or was it that you felt not loved enough because I didn't mention you ?
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
I see there is a persistent need to not actually reply to any of the questions posed. If you just want to assert your own 'truth', I don't see where we are going to go with this 'debate'.
Complain about this comment
"confident but sometimes bland"
wouldnt we all rather a politician who is confident and competent rather than charimatic??
Complain about this comment
Gavin:
Not surprise with the news, that, Catherine Ashton was giving diplomatic answers in her confirmation hearing; Since, she doesn't want to inform the potential situations of any unknown information. In case she is wrong or misguided.
-Dennis Junior-
Complain about this comment
Gavin:
Will she and her diplomats really give Europe a bigger voice on the world stage?
I would be hopeful if Ms. Ashton and the diplomats going to be giving Europe a big voice in the world stage.
Or will powers like Britain, Germany and France be reluctant to see their own influence wane?
Yes....
*D*
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS