Brown, Cameron and Clegg clash over Europe
David Cameron came to Bristol to insist that too many powers have gone from Westminster to Brussels. His two opponents, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, were determined to portray the Conservatives as isolated in Europe and allied with "extremists".
David Cameron's opening pitch was that some powers had to be brought back from Brussels. "I want to be in Europe but not run by it," he said. Early on he tried to deflect the criticism that the Tories would be isolated in Europe. He described it as "nonsense". French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he reminded the audience, stood up for their countries.
Nick Clegg had worked in Brussels and tried to make a virtue of it. He accepted, however, that the EU was "not perfect". He conceded it was a club that had spent 15 years defining chocolate. His defence of the EU was that it could do a lot of things "we can't do on our own". He cited international crime and climate change. "The problems," he said, "don't stop at the cliffs of Dover."
Gordon Brown's central defence of the EU was jobs. He said that three million jobs depended on membership of the EU; 750,000 businesses needed Europe's marketplace. Time and again he accused the Tories of being isolated. "Let us never again be an empty chair on Europe," he said.
David Cameron said that politicians had given away powers without asking the voters first. He reminded the audience that they had been told they would get a referendum. "People feel cheated," he said. The Conservative leader said "we should have had one." He said that in future any new treaty that involved new powers going to Brussels would trigger a referendum.
Nick Clegg said the country benefited from working closely with its European partners.
He cited the case that police authorities had used European legislation to break a paedophile ring. He said that Conservative MEPs and the UK Independence Party had voted against the measures that made it possible.
Labour finds itself in the position that the two other parties are offering referendums. The Liberal Democrats want to ask the British people whether they want to be in or out of Europe. The Tories will hold a referendum on any new treaty that transfers powers to Brussels.
Gordon Brown's argument was that all of this was a distraction from jobs and the economy. As regards repatriating powers, he said all the much-needed economic measures would be postponed while the EU debated what the Tories were asking. Economic recovery depended on Britain's relationship with France and Germany, he said.
And then the Labour leader went after the Tories' allies in the European Parliament.
They have set up their own grouping drawn from some Eastern European parties and have broken with the European People's Party, which represents some of the major centre-right parties. Gordon Brown said to David Cameron "you have walked away from Sarkozy and gone in with right-wing extremists".
Nick Clegg quickly picked up the same cudgel and accused the Conservatives of getting together with a "bunch of nutters who deny climate change and homophobes".
Most observers expected that David Cameron would make membership of the euro, the single currency, an issue. With Greece struggling to service its debts, the euro is facing its severest test. It is the ambition of the Liberal Democrats to join the euro at some stage in the future, having put it first to the British people. The euro did not feature.
The debate came down to this: the Conservatives will resist any new powers going to Brussels. The differences between Labour and the Liberal Democrats over Europe are slight. They believe the EU delivers a string of benefits in dealing with common problems.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Cameron articulated it perfectly at last = We want to belong to Europe ( not the federal republic of EUSSR )but not be run by them.
How do we get there = clegg's party is all for surrender & submission (thankfully we were spared the euro; which will join esperanto soon without a fiscal union).
How do we get there = gordon's NL also like libdems surrendered & submitted resulting in the uk being submerged by the flood of migrants, out of control, when france and the rest refused to accomodate.
How do we get there = cameron's strategy must have a plan.
Given the realities, the EUSSR is the latest version of the Holy Roman Empire - hence Latin Europe is so enthusiastic, with an absolute majority of 75 %. So long as they can milk away from the North (germany and britain), it is party-time for the ClubMed.
This position will only change if Britain, Germany, and Russia neutralise ClubMed with ClubNord - along with the eurosceptic scandinavians.
When their 75 % is reduced to a minority, that is when the enthusiasm for euro, eussr, esperanto all will cease. That is when a meaningful vision for europe wiil begin to shape up - until then it will remain a latino party-time, paid for by ClubNord.
Dont know if cameron and party have thought this through - hence his stated goal will not succeed without a clear plan.
Without the right diagnostics - realities within eussr - he may end up failing with the wrong remedies, as gordon/tony did.
Complain about this comment
Britain and northern and east European countries could form an alliance and break away from central and southen Europe .
Any sensible politician would walk away from posturing little Sarkozy .
Gordon Brown sucks up to ( there are more fitting expressions )Sarkozy and Merkel in the hope of landing a highly paid job in the EU , when the Labour party have lost the general election and he stands down as leader .
What is the point of Conservative MEPs being part of a voting block , where their more right wing opinion is not expressed at all and may be in disagreement with the EPP .
Nick Clegg may express himself articulately and convincingly on television , but I doubt that it will have much effect on the voting public .
Proportional representation is in the LIB/DEM manifesto . Much good would it do them ; proportional representation opens the door to many more parties to have a say in parliament , not just Conservative , Labour and Liberal/dem . You would give voters the opportunity to seriously vote UKIP and BNP and others too . The Lib/dems might find themselves in a very small minority with little , or no say at all .
Complain about this comment
To be honest i thought it a very poor debate on the EU. We do better here on a daily basis. There was no long-term thinking at all; no consideration of the inevitable consequences for the survival of representative government of the one-way expansion of a body of European law whose supremacy preempts the law-making powers of national parliaments.
Gordon Brown spent too long at the Treasury and sees all issues through the prisim of "tax-credits" or "jobs". He tried to say that 3 million British jobs would go if the UK left the EU. That number is 10% of the Uk workforce. He calculates 20% of UK output is exported, and about half that goes to EU countries. According to Brown every job involving trade with EU countries would be lost if we leave the undemocratic political union. If that were true how does he explain the other 3 million jobs that correspond to exports to the rest of the world? According to Brown these jobs should not exist today. The reality is that the UK can have free trade with the EU without being part of the undemocratic political union just as countless countries from Mexico to South Korea do. Indeed outside the EU we could have more free trade than now, like Mexico has with both North America and Europe.
The discussion on the EPP & ECR groupings in the EU Parliament was even worse than Brown's vodoo economics. Federalists imagine they are proto-political parties but these obscure groupings exist only to extract funding for real (i.e. national) political parties. The EU issue is of huge long-term importance but about 50% of the discussion time was wasted on this attack by association against the Conservatives. The bigger picture here is that Labour and LibDems can't win the real debate against federalists on the Continent so tag along with it there. But they can't explain why they sit with federalists in the EU Parliament to their British voters, or win the argument for federalism here. Not being able to win the central political arguments either on the Continent or UK, they have to resort to these arcane attacks by association against the Conservatives instead. The fact that Labour and LibDems chose to debate a major strategic issue on a banal side topic like this shows just how weak the pro-EU case in the UK really is.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
You have depicted, say in broad terms, how the leading British political parties do assess the positive and the negative sides of your membership to the EU. What I can’t understand well is the complex mechanism of shaping the public opinion in the UK in favour or against it. What you report of is just the final result, the declarations that come on the surface of the debates. Your article lacks some details; I mean details that would evidence the real contribution of the EU not only to the economy of the UK but also to the British society, to the British people in its multiethnic and multicultural complexity. It’s not enough to cite what Gordon Brown had said about the three millions Brits whose jobs depended on the businesses that would come from the mainland…
I think the links between the Brits themselves depend much on the membership of old Britain to the EU. I can not imagine how the UK, which leading role in the European affairs is believed to be historical /i.e. of big, sometimes of decisive importance/ can go to some kind of political/cultural/economical isolation. First it’s impossible because the process of shaping a pro-European mentality, as a result of the economic integration, is irreversible. It has started in 1957 and that reality is evident even here, in Bulgaria. As a matter of fact, any important event that would take place in the British Isles, or say in Spain has got its echo here, and vice versa, any important event that would happen, say in Poland /like the aircraft crash with the presidential couple/ has got its big echo in Britain.
I think the mere existence of the UK /as a constitutional monarchy that encloses four different cultural ethnic entities/ depends more on its membership to the EU than on any internal friction between the different social/ethnic groups of the oldest democracy of Europe.
The problem is how to improve the complex institutions of Brussels we all depend on.
Sofia, April 23rd 2010
Complain about this comment
Re: 2
PlanetEnglish ,
If you look under your bed, you will find a Roman Emperor there. Beware, PlanetEnglish, the Romans are out to get you!
Complain about this comment
Gavin, further to my prebious post #5, be sure that, at least until mid-May, the portraits of Messrs. Brown, Cameron and Clegg will be omnipresent on any media of the mainland. /As if everything here will depend on the correct choice of the Brits./ That's also the result of the European integration irreversible process and of the proliferation of the mass media technologies, including the net. Europe is no more so large as it was before the last war.
Complain about this comment
Two misleading facts were presented last night and not challenged:
1. Those 3 million jobs: Neil Kinnock was asked about this whilst EU commissioner, by Nigel Farage. He conceded there would be no losses.
2. That "over 50% of trade is with the eu" claim - this is achived by including trade, with, say Canada, where the delivery boat stops off at EU ports like Rotterdam en route. It is one of the biggest lies in EU politics, and Camerloon should have nailed it.
Complain about this comment
Except Freeborn-John, Britain is neither Mexico nor South Korea, both of which are involved in their own EU-inspired trade blocs - Mercosur for Mexico and ASEAN for Korea. You also forget the political consequences that EU membership entails. Outside the EU, Britain will become unable to influence events and irrelevant in her own back yard, obliging the US to build new relationships in Europe. The pro-EU case may well be weak in the UK in the face of a biased media, but that will soon change once the hard economic and political reality of the situation starts to bite.
Complain about this comment
#3
'Proportional representation is in the LIB/DEM manifesto . Much good would it do them ; proportional representation opens the door to many more parties to have a say in parliament , not just Conservative , Labour and Liberal/dem . You would give voters the opportunity to seriously vote UKIP and BNP and others too .'
I'd be prepared to take that risk, if it means getting a fairer voting system. It's one of the few areas where I agree with people like EUPris, although perhaps for different reasons.
By the way, where is EUpris these days? Busy on the UKIP campaign trail?
Complain about this comment
While Brown's claims about Europe underpinning UK jobs are nonsense and Clegg's "all or nothing" approach to Europe is disingenuous, it has to be said that Cameron's attempt to be seen as cautious about Europe would attract a damn sight more credibility if he hadn't reneged on his party's pledge to give us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
I see that this U.K. obsession about a referendum on Europe still raises its ugly head.
OK....facts of life:
1) Europe exists. The U.K. must start learning to work with Europe, not keep 'bitching' about it. Word of warning to the UKIP party: stop behaving like a spoilt child before the rest of Europe. It impresses no-one; is not funny; and makes the British people look like a group of morons.
2) The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish completed its installation under European law. There is nothing to have a referendum on. It has been supported by the U.K. We even have Baroness Ashton installed in Brussels as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.
3) Stop asking for a referendum every time something comes up that you don't agree with. Referenda have no place in British law; the government is not legally bound to accept the outcome of any referenda on any subject.
4) Stop talking about Europeans as the 'enemy'. Believe me, many of them are far more cultured, educated, intelligent, considerate, law-abiding, and sociable than a large number of people who currently inhabit the British Isles.
Complain about this comment
I guess there is no choice now for Euprisoner but to vote LibDems, as they are the only ones willing to grant him his beloved referendum..
Complain about this comment
We are not discussing the rights of British voters being lost but that of the British democratic system that has never given those rights in the first place.
An undemocratic EU able to improve the living standards of the UK, is preferable to a system that has never succeed to deliver and is crying to get its ball back.
Be pragmatic instead of brainwashed.
Complain about this comment
EuroSider in 12.
1. Europe exists etc.... No problem with Europe. The EU on the other hand...... And yes, UKIP do come across as morons. I wish they didn't so I could vote for them.
2. What you say is true. The LT was supported by the UK Government. It saddens me that they are allowed to abdicate more and more responsibility to the EU which I believe to be a waste of money. Baroness Ashton is a chocolate fireguard in a role which I believe should not exist so that is little consolation.
3. Again what you say is true. However GB promised one and went back on his promise based on semantics. Everyone in Europe says the Treaty is the same as the Constitution except GB. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" but not to Gordon Brown who believes changing somethings name changes what it is.
4. The Europeans are not the enemy. Most EUsceptics are falsly accused of thinking that they are. What you'll find is that EUsceptics dislike those in the EU Gravy Train and that applies to Brits as well as other nationalities with their snouts in the trough. Mr and Mrs Kinnock spring to mind.
Complain about this comment
Gavin wrote: Nick Clegg quickly picked up the same cudgel and accused the Conservatives of getting together with a "bunch of nutters who deny climate change and homophobes".
They deny climate change and homophobes? This sentence can be interpreted more than one way :-)
But back to the issue, the real 'nutters' are the ones who suggest that climate change is NOT a natural phenomenon anymore.
And the even bigger 'nutters' are the ones who suggest that this natural phenomenon (climate change) can be 'fixed' by tossing billions of moneys towards governments (who just happen to be desperate for revenue) and left wing alarmists like Al Gore (who would be the #1 profiteer in case of global carbon trade). Any wonder WWF and Greenpeace are cheerleadering for this? They too would stand to benefit, and considering the huge paychecks of their directors and ties with left wing parties I am strongly suspicious of them.
Speaking of carbon trade, I personally consider it the most nutty idea in history. The very idea of a 'carbon foot print' is ridiculous. The climate controls us not the other way round. I fear this will be used by left wingers to try and regulate peoples lives even further, by rationing miles you can drive by car or fly to your holiday destination. Except the progressive elite themselves of course, who with generous handouts from government funded organizations can afford Al Gore's 'carbon credits'.
To me, it is not a surprise that the same people who think the EU is democratic also think that a natural phenomenon can be controlled by mankind.
5.generalissimo wrote:First it’s impossible because the process of shaping a pro-European mentality, as a result of the economic integration, is irreversible.
Really? Oh what fun we can have a game. Can anyone spot the obvious flaw in the reasoning here?
It would be that if 'shaping a pro-EU mentality is irreversible' that the countries of the first hour would be the most enthusiastic. This is far from the case since my country Netherlands is now at its most unenthusiastic in history now people are finally waking up (even if slowly) as to how undemocratic the EU is and how little democracy there is left on the national level. Germany is experiencing its awakening too.
I am myself pro-Europe and therefore absolutely anti-EU.
If it were subject to popular votes, no more integration would happen for the foreseeable future, and politicians know this so they will do everything they can to either deny or bypass referendums.
The most positive point about the awakening regarding the EU (this was proven in the referendums here and in France too) is that it was the younger people who tended to be less enthusiastic whereas older people often blindly voted pro-EU.
In other words, the EU (the wannabe-empire) needs to step up its indoctrination of children (which former commission/politburo member for propaganda Wallström alluded to a few years ago, she even 'threatened' there'd be war if we dared vote against the treaty). Get 'em while they are young... and yet that too is failing. Only the elitist crowd is still enthusiastic, the rest (ie majority) is not.
I do wonder, how do federalists propose to enact EU-federalism if the people do not support it? Ram it through anyway? Democracy be darned to heck?
2.PlanetEnglish wrote: ... Latin Europe is so enthusiastic... So long as they can milk away from the North (germany and britain [and netherlands]), it is party-time for the ClubMed.
This is the major reason why all these countries were/are lining up for the EU. They expect Britain, Germany and Netherlands to fund them. Wouldn't you join a 'club' which effectively promised to hand over 10-30 billion moneys to you in the first 10 years? And your politicians, wouldn't they love an unelected non-tax paying EU job? You know, the ones with the double pension funded by others.
Expect Spanish enthusiasm to wane significantly over the next 10 years because their party time is running out since from 2013 onwards they will be losing heavy 'regional subsidies' to the east. Expect them to cry about how 'unfair' it is that they are no longer going to be the #1 net recipient (or even: net recipient at all). Combined with the collapse of the inflated Spanish housing market, their party is truly over but they don't seem to realize it yet. Or maybe they'll try a 'war guilt' thingy on Germany, but that doesn't work anymore as France found out this year.
Any idea how many Germans opposed bailout for Greece? It was around 90% according to most polls, of course Merkel didn't concede when Sarkozy arrogantly demanded an EU-only 'solution' to the Greek debt. France as usual was thinking only of its own interest since French banks are the biggest creditor of Greece, Sarkozy effectively demanded Merkel sign so the German taxpayer guarantee the moneys to French banks. Merkel told him to get stuffed and yes then even Merkel was accused by the pro-EU crowd of being 'anti-Europe' (which they always do if you dare oppose their undemocratic plans).
That did not sit well in Germany at all, suddenly they realized they'd been played for suckers all these decades. The next round of the EU budget is going to be fun because Germany will no longer do what France says.
The real lesson for British voters is that main stream politicians in the end will not do anything to endanger their own or party colleagues future cozy unelected EU jobs. The recent 'scandal' in British politics concerning reimbursements and all that is nothing compared to what happens in Brussels.
Clegg and Brown will happily sign over billions of pounds in exchange for nothing and Cameron deliberately proposes things he knows are impossible. Cameron will be told to get stuffed if going to Brussels to demand treaty changes, and he knows it but hopes the public is fooled by his 'promise'. This is what the EU does to national democracy, it hollows it out making it effectively worthless since most policy areas are EU-competences anyway, meaning the EU commission (unelected) is the legislative initiator, not the national parliaments.
Complain about this comment
12.EuroSider wrote: Europe exists.
Of course it does, and Europe does not need EU. EU is undemocratic anyway.
Stop talking about Europeans as the 'enemy'.
Europeans are not the enemy, the undemocratic EU is the enemy. And it [EU] is not just the enemy of democracy, it is also the enemy of the people seeking to disenfranchise voters and transfer all powers to an unelected Brussels crowd.
I think your arguments can be placed in the 'elitist' category, am I right?
Remember: Europe would be better off without EU.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft (9). Mexico is a member of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) and not Mercorsur. NAFTA has no ambitions to become an undemocratic political union like the EU with its own law-making institutions whose law is superior to, and therefore automatically nullifies, Acts of the US Congress and the parliaments of Mexico and Canada.
There is a fundamental difference between a Free Trade Agreement like NAFTA and an EU-like customs union. You can belong to several of the former, but once you are part of a customs union you can no longer negotiate trade agreements on your own behalf. If Gordon Brown was logical he would see that Mexicans have created more jobs by having two Free Trade Agreements with North America and Europe, than the UK has with just one customs union with Europe.
I realise you euro-nationalists prize ‘influence’ over all else, but i believe democracy to be a higher goal, and therefore that governments of other countries around their world should do what their own voters want, and not what the EU Council wants. That of course applies both ways; the UK government’s primary mission should be to represent the interests of the British people, and not those of the American people to European governments as you somehow imagine its raison d’être to be. If some people at the US State Department think otherwise then they should be reminded of the reasons their country was founded.
The EU in truth has negligible influence around the world anyway. When one speaks about ‘influence’ in the context of the EU it is about influence over governments that are already members of the EU, through coercive mechanisms like Qualified Majority Votes and the supremacy of EU law. The EU bargain is essentially to give up a large part (maybe 90% in the case of the UK) of self-government in exchange for a small part (10%) in governing multiple other EU countries. That may seem an attractive bargain to some politicians, but it is a very bad bargain for any voter who has no control over the 26 other governments of Europe who have 90% of the votes to decide the law he lives under in an ever-growing range of policy areas. We need more influence by voters over their own governments, and less influence over our government by other governments. The Conservatives in truth have some of this concept (which they call ‘localism’) in their manifesto, but they stop short of applying it to the EU level where it is most urgently needed.
Complain about this comment
4.Freeborn John wrote: The bigger picture here is that Labour and LibDems can't win the real debate against federalists on the Continent so tag along with it there. But they can't explain why they sit with federalists in the EU Parliament to their British voters, or win the argument for federalism here.
The federalists cannot win the debate anywhere. It is the same here in Netherlands. In order to drum up 'support' for an issue they have to resort to referring to 'some degree of cooperation in Europe' and then if people support 'some degree of cooperation' triumphantly proclaim that 'the people support unlimited political integration via EU'.
That's how it works. Always has, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The federalists (with the exception of the isolated loner Verhofstadt) refuse to open their real agenda to us, hoping to continue 'integration by stealth' all along calling all those who disagree to be 'anti-Europe'. Standard method of operation for them, they know there is no public support for pretty much anything they want.
Referendums? Bah, the people are too stupid to know what's good for them (progressives in particular think this way, exceptions noted). Euro currency? If its wonderful for the elite, bankers and corporations then surely we must do what they want... etc... etc...
Complain about this comment
Basically I conclude this: The EU and UK are so integrated economically and politically that any government cannot propose a change in that relationship.
Cameron knows this he can offer a few crumbs to keep his eurosceptic factions quiet, but that is all.
All sound minded politicians know this. They may pander to hostile tabloid/ non EU owned newspapers, but know how important the EU is, not only for business and industry - but also for its people.
Complain about this comment
18.Freeborn John wrote: I realise you euro-nationalists prize ‘influence’ over all else, but i believe democracy to be a higher goal, and therefore that governments of other countries around their world should do what their own voters want, and not what the EU Council wants.
The 'influence' argument is strange anyway. Why would you consent to have laws made for you in Brussels where you might have 12 percent influence where you can have 100 percent control if you just made them in your own national parliament. And even if, for purposes of trade, you had to accept some regulations here and there, you'd still have control over, say 50 percent or even more. And 50 percent control beats 12 percent influence every time. And besides, most EU laws are weak compromises of the 'one size fits none' variety.
So much for the 'influence' argument :-)
Complain about this comment
@12 EuroSider
It is no good making sweeping statements about matters you clearly do not , in my opinion , understand .
The British governments has been trying their best to work with Europe since 1992 ; successive governments are in a difficult position with the majority of British public opposing the EU .
Gordon Brown and the Labour Party will see the thanks they get for signing the Lisbon Treaty , on 6th/7th May .
The EU is not Europe or the European People . British people feel No ill will toward Europe or European People . Being subjected to the undemocratic EU institution and all it stands for is what British people hate .
Who is Baroness Ashton anyway ? So far she seems out of her depth .
I suggest she got the appointment as a Sop to Brown for his Toadying to the EU and ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without Labour's promised referendum .
British people do not speak of Europeans as if they were the enemy , but are themselves the enemy within the EU political institution .
You pay a lot of complements to Europeans in relation to the British .
If you actually live for some time in an EU country , as I have done , you might eat your words .
You may not approve of referendums ; but the 1975 one got the British people into this mess ; so why not have another as to whether Britain remains in or out of the EU . If the choice were to leave the EU ; perhaps the government could simply Repeal the European Communities Act ?
Complain about this comment
Mvr512 (16) said “The recent 'scandal' in British politics concerning reimbursements and all that is nothing compared to what happens in Brussels.”
This is true. The inquiry into the expenses scandal at Westminster resulted in a demand that two million pounds be repaid. That is the grand total for all 646 MPs over the 5 years of this parliament, yet it costs more to keep 1 MEP than that. Nick Clegg for example alone received (within the rules) more than that (close to £2.5 million in salaries, allowances and expenses) during his time working in Brussels.
It is frequently said (normally by pro-EU politicians and media) that the expenses scandal has undermined trust in the political system in Britain. But the permanent handover of political powers to the EU by politicians against the wishes of the owners of that power (the voters) is a far more serious issue, one whose impact can only grow with time, and which no major British political party is even attempting to remedy.
Complain about this comment
The only difference among them is how they would negotiate the UK's terms of surrender. All three are flawed because the UK already has surrendered to the EU and has no leverage left to negotiate with. The actual instrument of final surrender, the Lisbon Treaty was signed by Gordon Brown alone without even the approval of his rubber stamp parliament. He didn't want to leave even the slightest crack in the door, room for debate, doubt that it might not happen. This is proof positive that the UK is no democracy, not when one individual can give away an entire nation's sovereignty without even the pretense of checks or balances. At least Jack got a bag of magic beans for the family cow. All Brown got was the chance to subsidize inefficient French farmers with billions of British taxpayer dollars.
Complain about this comment
As Euronomics brings the EU closer to implosion, the only issue among the three blind mice is how tightly they would tie Britain's fate to that of the other doomed EU nations;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8614782.stm
One must admit that the insistance of buying a ticket to board the Titanic AFTER it hit the iceberg shows a remarkable degree of stupidity you don't ordinarily find in people. The only issue among them is whether to buy a more expensive cabin.
Here in America, our government seems to be going down the same fatal path trying to be all things to all people and spending far more money than it has year after year at every level Federal, State, and Local. The deficits are unsustainable just like Europe's. The suggestion of a VAT is insanity that would collapse the US economy even faster. It hasn't worked in Europe, it won't work here either, it stifles individual consumer spending that drives two thirds of the US economy. The stimulus package failed because it was much too small and there are no protective tarriffs to keep the benefits of it in the US. If the US does't start to print lots of money soon for its citizens and government to pay off debts and buy things they want and need and protect itself in order to create jobs and regenerate prosperity in the US, the US economy will collapse and take down the rest of the world with it. The US economy still drives the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
UKIP came second in the vote for the "EU"-parliament.
Farage or Pearson (UKIP) should have bee invited to join in the debate with the "leaders" of the three apparatchik parties i.e. Tory, LibDems, Labour.
The first televised debate clearly gave Clegg a boost. I believe that a UKIP presence at the second debate would have persuaded people to vote UKIP.
The absence of UKIP was undemocratic unless UKIP were offered the chance and turned it down, which I doubt. I therefore regard this election as MORALLY ILLEGITIMATE.
Complain about this comment
Eurosider:
OK....facts of life:
1) Europe exists.
Yes, and it includes Switzerland, Norway, Lichtenstein, and Russia. Please use the term EU.
2) The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish completed its installation under European law. There is nothing to have a referendum on. It has been supported by the U.K. We even have Baroness Ashton installed in Brussels as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.
Actually, I thought it was Czekoslovakian ratification that came last.
Yes, Baroness Ashton is installed, totally unelected, and for that you have my sincere commiserations ;-)
3) Referenda have no place in British law;
True, But UKIP policy is for Swiss-style referenda; they work well over here.
4) Stop talking about Europeans as the 'enemy'.
Europeans are not the enemy. EU politicians now... :-)
Complain about this comment
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100036119/choice-you-couldnt-put-a-cigarette-paper-between-these-three-stooges/
Complain about this comment
#3
@Huaimek, any more pie in the sky? :))
What makes you think that anyone from the countries you "imaginary union" will be interested in that? and what Northen & Eastern European countries do you dream about?
There is only one way forward and that is through the EU we have today, work with it make it better, but start fresh? That is a joke!
Complain about this comment
I think Eurosider has been well and truly corrected :-) (posts 12, 15, 22 and 28)
Complain about this comment
@ 18. Freeborn John - check your facts, Mexico has been an associate member of Mercosur since 2004 and there's talk of full membership. NAFTA has been denounced by the Republicans and I doubt very much it will survive in its current form when they are re-elected. You must be very naive if you think that the Americans would side with Britain for having walked away from its continental partners on the basis of "democracy". Me, I think they would rather plump for maintaining the world's largest bilateral trade and investment relationship, covering 40% of world trade and over 60% of world GDP. That's "influence" in case you missed it.
Complain about this comment
Re:17,
‘Europeans are not the enemy, the undemocratic EU is the enemy. And it [EU] is not just the enemy of democracy, it is also the enemy of the people seeking to disenfranchise voters and transfer all powers to an unelected Brussels crowd.’
Yes! Let us do it! Let us skip the ‘unelected [sic] Brussels crowd’ and go back to the ‘elected’ British Head of State, the ‘elected’ UK House of Lords and the newspapers by an ‘elected’ Australian-American media mogul and an ‘elected’ Viscount Rothermere, shaping the thinking of a sizeable proportion of the UK population (cue- a publication by Nick Clegg 8 years ago about the attitude of the English towards Europe, suddenly turned into ‘Clegg’s Nazi slur on Britain’ in yesterday’s Daily Mail).
Yes, mvr512, that is what we want. We want the British MPs to democratically decide to clean their moats and duck-islands with our taxes, and to send troops fighting in Iraq. We want anybody who questions the British hotly-embraced ‘different-ness’ from the Europeans to be branded a Nazi by a newspaper.
Complain about this comment
More of the same on this blog ???
MarcusAurellius
Is the contributor mvr512 related to you.
I always thought your prejudices were copyrighted ?
Complain about this comment
#33 Isenhorn
You made my day !
I was beginning to think I was alone in the world with this lot.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft (32): I do check my facts. Mexico has only observer status in Mercosur. Indeed, since Mercosur is a customs union (i.e. a free trade area with a common external tariff) Mexico could never become a member without abandoning its existing Free Trade Agreements with North America and Europe, which would mean less jobs for Mexicans.
Instead Mexico is pursuing a more enlightened policy by negotiating yet another Free Trade Agreement with Mercosur such that it then would have free trade with North America, South America and Europe and the even more jobs that would lead to. The UK should pursue the same enlightened approach by leaving the EU customs union and seeking a Free Trade Agreement with it and other key markets instead.
I think you need to check the definition of ‘influence’ too. It is getting other people to do what you want them to do, which they would not otherwise have done. My respect for democracy goes beyond wanting it only for the country i live in. You on the other hand are basically saying that the main merit of the EU as you see it, is to use collective economic blackmail against the government of non-member states to force them to do what their own voters do not want, ... And you wonder why EU supporters are seen as undemocratic.
Complain about this comment
@25 MA
"Here in America, our government seems to be going down the same fatal path trying to be all things to all people and spending far more money than it has year after year at every level Federal, State, and Local. The deficits are unsustainable just like Europe's."
Here in Europe, ever since the big recession of the 30’s, all democratic governments have been successfully applying /more or less/ the old Keynes' system of helping the jobless people in order to maintain the necessary consumption/demand/production of the first necessities and a more efficient microeconomic stability. Note that it's not at all a "socialist" theory/practice and that it has nothing to do with the left wing movements/parties.
For long years after the death of Lord Keynes, America has not been accepting, nor applying the views of Lord Keynes'. If you are right Mark, there is a room to believe that the last US governments somehow have been influenced by what was going on here in Europe and have been trying to apply the same subsidiary system for the same reasons. I am not sure whether it is true nor am I sure whether it is good or not for your economy? You are too pessimistic I suppose.
Complain about this comment
#4 - Freeborn John
I completely agree. The point is that all three main parties are scared witless of the European issue and therefore resort to "pointless disingenuous guff". As I have posted elsewhere, the party leaders by failing to address this issue do a grave disservice to the electorate and are only delaying the point at which they have to address it because it is not going to go away.
As regards to your post on the previous thread, no it is not all of which I am capable as you know. It is, however, how I feel about people who resort to insult when addressing their opponents - 'pointless disengenious (?) guff' being a good example. Can we return to being civilised?
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn - re #33
Not all EUSceptics are rampant Daily Mail readers with crazy accusations of Nazism. I for one agree that the UK 2 houses have a great deal wrong with them. But so does the EU. So why should we choose to add one bad system on top of the other? The EU saddles us with two bad systems we have to struggle with instead of just the one.
Complain about this comment
The central issue seems to rules of memberships of different Clubs.
Britain belongs to many Clubs - as do other countries.
NATO is one such Club.
EU is another such Club.
G-7 is another.
We dont surrender our Sovereignty when we join different Clubs.
Each Club serves a defined and limited purpose.
Gordon/Tony surrendered our Sovereignty - without taking the Sovereign Opinion through a referendum.
Cameron seems to be saying that he represents the voice of the British people in being more discerning - in limiting and defining the club membership rules.
However, if the Club rules are set by ClubMed - as seems to the case - like Ms Merkel, in the case of german bailout for greece, Britain must be discerning. If ClubMed threatens to freeze Merkel and Cameron, if they are the ones bearing the Club's administration charges, it is indeed grotesque.
The analogy is if Mexico threatens to expunge USA, if they dont bail them out. NAFTA includes Canada, and that thwarts latin designs.
Similarly, inside the EUSSR, ClubNord must have the clout to neutralize ClubMed.
Clubs that succeed, must have this democratic balance.
If Cameron can achieve his stated goal - he must be given the opportunity to do so. Clegg is all submission & surrender - but they at least have articulated that position. Gordon/Tony said something else, and did something else.
Complain about this comment
Re: Brusssels help in fighting pedophiles (besides its proverbial own)
When are Britons going to get a date certain for a national referendum re UK's membership in EUSSR?
[still can't get an answer]
Complain about this comment
Big business and banking sold the governments on the global economy and left the nations exposed. The governments, jealous of the bankers accumulating wealth, decided to spend the new taxes on contracts to political friends and not infrastructure or projects of value. When the reality of the bankers lies became apparent the governments were forced to provide public funds or be exposed for their complicity in the fraud. Now each country is trying in a political way to justify to their citizens why bankers could gamble away their retirement accounts with no accountability and further that they must fund giving bankers more money. It is like asking the victim to pay for the robbers tools lost while robbing your home. Because none of the governments will face the issue honestly and continue to protect the bankers and lie to their citizens they are all scrambling to survive. Hard to build concensus when no one can be trusted to tell the truth.
Complain about this comment
for those thinking that "ClubMed" is being subsidized by the "Noble Northerners", think again..
When the UK joined it wasn't quite in a situation where it could didn't "milk" the EU.
The southerners just play the EU game well and take advantage of it. And so should the Northerners...oh I forgot, the UK isnt really interested in playing the "EU game"..so yeah..no cherry-picking here...
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John, re: your post#4
You said "...The discussion on the EPP & ECR groupings in the EU Parliament was even worse than Brown's vodoo economics. Federalists imagine they are proto-political parties but these obscure groupings exist only to extract funding for real (i.e. national) political parties..."
Technically untrue. The funding for the EP groups goes to itself, the MEPs, their offices and expenses - the national parties qua parties don't get a look-in. If you're mixing up the EP group (Group of the European People's Party) with the Europarty (European People's Party), then it's exactly untrue: Europarty funding of national political parties was made illegal in (if memory serves) 2004, precisely because the national parties were going absolutely ape with the proceeds.
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
sponplague, re: your post#28
Czechoslovakia?????!!!!!! (sic).
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
Re: 41
Powermeerkat,
Since you seem to advocate referendums so much, should you not ask when the German and Japanese people are going to get a referendum on the US of A moving its bases out of their respective territories?
For that matter, should you not ask when the Bulgarian and Romanian people are going to get referendums on the US of A installing missiles and radars in their territories?
I rather think that the likely outcome of any referendum on the above issues is what is stopping you of supporting the idea of asking the people.
Complain about this comment
Re #45
since Soviet Army invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 both Czechia and Slovakia made a big progress to regain their standard of living prior to WWII.
The've already surpassed former Soviet Russia in that regard.
Just go and see for yourselves.
Complain about this comment
One of the more ludicrous pro-EU arguments made in last night’s debate came from Gordon Brown. Replying to a question on immigration he said “there are a million people from Britain who are in the European Union ... and there are one million people from the European Union who are in our country, that is what being part of the European Union is about”.
There are 5.5 million Britons living overseas, and only 1 million of them live in other EU countries. The vast majority of Britons in other member-states of the EU live in just one country (Spain) and are mainly retired and therefore not economically inactive. Perhaps Gordon Brown can explain how the 4 million Britons living and working in non-EU countries, such as the 1.3 million Brits in Australia, the 700000 in the USA, or the 600000 in Canada are able to do so if such things are all down to the EU?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/default.stm
Maybe Gordon Brown has no clue to what the EU ‘is about’? Maybe that is why he so causally signed away the right to create the highest law in the land in an expanded list of policy areas to the supranational (federal) institutions in Brussels when he agreed to the Lisbon Treaty? Or maybe he just thinks we voters are stupid enough to fall for half-baked pro-EU arguments like this one? Either way he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Complain about this comment
MAII
don;t tell me they are even thinking of VAT in the USA?????? ((((((
Complain about this comment
There seems to be a curious parallel argument that supports both US Imperialism and EU imperialism. That is simply that both are much better than other historical examples of the same thing, and that therefore they are beneficial and desirable.
The point is well made that the UK is hardly a bastion of democracy, but is rather a party based oligarchy with a head of state who is selected according to bloodline. That is true, and it is also arguably true that the institutions of the EU are no worse, in terms of making a mockery of democracy.
But so what? Just because something is no worse than something else, this does not make it desirable or even acceptable. The reasoning is simply that two wrongs do not constitute a right.
But this is the major justification put forward by sane persons in favour of the EU. And, as I mentioned earlier, it is also the major justification put forward by those who support US imperialism by war.
Saddam was very bad, and therefore it was right to invade a state and kill vast numbers of civilians. Iran might one day be a threat, therefore it is right to attack it. Other empires have been bloodthirsty and cruel, and so if American can be a little less bad, it is good and proper to have America go to war and dictate domestic policy across the globe.
And the advocates for the EU are no better. The UK is undemocratic, therefore the people of the UK ought to embrace the institutions of the EU. They are arguably no worse. The UK has overseen gross human rights abuses in the past, therefore the ridiculous and insincere lip service paid to human rights by the ECJ and the commission is no cause for concern. There have been economic downturns in states outside the EU, therefore economic downturns due to corrupt and flawed EU systems of economic management are of no concern. Indeed, they are desirable, because others have been bad.
It is a pitiful display of insincerity and false reasoning, and yet it passes for adult dialogue in the corporate press. Kindergarten children are expected to understand that two wrongs do not constitute a right, and yet the EU is presented to us as the least worst choice in an inherently undemocratic world.
And with regard to this blog entry, I find the headlines under which it is sold to us acutely false. We are told that there has been a debate concerning Europe, and that there was a clash of ideas. What a patent falsehood. All the party members adopt precisely the same position. None will offer a referendum on European membership, none have responded to the huge public desire for such a policy. All have skirted the issue with calculated skill, betraying the likely fact that the EU is fundamentally attractive to members of all political parties.
And indeed it is. The EU has been set up by members of political parties for the benefit of members of political parties, at the cost of everybody else. And now we see all the party members in the UK avoid the deeply unpopular EU topic, and refuse to offer any detailed options to the electorate.
And yet that uniform and calculated response by the party members to the European issue is reported as a profound and contentious debate by the corporate media.
Without a hint of exaggeration, the former soviet union allowed a broader scope of political discussion than the current regime in the UK, or in Europe.
I find myself in agreement with Marcus at post 25. The betrayal of the public by the party machine goes beyond self interest and appears to be suicidal. We see party members spending money they don't have on schemes that demand further borrowing and further spending of money. All for the short term benefit of the party members and their sponsors, and all to the detriment of the public accounts.
There is a dangerous blindness at work here. Not only is the modern party based system of representation undemocratic, it is also proving to be economically unsustainable. As the public watch in growing disgust and horror at the rising mountains of debt in their name, to be extracted from their children as taxation, the party machine rolls onwards and spends money an short term projects designed to secure power for the various party members who are blessed with a career by the corporate media and its owners. A select few make vast profits from the massive government spending, and these few are content to ignore both the undemocratic nature of corporate government, and also its economic fate. Their fortunes are secured internationally, and to them the state is a farm, and the citizens farm animals to be corralled and harvested in due course.
In any case, it is clear the people of the UK will be given no meaningful choice about the EU at the next elections. Nor will they be given any meaningful choice about the degree of corporate influence on their laws and government. All the major parties will share in the spoils of the system, and the careers of party members will flourish regardless of the result.
And Hewitt will report on this charade as though it is interesting, as though there are choices on offer, and as though the people are presented with options which will determine what unfolds during the next governmental term, and whether the economy will be properly managed.
Complain about this comment
#39 Angryjohn
---Because your present undemocratic system has not delivered and it´s fighting like hell to keep the status qo.
This is a choice between two evils, the European evil has delivered in every country except Britain.
Complain about this comment
#50 democracythreat
Revolution ?
Or is anarchy the only honest political system ?
Your eloquent arguments leave us with few other options.
Complain about this comment
One of the most disgraceful pro-EU arguments made last night came from Nick Clegg. He said that police operations (he gave 1 example called ‘Operation Koala’) against pedophiles were only possible thanks to increased EU powers and Brussels agencies like Europol.
However there are plenty of cases (see link below) of the UK police co-operating with their counterparts in the USA, Canada and Australia to achieve even better results without creating any self-aggrandizing EU agencies in Brussels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383361.stm
The truth is that whenever you hear pro-EU politicians using pedophiles (or terrorists) as justification for new EU powers or agencies, they are seeking to exploit revulsion of the perpetrators of the most heinous of crimes to establish a beach-head for EU interference in the criminal law, which once established for a small category of crimes will then be expanded remorselessly until we have the equivalent of an FBI in Brussels.
The police forces of the world are perfectly capable of co-operating with one another either directly or via Interpol without giving the EU the power it craves.
Complain about this comment
#51 quietoaktree
#39 Angryjohn
---Because your present undemocratic system has not delivered and it´s fighting like hell to keep the status qo.
This is a choice between two evils, the European evil has delivered in every country except Britain.
Granted the UK system is not up to scratch. But an extra layer of badness won't help. The EU (i'm not calling it evil and i'm distinguishing it from Europe) has not really delivered. There are many examples of the EU not delivering. False accounting (what is it, 13 years now?, corruption in EU grants, poor old Greece facing bankruptsy, "Old" EU Officials with their power struggles and empire building against the "new" officials, flagrant waste swapping between Strasborg and Brussles.
I'm not calling the EU evil. Just clumsy and not fit for purpose.
Complain about this comment
According to this report, ‘Operation Koala’ was triggered by information from ... the Australian police (hence the name).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308177,00.html
Presumably Nick Clegg thinks the success is down to Australia being part of the European Union.
Complain about this comment
Re referenda...
Perhaps Greek people should be asked whether they want to become in EU?
And EU citizens whether they want to remain in the euro zone?
Complain about this comment
@46 Isenhorn
"For that matter, should you not ask when the Bulgarian and Romanian people are going to get referendums on the US of A installing missiles and radars in their territories?"
The answer is clear: the debate over the necessity of organizing referendum on such sensible issues is just another proof of the double standard approach some fellow bloggers are trying to apply here. In both cases, the answer will be negative /I mean that the majority of the Brits will maybe say "no" for the Lisbon Treaty application; accordingly, the crushing majority of the Bulgarians will say "no" for the installation of the anti-missile shield/.
Complain about this comment
Latest from BBC economics editor re: IMF/EU Greek bailout:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/04/ceding_defeat_but_not_yet_defa.html
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
Re32: NAFTA denounced by the Republicans? Ha! It was Bush pushing for it to go fast forward and as stealthly as possible. And Bush had stepped even further calling in EU leaders to discuss the future approach of NAFTA and EU... that is how much NAFTA was opposed by Republicans. Do you think that with MacCain or whoever else they will do anything different? It is not McCain who decided on these things you know...
Re50: ... another reason why I read democracyThreat's messages... indeed.
Re52: ... and this is quitoaktree's logical questioning... indeed what peopel can do? Revolution? Anarchy? Well the answer is simple. You refuse to recognise the value of money and you turn back to the gold, silver or other standards. People in the country side can barter exchange a part of their needs for example. They can produce their own energy too in many ways. It is a good idea to have a gun too when things become tough, haha! Ok, I am kidding but only half. Indeed control is total but if only people realised how thin is the balance...
Quietoaktree, you play the game but at least you know the game and you play it knowingly, not like a sheep. In that way at least you can make some safer predictions for the future even if that will not help you much secure your own one. It is just a matter of principle. Not being a sheep.
Complain about this comment
Like many other Europeans Greeks were not asked if they wanted to join or not. However Greeks enterred in a particular point of their 20th century storyline. 3,5 years after the Cyprus invasion following a US imposed change of dictator in US imposed dictatorships. They saw in EEC a new possible geostrategic support organism and they jumped in as they got out of NATO (military part, but anyway the political was just to say that we did not become communists or something and avoid a direct military attack against us...cos it would come anyway...back then in Balkans you could not be neutral). Contrary to common belief, the Greek people's majority was wary about what the EEC would implicate and it was clear since the beginning that the promise of Karamanlis (he said "When we will be in EEC, none will be able to threaten us") proved wrong the same day of entry (as Europeans made it clear that they won't intervene in case Greece faces military aggression - and Greece faces the military aggressivity of Turkey but EU does not intervene up to our days). And Greeks were also wary as "how much it is going to cost" cos in their minds it was certain that Greece would pay more than what it would receive as obviously the powerful countries would be there to exploit not to offer. But somehow in the 1980s, thanks to the policies of Andreas Papandreou (Papandreou Papandreou and yet again ... Papandreou), the EEC was sending blindly funds ending up in the pockets of a few who in turn gave bits and parts to their surrounding ending up in a situation where the corruption which was cultivated by the socialist party was directly EEC funded and that with full knowledge of the EEC responsibles. And this story went on pretty much till 2004 and the Olymics which is far more than the Greeks would have imagined - we actually expected the current crisis to come by early 1990s. It seems we had not yet been borrowed enough to be asked back... you know how it goes...
anyways... Greeks would still not vote against the EU. Nothing to do with finances, nothing to do with democracy, they know its all problematic. But they are directly threatened, their lands, properties and lifes. They are down to that point right now. If they are left alone, mathematically they will be militarily attacked in a matter of months not years.
The only possibility of Greeks to leave the EU is to enter in a kind of very close alliance with the only other power there that can guarantee a degree of protection, the Russians. They might be better of with the Russians who have not as many friends and who will congratulate such a move much more than the current "friends". Who knows?*
* By the way Vlado mentioned something about being ready to propose to Greece much better interests... why don't Germans - who do not want to pay (i.e. lend Greece at 5% after them having borrowed at 3%....haha!) - say to Greeks to go get their money from Vlado?
Complain about this comment
57. At 9:14pm on 23 Apr 2010, generalissimo wrote:
@46 Isenhorn
"For that matter, should you not ask when the Bulgarian and Romanian people are going to get referendums on the US of A installing missiles and radars in their territories?"
a ha ha ha ha ....
The answer is clear: the debate over the necessity of organizing referendum on such sensible issues is just another proof of the double standard approach some fellow bloggers are trying to apply here.
o ho ho ho ho .....
Complain about this comment
Looking at the photo a caption;
Clegg to Brown..."Just a few more steps this way old man, steady, you're almost there now."
Complain about this comment
Can I propose something new too?
Right now there are 3 major projects under concept design in Greece:
In order of size:
1) Russian Southstream
2) US Nabucco
3) US/Saoudi liquified gas
The decision to opt each of these or any combination is immense not only for the financial but also for the very existence of the state as it is and the overall future of its citizens and it will affect them perhaps more than the Lisbon treaty from which they can retire any day cancelling their signature... but in energy issues you cannot just close everything and say "I'll buy by the sun" or something...
So:
Shouldn't Greeks vote for which of the three major projects they want Greece to go on?
o ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho
I would like to see the faces of Germans and French and British there...
Democracy you want? Take it. It is there.
Complain about this comment
PlanetEnglish and the couple of posters that follow have the idea, while Nik the Slick - do something about that laugh, boy, it's ruining your not-insignficant cred - has a point when he asks the Vimes question - "Where's the money?" Not in EU hands, that's for sure. This is the kind of "loan" - unsecured billions to failing causes to keep fat-cats rich and powerful - that brought on the crisis in the first place. Nik's local take on the politics is a lot more real than anything Hewitt ever wrote in his life, too, if a bit rossbif - burnt on the outside, red in the middle.
@Isenhorn or Barad-dumb or whatever - We're all a bit tired of 'under the bed' as a snide political riposte. It lost its edge 20 years back when we found that the subsomniac zone was really packed with Reds - the ones who invented the phrase - during that magic window when glasnost let real historians into the Soviet libraries.
Crippled economy, unions on the streets, agitators in all directions and xenophobia excusing human rights abuse on a massive scale. It's not the Pope under the bed in Greece - the beastly reds never left, for all Churchill's prescient stonewalling - and they won't for as long as we rely on their oil and gas.
All in all, this shows that the UK's well out of the Euro. It's irrelevant and disliked in Greece anyway. Germany's going to have to pick up the tab at the same time as paying up for a million Turks in the population - sweet! France, as always, is hopping round the corpse-to-be and shrieking, on the cadge for scraps when its Russian masters have finished feeding. Obama must be laughing all the way to Cairo.
Complain about this comment
#59 Nik
Am I misunderstanding your arguments ???
A child taking its gloves off in deep winter and then suffering severe frostbite says ´it deserves my mother right because she refused to buy me a lollipop ? ´
Is that what you are saying.?
Greece 10 points, Cyprus 10 points ?
Complain about this comment
#64 MercThrasher
We have not heard such an intellectual contribution in a long time.
Sounds like a ´Teaparty-ist ´ far right of Palin and wearing lipstick taking the bulldog for a walk.
Or did I again misunderstand ?
Complain about this comment
David Cameron came to Bristol to insist that too many powers have gone from Westminster to Brussels, but did he list these any of these powers and explain why they should revert? This appears to be where David keeps coming up short; he speaks too much in generalities. Statements like: "I want to be in Europe but not run by it." just don’t tell me anything. Also, David Cameron’s insistence that any new treaty that involved new powers going to Brussels would trigger a referendum, is too carte blanche. Surely he doesn’t mean “any”.
As for Nick Clegg the EU was not being perfect is like saying that no human being is perfect. Further there was no need for the addendum that the EU was a club that had spent 15 years defining chocolate. His defence, however, is correct that EU can do a lot of things "we can't do on our own". Yet, The Liberal Democrats want to ask the British people whether they want to be in or out of Europe. Nick’s vascillation confuses me about where he really stands, or if he is trying to stand like a Colossus striding the two positions: yes referendium, no referendum.
As for Gordon Brown's central defence of the EU as jobs. I agree with this, but I think it’s also important to acknowledge that the time has come and gone where countries can afford to operate in isolation, and this is said in respect to jobs, fiscal control(s) as well as the simple concept of power.
The debate came down to:
Conservatives will resist any new powers going to Brussels. I question the single word “any”, a word that David Cameron may have to eat.
Labour believes the EU delivers a string of benefits job-wise and fiscally. Agreed.
LibDems have yet to establish a clear picture of where they stand and speak consistently and accordingly.
Complain about this comment
"..Clash over EUrope.."
Mr Hewitt!
Please!
I expect at least a minimal sop of journalistic integrity!
"CLASH"! When, where, what, why, who... How on earth did You ever come up with that absurd summation of the so-called 'debate' on EUrope!?
Did I blink & miss it, or, are You seriously attempting to suggest last Thursday evening was a 'debate' between Politicians each holding/offering genuine alternative views on the UK & a EUropean Union!?
10 minutes of the 3 main UK Political Parties' Leaders saying NONE of them wanted the UK out of the EU!
10 minutes of those 3 arguing in semantics about which 'bit' of the EU could be 'reformed' or 'taken back'!
10 minutes of Cameron with absolutely NO PROPOSALS or IDEAS on how his Party would 'take back' what Maastricht to Lisbon has claimed for Brussels!
10 minutes of Clegg with absolutely no conviction at all about how his Party would 'OFFER A REFERENDUM ON MEMBERSHIP' & yet he and the rest all want the UK to 'play an even bigger role in EUrope'!
10 minutes of Brown's '..3 million jobs dependent on EU..' pontificating whilst jobless figures rose under him in the UK to 3 million & he & his party made no apology for traiterously abandoning the Referendum on Lisbon - - the jock never even mentioned it - - neither did the other 2 leaders, or, any of the Questioners!
HOW VERY ODD - - when on the EU every Poll/Survey showed it was the key issue the UK Public were interested - - so, it turns out SKY, BBC & 3 Political Parties are as duplicitously 'in' with the EU-Brussels con-merchants as the rest of the UK-EUropean 'Big-Government/Big-Business'.
Well, what a surprise that is!
NOT.
Complain about this comment
If Brown is re-elected, there will be just enough time for him to force the UK to join the Euro so that it will have no choice but to help Germany bail out the PIIGS.
Complain about this comment
The United Kingdom [UK] should, hopefully under a strong Tory government, renegotiate its membership of the European Union [EU]. This idea that the UK would be isolated if the Tories won is nothing more than underhanded scaremongering.
Complain about this comment
#69 MarcusAurellius
If you had read contributions #67 and #68 before posting you may have realized how time wasting for all, your contribution #69 is.
Complain about this comment
Maybe I'm wrong,but my impression is that Great Britain always wanted to become dominant in Europe as demonstrated by the Hundred Years War back in the Middle Ages.And I believe that it still does.If so,it should use it's influence to find a peaceful solution in both Afghanistan and Pakistan to try to stop the obscene bloodshed by persuading other European nations to stop supporting the right-wing thugs in Washington D.C. in their quest for dominating the region.
Complain about this comment
One of the main reasons John Howard lost the 2007 election in Australia was that he failed to grasp that after 11 years people had simply had enough of him and the Liberal party. I am a Liberal/Tory at heart and I was delighted to see the back of him.
At the same time Kevin Rudd appeared to be much more electable than most of his Labor predecessors.
I think the same thing can be said for the UK now. People want change and I think that despite the first-past-the-post system, Nick Clegg will win the upcoming election.
Complain about this comment
I said this again and I will repeat it. The last ones who would retire Britains' involvement in the EU are exactly those who preach seemingly most against it, i.e. the conservatives. For them being in the EU is a chance to have an eye on the evolutions in the continent and this ability as an EU member is much more important to them than the whatever burden falling on the British citizens.
(the above is no endorsement for Labour either...or Liberals... I simply take no position in what seems to me as minor differentiations to justify each others' existence as a political formation).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS