Europe: fighting over reform
Europe's leaders, who will meet in Brussels tomorrow, know broadly what they want. How to get there continues to divide them.
They are still scarred by the debt crisis in Greece which rocked the euro. Some believe that sovereign debt put at risk the entire European project. They want to ensure that never happens again.
So the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was sent away in March to toil with a task force to come up with some answers. His report will be on the table in Brussels.
In general terms there is little disagreement. In the preface to the draft conclusions it states that a "fundamental shift in European economic governance is required". This will mean increased fiscal discipline, greater economic surveillance and deeper co-ordination.
Strip that down. What the eurozone doesn't want again is a Greek-style surprise, where suddenly they learn of a budget deficit that has risen above 12%. So they want a preview of national budgets. But the aim is to go much further: to enforce sanctions against those who run up excessive deficits, and to set up a permanent mechanism to manage future debt crises.
Where all this becomes more controversial is over how the rules are enforced. The Germans, in particular, want a regime of sanctions against the rule-breakers. The German public don't want again to find themselves bailing out countries like Greece.
Now the fine detail of what those sanctions would be has not been agreed. They could be a combination of fines, or a withdrawal of EU voting rights.
It was presumed that the Germans would back automatic sanctions, but at a meeting between President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel last week a softer line was taken. Sanctions would not be automatic. A minority of states could block them. Now some question whether, if the sanctions are not automatic, they would pack a punch. After all, it would then leave it to national politicians to enforce the rules. But the French wanted the more flexible option and they got their way.
In exchange France agreed to back changing the Lisbon Treaty, which is what the Germans say is necessary. The Germans believe that disciplining states requires a treaty change particularly under the German constitution.
The leader of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, attacked the French-German deal as "unacceptable".
In Germany many MPs are unhappy about dropping "automatic" sanctions. Chancellor Merkel said today that nothing could be agreed in Europe without French-German co-operation. The biggest danger for the eurozone, she said, stemmed from excessive deficits. Even with tougher sanctions another crisis could not be ruled out. A new robust crisis mechanism was needed and that could only be achieved by changing the treaty.
But treaty change opens up a Pandora's Box and the proposal is bitterly dividing member states. For changing the treaty opens up the possibility of other issues being put on the agenda. Some countries might try and reclaim some powers. It would once again involve the EU facing inwards and concentrating on institutional change, just when it has spent eight years doing that.
Treaty change is bitterly opposed by David Cameron. If the change involves any new powers going from Westminster to Brussels he is committed to holding a referendum. The British public could deliver a firm "Non" and set up a European crisis.
Now the British position is that the UK is not in the euro and that any treaty change would not apply to it. Under Protocol 15 of the Lisbon Treaty Britain has an opt-out from any sanctions. And this is David Cameron's key card. If sanctions don't apply then there is no need to call a referendum, as no powers would be ceded to Brussels.
Other countries like Ireland would have to put the change to a referendum and it could easily fail there. With Ireland mired in debt, it would be a hard argument to win to back a suspension of EU voting rights in the event of a country exceeding the 3% deficit limit.
So a number of countries - like the Netherlands, Finland and Ireland - are furious at the idea of a treaty change. They don't want it. Nor do EU officials, like the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso. They all fear where it will lead.
The expectation is that President Van Rompuy will be told to go away and find a way of meeting German concerns without a treaty change. It may prove a difficult circle to square.
There is another separate battle line that will surface at this summit: the 2011 EU budget. The European Commission and the European Parliament have backed an increased of 5.9%. Such an increase would cost the UK an extra £900 million a year. David Cameron calls it "outrageous", when countries are slashing their deficits and make painful spending cuts.
He said in Parliament today that the "greatest priority for Britain is getting the EU budget under control". He will find some support from other countries, but may have to compromise - perhaps by accepting an increase of just over 2%. When he was challenged not to roll over in Brussels and if necessary just to say "no" to any increase he side-stepped giving a direct answer. He said it would help if Labour MEPs stopped voting for increases in the EU budget.
On all these issues Europe is divided. Two days of painful horse-trading lie ahead. For David Cameron the difficulty will be explaining to the British people why he had to compromise on the budget - if he doesn't come away with a freeze.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~00~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The fact that the Euro elites are so frightened of anything that will allow the ordinary people of Europe a say in things is all the evidence you need of just how corrupt and undemocratic the whole sorry institution is. They will go to any lengths to avoid it. If these people really believed in the strength of their arguments, rather their own self-interest, they would be willing, indeed happy, to put the case for changes to treaties, budgets and even the very existence of a European Union, to the voters who pay for it all and allow them to decide; that after all is what democracy demands. For what it is worth, the upheaval in world economic affairs has to my mind exposed the serious structural flaws in the very foundations of the EU, ( not just the Euro) and it is only a matter of time before reality sets in. The writing is on the wall, but the Eurocrats and the politicians simply turn the other way so as not to see it. It is like reliving the fall of Rome in slow motion.
Complain about this comment
The UK is not the only one saying the EU budget increase is unacceptable and I am sure there are many in the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere who are up for the fight. The question is can the UK influence matters enough to get them to back us rather than a Franco-German compromise? The current 2010 budget will continue, so it would be difficult for other member states to say we are derailing or undermining the EU.
By the way, Cameron is right about Labour being the ones who supported the EU budget increase. It was agreed several year ago to fund the EU's new institutions that came out of the Lisbon Treaty they ratified.
Complain about this comment
And if you listen carefully you can hear the footfalls of the lesser spined VacuDave...
*flip* *flop* *flip* *flop* *flip* *flop*
...
I hope he proves me wrong but I am not holding my breath.
Complain about this comment
As ever Gavin the Eurocrats are well behind the curve. I notce you say that they wish to avoid Greek style surprises and yet I read this on notayesmanseconomics blog last week.
"The leaks suggest that the estimate of the fiscal deficit will rise from 13.4% to 15.5% or so and the ratio of national debt to Gross Domestic Product from 115% to 127%. I will update when the actual figures are produced."
If true then one can only agree with his conclusion that Greece is looking ever more insolvent and at least one more surprise is due. Today's update on the report from the Bank of Greece to the Greek Parliament only reinforces this thought.
http://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com
Complain about this comment
In Germany many MPs are unhappy about dropping "automatic" sanctions. Chancellor Merkel said today that nothing could be agreed in Europe without French-German co-operation.
I don't use the term 'Franco-German Reich' for a joke. This is exactly the reason why. France and Germany think they should pre-decide everything.
Now the British position is that the UK is not in the euro and that any treaty change would not apply to it. Under Protocol 15 of the Lisbon Treaty Britain has an opt-out from any sanctions. And this is David Cameron's key card. If sanctions don't apply then there is no need to call a referendum, as no powers would be ceded to Brussels.
I'm sure they are already working on weasel ways to skip a referendum. Alternatively, they can work with the undemocratic EU to find a weasel way to get this thing implemented without treaty change. I mean, the current 'bailout fund setup' is already blatantly illegal and based on a deliberate omission of a key part of article 122.
And don't forget, the federalist European Court of Justice could be used, it has found cockamamy interpretations of EU treaties before to somehow justify declaring something to be a matter of 'common market'. Anything deemed to be of influence on 'common market' can be declared an exclusive EU competence by the federalist ECJ. This is why they screen ECJ judges for commitment to federalism.
On all these issues Europe is divided. Two days of painful horse-trading lie ahead.
More horse trading, more compromises which means more bad decisions. Compromises are usually the worst outcomes since the outcome is likely to be 'too much' for one half and 'not enough' for the rest.
Complain about this comment
The Euro was an ambitious undertaking - and a necessary one to help make the single market (which is far from completed) effective. It was undertaken without sufficient consideration being given to the transfer of power over both monetary and fiscal policy which is required to make a single currency work.
Bit by bit, Europe's leaders are being forced to the realisation that the necessary transfer of power will take them quite far along the road to further integration - and some are even honest enough to realise that further, and probably continuing, amendments to the founding treaties will be necessary over the years. Some might even wonder where it will all end. Let me suggest the following propositions to help clarify matters:
1. there can be no durable single currency without full economic integration;
2. there can be no effective economic integration without political integration;
3. the only political integration which could be accepted in 21st century Europe is one based on the democratically expressed consent of the people of Europe.
Unless Europeans and their leaders are prepared to work for such democratic political integration - in plain terms, a democratic European state, based on the primacy of European citizenship, there is no point in pretending that the single market will be fully achieved or that a single currency will endure.
Complain about this comment
Manofiona
Re #6
Eminently sensible views.
The difficulty as You say is that need for the Democratic consent of the 500,000,000+ Citizens: It is clear post-Maastricht Consultation, Participation & Consent by those millions of Citizens is NOT even on the EU-Brussels' entity's agenda.
I hope for the best: The complete change of EU-Brussels' 'political' attitude to the Citizens enabling a series of Democratic Reforms that will encourage all EUropeans to support this political construct.
I fear the worst: A blindly anti-Democratic EU-Brussels failing at every opportunity to 'engage' and 'respond' to Citizens' viewpoints and it all tragically ending in very serious civil strife within the decade ahead.
Complain about this comment
Gavin wrote:
#the British position is that the UK is not in the Euro and that any treaty change would not apply to it"
Sorry, but we MUST join for the UK to gain its fair share of economic prosperity. If we don't the bankers will yet again steal the UK's profits of economic membership of the EU. That is the economic reality no matter mow many idiotic bigots of anti-everything rant.
Complain about this comment
But Europe isn't fighting. It's trying to decide how to
- avoid future economic deficit(s) and
- handle EU countries that run up deficits.
The deficit may or may not be the fault of the EU country. It could, for example, be a consequence of negative default trading (ganbling against the country's soverign debt) or underlying rotting derivatives.
The EU was shocked by the debt crisis in Greece but they also became aware of the involvement of a huge American investment firm that had bet against Greek soverignty.
I believe that sovereign debt put at risk the entire European project. You bet Europe wants to insure that that doesn't happen again. The only way they can insure that it doesn't happen again is to pre-audit budget proposals - right down to what fails to show on balance sheets because some poor slob of a country has been advised that it can defer debt by using credit defaults, or whatever.
A "fundamental shift in European economic governance is required". This will mean increased fiscal discipline (good), greater economic surveillance (This should be welcome in a world where no one person can possibly know every intricacy of the complex, modern world of accounting.) and deeper co-ordination (good.).
So they want a preview of national budgets. (Good.)
But the aim is to go much further:
1. enforce sanctions against those who run up excessive deficits, and
2. set up a permanent mechanism to manage future debt crises.
While I agree with the second, I disagree with the first. Sanctions or other penalties should be dependent on the intention of the country that ran up the excessive debt. Take Greece, Greece had far too much trust in an American huge investment firm when she should have been placing her trust in the auditing of the EU.
Sanctions will not help a country already floundering in debt; so how to punish? Take away voting rights? This doesn't seem right either, especially if the country walked into an American gambling scheme. Probably, the best solution is more frequent submission of balance sheets by the country, so that the EU can watch the EU country like a hawk until it proves conformity. Also, I firmly believe that where there has been outside interference (or gambling) against some EU countries' soverign debt. Charges should be lain against the responsible party. i.e. It should be illegal to bet against any country's soverign debt.
France has agreed to back changing the Lisbon Treaty to set up a permanent mechanism to manage future debt crises. Germany concurs.
So why is Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker calling the French-German deal "unacceptable". The Eurogroup and Prime Minister of Luxembourg: the devil will be in the details..."We were able to agree on the main aspects of the reform of governance." Apparently he wants sanctions that will bite sooner. I won't disagree, but yes, the devil will be in the details.
Olli Rehn, European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, said he's "satisfied with the progress made" by finance ministers and that he expected a deal "broadly in line" with the European Commission's proposals for semi-automatic sanctions. But he too put the emphasis on prevention, not sanction.
The biggest danger for the eurozone stems from excessive deficit. Deficit can be intentional, but most unexpected, truly troubling deficits comes from bad accounting, or nefarious financial instruments which is why I believe it's better to audit than to sanction.
As for the EU budget, I believe the EU would very much like to draw this 5.9% increase from a FAT (financial activities tax).
What is this ongoing British attitude of rolling over to Brussels, manning up and just saying NO, etc. Why is Britain so hostile to the EU?
Where does Britain see itself?
Partnered with the US, as though the US will come to the aid of Britain.
Partnered with the EU, which will come to Britain's aid.
Partnered with no one - standing alone, thinking it knows every problematic economic game that could possibly bring Britain down.
If the EU gets FAT (Financial; Activity Tax) and/or FTT (Financial Transaction Tax), will the UK opt out, electing instead to use its own badly designed bank levy?
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth Greek GDP is declining 3% and also is also back in recession, making it harder than ever for them to repay debt.
What the eurozone periphery needs is a 'White Wednesday' when the pound crashed out of the ERM in 1992, the recessesion ended, and the longest period of expansion (17 years) in the British economy for three centuries began. Some politicians felt humiliated; John Major's reputation for being able to manage the economy never recovered and he lost the next election. But it was fantastic news for real people in Britain who would otherwise have been condemned to endure a deflationary spiral.
Greece, Ireland, Spain all need to crash out of the eurozone and recalibrate their monetary policy towards growth. Markets need to do this for them, because their politicians' ego are stopping them from taking the necessary steps.
Complain about this comment
Re the suggestions that there should be a referendum as to whether the U.K. stays in the E.U. or leave it. I would tend to support such a referendum provided there was transparency in what people were voting for.
So that if the 'yes' camp wants to use a positive result to bring further integration they need to explain that in clear terms.Including the need for increasing transfer of power to the E.U. {Sharing if you prefer)harmonisation of tax regimes, the single currency, etc, in effect what ever closer union actually means. If they fail to do this and do get the result they desire then it would still means others could fight to thwart their integration plans, using the legitimate reason that they were sold a 'pup'.
A classic example of this was the Lisbon Treaty. Firstly the fabrication that it was completely different to the constitution. Then that it was a 'tidying up' exercise to make the E.U more efficient. We now discover that this increased efficiency means the E.U needs to spend more money and employ more people. I do not see how that is more efficient, surely we should have been able to reduce the E.U. budget. Furthermore among the upper echelons it was well known that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to increased expenditure, how often was this mentioned in the debates at the time by those proposing it.
It is for these and other similar reasons that people become cynical about the E.U. I have no problem with people trying to sell the idea about closer union within the E.U. countries, but be upfront about it and say that in clear and unambiguous words. Be proud of what you want to try and achieve, shout it from the roof tops. But won't hold my breath
Complain about this comment
The predecessors of the EU, and the EU itself are creatures of minds more concerned with institutions and rule-books than with the need to be able to change and adapt as circumstances change: ie French and German minds. Germany, now slavishly followed by France, wants to concentrate on "big" rule changes (ie Treaty changes). The EU COmmissioners - unelected but equally locked into an " institutions and rule book" approach - see it differently.
Times have changed. The EU (and national governments too, I believe) now needs to become more fexible. There appears to be an automatic acceptance of so-called "liberal" (or free-market) economic policies. These have been called into question: maybe a different viewpoint is necessary.
Automatic penalties on EU-moderated budget "overspends" cannot reflect the realities of national economic governance. One size does not fit all, despite what Chicago economists might say. Perhaps there should be a system where the penalty (if it is found there must be a penalty) more equally fits the "crime"?
Complain about this comment
As an 18 year old I voted to stay in the EEC in 1975. I did so because my elders and betters persuaded me it would be good for trade. I was also reassured it was only a trade deal and would not involve any loss of self rule. Little did I realize that within a generation, the EEC would have turned into the EC then the EU, that it would have its own Currency, Parliament, Supreme Court, Police, Army, Flag, National Anthem and would be passing 70% (or more) of our laws. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined we could have given away so much of our manufacturing to Europe or allowed our borders to be opened to a mass immigration of cheap EU labour. Had I seen all this in my crystal ball I would have voted NO! But it's too late. The damage is done. Now we need a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU. The whole thing is falling apart. The sooner we leave, the sooner we can start saving the £125 Billion annually which the Tax Payers Alliance calculates the EU is costing us. It would be better to put this money into our OWN country and pay off this cursed deficit which is costing so many good people their jobs in the public sector? I am appalled by my own voting stupidity!
Complain about this comment
I expect that Cameron will roll-over.
Complain about this comment
# Peter Stewart
Comments like this one make me wish the UK really did shut up and left the EU. I am sick of your whining - the Brits always act as if they were paying for everything and receiving nothing in return. In reality, their commerce-based economy probably profited the most from the membership.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I want the UK to leave. It would still have to comply with EU rules and pay for the access to the common market (like Norway or Switzerland), but it would have absolutely no say in EU institutions and decision making. Things would definitely get easier then. The Brits could live in the delusion that they still matter in the world, and the rest of the continent would get rid of one major trouble-maker standing in way of most sensible (integrationist) reforms.
Complain about this comment
One Step Beyond
re #11
The UK Referendum on membership of the EU is long overdue.
There are Political & Demographic issues that have to be taken into account.
Surely with Devolved 'power' in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland those Citizens' votes in a Referndum could not be counted toward the overall total that might be used to affect the Citizens' vote in England?
All 4 Union Nations must have separate, independent Referendum on membership using only the same wording for all 4 populace.
The wording is vital: A question can be made to read 'negative' or 'positive'.
Therfore I would suggest the question is broken down into something along these neutral lines:
Do You support ...(Union Nation)...'s continued membership of the European Union?
YES ...
Do You oppose ... (Union Nation)...'s continued membership of the European Union?
YES ...
On the Ballot paper the questions should be alongside each other.
As the previous and only Referendum on membership in April 1975 was held acros the whole UK I don't think it is possible to stipulate anything other than a highest % vote as the declöared winner. The only proviso being that Voter Turnout for each Union Nation must exceed 60% (as it did in 1975).
The winning result therefore decided by whichever of the 2 questions attains 50 +01% or above of the Votes cast in each Union Nation.
Well, a fellow can dream, can't he?
I'm not predicting the outcome for any of the 4 Nations though I would prefer a Vote to withdraw by England. The other 3 can do exactly what they like with Brussels.
Complain about this comment
@13 Peter Stewart
I entirely endorse the sentiments of your posting.
In 1975 I was a little older than your goodself and should, arguably, have known better but the thought of a pan-european trading block so inter-dependant that future euoropean wars would be unthinkable was a strong motivation to vote yes.
I still do not fully understand how my vote back then helped lead us to the current indefensible unelected abomination that is the EU.
How were we all so comprehesively conned?
Complain about this comment
You can't do anything except exert pressure ..on the outside.
And what leverage does the UK have? hmmmmm?
Complain about this comment
@15 Victor
I feel that your comment against Peter Stewert as being "whining" is unjustified.
I thought he had made a valid comment that I am sure would be supported by many people of a certain generation. Myself included.
If we can dis-associate the UK from EU decisision making in respect of, for example, the Common Agricultural Policy I would happily vote for that. The French farmers have been milking (no pun intended) the system since the inception of the EEC let alone the days of the EU.
I accept fully your assertion that the UK has an outcome from membership, something in for something out, but a jugement has to be made on the overall benefit of this outcome.
For me, the current result is unproven.
Regards.
Complain about this comment
Crap, crap and crap, the EU is a farce and the posters here who keep bleating on about joining the Euro and ever closer union are like ostriches, their heads are in the sand.
BTW, it was the UK green party that voted for the EU budget increase it seems, time to send them to that great green prairie in the sky, and the sooner the better.
Complain about this comment
Manofiona wrote:
"1. there can be no durable single currency without full economic integration;
2. there can be no effective economic integration without political integration;
3. the only political integration which could be accepted in 21st century Europe is one based on the democratically expressed consent of the people of Europe.
Unless Europeans and their leaders are prepared to work for such democratic political integration - in plain terms, a democratic European state, based on the primacy of European citizenship, there is no point in pretending that the single market will be fully achieved or that a single currency will endure."
Indeed. The quicker Europe gets on with doing just that, the better.
Peter Stewart wrote:
"As an 18 year old I voted to stay in the EEC in 1975. I did so because my elders and betters persuaded me it would be good for trade. .... I am appalled by my own voting stupidity!
Stupid voters are the bane of democracy, how to combat it though?
It's the electorate, stupid.
Complain about this comment
Cannons to the right of him,
Cannons to the left of him.
Into the valley of death rode --#16 CBW.
Complain about this comment
# 19. EBAHGUM
I meant it for all the Brits who write this crap. I am sorry, I generally like you people (and your culture and history), but this is really getting on my nerves.
You see, it is just like the "American exceptionalism", only lamer. It's a we-centred, self-obsessed viewpoint that completely ignores the rest of Europe. You're not so special, you're not that different, you're not the only ones who have to make sacrifices to make the EU work and when you try to deny that, it just makes you sound incredibly hypocritical and whiny. And believe me, I am not the only European on the continent who sees it that way.
The "dolchstosslegende alá Britain" ("we were cheated by our leaders and the unelected eurocrats, poor us!") isn't helping either. Every country has its issues with the EU, nobody will ever be happy with all its policies, just like nobody is ever happy with everything their national government does. The difference is that other countries remain constructive, whereas the Brits start crying about how unfair the EU is, how it doesn't understand Britain, how it undermines the British way of life, and whatnot. The reaction to that on the continent is "well, if you hate the EU so much, why [the hell] are you staying?" It is a legitimate question. If you think the EU is doing you more harm than good, leave. By all means, have your referendum, let the people make their choice and act accordingly.
But promise me one thing - in case the answer is "no, we want to stay in the EU", you'll collectively stop whining for at least another 25 years. Deal?
Complain about this comment
#21. At 10:30pm on 27 Oct 2010, Andy
All the publicity and documentation in 1975 was a falsehood, I was an activist at the time and if there was something we were not supposed to know it was kept quiet. Heath was an avid liar to us and I regret supporting his view, as for the Labour party, well I should have known, the truth is an unfortunate consequence of democracy.
Therefore for you to say "Stupid voters are the bane of democracy, how to combat it though? It's the electorate, stupid.", are you any different? my guess is that you've also believed crooked politicians.
Complain about this comment
#23 Victor
Before they leave, Margaret should return their rubber duckies !
Complain about this comment
#23. At 10:43pm on 27 Oct 2010, Victor
Your greatest problem is that there are many Brits here who not only live on the mainland but have lived in many countries, your words are rarely the experience we encounter other than from the extremist, or fanatic. It is you that have been cheated but you have not yet accepted it as you have this strange desire to blame the Brits because they speak up, that is pure envy and jealousy, just speak up for once.
Complain about this comment
"But promise me one thing - in case the answer is "no, we want to stay in the EU", you'll collectively stop whining for at least another 25 years. Deal?"
Yet another continental who want to take away our national identity. Racialist! [chuckle]
Asking a Brit not to moan is like asking an Italian to keep their hands in their pockets, the French to keep their hands to themselves, the Germans to forego their OCD, erm there does not seem anyone else worth mentioning [chuckle].
fwiw, I agree :-)
Complain about this comment
.. with the "Deal".
Complain about this comment
#26 Buzet 23
´---- but have lived in many countries´????
If any, they see the world differently !!!
Complain about this comment
26. At 11:04pm on 27 Oct 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
#23. At 10:43pm on 27 Oct 2010, Victor
Your greatest problem is that there are many Brits here who not only live on the mainland but have lived in many countries, your words are rarely the experience we encounter other than from the extremist, or fanatic. It is you that have been cheated but you have not yet accepted it as you have this strange desire to blame the Brits because they speak up, that is pure envy and jealousy, just speak up for once.
--------------------------------
I'm one of those Brits who has lived most of their lives in different European countries. My main observation is those who do not travel grow a Little mindset; Little Englander, etc etc.
This one of the reasons I'm for a United States of Europe - to aid travel to different cultures to grow a Tolerant mind. I don't mean travel imperially - to impose home, abroad. One should observe while one is still learning (one learns until the age of about 50 years old).
Complain about this comment
#25. At 11:02pm on 27 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
#23 Victor
Before they leave, Margaret should return their rubber duckies !
QOT, don't forget your rubber Chicken.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTt-ewgKm5A]
Complain about this comment
@23 Victor
Good evening my friend.
If we have such a referendum and the UK electorate vote to stay in the EU, I will, as a democrat, accept that decision.
I will also stop whining for the next 25 years. Deal agreed.(Hope I have another 25 years).
But let me make the point that for many here in the UK, the "home of democracy", the evolution of the EEC into the EU has been a less than entirely democratic process.
I'd be entirely happy to develop a mutually beneficial relationship with my French, German, Italian, Slovak,Danish et al, neighbours but I'd just like the opportunity for the appropriate debates and votes on the issues involved.
I admit to a real emnity to the beneficial impact of the CAP on French farming practices. Small and inefficient family farms subsidised by the rest of the European population and a problem never addressed by successive French governments.
Since the original vote in, I think 1975, we have, in the UK, been starved of an opportunity to express an opinion on the various treaties that have been subsequently imposed upon us.
The mainstream in the UK only seek equity.
Complain about this comment
#30 Andy
Having lived for many years in Britain --I do not share your optimism nor the British stagnation age estimate.
Complain about this comment
32. At 11:26pm on 27 Oct 2010, EBAHGUM wrote:
"Since the original vote in, I think 1975, we have, in the UK, been starved of an opportunity to express an opinion on the various treaties that have been subsequently imposed upon us."
Says EBAHGUM expressing his opinion.
Poppycock. There are a myriad ways we can express an opinion, these days more than ever.
Complain about this comment
#32 ebahgum
Please put the small French farmers on equal footing with Her Majesty and the likes.
Both require CAP subsidies ?
Complain about this comment
" It was presumed that the Germans would back automatic sanctions, but at a meeting between President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel last week a softer line was taken."
Because France herself may wind up on receiving end.
[Unless Sarkozy manages implement tough reforms, France's credit rating may have to be lowered, thus making money the country needs much more expensive to borrow.]
Complain about this comment
"Where does Britain see itself?
Partnered with the US, as though the US will come to the aid of Britain."
Well, is did in the past.
BTW. Please remind us when Continental Europe has ever come to the aid of Britain?
Complain about this comment
23. At 10:43pm on 27 Oct 2010, Victor wrote:
" ...But promise me one thing - in case the answer is "no, we want to stay in the EU", you'll collectively stop whining for at least another 25 years. Deal?"
EUpris: NO! Those of us who are anti will still have the right to moan and work on the others.
We can moan and complain and undermine all day, every day until the end of time.
We don't have to make any deals with "EU" lovers. We are entitled to have a referendum.
Complain about this comment
15. At 7:49pm on 27 Oct 2010, Victor wrote:
" ...
Comments like this one make me wish the UK really did shut up and left the EU. ..."
EUpris: Please start campaigning in your country to get the UK thrown out of the "EU".
I just cannot wait for the "EU"-passport-burning parties.
Please tell us which country you are from.
Did the majority of people in your country want the Lisbon Treaty?
Are you Czech?
Czech PM in Berlusconis villa!!!!
Complain about this comment
"What the eurozone doesn't want again is a Greek-style surprise, where suddenly they learn of a budget deficit that has risen above 12%."
This overlooks the fact of life that Europeans are by nature of the commonality of their cultures congenital liars. Whether it is relinquishing of sovereignty to a tyrannical nascent superstate sold to citizens as merely joining a free trade zone, the EU's books that cannot be certified by CPAs for well over a decade, lies about discrimination of minorities, lies about Germany's past in regards to active complicity in the holocaust by the German Foreign Minsitry during the Nazi era that has just been revealed after 65 years, or practically anything else of importance or unimportance including their histories, European lie. They know it. This is why they don't really trust each other. Usually they know they are lying and suspect the others are too. That's how they are. They lie to each other, they lie to the world, they lie to themselves. They lie here on this very blog every single day. Sometimes I think they don't even know when they are lying. Even if they repress their natural instincts for awhile during this crisis, sooner or later they will revert true to form. This is why failure for them is built in, there is no escaping it. Go ahead Eurons, deny it. That will be just one more on the Mount Everest of them already piled up.
Complain about this comment
--✄-- What the eurozone doesn't want again is a Greek-style surprise, where suddenly they learn of a budget deficit that has risen above 12%. --✄--
(merkel and papandreou waiting for the usual monotonous and tiresome EU group photo):
M: do you want to play a game Jeffrey?
J: Maybe some other time merkelina!
M: come on! Be positive, it's easy...i'll make you a question that has a clear answer and if you don't answer correctly you will give me some money and i'll do the same when my turn comes
J: Hmm! I'm not in the mood today...maybe next time
M: No wait! Here is my last offer...if you don't answer correctly you will give me 5 million euros and if i don't answer correctly i will give you 110 million euros
J: Hmm! Ok! Let's play...
M: Greece budget deficit according to Eurostat?
Jeffrey not knowing the answer open his checkbook and give 5 million euros to merkelina
J: Now it's my turn! What can be done so Greece can avoid default?
Merkelina look at him surprised, turn on her laptop to find an answer, looked all her files her paperworks...nothing...start calling her party members, her financial minister...can't get a clear answer. Open her checkbook and sign a 110 million euros check to Jeffrey.
M: No wait Jeffrey before you leave i want to know the clear answer you got for this question...
Jeffrey looked at her senselessly.....open his checkbook and sign a 5 million euros check to merkelina while dutifully run out of the door.
Complain about this comment
--✄-- What the eurozone doesn't want again is a Greek-style surprise, where suddenly they learn of a budget deficit that has risen above 12%. --✄--
1)What the BBC doesn't want again is a UK-style surprise, where suddenly they learn of a budget cut that has risen above 16%.
2)What the British doesn't want again is a UK-style surprise, where suddenly they learn of a budget cut
* £81bn cut from public spending over four years
* 19% average departmental cuts - less than the 25% expected
* £7bn extra welfare cuts, including changes to incapacity, housing benefit and tax credits
* £3.5bn increase in public sector pension employee contributions
* Rise in state pension age brought forward
* 7% cut for local councils from April next year
* Permanent bank levy
* Rail fares to rise 3% above inflation from 2012
On all these issues UK is divided. Painful horse-trading lie ahead. For David Cameron the difficulty will be explaining to the British people why he had to cut 500,000 public sector jobs.
Complain about this comment
( Always Look On the Bright Side of UK-Life )
-----------------------------------------
\ ,__,
\ (oo)____
(__) )\
||--|| *
Complain about this comment
#15 Victor
You don't see it at all do you ? Why don't you do yourself and the British people a favour . Make a little map of Britain and stick pins in it with your wishes that Britain would leave the EU .
British people do feel that they are paying for EVERYTHING and getting NOTHING back . It is like going to the super market to buy bread and sausages ; but our trolley is filled with a heap of expensive things we don't want , but have to pay for . We would rather shop at the corner shop and buy only the things we want .
Britain would be far better off independent from the EU . Britain mostly trades at a deficit with the EU and it it unlikely that the EU would make it more difficult , when there is such a desperate marketing need . There are at least 10 variations of association that Britain could have , not only that enjoyed by Norway .
Complain about this comment
"Did the majority of people in your country want the Lisbon Treaty?
Are you Czech?
Czech PM in Berlusconis villa!!!!"
EUpris, at least you have to admit that the then Czech PM demonstrated full tranparency attitude showing that he had nothing to hide. :)
[at least judging by avalaible photos]
Complain about this comment
This Blog is not functioning properly . I have posted two comments prior to #44 , that have not appeared .
#42 Ellinas
Many people in Britain know very well why there are to be huge cuts in public sector jobs . Whenever a socialist government comes to power they create large numbers of public sector jobs . Tony Blair did just that ; it buys favour with a socialist administration , but it puts a massive and unecessary strain on government expenditure .
Complain about this comment
"There are at least 10 variations of association that Britain could have, not only that enjoyed by Norway."
And by Switzerland.
Complain about this comment
Re #42 & #43
"...a UK-style surprise.. learn of a Budget cut.."
There was no 'surprise' at all about any 'cuts': The NHS & Education have very largely been protected.
Hence the British have not taken to the streets al la France.
'Surprise': Only a silly schoolkid could have missed the months of debate in the UK. On the contrary BEFORE the May General Election ALL 3 Political Parties highlighted the need for severe Budgetary restraint whichever group got to power.
The only dispute was over which speed to undertake the 'cuts'.
Unlike Greece, the UK Political Parties were reasonably upfront about the terrible effects of the Economic Recession and the difficult decisions that lay ahead for UK Government.
Unlike Greece's enfeebled EUro currency, the Pound was not in hock to Billions of loans and wholsesale double-accounting going back over a decade.
It is absolutely the case the UK Currency, Economy & the Citizens face a considerable uphill struggle to restore their National Economy.
However, unlike the very unfortunate Greeks, the British do not have to also consider what to do about reforming its entire Economy & Fiscal measures, or having to somehow apologise for almost bringing down an entire EU Currency zone, and only being saved from extinction by other extremely angry members of the EUro-zone, e.g. Germany.
Ellinas, the egotistical child in our midst: So many lessons to learn, so little time to learn them!
Complain about this comment
Re #22
Tosh & gibberish.... again.... and again.... and yet again...
Complain about this comment
Huaimek : "This Blog is not functioning properly"
Relax, that's simply because the whole BBC portal is being re-engineered/modernized/improved.
There's always a trade-off.
Complain about this comment
Re #45 powermeerkat
"Czech PM in Berlusconis villa!!!!
EUpris, at least you have to admit that the then Czech PM demonstrated full tranparency attitude showing that he had nothing to hide. :)"
I wonder if they also had a box of these wonderful cigars that Clinton used to enjoy and share?
Complain about this comment
On the whole I quite agree with Victor. I think it was a foolish mistake to let the UK into the EU. That is why De Gaulle refused for year to give them the opportunity.
Once the worm is in the fruit it is too late. The UK has steered the course towards larger integration rather than deeper. That is why is pushes, with US support, for Turkey integration -even as its own people complain about the number of immigrants.
With such a large union deeper integration is impossible, the EU is changed into a large common market which is what the UK always wanted.
Finally, the EU cannot trust the UK. When push comes to shove, the UK will always side with the US, even when it shouldn't (Iraq war on false pretence is a good exemple).
So please if a majority of UK voters want out, by all mean go!
Complain about this comment
#8 "Sorry, but we MUST join for the UK to gain its fair share of economic prosperity. If we don't the bankers will yet again steal the UK's profits of economic membership of the EU. That is the economic reality no matter mow many idiotic bigots of anti-everything rant."
You will excuse me for not paying attention to economic advice from a man who thinks a 100% tax on wages above the Prime Minister's wage is a cunning plan. oO
Complain about this comment
Commodus
Re #52
You may or may not be right about UK 'always siding with the USA', but the example You give is way off-the-mark.
The Iraq camapign was nothing to do with the EU: If it had any sort of connection it was to membership of NATO, though that is very tenuous.
That France (no surprise), Germany & BeNeLux all bottled it and refused to back-up their greatest ally of the 20th Century certainly gives me reason to believe G.B or at least England should always remain in Military Alliance with North America. Why would G.B. place its 'Defence' at the risk by relying on France & other fair weather allies!?
As for Trading partnerships: I would agree UK, or again at least England should quit the EU asap. There is absolutely no reason for England to retain membership when it can arrange all the necessary deals from outside the 'political-construct' EU-Brussels entity.
I believe a split would be of great Economic-Fiscal benefit to an England freed of the stultifying, one-size-fits-all centralised catastrophe of Brussels as well as ridding England of the anti-Democratic trends so prevalent within the post-Maastricht EU.
There may well be significant 'political' advantage for the EU too, not having to pay lip-service to a recalcitrant partner UK/England, and the EU can move forward at the centralising pace it chooses unhindered.
Of course, the 2 drawbacks to all this:
The UK Governments just love dipping their avaricious fingers in the EU-PIE & all Politicians long to glad-hand at big staged international events & the EU seems to have these every day for one set of 27 Ministers.
The EU-PIE would find itself considerably short of the Fiscal readies without the 2nd/3rd largest Contributor, the UK/England - - and if the 3 small Union nations opt to stay in the EU & England quits then Brussels gets 3 more with the begging-bowl whilst losing a massive Donation!
Complain about this comment
8.John_from_Hendon wrote:
Sorry, but we MUST join for the UK to gain its fair share of economic prosperity. If we don't the bankers will yet again steal the UK's profits of economic membership of the EU. That is the economic reality no matter mow many idiotic bigots of anti-everything rant.
More banker propaganda. The Euro is a banker project. Get your loans to Greece guaranteed by Germany here!
15.Victor wrote:Comments like this one make me wish the UK really did shut up and left the EU. I am sick of your whining - the Brits always act as if they were paying for everything and receiving nothing in return. In reality, their commerce-based economy probably profited the most from the membership.
Not true. The effects of internal-EU trade cannot be attributed to the EU, since trade would exist without the EU. However, the EU has made trade with the rest of the world more difficult. So we are in fact worse off, not better. You see, the EU propaganda on trade is totally bogus.
I repeat: trade would exist without the EU, and trade with the rest of the world would be easier, something the little Europeans with their 'trade fortress EU' do not seem to realize.
Oh, and can we (Netherlands) leave too? Stop pushing the myth that only Britain is against the despicable EU. We Netherlands people, the Germans, Danes, Swedish, Irish and Austrians aren't exactly enthusiastic either. In my surroundings, the majority wants political integration undone and the Euro currency scrapped at once. The politicians may support the despicable EU (EU = politician gravy train), the peoples do not.
52.Commodus wrote:
On the whole I quite agree with Victor. I think it was a foolish mistake to let the UK into the EU. That is why De Gaulle refused for year to give them the opportunity.
Another one who doesn't know history. De Gaulle first wanted to get the financing system for the CAP in place, as it would disproportionately benefit France. Then, after it was in place, it became France's interest to get the UK in. Since the agricultural sector in France at the time accounted for 25% of the populace, it needed another net contributor to increase its CAP profits, and also a larger market. Britain, by joining the EEC, lost the advantages of trade with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc... Britain is now worse off.
Complain about this comment
Did 'regulations' become the scariest word in the English language when I wasn't looking?
Complain about this comment
#52 Commodus
You are right that Britain should never have been allowed to join the EEC . The original plan of the Treaty of Rome was to unite six mainland European countries that had been defeated and devastated by WWII . Had those original six countries stuck to that plan , it would probably have worked long before now .
John Major introduced the idea of expansion after signing the Maastrict Treaty . Britain was only interested if the EU became a loosely linked extension of the EEC . The EU commission and heads of other states have at the time , failed to see that the expansion and ever closer union , would create an unworkable situation . Many in Britain , myself included , have blamed John Major for signing Maastricht and taking Britain into the EU . However his concept of a commonwealth style EU , has as you say , acted as a worm in the fruit , rendering it rotten to the core .
It is not strictly true the the EU is a large common market ; the EU Commission has too much of a stranglehold , together with the ECJ .
There is NO Trust either way between Britain and the EU . Even if British governments " arsecreep " to the EU , British people have little respect .
You are slightly inacurate regarding Britain siding with the USA ; the Americans belatedly came to Britain's rescue during WWII ; but historically there is a sense of brotherhood between Britain and the USA , which does not exist between Britain and mainland European countries .
I believe that if the majority of British voters had the chance , we would be out of the EU tomorrow .
The EU has reached a state of uncertainty that I don't think the absense of Britain would bring any improvement . It is also likely that if one member state leaves the EU will just fall apart . I believe a sort of blackmail of loyalty to the other 26 states is what holds the EU together .
Complain about this comment
David Cameron is hoping to plead a budget freeze in exchange for backing the Germans. He should demand a lot, lot more. It is time to reform the whole EU, starting with its budget so he should demand the following:
1. A cut or freeze in the EU budget with the full extensive audit (For 12 years the European Union's auditors have refused to endorse the spending of large parts of the EU budget.): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6078982.stm
2. A comprehensive reform of the CAP.
3. Return of political powers to each nation state.
He should emphasise that the British people only voted to join a single market and that there will be no further political union with the UK.
If he does not get his way in the EU then he can always take the “nuclear option” of holding an immediate referendum on EU membership and finally allow the British people to get rid of EU once and for all (the shock waves of such a move alone would cause a crisis of confidence in the markets and cause the whole political project to implode).
Complain about this comment
Re #55 resistance35
"Another one who doesn't know history. De Gaulle first wanted to get the financing system for the CAP in place, as it would disproportionately benefit France. Then, after it was in place, it became France's interest to get the UK in. Since the agricultural sector in France at the time accounted for 25% of the populace, it needed another net contributor to increase its CAP profits, and also a larger market. Britain, by joining the EEC, lost the advantages of trade with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc... Britain is now worse off."
Hu hu maybe you should learn the history before giving lectures... The CAP was devised in 58/60 and came in full force in 62.
De Gaulle refused UK entry in EEC in 1963 and 1967, after the CAP was in place. So much for your arguments...
Complain about this comment
Re #45 powermeerkat
"Czech PM in Berlusconis villa!!!!
EUpris, at least you have to admit that the then Czech PM demonstrated full transparency attitude showing that he had nothing to hide. :)"
I wonder if they also had a box of these wonderful cigars that Clinton used to enjoy and share?
Commodus, if you think I'm gona jump through the hoops to defend Bill Clinton's shenanigans while in office - you're mistaken.
Complain about this comment
Re #54 CBW
I'm still waiting for any replies to my question whenever Continental Europe came to UK's rescue?
So far - nothing.
I wonder why.
Complain about this comment
"We Netherlands people, the Germans, Danes, Swedish, Irish and Austrians aren't exactly enthusiastic either."
These days it's even dangerous to have a name like van Gogh if one lives in Netherlands. :(
Complain about this comment
"You are slightly inacurate regarding Britain siding with the USA ; the Americans belatedly came to Britain's rescue during WWII"
Not really. USA has supplied UK with food, weapons and ammo, and American volunteers flew for RAF long before U.S. officialy entered WWII.
Would you perhaps care to check easily available data?
Complain about this comment
"Did 'regulations' become the scariest word in the English language when I wasn't looking?"
Not sure.
Ronald Reagan claimed that the scariest words in English language were:
'I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I'VE COME TO HELP YOU.'
Complain about this comment
The driving force behind this development is the attacks of the market on member states with deficits. And Germany wants the price for these attacks to be tamed before it gets completely out of control. It remains the driving force.
There is much disagreement among the member states - a normal situation between democratic states - how to achieve this control but not that it is necessary to achieve it. While everybody knows about the many obstacles, nobody knows what the solution will be at the moment, but everybody understands that there is little room for changes if we are to avoid the Lisbon treaty theatre.
Complain about this comment
61. At 3:08pm on 28 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Re #54 CBW
I'm still waiting for any replies to my question whenever Continental Europe came to UK's rescue?
So far - nothing.
I wonder why."
When has the UK needed rescuing?
Complain about this comment
It is interesting how the shift has been toward the governments. Where is the better regulation of the banks and financial services? The Rating agencies and the banks colluded to give the governments high bond ratings while the banks were operating their criminal lending schemes. Some penalties, punishments and large fines for the bankers and board of directors would do much to solve these matters. The governments have chosen to reward them and pass their debts to the taxpayers. They aruge now that the banks are paying back their loans, but the governments took all the bad loans and that is what is creating the debt. The power of the banks is such that they can have the governments structure this banking created debt payment to the benefit of the banks. The issue remains the relationships between banking and governments. The governments have decided to help the banks at the expense of the people. While the banks sit on large amounts of cash maybe they could be given back the bad loans and let them assume the losses they created. Corruption has many faces. As the governments continue to do the bidding of the bankers the problems will only become worse. Wrong policies, for wrong reasons. The wealthy few control the EU. The people will have reduced services and higher taxes because the governments believed the lies of the bankers and their rating agencies and now continue to defend the lies. Tells you something about who really has the power in this world. Governments seem dismayed that the people understand the causes and would like solutions that hold the banks more accountable. This will all get more interesting as the countries can no longer avoid dealing with their actions. The reductions in governments may be needed but that is not what caused the problems. The governments have decided to blame the people for things that had no power to create. When governments can change and accept that the business of government is government and not that the business of government being business, things may begin to head in the right direction.
Complain about this comment
"When has the UK needed rescuing?"
Well Andy, some folks earlier have mentioned Blitzkrieg, Battle of Britain, V-2 attacks, etc.
["A Bridge Too Far" was another such occasion]
Complain about this comment
# 32. EBAHGUM:
It seems that the only thing all Europeans agree on is that CAP is an abomination. I agree with that sentiment, it really should have been abolished a long time ago. Today it's just providing the eurosceptics with a lot of ammunition. Just think about it: what are the major arguments against the EU except all the agriculture-related issues? The press would quickly run out of cheap shots if the EU did something about it.
The difference between us is that I am not going to hate the EU just because some of its policies are wrong. I think that the EU has done far more good than bad and it continues to do so. Abandoning the project now would be a disaster that would literally erase Europe from the geopolitical map of the globe forever. Anybody who thinks that the individual member states would have more influence as fully independent countries in loose trade association with each other than they do as members of the EU is deluding himself. Especially if he happens to live in a small country like the Netherlands (yes, I am talking about you, resistance35 ).
I'll paraphrase a well-known saying: either we hang together, or we shall hang separately. If a number of member states prefer the latter alternative, then by all means, it is not as if anybody was going to stop them from being stupid.
(However, for some reason every consecutive British government in the past three decades refused the very notion of leaving the EU. This was either the greatest conspiracy against the voters ever attempted in the free world, or these governments knew very well that leaving the EU would harm Britain and its citizens much more than most anti-EU voters realize.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
68. At 4:12pm on 28 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
""When has the UK needed rescuing?"
Well Andy, some folks earlier have mentioned Blitzkrieg, Battle of Britain, V-2 attacks, etc."
Do you think the rest of Europe was sitting on their laurals doing nothing. Granted, we were being attacked by Nazi Germany, but you do a GROSS disservice to the men and women of mainland Europe who gave their lives to liberate themselves from Nazi Germany and to help us from becoming another oppressed occupied state.
Complain about this comment
Re #69 Victor
"It seems that the only thing all Europeans agree on is that CAP is an abomination. I agree with that sentiment, it really should have been abolished a long time ago. Today it's just providing the eurosceptics with a lot of ammunition. Just think about it: what are the major arguments against the EU except all the agriculture-related issues?"
I am not sure CAP should be scraped altogether. I think the EU should be mostly self-suffient in food production, because that's the most pressing issue in case of crisis. It needs to be changed probably, and encourage farmer to be more efficient/productive, but the EU needs to keep a high agricultural production.
"The press would quickly run out of cheap shots if the EU did something about it."
Well you have clearly never read UK gutter press. Even with CAP abolished they would complain about made-up rule of the EU restricting the curve of imported banana, the diameter of carrots and other loads of nonsense...
Complain about this comment
#63
I think you need to stop watching Hollywood movies.
Complain about this comment
#72 Commodus
I believe some of the stupid rules have been scrapped ?
Prince Charles will be happy ---how much CAP does he get ?
Complain about this comment
#74
"Prince Charles will be happy ---how much CAP does he get ?"
£90,000 per year to Home Farm, which is approximately 0.5% of his income.
Complain about this comment
#75. At 5:38pm on 28 Oct 2010, champagne_charlie
How much does Tony Benn get by the way?
Complain about this comment
#76
"How much does Tony Benn get by the way?"
No idea. I saw one blog claiming £122,000 but I havent seen it verified anywhere. I'm sure that if its available, he claims it.
Complain about this comment
# 72. Commodus wrote:
"Well you have clearly never read UK gutter press. Even with CAP abolished they would complain about made-up rule of the EU restricting the curve of imported banana, the diameter of carrots and other loads of nonsense..."
All of these things are related to agriculture, though not through CAP directly. It seems to me that most of the "Look how stupid the EU is!" stories in tabloids are related to agriculture/food/consumer protection issues. I guess this is due to the fact that an average tabloid reader wouldn't be able to comprehend more complicated matters, so the tabloids stick to the good old "curved banana" stories.
Complain about this comment
#77. At 7:32pm on 28 Oct 2010, champagne_charlie
That's very interesting, if true he is making Charlie look a pauper, maybe our friend QOT would like to confirm of deny that one of the left's heroes is milking the funds more than Charlie.
Complain about this comment
#79
Linking CAP payments with the British aristocracy is a red herring. The biggest recipients of CAP are the 268 GERMAN subsidy Euro-millionaires and the 174 FRENCH subsidy Euro-millionaires. There are only 25 UK subsidy millionaire recipients. (GBP).
What is £400,000 to Sandringham and £90,000 to Home Farm when compared to that?
Complain about this comment
80. At 9:07pm on 28 Oct 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
"Linking CAP payments with the British aristocracy is a red herring. The biggest recipients of CAP are the 268 GERMAN subsidy Euro-millionaires and the 174 FRENCH subsidy Euro-millionaires. There are only 25 UK subsidy millionaire recipients. (GBP).
What is £400,000 to Sandringham and £90,000 to Home Farm when compared to that? "
Blimey. Where did you get that info (any link you can give? ?
Complain about this comment
#80. At 9:07pm on 28 Oct 2010, champagne_charlie
Quite frankly I agree with you, but a certain poster here, QOT, continually has a fixation about the Royals getting subsidies so it is amusing that you can quote figures that many of us would be interested to know about and where the source is.
Complain about this comment
#81
Sure, i hashed it together from the following sources:
http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx
http://www.farmsubsidy.org
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/04/eu-sugar-dairy-farm-subsidies
Complain about this comment
champagne_charlie,
Thanks.
You may find this link on how to create inline links
(See the first "Example")
:-)
Complain about this comment
#84
My HTML is non-existant. Thanks for the link but no promises ;)
Complain about this comment
#82 Buzet 23
--- Those who do not NEED subsidies should NOT get them.
--- I think it is called ´means testing´ for granny´s heating bill ?
Complain about this comment
Buzet 23
Her Majesty failed the ´means test´ ---just !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314446/The-Queen-pleads-poverty-help-Buckingham-Palace-heating-bill.html
Complain about this comment
Andy #70;
Pardon me but, er, ahem, uh, well....YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!! Lend lease was President Roosevelt's way to illegally get around Congress' mandate for strict neutrality. Rather than sell Britain American ships which he was forbidden to do, he leased them to Britain so that they could continue to fight. This was before Pearl Harbor when polls showed that 80% of Americans wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe and didn't give a hoot what happened to Britain. Had it not been for that and other aid, Britain would have fallen to the Nazis for sure. Roosevelt saw that. Some say he was complicit in allowing Pearl Harbor to happen because he wanted an excuse to get into the war. I don't think we'll ever know the truth about that.
Complain about this comment
88. At 01:31am on 29 Oct 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Andy #70;
"A small proportion of American citizens pushed through aid to the UK/aided the UK in WWII before the Japs threw their bangers into the ring, most of the USA sided with the Nazi's based on you're either with us or against us mantra.
It's a bit like with the IRA, until 9/11, the USA did not much to help indeed allowed a lot to happen that hurt, then suddenly it's all up in arms against "terrorists" and doing everything (allegedly) it can to combat them."
Pardon me but, er, ahem, uh, well....YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!! Lend lease was President Roosevelt's way to illegally get around Congress' mandate for strict neutrality. Rather than sell Britain American ships which he was forbidden to do, he leased them to Britain so that they could continue to fight. This was before Pearl Harbor when polls showed that 80% of Americans wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe and didn't give a hoot what happened to Britain. Had it not been for that and other aid, Britain would have fallen to the Nazis for sure. Roosevelt saw that. Some say he was complicit in allowing Pearl Harbor to happen because he wanted an excuse to get into the war. I don't think we'll ever know the truth about that."
I'm not sure how what you said contradicts me, indeed, you seem to back up what I stated. Roosevelt was one of the small proportion of US citizens I was talking about who aided the UK, the rest were not with us, so they were against us, ie, sided with Nazi Germany.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"men and women of mainland Europe who gave their lives to liberate themselves from Nazi Germany and to help us from becoming another oppressed occupied state."
Yes, there were brave men and women in some parts of Continental Europe fighting in or aiding different resistence movements, but a fact remains, that none of them managed to liberate their respective countries.
It was Soviet Red Army which threw Nazi occupying forces from eastern part of Europe, and American and British forces - from its western part.
It seems some people prefer to live in denial.
Complain about this comment
73. At 4:46pm on 28 Oct 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
#63
I think you need to stop watching Hollywood movies.
Actually, I rarely do, however it seems they're watched all over Europe, judging by box office returns in that part of the world. :)
Complain about this comment
It's not so much slander...
Powermeerkat.
Look at it "this-a-way." Some people are so history AND knowledge deprived ("making it up as they go along")
in so many ways, it makes it so much easier ....
for people who know ...facts,
to find jobs, hobbies, happiness, and...you just name it.
It's out there (knowledge)....but "it" isn't even in arms reach of some of these minds here,
(these despot-controlled minds with walls built around them...
that even Mother Nature and her "medicinal" helpers--psychiatrists with prescriptions--
MIGHT be doomed to fail in providing ...um ....ANY self insight)
No offense, to anyone:))
Can you tell I'm frustrated at my job??
Complain about this comment
My job--thats a story for the "back pages.":))))
Complain about this comment
In an above comment, I meant "doomed to provide" (blushing at my flaw)
Complain about this comment
David: "Can you tell I'm frustrated at my job??"
It sounds like it.
But relax: in the absence of sticks and stones and of knowledge how to use them words are the only weapon infuriated impotents have left.
And words can never hurt.
Particularly those who know how to handle sticks and stones. :)
MAY PEACE BE WITH YOU!
Complain about this comment
#87. At 01:26am on 29 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
How did Tony Benn score?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
72.Commodus wrote: "It seems that the only thing all Europeans agree on is that CAP is an abomination. I agree with that sentiment, it really should have been abolished a long time ago. Today it's just providing the eurosceptics with a lot of ammunition. Just think about it: what are the major arguments against the EU except all the agriculture-related issues?"
Major arguments against the EU?
-the EU = 100% undemocratic
-the EU is a gravy train for politicians
-national parliaments are being increasingly sidelined and bypassed ('ermächtigt' aka enabled by successive treaties)
-political integration is unwanted and illegitimate
-it blatantly ignored its own rules when setting up the unwanted bailout fund
-it has a net negative effect on trade with the rest of the world
-destruction of African fisheries communities by setup of CFP which is designed to protect French and Spanish fishermen from African competition (same concept as CAP). One has to ask, is it a racist policy? I think the argument can be made.
-setup of a blatantly federalist ECJ court that comes up with cockamamy interpretations of treaties in order to grab competences for the EU (this is the #1 method the EU uses to grab competences)
-contempt for national democracy and referendums
-the Euro which will drain further wealth from the productive countries, and reward the ones who deliberately ignored the rules
Need I go on?
Complain about this comment
Radio Prague reports that the Czech government feels that any changes to the treaty will require a referendum. What's more, the proposed penalties for non-conformance to dictates from Brussels would violate the Czech constitution according to government legal experts. As treaty changes require unanimous consent, this would likely be sufficient to doom the reforms. Other countries that would be feel themselves targeted to be on the receiving end of penalties would probably feel the same way. Not only will this be seen as a further loss of sovereignty but as a way for Berlin and Paris to impose their will on the smaller members. IMO the proposed treay changes havn't got much chance of passing. However, if they don't pass, there seems no reason to expect Berlin to continue footing the bill to bail out one Euroland failed economy after another. This could well spell the end for the Euro and the EU.
It's time to think about the unthinkable. What would a post EU Europe look like? There will certaily be bitterness between the large and small economy countries blaming each other for the breakup of the EU while others will be happy and relieved about it. I don't see any of them having any desire to renew old attachments to Russia having had a prior relationship of slave and master. All Russia has to offer them is oil but they don't give it away for less than world market prices so what benefit would there be in closer ties with it? It's been too recent since the cold war for most countries to have forgotten what Russia is about. Will they break up into the little cliques with their intrigues they've engaged in for centuries or will they finally grow up? I'm thinking there will be a return to the old ways at least to some degree. Blood is thicker than water, maybe even thicker than money at least in Europe.
Complain about this comment
91. At 03:50am on 29 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Yes, there were brave men and women in some parts of Continental Europe fighting in or aiding different resistence movements, but a fact remains, that none of them managed to liberate their respective countries.
It was Soviet Red Army which threw Nazi occupying forces from eastern part of Europe, and American and British forces - from its western part.
It seems some people prefer to live in denial."
You are denying that those resistance movements helped liberate their respective countries.
Noting "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.", where were they, heck, were was the majority of the USA pre Pearl Harbour?
Complain about this comment
@101 Andy
So you blame the USA for not doing enough 'pre Pearl Harbor'. In other words, you feel the USA should have attacked and invaded a country that had not attacked the USA in any way.
What did you think of the liberation of the Kurds of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny? I am willing to bet you thought it was an illegal invasion, despite the fact that Saddam was a murderer on the grand scale. Attacking Germany at the time would have been just as illegal as the Iraq thing. In fact, more illegal according to international norms.
So which is it: USA must get into wars despite not being attacked, or it should stay out?
And powermeerkat is right, without the Red army and the western allied armies Germany would have won that war. Because there is no way that those 'resistance movements' would have been able to permanently liberate even a square inch without outsider help.
Complain about this comment
102. At 12:34pm on 29 Oct 2010, resistance35 wrote:
"So you blame the USA for not doing enough 'pre Pearl Harbor'. In other words, you feel the USA should have attacked and invaded a country that had not attacked the USA in any way."
They're your words, not mine. At the very least the US should have had the moral fibre to support the UK more rather than having a policy of neutrality while they knew what Nazi Germany was up to.
"What did you think of the liberation of the Kurds of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny? I am willing to bet you thought it was an illegal invasion, despite the fact that Saddam was a murderer on the grand scale. Attacking Germany at the time would have been just as illegal as the Iraq thing. In fact, more illegal according to international norms."
Where you for or against the invasion of Iraq, if for, why are you defending the US for not helping the UK more in WWII pre Pearl Harbour?
"So which is it: USA must get into wars despite not being attacked, or it should stay out?"
I think all countries should look at what's going on and take action if seriously bad things are known to be happening - sometimes the situation does not afford the luxury of neutrality, and on a scale I think the US's neutrality vis a vis Nazi Germany was an order of magnitude worse than a neutral stance re. Saddam. You may disagree.
Complain about this comment
#100. MarcusAureliusII:
Idle talk. The PM is just trying to boost his credentials among his party's core voters, or perhaps he's trying to win some concessions in other areas of EU policy.
You see, the Czech constitution includes no provisions for nation-wide referendums - every referendum has to be based on an ad hoc constitutional law that requires two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Parliament. The ruling coalition doesn't have two-thirds majority in any of them and the opposition is not going to vote for any such foolishness. Even in the ruling coalition there are profound disagreements about the EU policy. Thus, the chance that we're going to have a referendum about some small changes in the Lisbon treaty is approaching zero.
I predict a compromise solution - some sanctions for indebted countries, more EU oversight, no suspension of voting rights.
Complain about this comment
#101 and #91
Commonwealth Forces !!!!!
Complain about this comment
Re #102 resistance 35
The issue is pretty clear:
If US gets involved in foreign wars (be that WWI, WWII, war in Yugoslavia)to protect others - it always does to little and too late.
If on the other hand US goes to war to protect its own interests
it always does too much and too early. :)
Complain about this comment
Re #104
Here's wondering whether if Czech sovereign interests and rights were seriously threatened - like they were in, say, August 1968, would Prague hold a referendum to decide whether to put up any resistence?
Complain about this comment
To Andy @ 34
My apologies for a lazy post.
I should have inserted "at the ballot box" between the words "opinion" and "on".
Regards.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #107;
Do you doubt that the Czechs would pass up a chance to really stick it to the Germans where they know it will hurt? In that part of the world people never forget, not for generations, not for centuries. You bet your bippy they'd throw a monkey wrench into Berlin's growing power to decide who survives economically and who doesn't. The conditions the Germans would impose will remind Czechs of the invasion of the Sudetenland. They'll see it as payback even if they won't admit it. They'll also see it as part of growing German domination of Europe.
Complain about this comment
Re #109
Sudetenland. Now, that's a real problem.
Particularly with German revisionists such as Erika Steinbach getting stronger and stronger.
Complain about this comment
They won't have a referendum, the Reich Chancellor (Merkel) and Interior Minister (Sarkozy) will make sure of that.
The Special Envoy for Austria (Rompuy) and Prime Minister of Prussia (Barroso) will help them do just that.
Note, I used the job titles Reich III used at the time.
Complain about this comment
It seems that Reich IV is very apt at using the same bullying of smaller nations that Reich III also did.
Complain about this comment
@ 110. At 12:59pm on 30 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
Sudetenland. Now, that's a real problem.
Particularly with German revisionists such as Erika Steinbach getting stronger and stronger.
++++++
Silesia... now, that's not a problem. Just return it to Germany, problem solved.
Complain about this comment
106. At 1:38pm on 29 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""Re #102 resistance 35
The issue is pretty clear:
If US gets involved in foreign wars (be that WWI, WWII, war in Yugoslavia)to protect others - it always does to little and too late.
If on the other hand US goes to war to protect its own interests
it always does too much and too early. :)"""
Pm, the US (and any other US...) goes in war to protect its own interests not to protect others. You know it, thus do not pretend otherwise.
In WWI the US sent its armies at a time when the Germans were already ready to crumble (all while British, & US circles of interests paying behind the scenes for the Red Revolution at a time Russians had broken the spine of the German attack and were ready to jump on a counter offensive WWII style that could eventually liberate the French break the German lines and eventually erase Germany from the map of Europe - however Germany was far too handy as the bad guy that called for the intervention of the good guys to be left to vanish isn't it? And as such it was aided with an extremely lenient treaty not only to survive as a state but also to built 10 times more industry and weapons and restart the war that permitted the Anglosaxon machine to enlarge its grip over Europe by forcing all corners of Europe into WWII either they liked it or not. Again, Americans enterred WWII at a time it was all over when Russians broke the 80% of the German army and were ready to vanish Germany from the face of the earth. The Normandy landing contributed to no liberation of Europe but to the protection of west Europe from communist Russia all while giving the US the possibility to enlarge its military scope on a global level this time.
The war in Jugoslavia was just another such example of course of a much lighter scale. US worked diplomatically (along with the likes of Germans, Italians and British) to have Jugoslavia dismantled, vilified via propaganda the actual victims of the break up which were more the Serbians rather than the Bosnians, the Albanians or the Croatians and then used it as a pretext to attack and move on armies. US armies remain in the area to control and contain. Not control and contain the area, but evidently the creation of new traderoutes which would necessarily pass by Russia. Every facing single thing US does in the area from Jugoslavia to Chechenia, to Iraq and to Afganistan and North Korea it has necessarily also to do with Russia. Forget about China and their cheap plastic products. US's main threat remains Russia. The biggest geostrategic threat for US is the possibility of EU countries either one after the other or all together as EU approaching Russia. Funnily, this is exactly the best way out for European countries, either on a national or EU level.
Complain about this comment
Nic,
On some issues in the above comment I disagree, and the last comment that the EU and Russia together represent a threat to the USA is largely not evident to me,
For instance, Russia and the US are more likely to be good friends and strategic partners rather than enemies--the Cold War is over forever.
Now, America is developing a partnership with Vietnam, a nation that defeated the USA in war.
Now, that takes a special kind of emotional detachment, i.e. perhaps a superior way of geopolitical outlook in the current administration, IMHO.,
They are looking for a peaceful atmosphere for capitalistic practices-business. It, perhaps ironically, is following previous UK diplomatic successes by using a balance of power outlook--no nation should be too strong and get away with too much--
The above of course gets sticky when the USA misbehaves and that is why you do not like the success of .."USA sponsored stability." You distrust it and who would turn their back on any ..any .any...US administration--they should all be watched carefully.
And China, being the power in economics that it is, should be handled with kid gloves not clinched fist type behaviors to
keep the economic climate favorable to "US interests" (see that article on the "South China Sea tensions")
Complain about this comment
#115. At 04:25am on 31 Oct 2010, David
Don't worry about Nik, by some strange coincidence the countries he seems to support are all connected to the Orthodox style of religion, strange that really.
Complain about this comment
Re #114
A true return to form! Startlingly obtuse, hysterically funny and not a little crazier than sausage dipped in strawberry jam...
Quote, #..all while British and US circles of interest paying behind the scenes for Red Revolution at a time Russians had broken the spine of German attack and were ready to jump on a counter-offensive.."
Ah! The 'history' of the World in reverse mode:
Thus, the mad greek has 1) a Revolution in Russia that takes it out of the war against Germany is supposedly paid for G.B. & U.S.A., (2) this is a Russia that from January 1917 ceased to function and from March to October 1917 had a Provisional Government only in control of Moscow & St.Petersburg, (3) a Russia that had so broken Germany that the Germans made advances of a hundred miles each month through Oct 1917 to March 1918, (4) the same Russia that sued for peace with Germany and conceded all of Poland as part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and finally (5) the ending of hostilities by Russia that enabled Germany to launch a 'Spring' counter-offensive in the 'west' retaking lost areas and gaining new ones in France & Belgium!
We needn't dwell on the mad greek's 'WW2' & 'Jugoslavia' Peter Pan-histories (i.e. the greek that never grew up): The 2nd & 3rd exhibits in the history in reverse mode were no less extravagantly absurd than the first.
Wonderful entertainment - - if You like Fairy Tale category - - 'Fie,foe, fum, I smell the blood of Aan Englishmun!'
Complain about this comment
Dont be mean to people with "old timers" :))))
Complain about this comment
If we Americans really wanted to hurt Europe,
all we would have to do is take all the Burmese pythons in America (Florida and elsewhere)
and export them to warm areas with plants in Europe. Pythons are threatening to make American alligators and crocodiles in Florida extinct species.
I do like American alligators better than pythons and hate the fact that pythons are endangering our alligators.
Can one imagine an American Florida where pythons are household pests? It seems to be happening already.
The very idea is OFF TOPIC HMMMMPH but I've read there exist plants in Greece---watch outttt!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS