Merkel-Sarkozy unity show
The German chancellor and the French president did what was demanded of them. They displayed unity. They said the words. "More than ever, Germany and France are determined to talk with one voice," said President Sarkozy, "to adopt common policies, to give Europe the means to meet its legitimate ambitions".
They often meet together just before a summit. What France and Germany agree on before the summits is what usually happens. But not necessarily this time. Courtship rituals do not disguise the fact that there are deep differences between France and Germany over how to address the crisis in the eurozone.
The key for Germany remains discipline - those who use the single currency must live by the rules when it comes to tax and spending. The German chancellor wants a "strengthening of the Stability and Growth Pact" that governs the eurozone. In future those countries that live beyond their means risk losing their voting rights. It seems an odd sanction and one that a country in difficulty might gladly embrace, rather than take tougher decisions at home.
The French view is for a giant leap forward towards integration for the 16 countries that use the eurozone. They favour "economic government" with a powerful secretariat, a treasury that would co-ordinate national budgets and tax and spending. In the French dream, monetary union would morph into financial union.
For the moment the German view seems to have the upper hand. Angela Merkel wants "economic governance" for all 27 EU member states. She is wary of a two-tier Europe in which the eurozone has its own secretariat. So, for the time being, there will be no new institutions.
The German chancellor does, however, back pre-approval for national budgets. To bring this about she envisages treaty changes. After the bruising experience of getting approval for the Lisbon Treaty there is little appetite to enter the ring again. The President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, opposes treaty changes because he fears that countries like the UK would see it as an opportunity to reopen negotiations on clauses they don't like.
But the idea of a treaty change could pose a real challenge to David Cameron. If the result of the change was that power moved to Brussels he would have to put it to the British people in a referendum. That is a commitment which may soon be backed by legislation.
In all of this there is much that remains unclear. There is a fog around the words "economic governance". As regards the relationship between Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, they will have to do far more to convince an anxious Europe that they see eye-to-eye. Only this week the German magazine Der Spiegel said that "they can hardly stand each other" and that she calls him the "little Napoleon". The French paper Le Point concludes "nothing is working anymore in the German-French relationship".
Meanwhile, as Europe's leaders circle each other, there are clouds on the horizon. Many people expect a Greek default. Despite the optimistic words coming out of the Greek finance ministry it is hard to find an official in Brussels who does not think that sooner or later Greek debt will have to be restructured. "Restructure" is the word that dare not mention its name, but it may still happen. And then the question is whether Greek debt should be restructured inside or outside the eurozone.
Then there is Spain. A Spanish official said yesterday (Monday) that some foreign banks were refusing to lend to a group of Spanish banks. There was a liquidity freeze on some Spanish banks in the interbank market. Yesterday - although I'm not sure it eased investors' fears - the German chancellor said Spain could make use of the 750bn-euro (£623bn; $917bn) rescue mechanism. In the twitchy world of eurozone rumours a lot of attention is being given to Spain.
The question is this: if the rescue mechanism is drawn upon will the sums be enough? It is inconceivable that Germany would be willing again to underwrite a further deal.
And then there are the austerity packages that are gradually dropping on European doormats like unwelcome bills. Will the people accept la rigueur? In Germany 87% of those polled thought their measures were unfair. The Italians and the Spanish are all preparing to protest further. Eventually the question could become political: "Is all this (austerity, bail-outs) the price of keeping the eurozone together?"
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~16~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"..What France and Germany agree on before the summits is usually what happens..".
Mr Hewitt, Please!
Don't beat-about-the-bush.
What France and Germany agree at any time of day or night over the last 20 years has always been agreed by the Summits.
The EU only exists to serve the interests of these 2 Nations.
Everything else is just hyperbolic trivia by 25 also-ran member Nations: The only stand-offs from wholesale grovelling before the axis-of-ill-intent known as Paris-Brussels-Berlin, is when occasionally UK, Denmark etc. Governments grab an 'opt-out' or 'derogation' to bolster internal 'political' credence with their elected Party and/or the Citizens.
Complain about this comment
It sounds like they are whistling in the dark.
Complain about this comment
Oh, please, Mr. Hewitt. Keeping the eurozone together or not. Is that the only topic this blog is about? Well, okay let's do this again. There a flaws in the eurozone, true! There are states, that lived beyond their means in the last decades (so even before the euro) and there are states outside the eurozone, which did the same. Will the Scottish and Welsh ask whether the austerity package of the Con/LibDem-Gov is a good enough reason to let the pound behind? I guess not, but repeating this question over and over again will not achieve anything.
So, the auditors and even international finance experts metioned just yesterday that the probability of Greece dafaulting is unlikely with the current austerity program. Too bad, looked so good for the euro-adversaries. Well, then let's move on to Spain, maybe they can be plunged into difficulties by rumors. Just be sure, Spain's debt is less percentage of the GDP than Germany's. So, is Germany the next state???
The best thing is, that Pres. Obama tried to convince Merkel last week, that the EU has to expand their spending and make more debt! The reason for it was the trade deficit of the US.
The EU is doing well to go on with its spending cuts, regardless whether the states are in the eurozone or not, because ultimately debt is living on money, that the next generation has to work up for. That being rather unfair.
P.S.: One size fits all isn't indeed working, which is becoming quite obvious in Belgium these days. But even Flandres sees its future in a united Europe with a single currency. So, the question is are there certain one sizes that might even fit in the odd place?
Complain about this comment
Despite lofty-talk from euro-federalists, they have to admit that there is some disturbingly old-fashioned power-politics at the heart of the project. EU law has more than a touch of the 'law of the jungle' about it, decided by the strong in their own interests, with the institutional mechanics of the EU being merely the means to oblige weaker powers to obey.
-------
“There are always economic or moral arguments for specific territorial annexations, whether these be ‘frontier rectifications’ or schemes of ‘closer union’ between a stronger power and a weaker. And in every country there are many individuals who feel personally magnified by an increase in the frontiers of the state. Thus nationalism, which is the will of a historically self-conscious people to attain self-government, inclines scarcely perceptibly through irredentism, which is the will to liberate people claimed to be of the same nationality, to imperialism, which is the will to rule other peoples.” (Martin Wight ‘Power Politics’)
Complain about this comment
"Meanwhile, as Europe's leaders circle each other, there are clouds on the horizon. Many people expect a Greek default. Despite the optimistic words coming out of the Greek finance ministry it is hard to find an official in Brussels who does not think that sooner or later Greek debt will have to be restructured."
Wow, I thought that issue was dead already! It looks more like a zombie that will not die.
So the people that run Brussels now stop believing in numbers and turned into beliefs now?
There are also lots of people that think UFO's exists but there aren't any facts out there to support that, we are all doomed!
As for the French/German EU engine it is appears to work fine again. The EU needs to drop nationalism and go forwards with the idea that it is a union and that we all swim together or sink together. The sooner we give up on the silly notion that we will be fine even if the French are doing badly or the Germans will do well even if the Spanish are doing badly, the soon we will all be better off.
Complain about this comment
"The German chancellor and the French president did what was demanded of them. They displayed unity."
The title of the blog is much more accurate. It was a "show" of unity. And that's all it was. Behind the scenes it is anything but unity. Each has the same purpose, to save the EU and Euro at little or no expense to their own nation while the other picks up most or all of the cost.
Another thing they have in common, their nations conceived of and engineered this Rube Goldburg of a European common house. Now that it is caving in they blame the others who live there, each other, anyone but themselves. Yet it was their nations who were the architects of this. Their nations which insisted on the Stability and Growth pact in Maastrict, their nations which consistently violated it, their nations which went before the EU court and had the fines and the pact itself set aside because they said it was obsolete. Their nations which could not live within the common rules they invented, they insisted upon, and they trashed. Now they want to point the fingers elsewhere at others who did't live within the rules. Typical European hypocricy and scapegoating. Sorry it doesn't fly. Their governmets are just as corrupt, despotic, and guilty of creating the crisis as Greece or anyone else. Their nations painted themselves into another tight corner there is no escape from just the way they always do. Their nations retain their megalomania and every time it manifests itself in some new hair brained scheme it blows up in their faces in the end. You can be sure there are European minds at work thinking up the successor to the EU this very minute and it will be no less hair brained than the EU was.
Complain about this comment
I caught up with an ancient episode of Yes Minister from 1980 and it seems that our EUrophilic friends may be right:
Sir Humphrey:
"Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"
Jim Hacker:
"That's all ancient history, surely."
Sir Humphrey:
"Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times."
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
I am greatly encouraged!
Complain about this comment
Apparently these meetings normally go like this: "Hi France, let me scratch your back, and you'll scratch mine when the time comes". In other words, Germany agreed (belatedly as usual) to loosen the minimum requirements for sovereign debt trading at the ECB so that French banks could unload their very considerable load of Greek bonds (thanks mr. Trichet, strangely enough a French guy), but they only did that as payback because France had agreed in the past to let the Germans modify the EU Automotive CO2 emission regulations to clearly favour big engined automobiles (guess which country makes them, and guess what nationality was the then EU Commissioner on those matters, Herr Verheugen).
As reported by a few newspapers, the reserved letters sent to Verheugen by the German carmaker's lobby that prove the latter, have been requested by the EU ombudsman for the past 16 months. However, those documents seem to be so embarassing for those that sent them, those that received them, and those that have been denying that such a lobby even exists, that Barroso, which unlike his predecessor has decided not to make automatically public all communications between the commission and others, has been doing everything he can (and everything he supposedly can't) to avoid making this exchanges public.
So much so that the ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, has been forced to publicly denounce Mr Barroso for "failing to honour his duty, sanctioned by the EU treaties, to cooperate sincerely and in good faith with the Ombudsman". In other words, even when people find out and call them out, they still refuse to fess-up. EU-murky-Business as usual.
Complain about this comment
' ...
"More than ever, Germany and France are determined to talk with one voice," said President Sarkozy, "to adopt common policies, to give Europe the means to meet its legitimate ambitions". ...'
It is not Germany and France speaking with one voice, it is the two awful people in the picture. Representative democracy isn't working as the disgusting goings on surrounding the Lisbon Treaty have shown.
"to give Europe the means to meet its legitimate ambitions".
The "EU" is still not Europe. Confusing Europe and the "EU" is a deliberately manipulative use of language which on its own takes the camouflage off the disgusting minds of theses two.
The ambitions are not those of the people inside the "EU". They are the ambitions of the arrogant clique who have grabbed power in the "EU".
These ambitions are not legitimate.
Complain about this comment
Please don't forget that the Lisbon Treaty has delivered "Qualified Majority Voting" in the Counil of Europe and that, intrinsically, this means that what Germany and France want they will now always get
The only way that the UK can numerically defeat a Franco-Germanic alliance is if the UK has the assistance of Poland, Spain and Italy as the 4 other more densely populated EU nations and the chances of that combination ever working to counter Germany + France lies somewhere between "no" and "chance" ...
Basically the Lisbon Treaty will deliver the UK budget(bound and gagged) for preview to the EU - whether the UK people (the Government, the Westminster Parliament or the Electorate)like it or not - if the Germans and French decide that is how it will be!
I am really looking forward to the forthcoming UK Referendum.
Complain about this comment
I have always believed that liberal nationalism is a very good thing, being the essential pre-requisite for representative government. You can't have democracy ('rule by the people') when there is no people, and since 'the people' is 'the nation', there is a need for a benign nationalism, i.e. liberal nationalism, that respects that other peoples have the same right to self-government as your own. Europe’s historic problems have always started from the cancerous overgrowth of liberal nationalism into an imperialism which seeks to rule other peoples against their wills, and which therefore is incompatible with liberal nationalism in those other countries whose self-government is sacrificed to make room for the imperialist. World War 2 started when Hitler moved beyond uniting German-speakers under one state, and eliminated self-government in Czechoslovakia and Poland too.
When two countries want ‘Europe to speak with one voice’, and this single voice to be an echo of their own private agreements reached in meetings held before each European Council, then what they really aspire to is that everyone else shuts up and the sole remaining voice allowed to express an opinion be theirs. 'European governance' where Europe speaks with one Franco-German voice is therefore imperialism in new clothes.
At first sight it might appear strange that euro-federalists never object to this domineering Franco-German behaviour. They typically claim that Europe only ‘advances’ on the back of Franco-German agreements, and their complaints are directed at the British, or president Klaus of the Czech republic, or whoever else might dissent from the Franco-German line. But this behaviour is easy to explain when one sees that euro-federalism is really imperialism in new clothes. Similarly the strange connection between euro-federalists and a disdain for democracy is easily explained when one sees that imperialists are, by definition, not interested in the rights of other peoples to self-government.
Complain about this comment
Quite insignificant, Mr. Hewitt, I am sorry to say.
For Angela Merkel this is the weakest period in her time as chancellor. Her government is only functioning, and later this month it will be a political test if she can get Christian Wullf elected as president of the Federal Republic.
Obviously she is backing the Euro, and France will have to admit that it is a sensible thing to do. However, the country is usually a strong advocate of interventionism a la Keynes, only in this case Germany has the money, so Sarkozy will have to keep the tone urbane, I suppose.
If they can agree on going tough on the financial sector, they have at least done something.
In the meantime we keep an eye on Belgium
Complain about this comment
I disagree with Merkel on this. We can't force the other 11 countries to integrate faster. However, whoever wants to do so, should be free and if it goes Merkel's way, we will be held hostage to the slowest members (speak: UK)
Complain about this comment
Anyone smirking at this turn of events had better remember why solidarity between these two powers has been deemed a vital European, and global, interest.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn John (11):
All very well, but your view is a view of a citizen of historical world power that has a tradition of getting what it wants to. However other European countries, especially small countries, have the contrary historical view on being told what is good for them and what is not. From this perspective it is not new that major decisions and directions are taken up by major powers, however what is new and unique with the European Union is the transparency and openness of the decision making with clear rules on how decisions are done.
For example now it seems that both Germany and France in favor of European Union having more oversee and control over budgets of the member states. Now that is the general direction of where France and Germany want to take things, however what is not decided is how deep the economic governance is what are the implementation details of it, this is where other 25 EU and 14 Eurozone member states can make their impact and influence on what the final decision will be. There is also a possibility of most other member states objecting to the direction where France and Germany are taking the union, this would halt going forward into any direction.
Now Britain might handle it outside the European Union, but frankly I rather take my chances inside a union where there are clear rules and working models even if that would mean having major countries mostly in the helm, it is still better than being alone and being told what latest war for freedom we must part-take or what treaty of eternal friendship and co-operation we must sign.
Complain about this comment
Nothing the EU does can ever please Mr Hewitt...
When there the Greek bailout was debated, he claimed the euro was going to fail because there was not enough unity amongst the member states. And now when there is unity between France and Germany, the euro is still going to fail because it's all a show, a hidden conspiracy behind the scenes, non-democratic etc...
I always thought this should be a blog in which one could intelligently discuss matters relating to Europe, so firstly
1) Whilst the euro is important, it is really not the sole issue affecting Europe, so why don't we hear anything about the elections in Belgium etc...
2) If we want to discuss the Euro, it should be an intelligent debate, arguing about pros and cons, not just cons... After 'A case against the euro', the next blog should have been 'A case for the euro' - and then it would have been a balanced debate... This continuous anti-EU bashing is at best highly biased reporting and at worst nationalistic propaganda...
Now, that doesn't mean you can't make a case against the Euro, but the reporting should be balanced and Mr Hewitt should also write a blog about why major world economies have chosen to adopt the euro. The argument that the euro was 'never any good', 'doomed to fail from the beginning' etc is not based on facts (i.e. the euro is still in existence and the pound isn't doing too well either...) - so please, let's have a factual debate about what is actually true rather than what sounds nice to sun readers...
Complain about this comment
"The EU only exists to serve the interests of these 2 Nations."
cbw - oversimplifications such as these are not only overbearing, they do not do justice to your normal level of common sense and intelligence.
Are you seriously suggesting that anything the EU does it for Germany and France? Why then, did all the other countries sign up since the initial founding members? None were forced. All understood the benefits of European cooperation. It is the extend that is debatable not the idea itself. That is anathema.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus raises an interesting point. QMV under Lisbon. Perhaps Merkel told Sarkozy that eurozone countries will vote for economic governance under 27 anyway and thus could override anyone else anyway. Realpolitik at its finest.
Complain about this comment
@ 10. At 2:18pm on 15 Jun 2010, Menedemus wrote:
"Please don't forget that the Lisbon Treaty has delivered "Qualified Majority Voting" in the Counil of Europe and that, intrinsically, this means that what Germany and France want they will now always get
The only way that the UK can numerically defeat a Franco-Germanic alliance is if the UK has the assistance of Poland, Spain and Italy as the 4 other more densely populated EU nations and the chances of that combination ever working to counter Germany + France lies somewhere between "no" and "chance" ..."
A bit misleading, in practice the council tries to be as unanimous as possible, votes for 2008 turned out as: 147 votes total of witch 128 were unanimous. There were a total of 32 abstentions, and a total of 8 votes against a law, two from Luxembourg and one from each of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, The Netherlands and Portugal.
Also, France and Germany combined still amount to less than 30% of the EU's population, massively short of the 65% required under QMV, and they in no way amount to anywhere near the requirement of 55% of member states.
An Alliance of Germany and the UK, or the UK, France and Spain, or Italy, France and Spain, or Poland, Germany and Italy could all just as easily "dominate" EU policy.
Complain about this comment
Living in France as I do... well, in Alsace, which is not entirely the same thing as any Alsacian will tell you... I can say that the French don't believe in the all-smiles France-Germany 'united front' any more than the British believe in the 'Special Relationship' with the USA. Billy-Bob Thornton's 'president' in 'Love Actually' had it straight when he suggested to Hugh Grant as Prime Minister, that he was happy to give the PM anything he, the President, wanted and not one iota more. When it serves individual interests they/we team up^, but that doesn't kid anyone, that the parties actually 'believe' in it.
That said, De Gaulle certainly had some sense in dealing with Adenauer shortly after the war in the naissance of the European 'get together' we now see: my generation, born to parents who served in WW2, is the first in Europe for three generations not to have to go to war......
I'm a direct beneficiary too - I am English and have settled and married in France and cross the border almost daily to work just over the Rhine - no passport controls - and I don't live in fear of being deported because my country of origin might just have a falling out with my country of habitation. That has 'value' even if we may carp at politicians' positioning.
Complain about this comment
16. At 6:05pm on 15 Jun 2010, CMZ wrote:
Nothing the EU does can ever please Mr Hewitt...
frankly, I think Hewitt isn't that interested in European politics anyway and would have much preferred to have Mark's (Mardell) job as US correspondent. In any case, the blogs are mere catalysts to get us debating anyway and most of the debates lose the topic at hand after 30 or so posts.
Complain about this comment
To Gheryando (13):
I disagree. The 8 EU states that are not Eurozone countries, thus not including UK and Denmark who have an opt-out and Estonia that is joining 2011 Eurozone, have the obligation to join the Eurozone due to their accession treaties. Having these states participating to the economic union or economic governance is an act that prepares and speeds up their admission to the Eurozone, thus enabling them to fulfill their accession treaty obligation.
Complain about this comment
HAHAHAHA
Germany and France calling the shots.
Sounds like "Animal Farm" where everyone is equal, just some are more equal then others.
Complain about this comment
#16 CMZ
The BEST is Nationalistic propaganda, you should read the other stuff !
´The SUN never sets--- on you know what old boy --- and in which regiment did you serve--- and don´t forget your credentials --- you would think WE lost the war -- Oh ! Those unthankful upstarts of Europeans´
Somehow I´m beginning to think Mr. Hewitt is one of them !
Complain about this comment
"22. At 7:03pm on 15 Jun 2010, Jukka Rohila wrote:
To Gheryando (13):
I disagree. The 8 EU states that are not Eurozone countries, thus not including UK and Denmark who have an opt-out and Estonia that is joining 2011 Eurozone, have the obligation to join the Eurozone due to their accession treaties. Having these states participating to the economic union or economic governance is an act that prepares and speeds up their admission to the Eurozone, thus enabling them to fulfill their accession treaty obligation."
Jukka, I see your point. At the same time it is up to those countries to fulfill their obligations. (notice how Swedes choose NOT to join). If they want to join the euro there are clear guidelines and as long as they are fulfilled (as Estonia did) then nothing can stop them from entering the eurozone.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @21,
There is only one topic of importance to us British EUrosceptics.
All the rest is tangential, irrelevant or 'foreign affairs'.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (15): My viewpoint is that of someone he believes the imperial power should have disappeared in the West in 1945. I would suggest that your viewpoint is shaped by being a Finn, with Finland being the only western country to have ‘major decisions dictated to it’ by another power, i.e. the USSR. Whatever you may believe, the USA did not dictate decisions to Western European countries, in the way that the USSR interfered in Finland’s affairs.
World War 2 reduced Germany, Italy and France from major powers to a level where they could not play a domineering imperialist role for several decades. But it was a mistake for Anglo-Americans to confuse a temporary inability of France and Germany to play a domineering role with a belief that they had moved up the evolutionary ladder to fully accept the right of other nations to self-determination. When we see e.g. Merkel and Sarkozy browbeating the Irish government to force its people to vote again on the Lisbon treaty, we see our previous understanding of France and Germany as reformed characters to have been an error, a product of our wishing thinking and their straightened Cold War circumstances.
Complain about this comment
CMZ
Re #16
You were doing so well, with sound points about how this Blog might address EU & non-EU matters. There is an argument to be made for a somewhat different/balanced approach to all these topics.
Then You went and spoilt it all right at the end!
Quote, "..rather than what sounds nice to the Sun reader."
I am quite sure Mr Hewitt has written Articles far removed from the standard fare found in that tabloid. It is insulting that You imply he writes in that manner and that many of the responses published are couched in tabloid terms when they demonstrably are not.
And there it is again... The presumed, the assumed, the implied superiority of the 'pro-EU' and the disdain for those of us who are 'anti-EU'!
We get this all the time on these Blog debates as repeatedly the under stress 'pro-EU' can't stand the heat of argument and resort to their supposed greater intellect perspective.
Frankly CMZ if in the end Your closing point is that all the recent debates on here have been reduced to the level of a Sun editorial then You cannot have read them much less understood the nature of the debate!
By Your disdain You insult those of us who try to put forward the views that differ from Your own and in so doing You lose Your argument. To add to my conviction of this being the case I see that the arch drivel contributor QOT has written in support of Your #16 - - on that basis You lose Your argument even before it is made!
Complain about this comment
Gheryando
Re #17
Yes.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor @#9
Your comment, if I may say so, simply puts a gloss on QMV.
The fact the 27 EU nations try to be magnanimous towards one another and agree unanimously to change this or change that is something that could happen before QMV was introduced.
Regardless of past history regarding the use of QMV, one day (and probably soon) the major Eurozone nations are going to want to agree to adopt measures to support the Euro. One of the measures is pre-Budget preview privilege to see each nation's Budget before it is approved.
This is an area of Fiscal Sovereignty which has not been ceded to the EU and financial matters remain solely the jurisdiction of the sovereign nation so, as Gavin alludes to in his piece, Frau Merkel is seeking Treaty amendment to allow the EU to perform this preview.
Frau Merkel and Senor Barroso like the idea of EU supervision, centralised control and a more interventionist regime for the Euro. Very few of the Eurozone nations will disagree as they are all dependent on the goodwill of Germany for the strength of the Euro.
David Cameron and William Hague (for the UK) have already stated many times that they will object to further transfer of powers to the EU in this Parliament and the intention is to legislate to allow the UK to vote by referendum upon future transfer of sovereign powers.
Therein lays the conundrum and why your gloss on how QMV has worked well in the past does not mean it might not work out too well for the EU in the near future.
If Germany and France and the other Eurozone nations want to have EU-wide Budget preview by the EU then that is a matter for an IGC and an IGC inevitably results in a vote in the Council of Europe to implement a change - the change can be procedural or can be an agreement to annotate the Treaty of Rome through amendment to the Treaty of Lisbon.
I am given to understand that an IGC to discuss this matter was called for this Friday but it has been cancelled but this does not mean that National Budget preview by the EU is still not wanted. I am sure that it very much is what is wanted by the EU.
If the UK is pushed into even a minority of one to protect its sovereign right to manage the already sovereign area of Fiscal Control and keep the UK Budget under wraps until it is discussed and approved by the UK Westminster Parliament then David Cameron has no choice but to either honour his pledge to put the matter to a Referendum or put it to a vote in the UK Westminster Parliament. Even if he does not do that, I cannot see the UK Westminster Parliament giving up the historic privilege of being the first people to hear the National Budget and vote on its implementation … the UK Parliament will cause Cameron to come to the Parliament to seek their vote of confidence.
This is going to be the clash of the Titans that is going to break up the bonhomie of the Council of Ministers as there is no way that David Cameron can have the UK cede Budget Preview to the EU. QMV was always going to be a problem if it encroached onto areas of National Sovereignty and I look forward to seeing how the EU gets around the problem of what it needs to bolster the Euro and what it needs to do to keep the UK and Germany/France happy.
If the Council of Europe still insists on QMV enforced Budget preview by the EU, then the UK Government really will have no option but to start proceedings to leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn John (27):
You might want to ask the terrorist bankers... I mean Icelanders on are there any current imperial powers in Europe.
Complain about this comment
JukkaRohila @#31
At the same time FreebornJohn could ask the Terrorist Banker victims - I mean British and Dutch Icelandic Bank Savers - if there are any Terrorist Goverments likely to be joining the EU soon ... they might recall that Iceland voted to not reimburse anyone other than Icelandic Savers when the Icelandic Banks collapsed leaving many British and Dutch savers out of pocket and in loss of their life savings.
Pot, black, kettle and calling are four little words that can be rearranged to make a well-known saying. Try it out and I think you will find it very apt!
The Maximus Glutinus is a part of your body that you sometimes talk out of.
Complain about this comment
re 28
cool_brush_work
Thanks for that - I do see your point and the sun reader comment was uncalled for - in as that I related it to Mr Hewitt, which I actually didn't mean to. Some of the stuff people come out with in his blogs' is a bit like what you would read in the sun, but as you say, that's not Mr Hewitt's reporting but the opinion of those individuals. And in fainess to everyone on the Europe blogs, there is a lot of factual debate going on here as well...
Now, you imply that I am pro- EU activist, which is true to the extend that I am not actively anti-EU and I can see some of the potential of the European idea. However, despite of that I wouldn't describe myself as pro-EU in the way you probably mean. On the point of whether or not Britain should join the euro, I am undecided, but I would like to see an honest and open debate about it...
Complain about this comment
The Merkel-Sarkozy unity show may be more than just a show.
From what I’ve been observing, the price of US Treasurys are dropping while the euro-zone debt crisis is easing.
The euro has gained against the dollar, investors parting with Treasurys.
Helping with this EU confidence, the European Commission said Germany, Spain, Portugal and nine other European Union governments are on track to meet their budget-deficit targets for 2010.
Spain also had a successful debt auction.
Ireland raised EUR1.5B at auctions.
What have France and Germany to disagree about? Well, I guess the austerity plan. Up to now, France has not adopted an austerity plan, only imposing spending freezes. However, Germany's quick readiness to implement an austerity program has made Germany's bonds even more attractive in the bond market; so France is biting the bullet.
Good move! The markets have wanted to see action from France that corresponded with Germany.
Concerns about the euro zone have dominated markets. Investors worried that the nations would be unable to cut their spending and raise taxes enough to reduce their deficits, and if they cut spending and/or raise taxes, would the econmies plummet?
Sure the focus remains on Europe, but also (less publicised by the media) demand is falling away from Treasurys. I expect this trend to continue as investors grow less and less fearful about the global economic impact of eurozone.
Whether Treasurys can outperform European government bond markets is a different question, but one that is growing ever-favorably on the EU side. Purchases of US Treasury notes and bonds are slipping - totalling $76.4B in April, compared with $108.5B the previous month, and look for another decrease in May as China (the prime buyer) gets increasingly anxious about the real value of the dollar.
Even if Little Napoleon can't stand Merkel and vice versa, Little Napoleon would be wise to stay in step with Merkel because the woman has a keen economic vision & intuition.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (32):
Innocent until proven guilty. If British or Dutch governments or savers had any complaints about Icelandic government breaching European laws then they should have filed a formal complaint to the European Court of Justice who would have then investigated and made judgment on the matter.
The example given by both the British and Dutch governments against the Icelandic government make a perfect example on why we have to have common rules and processes on how to handle things and not having the rule of might. This is exactly a case that will happen again and again to small country unless it joins a union with common rules and methods on solving things and making decisions.
I don't know about you, but here in the continent we have used to having a rule of law, not rule of mob justice. Laws are to be followed, period.
Complain about this comment
#20. At 6:50pm on 15 Jun 2010, tonyjolley
Very well said, that is what the EU is all about. Leave national politics behind and create a space where people, goods and services can move free within it.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @30
Absolutely right, in my opinion.
What I'm finding a little difficult to grasp is why the Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis could wish to put the UK coalition government into a position in which it will have no choice other than to take the UK out of the EU. Don't Sarkozy and Merkel read newspapers or get expert briefings? Don't they know that the incoming government pledged itself in its first hours that any proposed further extension of the EU's powers would trigger a referendum?
Why does anyone think that it's necessary to even propose prior review of national budgets of non-eurozone member-states, when what led to the crisis was the problems of the euro?
Or does one have to succumb to the arguments of conspiracy-theorists: that it's all a deep-laid plot to force the UK out of the EU, in which case, so be it.
Of one thing there can be no doubt. The House of Commons will never agree to surrender its sovereign power to vote (or refuse to vote) the government's expenditure. A civil war was fought on that principle. And to allow a supra-national body to interpose itself in ANY way between the Commons and the government on a Finance bill would drive a coach-and-horses through that constitutional principle.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Hewitt,
Youe reports are always very interesting and relevant but please can you give us some positive news as opposed to a constant stream of negative reports predicting impending doom? I'm not suggesting you are doing anything other than your job but there are important positive things happening in Europe which should be reported and highlighted, especially given the power of the media to influence markets, investors etc.
For example, today China confirmed it would invest billions in Greece and recently the Greek premier has been courting investers in Libya and the Middle East. Surely these positive developments as well as the genuine changes which have occured in Greece post-bailout deserve as much reporting as the ongoing problems?
Kind regards.
Complain about this comment
11 Freeborn John writes:
"Europe’s historic problems have always started from the cancerous overgrowth of liberal nationalism into an imperialism which seeks to rule other peoples against their wills, and which therefore is incompatible with liberal nationalism in those other countries whose self-government is sacrificed to make room for the imperialist. World War 2 started when Hitler moved beyond uniting German-speakers under one state, and eliminated self-government in Czechoslovakia and Poland too."
'An imperialism that seeks to rule other peoples against their wills' is a quote from an Englishman whose nation has invaded more other countries than anyone else in modern history and would still occypy them today if two world wars had not exhausted and bankrupted them! Hypocricy thy name is England.
Freeborn then goes on to say in 27:
"World War 2 reduced Germany, Italy and France from major powers to a level where they could not play a domineering imperialist role for several decades. But it was a mistake for Anglo-Americans to confuse a temporary inability of France and Germany to play a domineering role with a belief that they had moved up the evolutionary ladder to fully accept the right of other nations to self-determination."
Neither did the Americans plan to let their former allies return to their old empire ambitions and after Suez the game was up and the empire crumbled. But how the English yearn after their old empire and how they would love to swan around, say, India ,again wearing their gorgeous plumed hats, sitting on elephants and maybe bagging the odd tiger or two and lording it over other people whom they thought inferior and incapable of ruling themselves and exploited and robbed as thoroughly as any other European imperialists did.
'Accept the right of other nations to self-determination' indeed - Freeborn John, I think you live on another planet from the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
yani1988 @38
So China invests in another third world countries. Where's the news in that?
Complain about this comment
JukkaRohila @#35
Sorry, have I missed something?
I though the European Courts have found Iceland guilty of illegally withholding money from the Icelandic Banks' British and Dutch savers and because those savers were compensated by the British and Dutch governments, Iceland owes Britain and Holland 6bn Euros.
I must confess I haven’t paid the story to much attention so I could be wrong abot the amount – not being too bothered about Iceland to be honest …
I thought the Icelanders voted to ignore the court ruling and voted not to pay the 6bn Euros to the UK and Holland but that negotiations continue as the Icelandic government know they have to pay.
If memory serves me right, Iceland is (Or was?) being blocked from getting EU membership unless it coughed up on it's debt to the UK and Holland?
Negotiations continue.
You wrote "I don't know about you, but here in the continent we have used to having a rule of law, not rule of mob justice. Laws are to be followed, period.
Strangely enough, my immediate thoughts on that comment were, perhaps you forgot to add your own codicil “... unless you are Scandinavian!"
Complain about this comment
"38. At 10:31pm on 15 Jun 2010, yani1988 wrote:
Dear Mr. Hewitt,
Youe reports are always very interesting and relevant but please can you give us some positive news as opposed to a constant stream of negative reports predicting impending doom? I'm not suggesting you are doing anything other than your job but there are important positive things happening in Europe which should be reported and highlighted, especially given the power of the media to influence markets, investors etc.
For example, today China confirmed it would invest billions in Greece and recently the Greek premier has been courting investers in Libya and the Middle East. Surely these positive developments as well as the genuine changes which have occured in Greece post-bailout deserve as much reporting as the ongoing problems?
Kind regards."
thanks very much for that.
Complain about this comment
@ 30 Memendus
"If the Council of Europe still insists on QMV enforced Budget preview by the EU, then the UK Government really will have no option but to start proceedings to leave the EU."
It is laid out in the Treaty of Lisbon + others the areas where QMV can be used, considering national budget's are not in the EU's list of competences it can safely be assumed that the Council can't use QMV to force Britain to back down.
More likely it will be a treaty change, which of course requires unanimity. As such the rest of the EU, especially the Euro countries will likely want to get it done as quickly as they can with as little fuss from Britain as possible, which means no showdowns and no forcing the British Government to show the budget to the EU first.
Complain about this comment
#28 CBW
CMZ has both read and understood the the level of argumentation you deliver !
Both you and cohorts reduce every topic to British nationalism on the level of 19th century world politics, without realizing how laughable such ideas appear in the modern world with international contributors.
I can respect any soldier who has served his country, but as the ordinary bloke on the street pays your pension your allegiance should be to HIM and not to your self- assumed class.
You can now afford to support the British ´Less well off ´ instead of the ´elite ´ who are in no need of your support !
Complain about this comment
#37 Torpare
The problem IS spending !
This is both the problem of the Euro AND Sterling.
Do you also read the SUN ?
Complain about this comment
I think Mr. Hewitt is not being anti-EU at all. Rather, he is just nominating his pick as the one politician who can hold the whole thing together: Tony Blair. You have been warned.
Complain about this comment
@ 1 CBW
“The EU only exists to serve the interests of these 2 Nations.”
(!?)
Imagine the EU will fall apart next year. You Brits will escape with the pound sterling to other world markets (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, even China, etc.) thus trying to reconstruct what will have remained of old Britain and its historic heritage. You will succeed maybe in recovering, no matter the price.
For us, the mainlanders however, it will be a catastrophe, both economic and spiritual. All of us stick to the EU for the simple reason that there is no other plausible alternative.
After having read many of your posts here, I was inclined to share many of your critical comments about the wrong functioning of the Brussels administration and the negative consequences for the economies of the 27 member states. /We also suffer the burden of the enormous administrative restrictions when trying to convince the EC for lending credits for such or such national project/.
I was inclined to accept even your, I must admit, well founded comments about the imperfect Lisbon treaty and its restrictive role on the functioning of the national governments.
Your last post however seems a little bit too extremist. It lacks enough arguments. The remaining 25 member states would have fled the EU long before the signing of the Lisbon treaty if they were not enough motivated to cooperate under the jurisdiction of Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Is Sarko about to attack Merkel in the photo?
Complain about this comment
#16 CMZ
This IS a Blog in which one can " Intelligently " discuss matters relating to Europe .
You Berate Gavin Hewitt for " The Case Against The Euro " as not being Even handed .
Others commenting in these Blogs have raised a call for " The Case For The Euro ".
You could make a case for the Euro .
It is common knowledge that the Euro was a political construct , towards the EU becoming a federal state . If you think the Euro was based on sound economic analsys of all the EU member states , let us hear about it .
The election in Belgium is of little interest , other than to the people of Belgium .
Let us hear your case For the Euro .
Complain about this comment
#17 Gheryando
Countries other than Germany and France signed up , for the Perks on offer or because they are sheep being led to slaughter .
The original signitories were only six , that is how it should have stayed .
Complain about this comment
#24 QuietOakTree
" The Sun Never Sets ".
My guess is the sun is well over the yard arm where you are .
Have another Rum and Coke !
Complain about this comment
#42 Gheryando and yani1988
In what way would China , Libya and middle east countries investing in Greece , be favourable to the EU ? How about Russia too ?
Complain about this comment
#40. At 11:52pm on 15 Jun 2010, MaxSceptic
Is that why Gordon was so happy for us last year when China invested in us here in the UK? We have finally made it to 3rd world level?:)) Or maybe even less for us, because also have India investing here :)) Ohhh, happy days!!
Complain about this comment
Benefactor @#43
You yourself say that national budget's are not in the EU's list of competenc(i)es.
You then say that "More likely it will be a treaty change, which of course requires unanimity."
If the treaty change IS to give the EU preview of National Budgets AND as national budgets are not in the EU's list of competencies, I cannot see how a treaty change ceding any national sovereignty to the EU will get past the UK Westminster Parliament even if David Cameron were to agree to such a Treaty Change within the Council of Ministers - something I am sure he is not going to do.
If the Council of Ministers cannot get David Cameron to agree to more powers being transferred to the EU then unanimity does not exist and the Council of Ministers will have two choices - no Europe-wide National Budget preview by the EU or the EU has to isolate the UK and go ahead without the UK and without a Treaty change.
A Treaty change has to be accepted unanimously or it ain't going to happen unless the Council of Europe deploys QMV to force the change to the already ratified Treaty.
I don't know if there are enough representatives able to represent 65% or more of the population of the EU to force through EU preview of National Budgets but I do know it ain't going to get approved, ratified or ever happen in the case of the UK.
I am sure that David Cameron will be happy to see the EU do what it can to support the Euro but I am also sure he ain't going to budge on ceding more powers to the EU in an area of national sovereignty that is a red line for the UK Westminster Parliament - it is one area of Britishness that I think is a battle that the EU would be foolish to pick with the British Governemet and Parliament but it ain't a battle the British Parliament will lose as (a) they do have the competency to preview the UK's national budget and (b)"Budget Day" and the first revelations as to content to (i.e. preview by) the Westminster Parliament in the UK is a classic piece of British politics that the British people are not going to give up and cede to the EU.
Complain about this comment
"40. At 11:52pm on 15 Jun 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:
yani1988 @38
So China invests in another third world countries. Where's the news in that?"
Moronic comment...
Complain about this comment
"50. At 05:27am on 16 Jun 2010, Huaimek wrote:
#17 Gheryando
Countries other than Germany and France signed up , for the Perks on offer or because they are sheep being led to slaughter .
The original signitories were only six , that is how it should have stayed ."
Well, guess what! Countries decided to join and now you come along and tell them how it should have been done. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr Hewitt wrote: Eventually the question could become political: "Is all this (austerity, bail-outs) the price of keeping the eurozone together?"
Well I'm not so sure, I think it is more likley the price of keeping the banks in business.
There are too many promises to pay, that will never be paid. Address this and the problem will be solved.
I reckon there’s only two possible ways out, either print more money and give it those states that haven’t got any, or write off their debt.
Do neither and there is no bailout, and No Bailout = No Union
And No Union = No need for Euro Politicians
Complain about this comment
@ 54 Menedemus.
Basically that is almost exactly what I am saying, I just think that because the rest of the EU, especially the Euro core will want these changes passed they will give Britain an opt-out no questions asked.
Probably some proviso that we would have to opt-in if we adopted the Euro, but that won't happen for the foreseeable future anyway.
Nothing ceded, no referendum, everyone is happy(ish.)
(The council can be ammend the voting weights laid out in the Treaty, without further changes to the treaty itself (such as changing from unanimity to QMV, if the vote is unanimous or redistributing EP seats) but not much else. The self-ammending clause in Lisbon is often very overhyped.)
Complain about this comment
@55. Gheryando wrote:
"So China invests in another third world countries. Where's the news in that?"
Moronic comment..."
I agree, 110%.
There are some (mainly I'm sorry to say among the British) contributors who display extraordinary insularity and an arrogant contempt towards others. Since they're mostly also those most violently opposed to the idea of ceding sovereigny for the purpose of replacing armed conflict with (a measure of) pooled supra-national governance, in the common interests of all the participants, one is forced to conclude that they yearn for a simpler (?) past order in which if you wanted to get your own way you went to war to try to get it. They seem to have "learnt nothing and forgotten nothing", as was once said of the Bourbons.
For my part, I'm with tonyjolley @20. A (British) voice of sanity and moderation IMO.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta @53,
The UK (and Europe in general) is receding into third world status - mainly by importing third world people and their regressive cultures.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @55,
I'm glad you are entertained.
Complain about this comment
#61
@MaxSceptic,
up to some point I have to say I agree with you :)
Complain about this comment
@58.Dempster wrote:
"Mr Hewitt wrote: Eventually the question could become political: "Is all this (austerity, bail-outs) the price of keeping the eurozone together?"
Well I'm not so sure, I think it is more likley the price of keeping the banks in business."
Surely, it's neither. It's the price of reducing the national debt (or, in the case of the eurozone countries, their several national debts). Bank bailouts - however irksome for those who blame the bankers' greed and irresponsibility for having created the problem - were a short-term crisis-measure aimed at averting a runaway chain-reaction ("financial meltdown" as the media dubbed it) which would have hit everybody, to far worse effect (or so we were told at the time).
And Mr. Hewitt, it has already become political. What else are general strikes and street-demonstrations and union leaders vowing to fight to the last drop of their members' blood to preserve the public sector at no less than its present size (purely for our benefit of course, not for the sake of their jobs), blah,blah..?
"There are too many promises to pay, that will never be paid. Address this and the problem will be solved.
I reckon there’s only two possible ways out, either print more money and give it those states that haven’t got any, or write off their debt."
Sounds plausible but what's the catch? I can't help suspecting that things are never quite that simple.
"Do neither and there is no bailout, and No Bailout = No Union"
Not necessarily. It might = No Eurozone, but the eurozone is not the EU. It would then be an experiment that had failed because it was attempted too soon, and millions of people would regret that because of the many practical benefits the euro has brought to their daily lives.
Complain about this comment
generalissimifranco
Re #47
Sorry, but I couldn't follow the first part of Your argument at all.
I cannot "..imagine.." why the UK/England would at some future date, having withdrawn from the EU stop Trading-Travel-Communication etc. with continental Europe!
For starters approx 60% of UK Trade etc is cross-channel: Why would that change?
Secondly, hundreds of Businesses, big & small, have direct investment-ownership-management-contracts-work sites both sides of the channel: Why would that not continue?
Third, UK/England is a huge market-place of 60,000,000/49,000,000: Why is it going to be ignored by 26 other EU Nations?
4th: Yes, entrepreneurial, free-will, democratically governed, relieved of Brussels' strait-jacket one-size-fits-all UK/England would doutbless increase its Trade-Travel-Communication activities with the rest of the World: Why would that concern the EU26? Many of them would benefit from UK/England bringing in those additional employers/markets/investors & therefore its prosperity rubbing off to some extent on moribund EU Nations?
The 'motivation' behind the EU25 is IMO much as it was for the UK/England originally opting for membership: It made sense - - a large geographic-demographic hinterland that has equivalence of Tariff-Trade-Travel-Communications enabling (1) a better chance of longterm peaceful co-existence, (2) a stability of 'market-place/exchange of goods' with neighbours, and (3) the likelihood of developing pan-European (NOT 'EU') initiatives for co-operation across a number of vital local-national-regional projects, e.g Space Research, Environment, immigration etc., and (4) unlike the first East European entrants who brought a massive influx of fresh entrepreneurism, talent, cheap markets/labour-force that West Europe desparately needed for its stagnating 'one-size-fits-all' economies, the most recent post-Soviet applicants all see a gravy-train of investment coming their way and not one has an Economy that will 'contribute' significantly to those already in it.
In direct alternative there is Turkey: A long time applicant which would bring enormous benefit to continental EUrope with its vast 'market opportunities' and radically alter its 'political' outlook/power-base, thus, no accident Paris-Berlin vehemently oppose its entry - - so much for the virtues of 'ever closer union' - - apparently they will not work on a population on the Bosporus! Total hypocrisy by Paris-Brussels-Berlin! What a snubbing insult to 90+ million Turks-Muslims!
Even so, none of the above 'advantages' of 'union' requires anything but a modicum of 'Political' involvement by the power that has emerged as EU-Brussels: This entity directly contradicts the whole point of a 'Union' by (1) an ever-evolving strategem of 'centralisation' of authority & power at a Brussels for which there is no Citizen Mandate in the last 20 years (2) constantly encroaching on National issues, e.g. Welfare, Employment, Justice-Policing etc., (3) A EUropean Court of Justice whose Judgements increasingly negate the National Ballot Box expressed policy-support of Citizens and thereby cancel the input of Nationally Elected Political Party/Government, and (4) as no EU Policy of any creditable sort has ever or is ever likely to be approved/adopted unless/without the support of the Paris-Berlin vested interests why bother to ask the EU25 anything when only the EU2 make the choices!
This becomes even clearer under Qualified Majority Voting where nothing will even be proposed unless it has the backing of Paris-Berlin whose influence among the more dependent EU Nations is such that it could not possibly be voted through if the EU2 let it be known they are not in favour! Thus even the fig-leaf of 'ever closer multi-union' is exposed as a sham.
Furthermore, I maintain the EU is at the beck and call of Paris-Berlin on every issue because they are the post-Maastricht 'ever closer union' founding-force/driving-force. Both have the most invested and thus the most to lose were the EU to fail. France's Economy is dependent to a large extent on EU Funding of one sort or another plus it is the only way Paris-Berlin can maintain the 'closer union' fig-leaf: As the recent Greek/EUrozone crisis amply demonstrates - - France, the supposed 2nd largest EU contributor & EU economic powerhouse utterly dependent like all 15 on Funds for a 'EUro-zone' rescue package from Germany.
Berlin in turns needs to maintain a 'political-economic' pretence of benign respectability that an EU with Paris at its side is not another attempt at German hegemony on the Continent which every one knows in reality it is as Germany is overall pay-master for all the rest (inc. UK, whilst it remains inside the EU).
Paris' policy under De Gaulle had it about right: An EEC tying 'West Germany' into many shared economic-fiscal institutions - - however, no one foresaw a 'unified' Germany - - the Central European conglomerate that dwarfs the Continent. Thus Paris had to think again and up came Maastricht 1992 and a new form of 'political' unification of all EUrope - - only trouble for Paris is that Berlin still dominates by its size and 'one-size-fits-all' EUro-zone funded by Germany's Economy leaves no room for doubt as to where the 'authority' & 'power' in Brussels now lies. Check the details - - see how often Pres Barroso used to flit across to Paris and see how the numbers have changed; the man has practically taken up residence in Berlin - - that time-serving, self-indulgent, anti-democratic Brussels' apparatchik always knows who is buttering his imperial post!
I think many Nations' Citizens instinctively know that the EU is anti-Democratic & that Paris-Berlin dominate key issues: I believe their Political Leadership are sure of it and hence where at all possible no Referendum on Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty or on anything post rejected 'constitution'. A 'political construct' such as Brussels-EU that does not allow its Citizens an unequivocal voice in their 'political' future is ultimately doomed by its own anti-Democratic trends. This fate is more especially marked when any Citizen who cares to analyse the political trademarks/exchanges identifies only 2 Nations hold sway within the supposedly 'union of equals' and those are France & Germany.
IMO: For the UK/England (and it is England I am most concerned with - - the other UK Union Nations may go their own way) it is far better to be out than under - - for when the 'political' collapse of the EU begins I fear the worst for many of our continental neighbours.
Complain about this comment
@ 7 MaxSceptic
At last a post that I can agree with you.
Conversely, on this one you revert to (depressingly reassuring) type
"The UK (and Europe in general) is receding into third world status - mainly by importing third world people and their regressive cultures."
I beg to disagree. (That would apply to Europhobes beloved USA as well?)
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/01/where-did-the-white-man-go-wrong-joke.html
Complain about this comment
@45. quietoaktree wrote:
"The problem IS spending !
This is both the problem of the Euro AND Sterling."
Yes, I think I had grasped that. That nice Mr. Cameron already told me that unless the national debt is reduced, soon and substantially, by 2015 the interest on it will exceed national income (I write from memory but I think that was what he said).
However I have totally failed to see how it follows that the EU needs or should seek to inject itself into the already-existing democratic parliamentary process by which government expenditure in Britain is approved (or not, as the case may be). The size of Britain's deficit has no bearing whatever on the preservation of the euro but only on the value of the pound sterling (and the quality of life in Britain).
Complain about this comment
@49. Huaimek
"It is common knowledge that the Euro was a political construct , towards the EU becoming a federal state."
So then, assuming you are right, if the Euro (and then with even more reason, Schengen) were/are political constructs towards a federal superstate, what is your problem?
The UK is part of neither so you are being totally inconsistent. What are you complaining about? Other European countries creating a 'federal superstate' in which the UK plays no part?
The UK is permafrosted as the sole member of the organisation that the British people originally voted to join: the EEC. As I have repeatedly said, it is only Schengen and the Euro the pillars that are both of a federalist nature in the current EU and the only pillars that essentially changed the nature of the EEC (a purely intergovernmental free trade union with enhanced political cooperation and some necessary common institutions) to become the EU (a crucial transition towards greater European integration, with two federalist pillars, the Euro and Schengen).
To say the opposite is just a total lie. I am not talking about legalistic technicalities, I am talking about *real* integrationist/quasi federal pillars which really affect every single European citizen almost on a daily basis: Only the Euro and Schengen fulfil these criteria.
As the UK is the only country in the EU which is neither in the Euro and Schengen you can relax. The UK is permafrosted in its own non-federalist mini-limbo. So you (Europhobes in general) have already won half the battle. Whether you can win the war depends only and absolutely only on two things:
- The Oxbridge clique giving you an 'In or Out' referendum
- The British people voting 'Out'
Both things extremely unlikely. There is a saying that is very relevant here:
"Why worry about what you cannot change"
***
"If you think the Euro was based on sound economic analsys of all the EU member states , let us hear about it ."
Please refer to my post #152 on the previous blog-entry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/06/the_case_against_the_euro.html
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic & #61 plus ChrisArta & #63
No, I don't agree at all: UK & Continental Europe are regressing because 27 Nations have "..imported.." an unwieldy, unrepresentative, unaccountable 'Political' entity based at Brussels that imagines a 'one-size-fits-all' Directive can equally apply from Helsinki to Valletta!
Though even then it is most cetainly not heading '3rd world' as anyone in UK-EUrope with half an eye on reality or a television screen would grasp!
Complain about this comment
torpare & #60
Re ".. among the British.." and "..extraordinary **insularity** and an **arrogant contempt** towards others..", plus, "..most **violently** opposed..", ending with, "..yearn for a simpler (?) **past order**..".
Hmm, and You will now doubtless provide the QUOTES to back up this 'extraordinary' catelogue of innuendo & defamation about people who have made contributions to this Blog with content that does not fit Your version of how the World should be viewed!?
E.g. Which Briton threatened violence, or, has used **violent** language?
Which one has referred to the **past order** and what *past order** is that exactly?
I certainly am among those who have at times suggested one outcome of the EU could be a violent reaction by Citizens within it, but that is a long way from the insinuation You attempt to make about us all.
Isn't it rather that those like myself who are anti-EU membership suggest that there are alternatives for the UK/England to being a part of a supra-National entity and You object, but cannot think of logical reasons to back Your perspective so You simply denigrate those who oppose it!?
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @66,
I am glad you liked the snippet from 'Yes Minister'. The old scripts are available online and are timeless. Many of them read as true and relevant today as when they were written 30 years ago.
As to your question:
Historically, immigrants to the US happily jumped into the 'melting pot' and became, initially, hyphenated-Americans (as in Italian-Americans, etc). They wanted to adopt the American dream'.
Sure many immigrants kept much of the more colourful aspects of their cultures (cuisine, linguistics, music, fashions, etc.) but they usually left most of their heavy-duty cultural baggage behind.
In the UK and many parts of Europe, however, immigrants were encouraged - primarily by left-wingers keen to bring down western 'repressive capitalist-imperialist societies' - to 'celebrate' their 'diversity' and 'multi-culturalism'. The logical (though unintended) end result of this policy were the events of July 7th 2005 in London.
Unfortunately this trend seems to be growing in the USA (e.g. Major Hasan at Fort Hood, the plans for a giant mosque overlooking Ground Zero, etc.).
What is worse, it seems that the Obama administration is, one way or the other, encouraging this cancerous trend.
Complain about this comment
Marcus_Aurelius Re Your #191 written on the other BBC Blog concerning 'Bloody Sunday' & the 'Report'.
Totally agree with Your comment.
I'm writing here as I have had 5 Comments referred to the Mods on that Blog. Being an ex-Para from that period I have a certain view - - it appears the BBC in way will entertain/accept my right to air that view - - I cannot say I am surprised because modern day BBC is the epitome of Political Correctness gone mad in my estimation.
Will the BBC very shortly run programmes based on the Report? Yes. Will the BBC run any programme at all questioning how a Judge 38 years later can determine if 'shots were fired' at troops? No.
As I say, Political Correctness/acquiescence of the very worst kind.
As for the Scardale report: Thus writes a man with absolutely no first-hand knowledge of what he is being asked to consider.
When I read that he states 'no one' was under fire by para-militaries I most certainly can refute that assertion, but such is the propaganda victory of the terrorists that HM Armed Forces are guilty as charged whatever we say!
Complain about this comment
Did the Greek Prime Minister change his name to Sarkozy and move to Paris when I was not looking (who could blame him?) or had the picture editor had a few too many when choosing the image for this thread?
Complain about this comment
"Furthermore, I maintain the EU is at the beck and call of Paris-Berlin on every issue because they are the post-Maastricht 'ever closer union' founding-force/driving-force. "
cbw - I think you're confusing cause and effect.
Complain about this comment
Interesting developments here, and very much on topic as Mr Hewitt keeps banging on with the "I told you so, the Euro will collapse" (incidentally do we need the BBC to tell us that, we have plenty of Europhobic papers that fulfil that role with a passion...)
"Debt-ridden Greece gets vote of confidence from China"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/15/greece-china-contracts-signed
And some very good comments, e.g.
"China is investing in infrastructure and economics, they clearly have more brains than the US/UK combined."
Well, as the Anglo-Saxon run credit rating agencies are busy downgrading Greece to junk status, China (rightly) sees a business opportunity.
Complain about this comment
cbw - why are u talking about NI?
And why are you calling people who lost their loved ones terrorists?
Complain about this comment
Re: My #73
That's better:-)
Complain about this comment
cbw, I didn't write anything about Bloody Sunday. Someone posts under a name similar to mine but that posting is not mine. What blog is it? Someone else posts under "marcusaurelius" but it's not me.
Complain about this comment
I think the reason Sarkozy is laughing in the photo is he knows it will be Germany, not France that will bear the brunt of the cost of the Euro mess cleanup. Merckel is smiling because she's too clueless to know she's been had. If Germany pays her domestic political life will be hell when it's felt at home. And if it doesn't the Euro and EU will collapse and her foreign policy will be a shambles, he life will be hell that way. It's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Sarkozy things it's hysterical and I think so too. The joke is on Germany.
So which will cost more, the cleanup of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the cleanup of the Euro mess in the Gulf of Europe?
Complain about this comment
The current problem of the Euro is not created by France Or Germany or any
other EU nations. The problem is hear because we have nations and not a United Europe with one government.
John
Complain about this comment
So, to sum up so far:
"You pro-EU always call us names because your stupid and cannot think of any arguments"
"You anti-EU are idiots because you cannot see the obvious benefits"
"Calling 'us' idiots! looking down on us "proles" again, ANTI-DEMOCRACY"
"You called me stupid first you xenophobic little englander!"
"well! I know you are but what am I"
"blah blah blah blah blah I love the EU!"
Amiright!?
I think I know the problem: Most people on here (including me) have there an opinions and there views and they see the world through that filter. Everything the EU does reinforces that opinion because everything the EU does is seen through a lens of what we think the EU is.
No matter the article the "Pro-EU" will always say something positive about the EU and the "anti-EU" will always find something negative, and anyone neutral reading this section will think "What a bunch of sad wierdos, what does the EU even do anyway?"
Complain about this comment
1) Gheryando Re Your #74
No confusion on my part: 'Cause & effect' being one and the same thing in the case of the 'axis-of-ill-intent' - - Paris & Berlin needed a renewed fig-leaf after reunification of Germany and Maastricht was it as I pointed out today and in a previous Comment to 'smroet' on this blog.
2) Gheryando Re Your #76
I wrote here as on the other Blog my Comments were referred to Moderators 5 times plus IMO MarcusAurelius had made a very appropriate & pertinent Comment on that other Blog.
Think if You re-read my #72 You will see at no point do I call the slain innocent civilians 'terrorists': I repeat, as one who was there, the notion we were not fired upon is a gross distortion of the facts on the ground. No one 38 years later could possibly decide between the conflicting accounts of the time - - quite why this Judge has chosen to entirely take the word of one side over another is beyond me, but IMO symptomatic of how far UK Government Political Correctness/Expediency has lost sight of reality.
IMO PM Cameron is a coward and his disgraceful remarks about the HM Armed Forces will forever mark him as a craven lick-spittle of terrorism. The British Army was doing a job a previous encumbent of N.10 had ordered them to do: Just like Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan (or even Suez, Aden etc. for that matter), but no Politician carries the can - - oh no, just the poor bally foot-soldier.
Cameron, going to visit my comrades' headstone in Warsop, is he? A sniper hid in Southern Ireland (Eire) did him with one shot across the border - - any Public Enquiry about that little fix-up with the Garda etc.? No, I didn't think so!
Okay, that's my lot on this. Back to the EU debate... We're all going to hell in a handcart... blah,blah, blah.. or in my case at the bottom of an empty koskenkorva bottle.
Cheers for thinking Gheryando.
Complain about this comment
MAII
Re #78
My apologies MAII, I had assumed it was You.
If interested its on the BBC News Have Your Say Blog asking for reaction to the 'Bloody Sunday' Report.
The Comment I mistakenly attributed to You was at #191 among many hundreds.
Apologies, no offence or otherwise thought intended.
Complain about this comment
Breaking news:
UK's [real, non-manipulated figures on] unemployment higher than Spain's:
"The ONS added that the number of people classed as economically inactive - those out of work and not seeking employment - rose by 29,000 during the three months to April to 8.19 million.
This is the highest level since records began, and represents 21.5% of the working age population."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10327101.stm
Complain about this comment
More breaking news:
Euro's collapse postponed (yet again)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10324764.stm
Complain about this comment
"81. At 12:58pm on 16 Jun 2010, Benefactor wrote:
So, to sum up so far:
"You pro-EU always call us names because your stupid and cannot think of any arguments"
"You anti-EU are idiots because you cannot see the obvious benefits"
"Calling 'us' idiots! looking down on us "proles" again, ANTI-DEMOCRACY"
"You called me stupid first you xenophobic little englander!"
"well! I know you are but what am I"
"blah blah blah blah blah I love the EU!"
Amiright!?
I think I know the problem: Most people on here (including me) have there an opinions and there views and they see the world through that filter. Everything the EU does reinforces that opinion because everything the EU does is seen through a lens of what we think the EU is.
No matter the article the "Pro-EU" will always say something positive about the EU and the "anti-EU" will always find something negative, and anyone neutral reading this section will think "What a bunch of sad wierdos, what does the EU even do anyway?""
True - but I see it as a sort of practice when I have to use the arguments in the real world. "know thy enemy" sort of style.
Complain about this comment
@ 71. MaxSceptic wrote:
"I am glad you liked the snippet from 'Yes Minister'."
It's fantastic, thank you for posting it.
On the rest of your post, as ever, we agree to disagree.
Incidentally, did you know that Muslims were building mosques in Western Europe well before you and I were born?
http://www.alhambradegranada.org/en/info/galleryofphotographs/patioofthelions.asp
http://www.mezquitadecordoba.org/en/imagescordobamosque.htm
Complain about this comment
Benefactor
Re 381.
No.
You are wrong.
But, my saying that won't surprise You or I!
Complain about this comment
cbw - I only asked because to a certain extend I sympathize with minorities, being from one myself and having had to deal with oppression of language, culture etc. I thus inherently tend to show interest for minority groups, such as Northern Irish (catholics) as well as hungarians in slovakia etc.
But yeah, one wrong doesn't justify the other, does it.
Complain about this comment
Re65:
"""In direct alternative there is Turkey: A long time applicant which would bring enormous benefit to continental EUrope with its vast 'market opportunities' and radically alter its 'political' outlook/power-base, thus, no accident Paris-Berlin vehemently oppose its entry - - so much for the virtues of 'ever closer union' - - apparently they will not work on a population on the Bosporus! Total hypocrisy by Paris-Brussels-Berlin! What a snubbing insult to 90+ million Turks-Muslims!""""
Fantastic! What next? Syria and Iran? They are more numerous than Turks (who 1/4th and soon 1/3rd are Kurds by the way, and don't call them Turks). 90 million Turks out of which the equivalent of a 20-30,000,000 country? No thanks. 40 years candidate and in the meanwhile pongroms, ethnic cleansing, 2 failed invasions and 1 successful invasion against unarmed civilians, total ethnic cleansing and cold-blooded murder of POWs, continuous ethnic cleansing of its own citizens born in the wrong culture, laws imprisoning for years people that try to study the real history of their country, not to mention the oscillation between fascist genocidal kemalism (portrayed as pro-wester, which should read pro-1930s west) and the as-if moderate not so secretly aggressive islamism inciting hatred in every single "infidel" neighbouring country having the slightest and most unrelated muslim minority, and other such nice stuff... No thanks. You the English may as well get your tail out of Europe and do a union with your beloved Turks anytime, you are welcomed. But why do you keep on pressing this non-existing for others, issue if not because you know it is going to be a tombstone to the potential of the EU?
You propose Turkey as "an alternative" which is highly ridiculous when there is an even more direct alternative and it does not even include the case of receiving yet another country in the strained EU: that is simply developing a closer relationship with Russia. With 140,000,000 poeple of western civilisation, all brought up with similar civilisational standards and with absolutely no animosity towards Turkish. They own the largest landmass of the world, the 3/4ths of the North Pole, the 1/4th of Antarctica, the join the Atlantic Ocean to the pacific and of course they own the world's largest landmass and about the 1/3rd. On top of that they have the strategically most powerful army in the world (2nd most powerfull tactically and they are still ahead in the space race (the most complicated thing ever done in space is the ISS IS Russian, people up there are called cosmonauts and can go up there only after learning Russian...).
1+1=2. Stop hiding behind your fingers.
Complain about this comment
Headline: "It's Official: Research Shows Britons Have Bad Teeth"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37701284
Im wondering if this has anything to do with anything.
Complain about this comment
@68 JorgeG1
""If you think the Euro was based on sound economic analsys of all the EU member states , let us hear about it ."
Please refer to my post #152 on the previous blog-entry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/06/the_case_against_the_euro.html"
You are right in your assessment that a common currency lowers transaction costs and therefore generally benefits foreign trade.
In this regard, I would say that it did not nations like the Netherlands or Germany, but actually firms from the nations who import their goods.
But there are severe shortcomings as well and I will just name a few:
1. there is no common policy in wages, welfare, age of retirement, the list goes on.
How can a nation like Greece be competetive when their spendings for pensions as a percentage of previous income is a lot higher than in say Germany. The result is the accumulation of debt.
2. Different cultures in financial policy. When France demanded Germany to join the Euro as a price for reunification, the German government only agreed to do so on its own terms. It demanded the ECB to follow the principles of the German Federal Bank, which emphasized inflation control in order to keep prices stable.
This demanded currencies like the Franc, Lira, etc not to be strategically inflated for at least 5 years prior to the introduction of the Euro.
In general, a common currency in which some nations put high emphasis on the containment of inflation and others don`t care all that much, the inflation bias will converge.
You can consider this to be a loss of welfare for the richer nations who had a low inflation bias before.
At the same time, nations with a previously high inflation bias will lose an important instrument they relied on before (imo this instrument is a very bad one on the long run though. The IS-LM model proves this point as well.)
3. The second demand from nations like Germany was that there would be harsh sanctions against credit expansion and no bailouts at all.
All these were broken without consequence by both strong and weak member nations.
4. ECB-policy. There was a fear in Germany that within the ECB there could be situation where Germany, along with other nations who share the same culture of financial policy, would be overruled and principles on which Germany was willing to accept the Euro as a price for reunification would be thrown over the railing.
This has happend now that the ECB factually bought Greek bonds, thus kept the prices high artificially and allowed French and Italian banks to sell their bonds above market value.
All while the German government bound its banks under the obligation to hold the bonds.
As the actual Greek debt is likely to be at least 5 times higher (as calculated by a German economist), it is only a matter of time until Greece will default and bonds will evaporate.
Not only does this, in effect, diametrically oppose the terms on which Germany agreed to join the euro by having ECB assets evaporate and there is no doubt as to who is paying the bulk of the bill - the German Federal Bank is the biggest shareholder by far at roughly 27%.
At the same time, German banks will suffer the most from the default as well, because they were to keep their bonds.
These are some of the key points which make me not believe in a future for the euro in its current form.
The differences in mentality are just too obvious.
The latin mentality is not compatible with Germany/Austrian/Dutch mentality - the nations who actually have to pay for the breach of all agreements on which Germany joined the Eurozone.
And you bet that without Germany joining, Austria, the Netherlands and a few others wouldn`t have either.
In conclusion, I will agree with you. The euro had no perfect, but a sound fundament.
This fundament, however, was torn apart and now we have to seriously discuss the future of the EU and euro without submissing criticism as "europhobic"
Complain about this comment
@ 88 CBW
You always think I'm wrong, must be something to do with how the "Little Englander" mind works ;-) j/k.
Complain about this comment
UK Statistics for Un/Employment in the last Quarter are no matter how they are cut very unsatisfactory.
However, all is not quite as some would attempt to portray:
UK Registered Employed rose a little to 28.9 million Jan - March 2010.
When one considers that this is 3 to 4 times the size of the entire Populations of some EU Nations it does give a slightly alternative perspective on what is or is not deemed an Economy that is functioning in a recognised prudent and progressive manner.
UK Registered Unemployed rose by 23,000 to 2.47 million (Feb - April); a fall from 2.51 million (previus quarter).
UK Unemployment Rate was up from 7.8 to 7.9%.
The most worrying aspect was the 8.19 million 'Economically Inactive' which at 21.5% of the eligible Working-Age population is far too high. Just as the Employment figures do add a measure of reality so do these which are also the equivalent of some EU Nations' Populations - - however, only France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy (no order) are also affected like the UK by a significant Minority immigrant/new-comer Population to the Workforce each Quarter which must also be included in those overall 'unemployed' figures.
However, even here there are some key statistics that need to be borne in mind:
The above includes 1.6 million Permanent non-job seekers through the following, i) Diagnosed life-term extensive disability, ii) Diagnosed terminal illness, and iii) 0.5 million temporarily longterm non-job seeker due to longterm diagnosed incapacity (e.g. life-threatening illness and physical incapacity such as broken limbs).
The Number of Unemployed 16 to 24 Year olds rose by 11,000 to 926,000: This is a very worrying trend as these Young are the UK's future and statistics show the longer they are Economically Inactive the more likely they are to experience lengthy terms of that condition.
However, at just beneath 19% of the entire 16 to 24 age Work-force this is still considerably better than almost any EU Nation.
It compares very favourably with the likes of Spain where 40% under-25 Unemployment unless resolved within a 12 month is predicted to have a crippling effect on the Nation's entire Welfare Service! Hence the up-coming EU Summit agenda includes discussion of a multi-billion bail-out of Spain's Economy.
Of course, none of us can rejoice in these figures for any EUropean Nation's Workforce whether young or or not: I suppose it just goes to show that those fortunate enough to be in Employment or Education in their own or another EU Nation should be very grateful indeed, and very conscious that there but for the grace of something or another go they...
Complain about this comment
Whilst you concentrate more on Germany and France Gavin it would appear that the real news is going on in Spain. Whilst some of the rumours about her financial state are a bit wild the fact remains that she has problems and if Europe comes to help her well according to the notayesmanseconomics web blog there are problems for that...
"As to the SPV my thoughts turn to a problem with it that I wrote about from the beginning. Spain is responsible for 53.9 billion Euros of the funding. Should she have to draw from the fund how does that work exactly? If conditions continue to deteriorate I suspect that this question will occur to others too."
Did the euro zones politicians hope that bluster and boasting would work this time?
Complain about this comment
Benefactor (81): There are many political issues upon which people disagree, but are prepared to let the matter be decided by a majority of the electorate. What is unique about the EU issue is that one side refuses this, preferring to pursue its objective by the non-democratic ‘Monnet method’ (a.k.a. . i.e the Monnet method of. “Integration by stealth”. On no other matter, anywhere in the world, are referendum results ignored, or referendums s promised at election time simply cancelled, in order that measures not supported by the people can be introduced anyway.
If EU supporters think the benefit of the EU is ‘obvious’ why can’t they win majority support for it, or even explain coherently on here what these ‘obvious’ benefits are? 50 years of ‘integration of stealth’ rather suggest EU supporters lack confidence in their ability to convince others of the obviousness of what their cause. I happen to think the benefits of the democratic system are ‘obvious’ and that every step towards EU integration means a reduction is the range of issues that can still be decided by democratic politics.
One would hope that EU supporters would offset whatever benefits they see in the EU against the lost benefits of crushing the democratic system to see it established. And might consider that even if they agree with what the EU has done in the past, it does not mean they will agree with what it does in the future, and that in unleashing this undemocratic Continent-sized behemoth at birth they too are going to be unable to restrain it in future whether they continue to agree with its actions or not.
Complain about this comment
'91. At 2:32pm on 16 Jun 2010, MaudDib wrote:
Headline: "It's Official: Research Shows Britons Have Bad Teeth"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37701284
Im wondering if this has anything to do with anything. '
SO Britons lose on average two teeth per lifetime. My first reaction was 'only two?' I had four teeth taken out when I was 12 because my mouth wasn't big enough for them. I'm not sure whether Americans have the same problem.
Complain about this comment
It's Official: UK is at fault for giving English language to the World because only that way can the World keep complaining about all the faults of the UK in the only language the UK unofficially chooses to read, hear & speak!
PM Cameron is launching enquiries as to whether it will be appropriate for the UK to Officially apologise and offer compensation to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA etc. where English is the recognised first language and to every other Nation for their having to learn it when any other language would have evidently been so much better for World harmony.
Complain about this comment
@60.CBW wrote:
"Re ".. among the British.." and "..extraordinary **insularity** and an **arrogant contempt** towards others..", plus, "..most **violently** opposed..", ending with, "..yearn for a simpler (?) **past order**..".
Hmm, and You will now doubtless provide the QUOTES to back up this 'extraordinary' catelogue of innuendo & defamation about people who have made contributions to this Blog with content that does not fit Your version of how the World should be viewed!?"
How about:-
1) "We are not across the Channel, you are" or "The election in Belgium is of little interest , other than to the people of Belgium"
2) In response to:-
"For example, today China confirmed it would invest billions in Greece and recently the Greek premier has been courting investers in Libya and the Middle East. Surely these positive developments as well as the genuine changes which have occured in Greece post-bailout deserve as much reporting as the ongoing problems?"
the following:-
"So China invests in another third world countries. Where's the news in that?"
3) The use of "third world" as an elitist put-down
Since, to make your point, you have chosen to interpret the word "violently" in the most literal-minded way possible I'll gladly withdraw it (I was in fact referring to the violence of the emotions being expressed); please read instead "vehemently".
If I caused you offence, I apologize. I stand by my core observation, that some are descending to contemptuous abuse and others are displaying what comes across to me (but you doubtless not to you) as extraordinary insularity.
I think Benefactor @81 sums it all up pretty well.
@60.CBW wrote:
"Isn't it rather that those like myself who are anti-EU membership suggest that there are alternatives for the UK/England to being a part of a supra-National entity and You object, but cannot think of logical reasons to back Your perspective so You simply denigrate those who oppose it!?"
No, I honestly don't think so. Furthermore it's not all that obvious whether those who oppose "ever-closer union" (or those Brits who want no part of that) are automatically opposed to the idea of a supra-national European entity. What we voted to join was "the Common Market"; that's a supra-national entity requiring the surrender of some sovereign powers and submission to supra-national regulation and adjudication. So is the writing into English law of the supremacy, in regard to relevant matters, of the Court of Human Rights.
It seems to me the difference is largely one of degree.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (41):
No, your memory doesn't serve you right. What your brain has ended up doing is making up justifications on "your" actions so that "you" are right and "they" are wrong.
Lets look on the facts...
1) Iceland has not been taken into any court, there is no judgment against or for.
2) Iceland, Britain and Netherlands have an on going dispute that concerns EEA rules
A) Britain and Netherlands claim that Iceland broke against directive that obligates member states to treat all persons regardless their nationality equally. They claim that by covering Icelandic savers, Icelandic government is also obligated to cover savers of other countries.
B) Iceland says that it covered savers that were customers of Icelandic branches of these banks and thus made no difference between nationality as all customers of Icelandic branches regardless of nationality were covered.
3) EFTA Surveillance Authority (compare it to the EU Commission) made an evaluation where it took the position that the Icelandic government should cover the (minimum) deposit guarantee to all customers. However, again, this isn't a judgment, only the EFTA Court can make a judgment on this dispute and neither Britain, Netherlands or EFTA Surveillance Authority have decided to take this matter into the court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute
What Britain and Netherlands did was to take the matter to their own hands and not solve the dispute via official way by taking it to the court. What they did was to threaten to block both EU membership negotiations and IMF loans unless Iceland would consent to their demands on being paid back fully.
The reason why Icelandic government even contemplated on consenting to British and Netherlander demands was that the economic damage and hardship due to having EU membership negotiations and IMF loans canceled would have done greater economic damage than just negotiating. In the end, for Icelanders, it was better on not giving in to the demands. The other thing to remember about this dispute is that Iceland is going to pay both Britain and Netherlands their share of the liquidated assets, the dispute is more about timetable and even more about Britain and Netherlands wanting to be fully covered than settling on what the savers would have normally gotten from.
What this whole dispute shows is that big countries do what they want if they have opportunity to do so. If Iceland would have been both EU and Eurozone member, there would have been no opportunity for British and Netherlander governments to use force against Iceland, but to take the dispute to the EU Court of Justice.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (41):
PS. You do know that there are Scandinavian countries and then there are Nordic countries...
Scandinavian countries = Sweden, Denmark and Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_countries
Nordic countries = Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries
Complain about this comment
Francesca Jones
Re #95
"...EUro zone politicans hope bluster and boasting would work this time.."
Perish the thought!
Francesca I am surprised at You! Suggesting those fine Political minds based in Paris-Brussels-Berlin etc. could ever be so duplicitous as to not tell the truth!
Honestly, whatever were You thinking?
Just because 11 of 15 EUro-zone entrant Nations cooked their accounts doesn't mean they are cheats & liars, now does it? And just because in the last 6 months an 'end to the EUro/Greek crisis' was announced once every fortnight, doesn't mean they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, now did it? Then the very idea that a among those EUro-zone Nations lending Money to the EUro-zone Rescue Package are Nations that need the 'rescue' doesn't at all infer only Germany has any Tax-Payer monies put aside for the whole 15 members, of course it doesn't!?
Now I suggest You go away and think very sriously about what You have been implying on this Blog - - it is outrageously near-the-mark - - and therefore wholly inadmissible by anyone who is 'pro-EU' much less an actual EU-Brussels representative.
Complain about this comment
@ 96 FB John
Why do you keep putting obvious in little quotes? You are aware what a joke is aren't you? The little spiel was just two caricatures, one of either side, arguing in a similar to, but much more dumbed down way similar to what I see on here (I myself am just as guilty as anyone else.)
The 'Pro-EU' 'Europhiles' 'whatever' are not some monolithic block of democracy hating Napoleons, I consider myself reasonably pro-EU and don't hate democracy, I've voted in every type of Election thats happened since I turned 18. You need to stop seeing things in terms of 'us' and 'them', it's the reason for the majority of the worlds problems.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work@82,
In creating 'Tommy Aitkins', Kipling knew what he was writing about.
JorgeG1 @87, wrote:
"Incidentally, did you know that Muslims were building mosques in Western Europe well before you and I were born?"
True - but usually on the site of churches and synagogues in the lands they had conquered from the Christian and the Jews who had lived there for centuries before Mohammad was born.
I have been to Granada, Seville and Cordoba (I know Andalusia pretty well). The Mezquita is amazing: a cathedral built on a mosque built on a church built on a Roman temple.... The place (like the Ka'aba in Mecca and Temple Mount in Jerusalem) was 'holy' to somebody or another before any muslim ever set foot there.
Complain about this comment
97. Wonthillian
We in the US most often loose our teeth by grinding them down to the nub. I know I have. We also take lots of antidepressants and sleep with a mouthful of plastic to keep from grinding..... That's what happens when you try to solve all the worlds problems.
Complain about this comment
Jukka Rohila@101,
The definition is simple: those countries that can watch Wallander without subtitles are Scandinavian.
Complain about this comment
103. At 4:56pm on 16 Jun 2010, Benefactor wrote:
...You need to stop seeing things in terms of 'us' and 'them', it's the reason for the majority of the worlds problems.
176. At 3:10pm on 06 May 2010, Benefactor wrote:
Of course where not going to take advice off of Americans, your all stupid and fat.
Complain about this comment
@94. CBW wrote:
"UK Registered Employed rose a little to 28.9 million Jan - March 2010.
When one considers that this is 3 to 4 times the size of the entire Populations of some EU Nations it does give a slightly alternative perspective on what is or is not deemed an Economy that is functioning in a recognised prudent and progressive manner."
err...what alternative perspective? The percentage gives you the proportion of the workforce in each country which is unemployed: what does the absolute size of populations tell you about whether "an economy..is functioning in a recognized prudent and progressive manner" (whatever that means)? Sorry but I don't follow your argument.
Complain about this comment
Those two are awfully cute together.
Complain about this comment
JukkaRohil @#101
I think you need to read the links from the WIki rather than just post them?
To quote, "Scandinavia .... Finland is often considered a Scandinavian country in common English usage, and Iceland and the Faroe Islands are sometimes also included."
"Nordic", "smordic", or "scandinavian" - very little difference in a collective group name as far as I am concerned.
I suppose it is like calling someone "British". There really is no such nationality as "British" - just a Passport entitlement and a collective grouping.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (110):
I did read the links and I did note the line you referred. However having a bunch of people using an incorrect term doesn't make it a correct one or make it admissible to use it as such. Correct terminology is a key for successful discussion. There is difference between terms Scandinavian country and a Nordic country. If you don't make the distinction and use the correct one, you belong to the same group of people that use terrorist as an synonym for a person of Arabic descent.
Complain about this comment
@ 107 FB John
Urm, Bravo, you've successfully shown you don't know what a joke is? (seriously, you may not have found it funny, but how could you not get that. You really don't give me much credit do you FBJ.)
Still, I get what your doing, your trying to show me being a hypocrite and as such my point is worthless, because as we all know, if 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true as well.
I can do that to you know, your a Europhobe and as we all know, Europhobes are Xenophobes...
Complain about this comment
cbw #83;
"MAII
Re #78
My apologies MAII, I had assumed it was You.
If interested its on the BBC News Have Your Say Blog asking for reaction to the 'Bloody Sunday' Report.
The Comment I mistakenly attributed to You was at #191 among many hundreds.
Apologies, no offence or otherwise thought intended."
Whew. You had me scared for a moment. The thought of you agreeing with something I post makes me wonder where I went wrong. Nice to know I've kept on track without a slip up after all.
Complain about this comment
#68 JorgeG1
What are you going on about ! I suggest you read #16CMZ and my statement at #49 again .
CMZ complains of Mr Hewitts Blog ," The Case Against The Euro "; several other people have complained too at this negativity . I wrote to him to suggest he write ," A Case For The Euro ". You too could do the same .
Your diatribe is quite misplaced . Who said anything about Schengen , I am not relating this to Britain .
Perhaps my brief statement to CMZ touches a raw nerve in you ; that you too know there isn't a case for the Euro .
Complain about this comment
#112 Benefactor
NO! You are wrong ! Those you are accusing of being Europhobes are in fact anti EU . The EU is not Europe or the European people ; it is a faceless bureaucracy , that answers to nobody but itself .
It is incorrect to brand Europhobes as xenophobes .
Complain about this comment
#111 Jukka Rohila
Which between Scandinavian and Nordic , would relate to Terrorist or of Arabic descent ?
In terms of Synonym , isn't your choice a little extreme ?
Complain about this comment
Torpoare
Re #99
As none of the quotes You provided actually match-up to what You allege about 'anti-EU' I can only state again IMO You are using the supposed 'superiority' of the 'pro-EU' argument that has long since failed to convince anyone.
E.g. Your (1) The 'You' are across the Channel was in an exchange in which the 2 contributors both made that mediocre/absurd point.
As someone remarked it was last used by Punch in the early 1900s re "fog in channel... continent cut off..'.
(2) Hardly an alternative to the series of 'pro' comments alleging 'little englander', 'imperialist', 'sun tabloid reader' etc. that run through all these debates.
(3)"vehemently" is much more appropriate - - thanks.
Agree with Your last point: I for one have often repeated that whilst I believe UK/England withdrawal is ultimately in the best interests of the British Isles I am unconvinced a majority of britons would in the light of full, fair & proper debate of all the pros & cons Vote in sufficient numbers to secede from the EU.
I also, as one who voted 'Yes' in 1975 liked the much less 'political' EEC and believe such a system (updated of course - - which is far removed from the stagnating 'one-size-fits-all' anti-Democratic effrontery of Brussels' EU) really is the way forward for all UK & Europe.
Okay, that just about covers it.
Cheers torpare, hope to read Your stuff in future.
Complain about this comment
Torpare
Re #108
"..a prudent and progressive manner..": Well, in basic terms I was thinking that so many unemployed, i.e. 1 in 5 of the available Workforce (21.5%), is otherwise put as approx 4 in 5 are Employed of a very large Population. This compares favourably to several other EU Member States (which is the marker we have to use despite my taking any Brussels' inspired Statistic with buckets of salt following revelations of the EUro-zone qualifications & supervision debacle).
In a deeper sense the 'prudent' is that the Unemployment figures suggest IMO that UK Government pre & post General Election has got the policies just about right for the emergence from the Recession - - i.e. Unemployment is rising steadily as the careful pruning in Public sectors joins the evident cuts already suffered in the Private sector (thus the burden on the Welfare Benfits which draw on Taxes are incremental rather than expedential as in the case of Spain & Greece) - - alongside that is the 'progression' of lower inflation though still above BofE target, stable Interest Rates, a cheaper Pound and no sense or signals of excessive 'deflationary' or 'inflationary' factors laying in the background of the UK Economy & Fiscal management.
In other words I think the UK whilst obviously facing serious issues as Chancellor Osborne outlined again last night, is not in the dire Fiscal straits of some EU Members. 'Prudent' & 'progressive' appear to me as adequate: Particularly when one takes into account the bulk of UK Deficit is owed over a very long period whereas many of those Nations in deepest trouble (especially in the EUro-zone) are facing having to pay-up on some or all those 'borrowings' in the next 2 to 3 years.
Complain about this comment
@ 115
I read what I wrote and it appears to make sense, then I read your reply and wonder if I've wrote it in dutch or something...
Complain about this comment
Re #90
Unfortunately IMO still utterly mad & in parts incomprehensible in terms of factual reality.
Isn't a way of reducing Turkish misconduct to invite them into the EU-club with its strict Human Rights procedures etc.?
Oh no! We cannot expect the Muslim Turks to comply like any other logical, reasoning people! Despite the fact, since applying for membership, Turkey has made important strides in its move towards a more modernistic approach to all sorts of issues.
True, it has some way to go, but the Paris-Berlin stance is IMO a major reason it is turning back in on itself & the more 'secular' Turkish Political groups are struggling against the more 'fundamentalist Islamic' Parties.
If You think Greece & EUrope has problems with a secular Turkey just wait & see what issues will arise with 'fundamentalist' Islam Government on the doorstep!
Apart from which why not invite Turkey & Russia into the fold?
Afterall, approx 14% or 20,000,000 Russian States' Citizens are Muslim: That way EU gets to spread the word of 'ever closer union' to almost two-thirds of the World's surface!
My #65 was not actually about 'muslim Turkey' but that is the only bit I'm prepared to debate with You as I have never been able to follow any of Your line of arguments in other posts and this one was no different.
Complain about this comment
MAII
Re #113
I know how You feel: Hands across the Atlantic & all that... Brrrrrrr!
Cheers You inveterate rapscallian (did Mark Twain use that word first?).
Complain about this comment
38. At 10:31pm on 15 Jun 2010, yani1988 wrote:
""""....For example, today China confirmed it would invest billions in Greece and recently the Greek premier has been courting investers in Libya and the Middle East. Surely these positive developments as well as the genuine changes which have occured in Greece post-bailout deserve as much reporting as the ongoing problems?""""
From which PASOK castle did you get out with your green armour and half sun-shaped shield mate?
The Chinese involvement predates PASOK (which is a party that stauntly have refused Asian investment in Greece since the 1980s when it kicked out the Japanese). PASOK is the party of the US in Greece, enf of story.
Chinese 6 months ago offered Greece 10 times better solutions for its debt. Jeffrey refused it and tried by any means to hide that. Russians did the same, Papandreou kept it aside secret. It is the previous government that signed pre-accords with borth Russians and Chinese on extremely important projects including the Southstream and the ports and it is Jeffrey and his government that upturned these accords freezing the projects and practically replacing them with overly expensive accords that are more suitable for the US like the import of over expensive Saoudi liquified gas which mathematically gives time to the unacceptable Nabucco project which will make Greece dependentent on an unstable and downright aggressive country like Turkey (let alone the low series of amazingly unstable countries behind, like Georgia, Azerbaitzan and Turkmenistan). While the previous government did absolutely nothing for sorting out the finances out of both incompetence as well as the reactions of the PASOK guided syndicates (who only react when PASOK is in the opposition - we have seen this repeatedly in the past, we saw it the last 3 months too when PASOK went on an unprecedent chop including direct salary reduction and not a leaf was moved, while when ND party did the 1/10th of that we had dead people in the streets...).
What are the genuine changes you religiously invoque like a typical little slave?
PS: Between us, why do you do this? Are you an MP's son or something? Or do you have to settle up your daughter in some nice position? What is most obvious is that you do not seem to be bothered about any wage reduction as either your wage is too high to care or your income is mostly black so measures really do not touch you at all.
Complain about this comment
Re #118 CBW
Thanks. I now get your drift.
Let's hope your (cautious) optimism proves justified. Alistair Darling predicts a 'double-dip recession' - but then he would wouldn't he.
Complain about this comment
Prompted by this blog I've been brushing-up on my history by re-reading relevant parts of Tony Judt's marvellous "Postwar" (Pimlico 2007). I think the chapters dealing with the origins of the EU, and Britain's attitude towards it, ought to be required reading.
I can't resist quoting this:-
"...The British rejected Robert Schumann's invitation (to join the European Coal and Steel Community) in 1950 because of what they took to be the disutility of joining a European economic project...But the British decision...was above all an instinctive, psychological and even emotional one...In Anthony Eden's summary of the British decision to a New York audience in January 1952, 'This is something which we know, in our bones, we cannot do'.
"The decision was not final: but, taken when it was, it proved fateful....power within the 'little Europe' (of the Six) ...fell by default to France. The French duly did what the British might have done in other circumstances and made 'Europe' in their own image, eventually casting its instsitutions and policies in a mould familiar from French precedent. At the time it was the continental Europeans, not the British, who expressed regret at the course of events. Many prominent European leaders deeply wanted Britain to join them. As Paul-Henri Spaak...noted in regretful retrospect: 'This moral leadership - it was yours for the asking'...Ten years later, it was true, the British would think again. But in post-war Europe ten years was a very long time and by then the die was cast."
Isn't it that painful fact - that the die was already cast by the time we Brits changed our minds and decided we wanted to join after all - that we've been kicking-against ever since? It's a pity we can't make up our minds as a country what it is we want, and then stick to it. Some here represent the view that we'll never be able to get the Union to change in a way that would conform more closely to our ideas, because everything has already been stitched-up by the original Six, so therefore we should get out and the sooner the better. One perfectly logical choice (but not the only one) - if you agrees with the premise. They also seem to take as a foregone conclusion that if a referendum were held this would be the result (which may, or may not, be so but if so wouldn't in itself say anything about the merits of the argument, because such a decision would - like the one described by Judt - be equally, under present circumstances, an "instinctive, psychological and even emotional one").
And doesn't the premise make some questionable assumptions, like:-
- the present political dominance by the franco-german axis is an unalterable feature of the EU
- Germany and France will continue indefinitely to see their interests as being in common
- neither the French nor the Germans (not to mention any of the smaller nations) will ever see any utility in making common cause with the UK, and other countries
- the traditional British antipathy towards European supra-national institutions is justified simply by virtue of its "britishness" and will never change
- nowhere else but in Britain (England, more specifically) is there genuine opposition to over-centralisation
- the EU Commission (which is a civil service) is corrupt through and through, filled with placemen and time-servers whose only purpose is to serve the selfish interests of their own countries - ie who (quite unlike our civil servants) are motivated, and act, solely as if they were politicians
- .......?
Being a BBC website it's only to be expected that contributions are likely to come disproportionately from Brits, albeit with many thought-provoking ones from others. And Hewitt too does look at goings-on in Europe through very British eyes - understandably. But it must get a bit boring for non-Brits to hear the same old arguments going round and round amongst the Brits.
Complain about this comment
@ 114. Huaimek
"Your diatribe is quite misplaced . Who said anything about Schengen , I am not relating this to Britain ."
Why is it misplaced, may I ask? What I am saying is that (if you are British, that is, otherwise forget what I said, as it only applies to British Europhobes) I find it impossible to understand what exactly is your problem if the Euro is a political pillar which eventually result in a federal superstate. Did no one tell you? BRITAIN IS NOT IN THE EURO, so you can relax.
Again, if you are not British, forget this, it doesn’t apply to you.
"Perhaps my brief statement to CMZ touches a raw nerve in you ; that you too know there isn't a case for the Euro"
It didn't touch any raw nerve. But are you saying perhaps that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in the Euro is negative, no positives at all?
If that's what you are saying, excuse me I have more important things to do than wasting my time debating with you.
Goodbye.
Complain about this comment
#125 JorgeG1
So your xenophobic response is because you think I'm British and therefore obviously Europhobe . I make no pretence , I am British and Europhobe .
I did not say everything about the Euro is bad ; but its conception as a currency was based on political rather than monetory or economic reasoning , hence the problems today . If there had already been a Federal state of Europe , with a single economy over the whole 27 region country , there might not be the problems .
Gavin Hewitt hasn't written " A Case For The Euro ".
You and CMZ believe there is " A Case For The Euro " , so why don't you both write one in support of the Euro , that you both believe in .
Complain about this comment
@65 cool_brush_wood
I thank you for your detailed answer. Frankly speaking, I should alter my first impression that your stance on the mere existence of the EU (I mean in its present legal frame) was totally negative, and that GB was likely to gain more if it fled the union. Which is why, I first tried to imagine what would happen to your country, if for some reason, the EU was no more in a position to operate as an economic and political entity.
Of course, the commitment of the UK to the cause of the third economic entity of the world (after China and India) is beyond any doubt. The figures you listed as well as the statements Gordon Brown made just before the last elections are just another proof of it.
However, being in the business myself, I have some reserves as to the eventual cooperation of the (non European) countries you referred to with the EU member states. Even if we admit, that they are enough reliable as trade partners, the fact that (if I have correctly understood your argument) the relationship should not pass directly from the mainland member states to the said (English speaking) countries, will not be welcome as the best trade procedure. Beyond the borders of the EU, no coordination between us is so far foreseen, except for the fact that 16 nations are using the single currency, and, consequently they are privileged to apply approximately the same interests/rules when lending loans abroad. Of course, the opposite flow of capitals/goods/services from the UK to the mainland member states (when your suppliers or subcontractors come from countries other than the EU) is welcome provided the ISO norms are respected and the prices are competitive. That is exactly what happens now. (Frankly speaking, I secretly envy your pure British ability to make good business on the mainland with non European subcontractors/suppliers behind. And, if we add to that the circumstance that the UK has got its own, independent sources of supply of gas/petrol, we can understand your repetitive vow for less restrictions within the complex EU system which is intended to preserve the market space only for the member states).
Of course, I should agree with your vision that a further development and enlargement of the cooperation with the European countries outside the EU is something quite natural and positive. To that matter, countries like Turkey, Ukraine and Russia, along with the countries of the West Balkans /we strongly support in their move for a full membership to the EU/ seem really to be /for different reasons/ reliable partners of Brussels. However, your argument that an eventual entry of Turkey in the EU would bring enormous benefit to continental EUrope with its vast 'market opportunities', is somehow out of the context of the European spirit of “our enterprise”. Turkey does not yet meet the political standards of united Europe, and last but not least, Turkey is a Muslim country with very, very different culture which inevitably will influence negatively the complex interethnic problems in the old continent. If we add to all that the fact that the present Turkish leadership does not hide its ambitions for a more large hegemony in the Middle East and in the Eastern Mediterranean, we certainly should be very cautious and less enthusiastic over the idea of the eventual enlargement of the EU beyond the Bosphorous, i.e. in Asia.
As to your well founded argument concerning the present system of decision making of the Brussels institutions, I must avow that I am not quite prepared to make my own judgement whether the actual system is well working or not. However, I guess that the last enlargement was somewhat too hasty and that the Lisbon treaty (Tony Blair signed) is to be improved constantly until it comes to suit if not entirely, at least approximately, the interests of all member states. The loss of some portion of the national sovereignty seems to be is inevitable, at least in the coming 10 years. The problem lies in the different level of industrial/economic/social and political conditions of the participants.
Complain about this comment
The German chancellor and the French president did what was demanded of them. They displayed unity. They said the words. "More than ever, Germany and France are determined to talk with one voice," said President Sarkozy, "to adopt common policies, to give Europe the means to meet its legitimate ambitions".
What gives these two arrogant types the right to think they can pre-decide pretty much everything? How on earth is this democratic?
Complain about this comment
European Countries are much better financially now than before the creations of EEU and Euro. The free flow of capital, the absence of strict customs zones and fees, the continuous stop for money exchanges and fees. But European have short memories and their interest groups guide them to self interest Nationalist groups. The creation of "labor Unions" and the protesting of stricter fiscal policies are propably heavily funded by interest groups that want a return to the old customs of easier money laundering and devaluations that served the good old boys at the expense of the average citizen. This is espcecially true for Greece. One can follow the protesters to the money trail that they leave behind. Sheltered with the language barrier Greece Spain and Portugal are victims of the money bosses who wish the ousting of Euro from these Countries. ECB should do something about it to protect the citizens from these countries and ECB's interests that could amount to a robust European Economy in the near and far future. Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozi can be intstrumental in forming a policy that may protect the plain citizen from the oppurtunists who are trying to regain Europe's new currency.
Complain about this comment
I live in Greece and although our public finaces are in a very bad state we will not default because the IMF and the EU will save us, actually they are saving us right now since the lent us huge amounts of money at a very acceptable rate.
I support Germany becuase throughout EUs history it is the country who pays most bills. On the other hand Greece and France are among the biggest beneficiaries of EUs money
Complain about this comment
129. At 4:43pm on 20 Jun 2010, Harry wrote:
European Countries are much better financially now than before the creations of EU and Euro.
There is no correlation whatsoever between the existence of the EU and the Euro on one side, and prosperity on the other.
And anyway, much of that prosperity has been bought on credit, with debts and deficits increasing right from the moment the Euro was introduced. Why? Because plenty of countries think that once in the Euro you can spend whatever you want and Germany will pick up the tab. This is part how the crisis came about. This would not have happened without the Euro.
Complain about this comment
They have a recognized position in the council..so they know the situation well ..ans they know what they are telling on which they are telling has to be accepted...in other ways they speak accordingly
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS